I wrote this review a couple of decades ago. The book itself, and therefore the views expressed, date to the 1930s and as spoken languages continually evolve, some of the statements made in it may today need further elaboration. Nonethess, I think the ideas, as expressed in my review, remain largely true as do my opinions on the respective varieties of English spoken in Britain and the USA.

In the past, I have tended, in common with many of my compatriots, to feel indignation when some of our publishers ‘Americanize’ books that they hope to sell in the United States as well as here. The motives of annoyance, I must admit, were always emotional rather than rational, based on impressions that American English is greatly different from our own and that to be forced to read it is, in some sense, to be subjected to an alien culture.

Recent reading of a fine book, A History of the English Language by Albert C. Baugh, has gone a considerable way to tempering my views. For one thing, Professor Baugh himself is an American. The style and clarity of his writing are admirable and I devoured the book rather than read it. It is nearly 500 pages long and I must have been at least a quarter of the way through before it occurred to me to check whether the author was using ‘Americanisms’. He was: I had simply not noticed. The book, as well as being fascinating for the information (and opinions) it contains, is also a delight to read.

From Anglo-Saxon times down to our own, the English language has not merely gone through many seemingly extraordinary changes. It has also existed in many forms concurrently. In fact it is difficult – or even impossible – to say what the English language actually is, now or at any other period of its history. A ‘standard English’ did indeed emerge, based on the East Midland English dialect as used by educated speakers in London, but with the emergence of English-speaking communities far beyond the shores of Britain, the superiority of this dialect has ceased to be universally accepted.

A common theme among writers on the English language has always been the complaint of some that the language is decaying and that the reason for this is the ‘bad’ English spoken by certain groups that is finding its way into standard English because of the laziness, ignorance or love of novelty of speakers who should know better. But against what reference is this supposed decadence measured? It seems that detractors always have in the backs of their minds some supposed Golden Age when English flowered in its true beauty and elegance. Even a superficial study of the history and evolution of English shows that this is nonsense. There never was a ‘Golden Age’, nor could there ever be one, since the language is continually changing and must change or die. Detractors themselves have tended to choose completely different periods in English development as their norm. If the language had really been decaying for as long as scholars claim, then we would now all be grunting at one another like pigs…

As Professor Baugh points out, the English of the United States displays a remarkable conformity across that continent. There are about three main dialectal areas but the differences between them are small. The reason for this is thought to be the fact that the early language developed mainly from that spoken by English settlers who came predominantly from Eastern England and the extreme mobility of the population, which tended to smooth away regional differences. Not being an historian, I cannot say whether this argument stands up but I think it bears further examination. Also his book first appeared in the 1930s and 60 years on we might ask whether American English is not now changing in new ways, acquiring new dialectal variations and so on. Be that as it may, even a cursory reading of American books and newspapers should convince us that the dialects of educated speakers in both lands remain very close.

The features of spelling that we tend to make much of are owing to Noah Webster, author of the most famous American English dictionary. Both in England and America, many attempts have been made to reform the spelling of English. Most of these have foundered and it seems that English speakers the world over do not actually want to reform their spelling, however much they may claim the contrary. While radical new spelling systems are occasionally proposed on both sides of the Atlantic, only the most modest have ever stood any chance of acceptance. That our own spelling has changed since Shakespeare’s day is obvious; but it is equally obvious that the rate of change during this timespan has been small. Noah Webster proposed modest but comprehensive changes to American spelling. These included elimination of unsounded letters and a few cosmetic alterations. Conservative as these were, most were not adopted. Change of ‘c’ to ‘s’ in words like defence (American defense), loss of unpronounced ‘u’ from words such as colour and honour (American color and honor), replacement of unpronounceable ‘re’ by pronounceable ‘er’ in centre (American center), and simplifications like that of tyre to tire and cheque to check are among the few corrections that have survived to our day.

Most of the ‘Americanisms’ that we instinctively criticise are not the barbarisms that we might believe them to be. Quite often they are originally correct English forms that did not change as the language of England changed. An obvious example is the continued use in American of the past particle gotten, now replaced in our own tongue by got. Others are terms for new concepts needed by settlers for which no word existed in the English of the time; or inventions of new terms to describe new concepts where Britain and America have produced their own neologisms, such as petrol versus gas(oline) or pavement versus sidewalk.

Deploring what is different from us, we often miss what is arguably the greater wonder: how closely similar others are to ourselves. Our language has always been immensely creative and has never hesitated to absorb useful words from foreign languages. Without realizing it, perhaps, we have absorbed many words from American English too, particularly in politics and science, but also in other fields, and our language is the richer for this. The true wonder is that we can so easily communicate with huge numbers of human beings who have English either as a first language or as a lingua franca. A few differences of spelling and a few strange words are a small price to pay for this immense gift.

This evening after we arrived home, having stopped off on the way for a fortifying coffee, I finally removed the bandage from my injured hand.

It’s not a pretty sight, what with a row of scabs along the metacarpophalangeal joints and the skin wrinkled from spending so long under adhesive tape, but the wounds are dry and look as though they are healing nicely.

I will still have to be careful to avoid knocks and scrapes but removal of the bandage will make it easier to use my hands.

There is still some swelling above my right eye and mauve patches under my eyes but Rome wasn’t built in a day. Time is all it takes.

This is the bandage that the nurse installed on Friday.

It’s looking rather grubby and tattered by now but I was told I could remove it on Tuesday (tomorrow) so I will not have to put up with it for much longer.

It has taken rather a battering from me pulling on a kitchen glove over it to allow me to wash and do the household chores.

I’m not too sure what I will find when I do take the bandage off but on Friday the wound seemed to be healing nicely and, all being well, that process will have continued.

I don’t know whether there will be any scarring but, to be honest, I’m not bothered about that. I’m not intending to enter any beauty contests!

My appointment with the nurse was this afternoon. She removed the bandage carefully but there was still one ouch moment when removing the adhesive tape across the wound.

My hand seems to be healing well and the bandage should be able to come off for the last time on Tuesday.

Instead of the crepe that caused me so much trouble, there is now a square of gauze held in place with a larger square of adhesive tape. I shall be able easily to put on a kitchen glove over it for jobs involving water. This makes me feel a lot better.

My face still resembles that of a red panda but those marks have already begun to fade. I will still look a fright for a while to come but there is visible progress.

After my appointment, I met Tigger for coffee in Jusaka. To my surprise, the staff all came to our table to ask what had happened to us as they had not seen either of us for several days. We had to rehearse the story of my Saturday aventure in all its details. We ended up promising that in future we would let them know if we were going away for a while so that they need not worry about us!

I was really touched by their concern.

There were several reasons why I bought a new iPhone 8, including a collapsing battery in the old iPhone 6. The iPhone 8, however, can perform a party trick that the iPhone 6 cannot. I had forgotten about this until Tigger made me a present of a Qi charging pad: the iPhone 8 represents Apple’s first foray into the brave new world of wireless charging.

Other manufacturers had already adopted wireless charging and your phone, dear reader, whether or not it is an iPhone, can probably use this method of battery replenishment. Do you find it useful? I do, up to a point.

To start with I was intrigued by the novelty but there are a few practical advantages too. Once you have plugged your charger into the power socket and tucked away the wire tidily, you can simply put your phone on the pad to recharge it. You can pick it up and work with it without the inconvenience of unplugging it or coping with the trailing wire. Some public venues, which have for a long time provided power points and even USB sockets for use by customers, now also offer wireless recharging. One of these is the Starbuck’s chain of coffee shops. This means that when you are out and about, you can recharge your phone for the cost of a cup of coffee. This also dispenses with the need to carry a charging cable – and perhaps a charger and plug as well – with you.

Apart from these minor advantages, though, wireless charging does not really take us very far. We still do need a charger to restore a flagging battery and the battery still remains the mobile phone’s most vulnerable feature. What is needed to end the slow torture of constantly recharging our devices is a new approach. The good news is that one is on its way to us.

The sort of wireless charging that we currently use with our phones is called “near field” because the charger can transmit its power only over very short distances. You need to place your phone very close to the charger, preferably in contact with it. Even an extra thick phone case can prevent recharging from taking place.

However, there also exists “far field” power transmission in which electrical power can be transmitted over larger distances. The problem with this is that so far, the power has needed to be “aimed” at the receiver which obviously makes it impossible to use with a mobile phone that moves here, there and everywhere with its busy owner.

Now consider radio and TV. The signal for these is sent from high-powered transmitters and travels far and wide to be picked up by receiving devices, that is, your radio or TV set. So far, radio and TV signals carry only data, namely the encoded sound and pictures of your radio and TV. The receiver needs its own power to decode the signal into a form useful for listeners and viewers.

What if, instead of just data, broadcast signals could also carry power? This would mean that your radio would receive both the data and the power to decode it from the broadcast signal. Is this possible? Yes, it is, and this represents the next big step in powering our mobile phones: power sent over wifi.

But wait: if my phone is being recharged by wifi, does it need to be charged up in the first place? The answer is no and this is the good news: once power by wifi is fully implemented, phones will not even need batteries! They will simply work when exposed to wifi whose signal will carry both data and power. The most vulnerable feature of mobile phones, the battery, will be gone for ever. So will chargers, portable power banks and the cables to connect them to our phones.

The only problem that I can see with this is that if you had no signal – as might happen as it does now when you are in remote areas – you would not be able to use the phone at all. So if you wanted to play Tetris while camping on top of a mountain you would perhaps be wise to take a wireless power bank with you!

When will power by wifi become generally available? Ay, there’s the rub: I don’t know. The sources I have consulted don’t know either. So far it is a tantalising glow just over the brow of the next hill and it’s anybody’s guess when it will become a reality.

Nor have I seen any estimates of the cost to consumers of using such a system. It will call for large investment in infrastructure, which the customer will pay for, one way or another, and there will be running costs. Presumably we will have to pay for the power we use much as we pay for domestic power now. Proponents of power by wifi claim that it is far more efficient, and therefore cheaper in the long run, than present forms of power supply.

Won’t we need new devices to take advantage of wireless power? The article I have cited below claims that existing devices could be retro-fitted with power receivers. Nice idea, but I honestly cannot imagine Apple, Samsung, Google et al. passing up the chance to sell us new phones. Apple certainly never offered to adapt my iPhone 6 to take advantage of wireless charging! No, I think we shall have to stump up for new model.

Finally, would all that power sloshing about constitute a danger to health? People who claim to suffer from electromagnetic hypersensitivity will no doubt feel concerned by the prospects but proponents claim that it is safe.

For more details, see 11 Myths About Wireless Power