The English Language

[Canadian Paul 97]

I think it comes down to context too. In casual speech, or an online forum such as this one, I believe people should be as free to talk/write as they'd like. Therefore, Captain O, feel free to begin a sentence however you'd like, as I myself tend to disregard grammar on this forum and in casual speech.

 

HOWEVER, when it comes to something professional (or something under the guise of professionality, such as Wikipedia) or a piece of literature of some kind, I believe proper grammar (including the "however" rule) applies. If not there, where else?

 

It's more than a bit pedantic to be pointing it out in conversations or on online forums, so long as one always remembers to keep an eye out for it in their professional lives.

[Tuber Mirum 126]

I think you're right there CP.

I was about to launch into a passionate sermon about the wrongness of "none of us are", when I realised that in speech, I would use that formulation myself wthout any feeling that it's wrong.

 

Doesn't do to think too much, as one of our elder statesmen points out in his signature.

[Captain Oates 21]

I think it comes down to context too. In casual speech, or an online forum such as this one, I believe people should be as free to talk/write as they'd like. Therefore, Captain O, feel free to begin a sentence however you'd like, as I myself tend to disregard grammar on this forum and in casual speech.

 

HOWEVER, when it comes to something professional (or something under the guise of professionality, such as Wikipedia) or a piece of literature of some kind, I believe proper grammar (including the "however" rule) applies. If not there, where else?

 

It's more than a bit pedantic to be pointing it out in conversations or on online forums, so long as one always remembers to keep an eye out for it in their professional lives.

 

I agree that context is significant. I am much less fussy when using IM or Chat, where the greater importance is fast communication.

 

Online forums (as they tend to be called) do not demand a 'real-time' response and there is enough time for most of us to consider and correct as we write.

 

 

BTW, I was not aware that 'however' had a rule all to itself! How does that one go?

[in eternum+ 22]

I concur with CO's response directly above. Is it really so hard to write correctly, even if it's 'only' an online forum?

[The Pooka 26]

Responding to the good Captain Oates....

 

'One person' is a red herring!

 

By your own empirical logic, 'more than one' makes 'person' plural, ie 'persons.

 

OK, replace the word 'person' with the word 'herring'. If I have two herrings, I have more than one herring. Your argument suggests that 'more than one herrings' would be correct. It isn't.

 

As I have said before there isn't necessarily a definitive correct form. Usage, convention and the flow of words tend to determine what is good form. Your suggestions(in bold) are fine but so would be 'More than one have died' and 'None are ready'.

 

Finally, the 'begs the question' issue. I think that beg in this sense means to 'fail to answer' (Chambers Dictionary). In the past, 'to beg the question' meant to use a circular argument. For example, 'Allah is great and all-powerful. The Koran says so and the Koran is the word of all-powerful Allah'.

 

It has more recently been used to mean to evade a straight answer to a question. Also it has been used to mean 'raise a question'. This is an example of how language evolves and it is difficult to argue that what is current usage is wrong. Otherwise, we would still be talking like Beowulf. As someone pointed out earlier, what is often criticised as US English was correct English 300 years ago. It has been suggested that were we to visit the England of 1650 we would find that most people would sound like Loyd Grossman. Christ.

 

I agree, captain, that this is important. The beauty of English is that it is ever-changing, fluid and adaptable. That does not mean, however, that usage cannot be cliched, ugly or just plain wrong.

 

 

[Canadian Paul 97]

I concur with CO's response directly above. Is it really so hard to write correctly, even if it's 'only' an online forum?

 

An online forum is casual though. Attempts should be made to speak properly and, above all, understandably. Sometimes, however, a more casual attitude to posting helps the thread flow more easily. Sounding right can be more important than actually being right on an online forum.

[The Pooka 26]

I think it comes down to context too. In casual speech, or an online forum such as this one, I believe people should be as free to talk/write as they'd like. Therefore, Captain O, feel free to begin a sentence however you'd like, as I myself tend to disregard grammar on this forum and in casual speech.

 

HOWEVER, when it comes to something professional (or something under the guise of professionality, such as Wikipedia) or a piece of literature of some kind, I believe proper grammar (including the "however" rule) applies. If not there, where else?

 

It's more than a bit pedantic to be pointing it out in conversations or on online forums, so long as one always remembers to keep an eye out for it in their professional lives.

