# Do “Whom” and Other Subtleties of the English Language Throw You?



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

(Continued from: Do Adverbs Throw You)

All y’alls are probably from a literary tradition where your teachers teach that the following are no-nos: splitting infinitives, using ‘who’ for objects, ending sentences with prepositions, and writing “a history”. I assume the rules against these transgressions (especially who for whom) are still being taught?

I’d like to furtively creep into the literature room here and delicately suggest that, unless they sound awkward to someone who doesn’t know the rules, there is nothing wrong with anything on the above list.

This is a great site. I mean, you get none of the mud-slinging that happens on the Amazon politics and history sites which I usually haunt. So I hesitate to introduce controversy. (That’s a lie! I’m smiling at my computer screen as I contemplate the potential controversy!) But I’m also smiling because I know you guys will be civil even if I say there’s nothing wrong most of the time with using who for an object. And I like civil people, even when we disagree.

Anyway, does anyone else have objections to the above rules of good writing? Or objections to my objections? Have at it.

Mark Ledbetter

America’s Forgotten History. Part One: Foundations
America’s Forgotten History. Part Two: Rupture
Globocop: How America Sold Its Soul and Lost Its Way

(Though I’ve tried, I still can’t post the pics or the links. Anyone interested in cheap Kindle history, though, try the book or author title. Cheers!)


----------



## Daphne (May 27, 2010)

What comes to my mind is Churchill's (perhaps apocryphal) - "This is a situation up with which I will not put." Correct grammar is one thing, but colloquial usuage has to be taken into account. I also recall our delightful German exchange student  who spoke English with such grammatical correctness that it sounded odd to our sloppy English ears - "The chair on which I sit" etc. Language is like music, it needs to sound right  - and perhaps if a strictly "incorrect" construction is used frequently enough it becomes correct by default. (I know "an history" is correct, but suspect I would say "a history").


----------



## nomesque (Apr 12, 2010)

I generally write my fiction in modern English - meaning, what's being used here and now. Here, by the way, being Australia.

I write manuals in not-quite-so-modern, simple American English designed for non-English-as-first-language readers.

*shrug* I can follow almost all the grammatical rules without breaking a sweat... but in fiction, I rarely bother. Communication is more than rules, it's about making sense for the person to whom you're talking


----------



## Daphne (May 27, 2010)

nomesque said:


> I generally write my fiction in modern English - meaning, what's being used here and now. Here, by the way, being Australia.
> 
> I write manuals in not-quite-so-modern, simple American English designed for non-English-as-first-language readers.
> 
> *shrug* I can follow almost all the grammatical rules without breaking a sweat... but in fiction, I rarely bother. Communication is more than rules, it's about making sense for the person to whom you're talking


Just out of interest: do you notice a difference between Australian English, American English and, well, English English? Ive come up against minor spelling differences (traumatise/ traumatize neighbour/ neighbor) and since I use English spelling, I wonder if what I write looks like spelling errors to Americans. Also "gotten" sounds odd to my English ears, although I understand that far from being "modern" this is actually a more traditional Anglo-Saxon usage.


----------



## Linjeakel (Mar 17, 2010)

I do tend to notice these kinds of transgression, but language is a living evolving thing and what was once correct isn't always going to remain correct. Sometimes things which are technically right just _sound_ wrong, because common usage has changed the rules. It must be hard if English isn't your first language to grasp those kind of nuances. To use the OP's example, I would say 'a history of...' but 'an historical fact...' - the use of 'a' or 'an' with a word beginning with 'h' is one of those tricky ones where it sometimes sounds correct and other times just sounds ridiculous. You would never say 'an horse' but you would (at least _I_ would) say 'an hysterical woman'. I couldn't for the life of me say why one is right and the other isn't.

I think regardless of what people are taught, it's the language they hear around them in their homes and working environments which (that? ) has the most influence on them. And anyway - who gets to decide what's right and what's wrong?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Daphne said:


> Just out of interest: do you notice a difference between Australian English, American English and, well, English English? Ive come up against minor spelling differences (traumatise/ traumatize neighbour/ neighbor) and since I use English spelling, I wonder if what I write looks like spelling errors to Americans. Also "gotten" sounds odd to my English ears, although I understand that far from being "modern" this is actually a more traditional Anglo-Saxon usage.


We Yanks like to think we're smart enough to understand that the English spell somethings differently. Or that we do. Or something.  In fact, somewhere here we had a discussion about being annoyed when books are "Americanized" for us (case in point, the Harry Potter series).

