Just Letting You Know Not Sure Whats Lined Up for Next Week

E very state of affairs in which language is used – texting your mates, asking for a pay rise, composing a minor advertizement, making a voice communication, drafting a will, writing upwardly an experiment, praying, rapping, or any other – has its own conventions. You wouldn't expect a pol being interviewed past Kirsty Wark about the economy to showtime quoting Ludacris: "I proceed my heed on my money, coin on my heed; merely y'all'se a hell of a lark when you shake your behind." Although it might make Newsnight more entertaining.

This renders the concept of what is "correct" more a simple matter of right and incorrect. What is correct in a tweet might non be in an essay; no unmarried register of English is right for every occasion. Updating your status on Facebook is instinctive for anyone who can read and write to a basic level; for more formal communication, the conventions are harder to grasp and this is why so many people fret about the "rules" of grammer.

10 things people worry nigh too much

1 To infinitive and beyond
Geoffrey K Pullum, a scarily brainy linguistics professor – and, unless this is an internet hoax, keyboard role player in the 1960s with Geno Washington & the Ram Jam Band – calls them "zombie rules: though dead, they shamble mindlessly on … " And none more so than the 1 that says the particle to and the infinitive form of the verb should not be separated, as in Star Trek'south eloquent mission statement "to boldly go where no human has gone before".

Stubbornly to resist splitting infinitives can sound awkward or, worse, ambiguous: "He offered personally to guarantee the loan that the Clintons needed to purchase their house" makes information technology unclear whether the offer, or the guarantee, was personal. Adverbs should become where they audio about natural, oft immediately after the to: to boldly go, to personally guarantee. This "rule" is not just half-broiled: information technology's fully baked, with a fried egg and slice of pineapple on tiptop. But remarkably persistent.

ii The things one has to put upwardly with
Prepositions relate i word or phrase to another, typically to express place (to the office, in the net) or time (before the flood, afterward the goldrush). They are followed by an object: from me to you.

In the 17th century, John Dryden, deciding that ending a judgement with a preposition was "not elegant" considering y'all couldn't exercise it in Latin, set nearly ruining some of his best prose past rewriting it so that "the terminate he aimed at" became "the end at which he aimed", and then on. Like not splitting the infinitive, this became a "rule" when taught by grammarians influenced by Latin.

Ignore it. As HW Fowler observed: "The power of saying 'people worth talking to' instead of 'people with whom it is worth while to talk' is not one to exist lightly surrendered."

three Don't get in a bad mood over the subjunctive
The subjunctive is a verb form (technically, "mood") expressing hypothesis, typically to signal that something is being demanded, proposed, imagined, or insisted: "he demanded that she resign", and then on. You can spot information technology in the third person singular of the present tense (resign instead of resigns) and in the forms be and were of the verb to be: if she were [rather than was] honest, she would quit.

The writer Somerset Maugham, who in 1949 announced "the subjunctive mood is in its decease throes", might be surprised to come across my son Freddie's bookshelf, which contains If I Were a Grunter … (Jellycat Books, 2008).

The subjunctive is more common in American than British English, ofttimes in formal or poetic contexts – in the song If I Were a Rich Man, for example. It's non true, withal, that David and Don Was came under force per unit area from language purists to change the name of their band to Were (Not Was).

Misusing the subjunctive is worse than not using it at all. Many writers scatter "weres" about as if "was" were – or, indeed, was – going out of fashion. The journalist Simon Heffer is a fan of the subjunctive, recommending such usages as "if I be wrong, I shall exist defeated". So be it – if you want to sound like a pirate.

Mick Jagger
Mick Jagger: tin't get no satisfaction. Photo: Ray Dark-green

4 Negative, captain
When Mick Jagger commencement sang "I tin't become no satisfaction", it was non uncommon to hear the older generation witter on similar this: "He says he can't become no satisfaction, which logically ways he can go some satisfaction."