 

But the problem, CP is that there is no rule book. You will find books of usage (eg Fowler) and these tend to describe what is logically and conventionally done. To say that there is 'the however rule' is not right. There are those who argue that it is wrong to start a sentence with 'however', or 'and' or to use a split infinitive (don't get me going on that). They are mistaken. Certainly, it is wrong to use English that is ugly, confusing, cliched, unimaginative and which fails to communicate the thoughts of the writer. However, few of the so-called 'rules' prevent this happening.

[Captain Oates 21]

OK, replace the word 'person' with the word 'herring'. If I have two herrings, I have more than one herring. Your argument suggests that 'more than one herrings' would be correct. It isn't.

Herring can be both singular and plural, and so is an ambiguous example. ...cats.

 

More than one cat(s) are ....

 

'More that one' is a phrase describing 'cat' (in which case use 'is') or 'cats' (in which case use 'are').

 

It's as simple as that.

...or is it?

 

This leads on to the difficulty raised by the use of 'begs the question,' originally meaning 'makes the question unnecessary and now widely used in place of 'raises the question', which is the opposite of the original meaning!

 

So what do we do? Do we assume that everyone who uses the term is ignorant of its origins or do we assume that the user is obviously a very clever person who knows exactly what they are saying? If both meanings of the term are in use, there is a serious risk of misunderstanding but how do we cope with working out which meaning is intended?

 

A good way to lose friends, I fear!

 

 

Incidentally, I was taught at school that it was incorrect to start a sentence with a conjunction. This can include some uses of 'however', as well as 'and', 'but', and the like. But we don't always follow the rules, do we?

[Captain Oates 21]

I concur with CO's response directly above. Is it really so hard to write correctly, even if it's 'only' an online forum?

Sounding right can be more important than actually being right on an online forum.

This could be true, but only if the writer is quite certain of what will "sound right" to the reader.

Having certain universally accepted rules can sometimes be helpful when writing for a diverse readership. Rule-breaking can also be useful but casual rule-breaking can be risky.

 

OK, I'm going...

[Tempus Fugit 214]

Trying to impose fixed rules on the bastardised hotchpotch that is the English languge, is rather like trying to nail jelly to a wall.

[The Pooka 26]

OK, replace the word 'person' with the word 'herring'. If I have two herrings, I have more than one herring. Your argument suggests that 'more than one herrings' would be correct. It isn't.

Herring can be both singular and plural, and so is an ambiguous example. ...cats.

 

More than one cat(s) are ....

 

'More that one' is a phrase describing 'cat' (in which case use 'is') or 'cats' (in which case use 'are').

 

It's as simple as that.

...or is it?

 

This leads on to the difficulty raised by the use of 'begs the question,' originally meaning 'makes the question unnecessary and now widely used in place of 'raises the question', which is the opposite of the original meaning!

 

So what do we do? Do we assume that everyone who uses the term is ignorant of its origins or do we assume that the user is obviously a very clever person who knows exactly what they are saying? If both meanings of the term are in use, there is a serious risk of misunderstanding but how do we cope with working out which meaning is intended?

 

A good way to lose friends, I fear!

 

 

Incidentally, I was taught at school that it was incorrect to start a sentence with a conjunction. This can include some uses of 'however', as well as 'and', 'but', and the like. But we don't always follow the rules, do we?

Point taken about herrings. You cannot say 'more than one cats' as 'one cats' is simply wrong.

 

My point earlier was that 'More than one cat are on the mat' is correct grammatically because 'more than one' is obviously plural and 'more than one' are on the mat. But it sounds wrong and one is far more likely to say 'More than one cat is....' That's fine by me but grammatically you are saying the equivalent of 'Two or more cats is on the mat'. That is why I argue that a number, but not all, of forms can be correct. It may annoy those who seek a definitive rule but that's the way it is with something as complex as language.

 

PS In 1948 Gowers, in The Complete Plain Words, described the argument that one shouldn't start a sentence with a conjunction as 'dead'. He also described the 'rule' that one shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition as 'a half-hearted rule .... but no good writer ever heeded it, except Dryden, who seems to have invented it'. That sums up the ways these rules originate.

 

Another irritant to me is the use of the term iteration as in 'first iteration' meaning 'first version'. An iteration is actually a repeat (a re-iteration repeats again). As with 'begs the question' the change in usage seems more or less permanent and now one has to either avoid the term or clarify what is meant with each usage.

[Tuber Mirum 126]

Trying to impose fixed rules on the bastardised hotchpotch that is the English languge, is rather like trying to nail jelly to a wall.

 

 

Well said Tempus. the voice of balanced reason as always.