Betsy


----------



## Daphne (May 27, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> We Yanks like to think we're smart enough to understand that the English spell somethings differently. Or that we do. Or something.  In fact, somewhere here we had a discussion about being annoyed when books are "Americanized" for us (case in point, the Harry Potter series).
> 
> Betsy


You Yanks must be smarter than me, because sometimes American spelling does look like a mistake to my eyes at first glance! Sorry - I'll brush up on my American. (I can't look at neighbor without itching to put a "u" in. I have a whole packet of them somewhere...

Re. The changes to Harry Potter - this could be regarded as patronising, I mean patronizing ... Oh, I give up... whatever happened to Esperanto?


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

John Stewart, on Wednesday night, did a short report about the Queen at the UN. . . there were images in the video of people of various countries listening on the translators. . .He showed places like Germany, Korea, Chile . . . .and the United States.  And then, of course, made the obligatory joke about why does the US ambassador need to listen to a 'translation' of the Queen's speech which was being given, after all, in English.

I expect it wasn't really translated . . . . .probably just easier to hear properly through the headphones. . . .but it was quite an amusing visual. . . . . . .


----------



## libbyfh (Feb 11, 2010)

What a great question! As an author, I struggle with that all the time... I was taught NOT to split infinitives, HOW to properly use who and whom, and WHEN to use "in which" instead of where or some other word. The exception is dialogue, where, of course, you're recording how someone speaks, and it's fine to be colloquial. But in narrative I still think twice before I break the rules (which I'm doing more and more)... I guess I'm afraid someone's going to write me a nasty email about my poor grammar or somesuch. 

So it's very reassuring to hear that no one really cares!


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

I swear, one day I'll die of a blood vessel bursting in my brain while trying to decide between lay and lie.

David Dalglish


----------



## Dawn McCullough White (Feb 24, 2010)

I will admit to not understanding when to use "effect" or "affect".  I don't fully trust my own editing capacity which is why I have an editor.

Dawn


----------



## Dave Dykema (May 18, 2009)

"Laying" down or "lying" down kills me too. I usually go for "laid" down. It makes it more active too.

I used to try to get the correct whos and whoms in my manuscript, but realized virtually no one uses whom anymore, except when they quote "For Whom the Bell Tolls."

However, one thing EVERYONE around my part of the country says is "Where at?" I WILL NOT write that. To describe how weird that sounds, I usually sing "Scooby, Dooby Doo, Where Are You At?" People just frown and walk away, as though I'm insane.


----------



## austenfiend (Nov 17, 2009)

Using "an" before a word starting with 'h' has always troubled me - listening to newscasters say 'an historic event' drives me right out of my tree.  The rule is actually to use 'an' before words when the 'h' is silent (an honest mistake), use 'a' before words in which you hear the 'h' (a historic event).

"Lay" and "lie" has always confused me.  Years ago I heard someone say "things don't lie, people do".  So his thought was, you lay the book down, but you go to lie down for a nap.

Dave Dykema - I'm in complete agreement with you on "Where at".    "Where are you at?"  Arrggghhh!


----------



## Steph H (Oct 28, 2008)

libbyfh said:


> I guess I'm afraid someone's going to write me a nasty email about my poor grammar or somesuch.
> 
> So it's very reassuring to hear that no one really cares!


Except, of course, there are _always_ those who think they're the grammar police and will zing you for it.  Most people don't care, but someone always will. It's human nature....


----------



## Thalia the Muse (Jan 20, 2010)

I have spent years earning a living as a copy-editor, and I can clear up the lay/lie problem! This one of the most common mistakes I see, along with misplaced apostrophes and "he and I" when you mean "him and me," so apparently it confuses everyone.

To lay is transitive -- that's a fancy way of saying it's something you do TO something else. You lay an egg, lay down your book, lay your weary head to rest. 

To lie is intransitive -- a fancy way of saying that you don't do it to something else, you just do it. You lie down, you lie on the bed.

The reason that everyone gets confused is the past of "lie" is "lay." I lie down every night, but last night I LAY down. The past tense of "to lay" is "laid" -- if I'm a chicken I like to lay eggs, and I just laid a big one. 

Does that help?

Affect/effect -- also confusing because which you mean depends on context. Effect is a noun meaning a change as a result of something else -- the effect of a mosquito bite is itching. Affect as a noun (which you will rarely use) means someone's emotional demeanor -- the stoic man's affect did not reveal his inner turmoil. But the verb "to affect" means to create an effect, basically -- you act on something in such a way as to change it. The verb "to effect" means "to implement." Most commonly, what you want is the verb "to affect" and the noun "effect."