But while a double negative may brand a positive when y'all multiply minus iii by minus two, language doesn't work in such a logical way: multiple negatives add accent. Literature and music grow with them. Chaucer used a triple – "He nevere nevertheless no vileynye ne sayde" – and Ian Dury gave us: "Simply 'cos I own't never 'advertisement, no, nothing worth having, never ever, never always."

Not Standard English language, it's true, merely no native English speaker is likely to misunderstand, any more than when Jane Austen produced the eloquent double negative "at that place was none too poor or remote not to feel an interest".

5 Between my souvenirs
I was taught that between applies merely to two things, and among should be used for more than two – a rare example of Mrs Birtles, my showtime grammar instructor, getting it incorrect. Betwixt is appropriate when the human relationship is reciprocal, however many parties are involved: an agreement between the countries of the Eu, for case. Among belongs to collective relationships, as in votes shared among political parties, or the items among Paul Whiteman's souvenirs in the 1927 song.

While I am on the subject field, it's "betwixt you lot and me", not "between you lot and I". It'south probably unfair, though quite good fun, to blame the Queen; people have heard "my married man and I" and perhaps assume "and I" is ever right. It is when function of the field of study ("my husband and I would dear to meet you at the palace") but non when part of the object ("the Queen offered my married man and me cucumber sandwiches").

6 Bored of Tunbridge Wells
Traditionalists say it should exist bored by or bored with, but not bored of, a "rule" cheerfully ignored, I would say, past anyone nether about xl. And adept luck to them: there is no justification for it. I have, notwithstanding, managed to come up with a little distinction worth preserving: compare "bored with Tunbridge Wells" (a person who finds Tunbridge Wells irksome) with "bored of Tunbridge Wells" (a bored person who happens to live there, maybe a neighbour of "disgusted of Tunbridge Wells").

vii Don't fear the gerund
Geoffrey Willans and Ronald Searle's guide to life at St Custard's school, How to Be Topp, features a cartoon in which a gerund attacks some peaceful pronouns, but it is nix to be afraid of. A gerund is a verb ending in -ing that acts as a noun: I like swimming, smoking is bad for you, and and so on.

The tricky chip is when someone tells you about the rule that, as with other nouns, you lot have to utilize a possessive pronoun – "she objected to my swimming". Nigh normal people say "she objected to me swimming" so I wouldn't worry about this. You rarely encounter the possessive form in newspapers, for example. Announcing "I trust too much in my team'southward existence able to string a few wins together" sounds pompous.

8 And another thing …
Conjunctions, as the proper name suggests, join things together. This prompted generations of English teachers to drill into their pupils, including me, that to start a sentence with and, but, because or however was wrong. Simply this is another shibboleth. And I am sure William Blake ("And did those feet in ancient times?") and the Beatles ("Because the world is circular information technology turns me on") would back me on this.

9 None sense
A sure sign of a pedant is that, under the impression that none is an abbreviation of not i, they will insist on maxim things like "none of them has turned up". Why, when I fix out on the road to grammatical perfection I might even accept argued this myself. But the "dominion" that none always takes a atypical verb is, alas, another myth. Plural is not only adequate, but often sounds more than natural: "None of the current squad are good plenty to play in the Championship." Henry Fielding wrote in Tom Jones: "None are more ignorant than those learned Pedants, whose Lives take been entirely consumed in Colleges, and among Books."

ten Endeavour and effort again
Effort to has traditionally been regarded as more "correct" and try and equally a colloquialism or worse. The onetime is certainly more formal, and far more mutual in writing, just information technology's the other fashion round when it comes to speech. Those who regard endeavor and equally an "Americanism" will exist disappointed to learn that information technology is much more widely used in the UK than in the US. Sometimes in that location is a good case for try and – for example, if you want to avoid repeating the word to in a sentence such every bit: "Nosotros're really going to try and win this one."

As Bart Simpson said: "I tin can't hope I'll attempt, only I'll try to endeavor."