 

Talking of Oxonians and thereabouts, did someone mention Fowler?

 

none. It is a mistake to suppose

that the pronoun is sing. only & must at all costs be followed by

sing. verbs &c. ; the OED explicitly states that pl. construction is com-

moner.

[The Pooka 26]

Trying to impose fixed rules on the bastardised hotchpotch that is the English languge, is rather like trying to nail jelly to a wall.

 

 

Well said Tempus. the voice of balanced reason as always.

 

Talking of Oxonians and thereabouts, did someone mention Fowler?

 

none. It is a mistake to suppose

that the pronoun is sing. only & must at all costs be followed by

sing. verbs &c. ; the OED explicitly states that pl. construction is com-

moner.

Good old Fowler. 'None of us are going' sounds just as right as 'None of us is going'.

[TLC 9]

Is the capitalisation in this sentence influenced by TLC's post, by any chance?

Are you referring to the fact that I added a few extra random capitals in that post (for which I apologise), or is there something else? I'm genuinely confused, read any of my other posts on this site if you're in any doubt!

 

Oh and Mr Fugit, I should like to place an order for 2 boxes of your finest jelly nails please; one for me, and the other to be stored in DL headquarters.

 

In many aspects of humanity, the pointlessness or nigh-impossibility of a task neither stops people's fascination with it nor their attempts to complete it. I think the discussion of the correct use of the English language is one of those areas, although I think the major problem is much more basic than what we're discussing.

 

For each incident of us discussing the correct usage of 'none of us is/are' there are 100 signs in fruit & veg shops across the U.K. committing crimes such as 'banana's' and the doubly terrifying 'potatoe's'.

 

I think the English speaking world's horrific use of their own language (in the U.K anyway) is in part related to our general lack of ability in other languages. Clearly this is partly because so many other people speak English that we fail to see the point of learning other languages, but I think learning another language helps you get a feel for grammar due to the more often formal method of learning it. Many English people still compare multi-linguism (is that a real word?) to rocket science in terms of difficulty and required ability.

 

And from what I can gather from some European friends I have, the French & Italians get taught the grammatical rules or conventions of their own language to a much more technical degree than us. We tend to get taught the 'i before e' rule and the rest is based on the more traditional 'why should I learn English when I can already speak it and read it?' approach. For f*ck's sake.

 

There was definitely a point to this a paragraph or two ago; reasonable use of grammar really is no indication of the post quality.

 

To my shame I can't speak any other languages except a pitiful amount of French; the fact that I'm fascinated by languages makes this a bit of a nuisance. It's also a useless chat-up topic in my experience, who'd have thought it?

[The Pooka 26]

You are right, TLC. I learned about grammar through studying Latin. It is different learning a language through being brought up in a culture that speaks it than learning it through study. The study of grammar ought to be at least an option for children at school.

 

As for grammar being no good as a chat-up topic, I disagree. Since I joined this thread I have been besieged by throngs of sex-crazed grammarians wanting to talk about the ablative absolute. Dirty bitches!

[Slave to the Grave 26]

'How can a written language be taught without learning grammar? Words and letters are abstract concepts, the understanding of which can only come through the education of rules'.

 

The above is a poorly remembered quotation from a long forgotten source. (I have searched).

[Banshees Scream 110]

'How can a written language be taught without learning grammar? Words and letters are abstract concepts, the understanding of which can only come through the education of rules'.

 

Anything can be taught. If it's taught right or wrong is the difference.

[Captain Oates 21]

Is the capitalisation in this sentence influenced by TLC's post, by any chance?

Are you referring to the fact that I added a few extra random capitals in that post (for which I apologise), or is there something else? I'm genuinely confused, read any of my other posts on this site if you're in any doubt!

No need to apologise! I'm sure the University Lecturer felt uplifted by his elevation to capital initials!

 

But that wasn't what I had in mind. I was alluding to the effect of two similar elements cancelling each other (or not); two 'N's turning in to 'n'.

[The Pooka 26]

'How can a written language be taught without learning grammar? Words and letters are abstract concepts, the understanding of which can only come through the education of rules'.

 

Anything can be taught. If it's taught right or wrong is the difference.

 

The discussion of good and bad style and sentence construction seem seems to be an essential element[s]s[/s] of education that are is missing. There is, however, an important distinction between learning and teaching. I suppose 99.999999 % of people learn their first language without being taught and without being aware of letters or of rules of grammar and syntax. Indeed language has to exist before its grammatical conventions can be developed and described.

