Lost for Words – a tough week for John Humphrys

(from June 09 – but still relevant!)

John Humphrys, respected journalist and host of BBC Radio 4’s Today programme found himself verbally scrambling twice this week.

Those of us who appreciated his timely and humourous book, Lost for Words certainly felt for him.

First of all, on Thursday during a live interview with a Conservative MP, Humphrys was surprised to be asked how much he earned. The Times said he ‘stuttered’. Fair enough. Lost for words. We get it. No biggie.

But on Friday he was struggling again, and couldn’t find just the right good word when a naughty one came out instead.

Although he apologised for it, he also exonerated himself on two counts:

Firstly, he claimed it was a technical error, by mistakenly using one consonant instead of another. No, seriously! According to the Telegraph he said, ‘it came out slightly differently and had a ‘b’ at the front instead of an ‘r’ i.e. rollicking), and secondly he brought in the star witness, Professor of English Literature (University College, London), John Sutherland to submit convincing evidence that the mistakenly pronounced word was nevertheless ‘entirely innocent.’

Has this particular word therefore officially passed into general innocent usage? Also, as with many of these public apologies, do the words ‘an apology’ mean anything beyond the suggestion of moral weakness in those who feel they may require one?

One of the most surprising assertions in Lost for Words is that journalists themselves are the ‘guardians’ of language. I must admit, although I greatly enjoyed the book, and have recommended it, I had to laugh. I had wondered what the poets, novelists, playwrights, preachers and – even – English professors might think of that.

His appeal to a Professor of English in this instance may reveal that he is no longer as certain, and we can breathe a sigh of relief that journalists are not, thankfully, our linguistic guardians after all.

The moral of this story for anyone regularly involved in public speaking is surely the statement in the Book of Proverbs 10:19 ‘When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, but he who restrains his lips is wise.’

I am not suggesting that Humphrys admission/denial of transgression is so serious, but simply that even the most experienced communicators get lost for words, get tangled.

The funniest instance of this I ever heard was from Simon Pettit, a pastor, who, when conducting a wedding gave out this mind-boggling spoonerism: ‘We are here today to witness Gareth and Nadine being joyfully loined in holy matrimony!’ The congregation tried, but could not repress their laughter for long until Simon was forced to ask, ‘Why are they laughing?’

Being lost for words can produce embarrassed silence, an outburst of laughter or the need for a humble apology all in one week, one day, even in one conversation! Maybe we shouldn’t be too hard on good Mr. Humphrys after all.

A review of Humphrys’ ‘Lost for Words’ can be read here
You can also purchase ‘Lost for Words’ here

© 2009 Lex Loizides

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Lost for Words – a tough week for John Humphrys

  1. Jeremy Harrison June 6, 2009 / 1:48 pm

    Last bit about the wedding reminds me of the scene in four Weddings and A Funeral where Rowan Atkinson is performing the ceremony…

  2. Jim Partridge June 8, 2009 / 1:37 pm

    Isn’t this the danger for every one involved in live public communication? Last week, I was preaching a message in response to “The God Delusion” and said to a full church “Of course, we as Christians know that God is a delusion….”!! Obviously, I was intending to say “We as Christians know God is real.” Doh!

  3. Lex Loizides June 8, 2009 / 1:49 pm

    Once when I was in Harare, PJ Smythe, who was MCing a meeting, got muddled as he welcomed everyone by saying, ‘I’d like to warm you welcomely!’

    That got a laugh!

  4. Lex Loizides January 20, 2010 / 3:54 pm

    TS Eliot, of course, saw the poet and not the journalist as the ‘guardians’ (not Eliot’s but Humphry’s word). In a lecture in 1943 he said that the poet’s responsibility ‘is only indirectly to the people: his direct duty is to his language, first to preserve, and second to extend and improve.’ From ‘Poetry Foundation’ http://www.poetryfoundation.org/archive/poet.html?id=81338

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s