Five things people should worry about more

The Ghostbusters
Who or whom? The Ghostbusters know which call to make Photograph: Snap/Rex Features

i To who it may business
The use of whom – the objective grade of who – is dying out, especially in spoken communication. It sounds affected and stiff. Hyper-right utilize of whom for who is common, as in Graham Greene'south The Placidity American: "There was a big man whom [sic] I think was an hôtelier from Phnom Penh and a French girl I'd never seen before."

To avoid this, mentally replace who or whom with the third person pronoun: if you become a subject field – he, she, it or they – then who is correct; for an object – him, her or them – whom is right. In the Greene example information technology would exist "I think he was an hôtelier" not "I think him was an hôtelier" – so who, not whom, is correct.

When John Donne wrote "for whom the bell tolls" and Bo Diddley asked "who practise you dearest?" who was right – Donne or Diddley? The answer is both of them. Information technology goes back to formal and informal registers. Bo's got a cobra serpent for a tie. Not the kind of guy, I propose, who would say something wussy similar "whom practice you love?" (It's the same with the Ghostbusters, whose slogan, you may recall, was not "whom you gonna call?")

The relaxed tone nosotros prefer these days makes whom increasingly optional, dissimilar in Donne's day. The elegant formality of his prose has an eloquence and resonance that "for who the bell tolls" lacks. Skilful title for a volume, though.

2 That's the way to practice it
The traditional definition is that that defines and which informs (gives extra data), as in: "This is the house that Jack built; simply this house, which John built, is falling down." Note that the sentence remains grammatical without that ("this is the house Jack built") but not without which.

Don't be alarmed by the unhelpful terms, but restrictive relative clauses (also known as defining, best thought of as giving essential data by narrowing it down) are not enclosed by commas, whereas non-restrictive relative clauses (non-defining, giving not-essential information) are.

"Which John built" is non-restrictive. It gives extra information, is preceded by a comma, and if you try it with "that" it sounds odd ("this business firm, that Jack built"). It'south not the same the other way round: although that is more mutual in restrictive clauses, you can use which: "This is the firm which John built."

To simplify things, here'south my like shooting fish in a barrel-to-remember formula:
Restrictive clauses: that (desirable), no comma (essential).
Non-restrictive clauses: which, comma (both essential).

Prince
Nothing compares to Prince's mastery of grammar. Photograph: Michael Putland/Getty Images

3 Zero compares two U
Prince was correct; so was Shakespeare ("Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?). Compare to ways liken to; compare with ways make a comparing. Then I might compare Lionel Messi with Diego Maradona to assess their relative merits, then conclude that Messi can be compared to Maradona – he is a similarly great histrion. The two phrases take usefully distinct meanings and, although "compare to" can be replaced by "liken to", information technology's clumsier to supersede "compare with" with another phrase.

4 A singular problem
"Agreement" or "concord". Yes, more off-putting terms for what is a straightforward enough dominion: be consistent. Gerry Goffin and Carole King, who composed the Monkees' 1967 hit Pleasant Valley Sunday, wrote: "The local stone grouping down the street is tryin' hard to learn their song." It jars.

But wait, I hear you weep. Who says a stone group are singular? At that place were, after all, four of them, too decorated singing to put anybody downward. Quite so. If I had wandered into the Brill Building in New York and caught Goffin or King'due south ear at the time, I would have politely suggested "are tryin' hard to learn their vocal" as the respond.

Commonage nouns can exist singular or plural. Care for as atypical when the noun is a single unit, just plural when it is more a collection of individuals, for example: "The family can trace its history back to the heart ages; the family were sitting downwards, scratching their heads." One time yous've decided whether the substantive is atypical or plural, make sure the verb agrees, or people will conclude you is sloppy.

five Lie lady lie
Defoliation between the verbs lay and lie arises because the present tense of the erstwhile is the past tense of the latter. The like shooting fish in a barrel fashion not to mix them upwardly is to remember that lay is a transitive verb (it takes an object); lie is intransitive. If you lay a table or an egg, or you lay something down, the past tense is laid. If yous lie down, the by tense is lay. You will note that strictly – as Bob Dylan was inviting the lady in question to lie down across his big contumely bed, rather than reporting that she had washed and so in the past – he should take sung "Lie Lady Lie" rather than "Lay Lady Lay". If you try singing information technology similar that, however, information technology sounds Australian, which would not really accept worked on an album chosen Nashville Skyline.

