Moderna Språk is wrong to suggest that we can start a sentence with a number in English

May 24, 2011
Moderna Sprak is wrong to
suggest that we can start a
sentence with a number in
English
Moderna Sprak is an academic and scholarly journal, or at least
that is what its editors claim. Its readers expect it to be something
like a benchmark of correct English.
But unfortunately that is not the case. In its latest issue, 2010: 2, it
makes a sweeping and unfounded generalization which primary school
English language pupils are not supposed to make.
What is even more unfortunate is the fact that the article which included
this basic error was written by Professor Arne Olofsson.
Both Olofsson and Moderna Sprak ignore a basic rule in English writing,
which calls for spelling out any number that begins a sentence. Note the
following two examples from the BBC (emphasis added):
Forty years ago, the North was something of a rugby union powerhouse.
Seventy one nations are here so the object is to collect as many as
possible by whatever means necessary - beg, steal or borrow.
Olofsson, in his review of Leon Barkho's "Where Swedes Get it Wrong
When Writing English," published in Moderna Sprak, thinks the rule is part
of the author's "sweeping statements" and "unfounded generalizations."
So, Olofsson believes it is quite acceptable in English to write:

40 years ago, the North was something of a rugby union powerhouse.
71 nations are here so the object is to collect as many as possible by
whatever means necessary - beg, steal or borrow.
For this to come from an English language professor in Sweden is not only
unfortunate but regrettable.

---

And for it to be published by a journal with seven editors and a claim to
scholarship is not only regrettable but unforgiveable. It is an inexcusable
error because it sets a wrong standard and precedent in writing in English.
Some readers might see my response a bit harsh.
But I am sure they will accept the harsh critique when they realize that
Moderna Sprak and its editors have obstinately refused to issue an
erratum or a response from the author to clarify.
In a civil and democratic society, we believe we all have the right to
respond. But that right Moderna Sprak and its editors do not seem
acknowledge.
Leon Barkho

---