 

A problem is that most of the rules that obsess those who insist on correcting others (eg not splitting infinitives, not commencing sentences with conjunctions, not ending sentences with prepositions) make no sense, have been arbitrarily introduced and are not accepted by most grammarian authorities such as Fowler, Gowers and Trask.

 

I haven't met a grammarian pedant yet who didn't make as many mistakes as he found. That's why I have shown the strikethroughs above that show my own errors in drafting this response. That's why I am also reluctant to point out that there are probably (to the strict grammarian) three or four problems in the sentences of Banshee and Slave above. Yet they make perfect sense and sound right, so who cares?

[TLC 9]

You are right, TLC. I learned about grammar through studying Latin. It is different learning a language through being brought up in a culture that speaks it than learning it through study. The study of grammar ought to be at least an option for children at school.

 

As for grammar being no good as a chat-up topic, I disagree. Since I joined this thread I have been besieged by throngs of sex-crazed grammarians wanting to talk about the ablative absolute. Dirty bitches!

Maybe I just need to try a bit harder then. I start off fine talking about ablative absolutes, sure, but a few drinks later and it's all split infinitives and tautology from me I'm afraid.

 

If only I'd took more money out of the cash point on Saturday afternoon there'd have been no unfortunate mention of 'PIN numbers' on my part to the lady I'd made the acquaintance of later that night. Oh how my tear-stained hot cheeks burned with shame as she pointed out my grammatical faux-pas, before quickly making her excuses and leaving.

[The Pooka 26]

You are right, TLC. I learned about grammar through studying Latin. It is different learning a language through being brought up in a culture that speaks it than learning it through study. The study of grammar ought to be at least an option for children at school.

 

As for grammar being no good as a chat-up topic, I disagree. Since I joined this thread I have been besieged by throngs of sex-crazed grammarians wanting to talk about the ablative absolute. Dirty bitches!

Maybe I just need to try a bit harder then. I start off fine talking about ablative absolutes, sure, but a few drinks later and it's all split infinitives and tautology from me I'm afraid.

 

If only I'd took more money out of the cash point on Saturday afternoon there'd have been no unfortunate mention of 'PIN numbers' on my part to the lady I'd made the acquaintance of later that night. Oh how my tear-stained hot cheeks burned with shame as she pointed out my grammatical faux-pas, before quickly making her excuses and leaving.

I suspect, TLC, that you are hanging around in the wrong places and drinking the wrong stuff. The Pooka has had great success at tea dance matinees where my references to relative clauses are seen as hallmarks of the suave and intellectual. Experience has taught me that suaveness and intellect are characteristics that are soluble in alcohol. More tips later.

[TLC 9]

I suspect, TLC, that you are hanging around in the wrong places and drinking the wrong stuff. The Pooka has had great success at tea dance matinees where my references to relative clauses are seen as hallmarks of the suave and intellectual. Experience has taught me that suaveness and intellect are characteristics that are soluble in alcohol. More tips later.

Ever since the local Lyons teahouse closed down my luck has deserted me, now I see why!

 

I think I've seen too many films where you're always told that the 'wrong places to go' and the 'wrong things to drink' are actually the cool and correct choices to be made. After careful consideration, I think it's time for me to give up drinking absinthe in the local drugs den/squat, as fun as it is.

 

I should have realised that none of the resident crack-whores even so much as comprehend a double-entendre that's been presented in traditional Sid James style; not even the more lucid ones who've still got some hair & teeth left.

 

I eagerly await more tips later Mr Pooka, I even struggle with split infinitives these days. How easily man can be reduced to such a base state!

 

ps do you know where I can get hold of a good pluperfect subjunctive? My usual dealer ran out yesterday; if only I had known, I would have ordered some earlier. Ha ha ha.

[The Pooka 26]

This list is full of people, such as Syd Barrett and Arthur Lee, who, through their debauchery have met an early end. Its never too late, TLC, to commit yourself to a life of sobriety, thrift and celibacy As they say, you may not live forever but it will feel like it.

[Tuber Mirum 126]

"Not one of us are as smart as all of us" is complete nonsense because in spite of containing "us", "none of us" is indisputably singular.

 

 

 

Just caught myself writing the following:

 

....none of the people he claims to have compalined to have commented yet.

 

 

 

Wouldn't know the back of me hand if it hit me in the face.

[Star Crossed 33]

....none of the people he claims to have compalined to have commented yet.

I'd compaline about your spelling, but it hardly seems worht it.