These aren't grammar issues -- they're just plain choosing the wrong word, because of an understandable confusion between similar words. And yep, this is why people pay editors. We will fix all this stuff, plus change your "utilize" to "use" 90% of the time and fix your "enormity"  when what you mean is "vastness." We will also tuck up your dangling participles. Short of that, Strunk and White will clear up whether you can split infinitives (go ahead and split when it sounds better!), plus this kind of usage problem. I know that lay/lie is in there, and affect/effect probably is, too.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

I do tend to notice many such incorrect usages, but some bother me more than others. And, of course, in dialogue, I _expect_ to see incorrect usage except for the very rare character (an English grammar teacher, perhaps?) who would be less inclined to partake of common usage (just as I do in everyday conversations).

Split infinitives and trailing prepositions tend to not [sic] bother me much, as they have become so commonly used now, and they never bothered me that much to begin with [sic]. Objective pronouns where subjective forms should be used, and vice versa, do tend to grab my notice and bother me. I'm especially bothered by what I think of as the sportscaster's subjective pronoun, as they often use the subjective form in an objective clause when there is a conjunction involved: "Bob gave gifts to Tom and I," even though without "Tom" in that example the same person would correctly say, "Bob gave gifts to me." The lie/lay/lain lay/laid/laid thing falls somewhere in between. I'll almost always notice incorrect usage, though it does not irk me quite as much as the subjective/objective pronoun thingy does.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

All I know is it wouldn't be the same if the Time Lord was Dr. Whom.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

austenfiend said:


> The rule is actually to use 'an' before words when the 'h' is silent (an honest mistake), use 'a' before words in which you hear the 'h' (a historic event).


Thank you! An before a voiced "h" drives me nuts. Unfortunately, it's one of things that you have to SAY out loud to figure out how it should be.


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

NogDog said:


> Split infinitives and trailing prepositions tend to not [six] bother me much, as they have become so commonly used now, and they never bothered me that much to begin with [sic]. Objective pronouns where subjective forms should be used, and vice versa, do tend to grab my notice and bother me. I'm especially bothered by what I think of as the sportscaster's subjective pronoun, as they often use the subjective form in an objective clause when there is a conjunction involved: "Bob gave gifts to Tom and I," even though without "Tom" in that example the same person would correctly say, "Bob gave gifts to me." The lie/lay/lain lay/laid/laid thing falls somewhere in between. I'll almost always notice incorrect usage, though it does not irk me quite as much as the subjective/objective pronoun thingy does.


Thank you for writing all that so I don't have to. 


Spoiler



This way YOU get accused of being the grammar police, for a change.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Ann in Arlington said:


> All I know is it wouldn't be the same if the Time Lord was Dr. Whom.












I'm a huge Dr. Whom fan.



Thalia the Muse said:


> To lay is transitive -- that's a fancy way of saying it's something you do TO something else. You lay an egg, lay down your book, lay your weary head to rest.
> 
> To lie is intransitive -- a fancy way of saying that you don't do it to something else, you just do it. You lie down, you lie on the bed.
> 
> ...


Yes! That helps a ton. I'm printing this out and hanging it on my wall. Very nice. Thanks!



> Affect/effect -- also confusing because which you mean depends on context. Effect is a noun meaning a change as a result of something else -- the effect of a mosquito bite is itching. Affect as a noun (which you will rarely use) means someone's emotional demeanor -- the stoic man's affect did not reveal his inner turmoil. But the verb "to affect" means to create an effect, basically -- you act on something in such a way as to change it. The verb "to effect" means "to implement." Most commonly, what you want is the verb "to affect" and the noun "effect."


This one I still don't get. Sorry. I usually just reword. Ha ha ha ha!

Vicki


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

And just to affect you more with the confusing effect of not being sure whether to use "affect" or "effect", the latter can also be a verb, as in "We are going to effect some changes around here where it comes to grammar and syntax."


----------



## Andra (Nov 19, 2008)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> All y'alls are ...


You managed to find one of my pet peeves - misuse of the word y'all. 
Y'all is short for "you all" and here in Texas, that can be both singular and plural. It's just y'all either way you use it.
(You do get some serious bonus points for knowing how to spell it correctly though. Ya'll is totally wrong.)


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

Andra said:


> You managed to find one of my pet peeves - misuse of the word y'all.
> Y'all is short for "you all" and here in Texas, that can be both singular and plural. It's just y'all either way you use it.
> (You do get some serious bonus points for knowing how to spell it correctly though. Ya'll is totally wrong.)


