Is it English?

Through this post I would like to invite bloggers/readers, with a better understanding of the issue, to clarify this for me and others.

Over the years there has been a great 'recognition' of the fact that English now has several legit forms - other than England's own English, whatever that meant, or 'BBC English' - itself a thing of the past. American English has, for long, been clearly recognized as different, with a status above that of a mere dialect or accent.

While I assume that Asian English (or, even Pakistani English, someday) could be 'formally' recognized, I wonder if actual mistakes of spellings or usage - handed down by generations of bad teachers in our region - would automatically gain legitimacy and be incorporated. Mistakes and misuse, perpetrated by even some of our well-read and academically established writers, include the examples that follow, taken from just this morning's reading of newspaper articles, a chapter in a book by a well-known journalist, and blogs (where an allowance was made for typos and the ignoring of those posts that showed poor language skills).

'atleast' for 'at least'
'ofcourse' for 'of course'
'infact' for 'in fact'
'incharge'for 'in charge'

The above (and many more) are mistakes that even a Microsoft-developed spelling checker would catch. And I have no idea why teachers, generally quick to catch the slightest eror so that they can indulge in humiliation or punishment, miss these in class. Or do they know no better, either?

Among what cannot be caught by spelling checkers are:

'loose' for 'lose' (and vice versa)

'quiet' for 'quite' (and vice versa) The latter example is from the book by one of our internationally acclaimed journalists. He writes "Indonesian food was surprisingly quiet spicy!" (I am sure he sat through classes where the teacher screamed "Keep quite!" all the time.)

Then there are words we have invented ... such as 'timings' (as in "our office/shop timings are ..."). Obviously a pluralization of 'timing', it is based on the wrong use of the original word itself. The dictionary says: timing [n.] 1. The regulation of occurrence, pace, or coordination to achieve a desired effect, as in music, the theater, athletics, or mechanics. 2. The synchronization of the sparking of the plugs with the movement of the pistons in an internal-combustion engine. "Office hours" or "Opening hours" is what the phrase should be. (Is someone from one of our leading school systems listening? Please alter your signs, too.)

'Equipments' for 'equipment' is increasingly used. But 'equipment' is plural, na?

Finally, 'backside' ... although in the sentence from our journalist's piece it may not sound too wrong: Giving instructions to readers likely to visit a famous city, he says: Face the Mosque, with your backside towards the river, to see the incription ...

Perhaps some scholar* in our parts needs to compile a list of such things and do local/updated versions of Fowler: King's English, Eric Partridge: Usage & Abusage (it's simply delightful!), and Strunk: Elements of Style.


(*Just a note: The scholar should be someone other than the guy who was involved with Ferozsons' Concise English to Urdu Dictionary and thinks Parquet and Parakeet are alternative spellings. Aaargh.)