The sounds of syntax: What pop music can teach the states nearly how to build a sentence

James Brown
James Brownish: feels good, has a soul. Photograph: Jesse Frohman/Corbis Outline

She Loves You – The Beatles
A bang-up footling judgement that typifies word social club in English: subject-verb-object. Yeah, yeah, aye!

Me Myself and I – De La Soul
The showtime-person pronoun personified: objective, reflexive, subjective. And a cracking video.

Every Little Thing She Does is Magic – The Police
The subject is a 5-word clause; the verb is "is"; the judgement is completed by the complement: magic.

Blood Saccharide Sex Magik – Crimson Hot Chili Peppers
Not a Rorschach inkblot test, but the Peppers' nouns of choice. Annotation their preference for Middle English spelling.

I Just Have Optics for You lot – The Flamingos
Or, to the armchair grammarian, "I Take Eyes Only for You".

Wake Up and Make Love With Me – Ian Dury and the Blockheads
Linguists may object to the quondam definition of verbs every bit "action" words, merely tell that to Ian Dury.

The Sound of Silence – Simon & Garfunkel
The definite article gives this oxymoron an bear on that the vaguer "a sound of silence" would lack.

I Got You (I Feel Good) – James Dark-brown
Purists might protest that the adjective "good" should be the adverb "well". Such people have no soul.

In that location'southward a Guy Works Downwards the Chip Store Swears He's Elvis – Kirsty MacColl
The syntax, worthy of a tutorial in phrase-structure grammar, reflects the fact that while the language is colloquial, the structure is sophisticated.

Wow – Kate Bush (or, if you prefer, Kylie Minogue)
Wow, oops and the similar are interjections. Old novels would sometimes use the verb "ejaculate" with them, which we found hilarious at school.

A few words on punctuation

Bob Dylan
Bob Dylan: 'Lie Lady Lie' doesn't audio right. Photo: Jan Persson/Redferns

Commas
Keith Waterhouse advised: "Commas are not condiments. Do not pepper sentences with them unnecessarily." Quite so, but a well-placed ane is the departure between "what is this thing called love?" and "what is this affair chosen, love?" And betwixt "let'south eat, Grandma!" and … well, you know the rest.

Semicolons
You can lead a total and happy life without bothering with semicolons. I quite like to use i when I experience that something more a comma, but less than a full stop, is needed; as here. They are also very handy in lists, particularly when items consist of several words or contain punctuation themselves: "His holiday reading comprised Eats, Shoots & Leaves; Sheffield United FC: the Official Centenary History; and Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Establish In that location."

Dashes
A single dash tin can besides add together a touch of drama – wait! Apply sparingly, however. Some journalists have a trend to stick a dash in every time they don't feel similar writing a proper judgement – like this. Beware sentences – such as this 1 – that nuance about all over the place – information technology makes them look like a poem past Emily Dickinson.

Exclamation marks
Newspapers are said to utilize various synonyms for exclamation marks, such as bang, shriek, dog's erect or screamer. I must say that, after xl years in the business, I take never heard anyone use whatsoever of these terms. When a newspaper employs an exclamation mark in a headline it invariably ways: "Look, we've written something funny!"

This is an edited extract from For Who the Bell Tolls: One Human being's Quest for Grammatical Perfection, by David Marsh, published by Guardian Faber on 3 October. To lodge a copy for £viii.99 (RRP £12.99) visit theguardian.com/bookshop or call 0330 333 6846.

David Marsh is educational activity a grammar Masterclass at the Guardian's London office on Monday 25 November. Learn more and book

kilburnrumant.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/30/10-grammar-rules-you-can-forget

0 Response to "Just Letting You Know Not Sure Whats Lined Up for Next Week"

Post a Comment

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel