There was encouraging news for Bangkok's pedestrians last week when the city governor announced that during the coming year there would be a major upgrade of pavements in the Big Mango. It was promised that some pavements might even become "walkable". Well, best of luck with that.
My joy at this rare item of positive news for ambulatory persons was tempered somewhat by the remarks of another City official who felt that among the key culprits responsible for obstructing pedestrians are trees. That's just terrific. The wretched state of our pavements is being blamed on trees. In fact it is the shade they provide that makes walking just about bearable.
It will take more than a few promises from officials to convince citizens that Bangkok is on course to becoming a pedestrian paradise. Indeed it's hard to escape the feeling that those who insist on walking are regarded by authorities as a nuisance.
I have not forgotten the dark days of the early 1990s when there was even an attempt to get rid of pavements altogether in certain areas "to ease traffic congestion". In their infinite wisdom, the urban planners decided it was the pedestrians who were to blame for Bangkok's jams. At least they didn't accuse the trees.
Perhaps the American term "sidewalk" is a more appropriate word for Bangkok's pavements. After all, you spend half the time walking "sideways" in a bid to avoid all the sneaky ankle-traps lurking on the City's pathways.
Just as long as we don't upset the people for whom the pavements were really built -- motorcyclists and vendors.
War of words
Talking of "sidewalks", there is a saying attributed to several authors including George Bernard Shaw that "The United States and Britain are two countries separated by a common language." I experience a daily reminder of this because my laptop has an American spellcheck which means every column is littered with red marks pointing out my quaint English spelling is incorrect.
I can almost feel the spellchecker bristling with indignation when I use those words with "ou" like "colour" and "neighbour". It also gets furious when my "defence" doesn't carry an "s" and my stubborn use of "ise" rather than "ize". I also like to slip in an occasional "oe'' word like "manouevre" which really irritates the checker.
Vive la difference
Having an "r" in the wrong place is another bone of contention. Some years ago I was taken to task by an American reader for using the English spelling "lustre" in a Post headline rather than "luster" and my explanation that it was simply the newspaper's English style fell on deaf ears.
I'm not getting into a debate on the different spellings or words as it would take us into messy "nappies and diapers" territory. It comes down to personal choice and each to his own. Or in the case of newspapers, the style book
I would admit there are a few words in which I prefer the American spelling. One is "program" for "programme." The "me" at the end seems superfluous or maybe it's because in my headline-writing days at the Post the word "programme" never seemed to fit in the available column width.
Check mate
Spellcheckers can be more of a hindrance than a help. I enjoyed the following apology in a Welsh newspaper which explained: "In the report on the Welsh National Opera the spellchecker did not recognise the term WNO. A slip of the finger caused it to be replaced by the word 'winos' ".
Sub-editors possibly rely too much on spellcheckers which tend to have a mind of their own. This led to a Leamington Spa newspaper having to explain to readers that their report concerning food served to a kindergarten should have read "chicken casserole" and not "children casserole."
Recipes often suffer when the spellchecker becomes confused. That's why a New York newspaper carried the following correction for its salsa recipe. It explained "it should have read 2 tsp (teaspoons) of cilantro and not 2 tsp of cement."
The Thai currency is also vulnerable to the whims of spellcheckers. That's one reason we so often see what should be "baht" coming out as "bath" as in "House for Rent, 40,000 baths".
Rolling along
You can't do much about different pronunciations by the English and Americans. This was featured in the George and Ira Gershwin song Let's Call the Whole Thing Off, originally performed by Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers for the 1937 film Shall We Dance.
The clever lyrics highlight the various ways people pronounce common words like "tomato" so we are treated to the duo singing "you like to-may-to, I like to-mah-to" and so on.
What is quite amazing is that Astaire and Rogers perform much of the song while on roller skates. Even more impressive is that it includes an extended session of tap dancing on the rollers, a potential ankle-breaking routine if ever you saw one. You can see it for yourself on YouTube.
Dynamic duos
The version of Let's Call the Whole Thing Off I am more familiar with is a terrific duet in 1957 by Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong. The duo are so relaxed and sound like they are having so much fun as they play with the lyrics.
Fred and Ginger, Ella and Louis. They were pretty good, weren't they?
Contact PostScript via email at oldcrutch@hotmail.com