Does that mean that "all y'all" is never correct?


----------



## The Hooded Claw (Oct 12, 2009)

Hmm....I was tawt to tawk by the finest speakers of Okie, and we always learned that y'all was strictly second person* plural*! Y'all are quaht raht about the spelling, though!


----------



## Andra (Nov 19, 2008)

Susan in VA said:


> Does that mean that "all y'all" is never correct?


At least where I come from, you won't hear "all y'all" because "y'all" already includes "all". You might hear someone say "you all".
Claw, I do hear it aimed at individuals sometimes, but that is probably another local variation...


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

Ladies and gents, I’m happy to see that I’m among friends. All y’alls are real writers instead of teachers and preachers, even if you tend to believe the teachers and preachers.

Myself, I come to writing from a linguistics background. Thus I have a different point of view on usage than those from a literature background.

First a metaphor. Linguists are scientists and writers/teachers of literature are priests. In our modern secular times this probably sounds condescending or even insulting to writers/teachers. That’s not my intention. In fact, I consider religion, which deals with the spiritual, theoretically superior to science, which deals with the physical. IE, I consider your pursuits superior to my own.

That being said, I would not go to a priest with a question about science. I’d go to a scientist. Likewise, you shouldn’t believe what your English teachers told you about English. What they told you about literature, certainly. By all means. But don’t worry overly much about their “rules” of grammar.

What linguists know but your teachers don’t is this…

You, when you were a child, recreated in your brain, using nothing but the chaos of vocal sounds around you, a language marvelous in its depth, complexity, and expressive capacity far beyond the little imaginings of the rule-makers or the system defined by their silly rules. Sadly, the adult brain, despite its wonderful ability to analyze, has lost that ability to recreate language. This accounts for our accents and horrendous mistakes (kindly forgiven by natives) when we speak a foreign language.

I’d say to several posters who commented on the “technically correct” but somehow unnatural English advocated by teachers that, in fact, such English is NOT technically correct. Feel free to write what feels right without too much heed paid to the so-called rules of grammar. These rules were made by priests posing as scientists, and they didn’t have a clue. With that incendiary comment I must bid you all good day! I’m off the soap box, outta here. But I’ll be back this evening (Japanese time) with, certainly, some comments on the specifics.

Cheers!

Mark Ledbetter


----------



## The Hooded Claw (Oct 12, 2009)

Andra said:


> At least where I come from, you won't hear "all y'all" because "y'all" already includes "all". You might hear someone say "you all".
> Claw, I do hear it aimed at individuals sometimes, but that is probably another local variation...


I've also heard it directed to individuals, and I always grit my teeth when I hear it, till I realize what I'm doing and laugh at myself (inside, not openly).


----------



## The Hooded Claw (Oct 12, 2009)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> I'd say to several posters who commented on the "technically correct" but somehow unnatural English advocated by teachers that, in fact, such English is NOT technically correct. Feel free to write what feels right without too much heed paid to the so-called rules of grammar. These rules were made by priests posing as scientists, and they didn't have a clue.












Righting the Mother Tongue, by David Wolman

I read the above book a couple of years ago, and it is a history of the English language from just that viewpoint--That there are two schools of thought, grammarians who want to prescribe formally correct rules of English that are brought down from Mt. Sinai, and those who feel that "what is being used is what is correct." Very interesting history of their battles over the years.


----------



## nomesque (Apr 12, 2010)

Daphne said:


> Just out of interest: do you notice a difference between Australian English, American English and, well, English English? Ive come up against minor spelling differences (traumatise/ traumatize neighbour/ neighbor) and since I use English spelling, I wonder if what I write looks like spelling errors to Americans. Also "gotten" sounds odd to my English ears, although I understand that far from being "modern" this is actually a more traditional Anglo-Saxon usage.


Yes, I usually do notice.

People have, on occasion, made comments about the 'bad spelling' in my work. This irritates me because a) it's Australian spelling, b) my spelling's pretty damn good and c) I always mention the 'Aussie spelling' thing in the foreword. My funniest 'dodgy review' lately commented that it was silly for me to use the f-word in all its 'glory' every paragraph, then get delicate about 'ass' by spelling it 'arse'. *head-slap*


----------



## D.A. Boulter (Jun 11, 2010)

I notice that stuff and sometimes it bugs me, other times it doesn't. My father was a great one for 'proper grammar'. So, my brother and I'd often taunt him.

Me: Me and Greg are going to the store.
Dad: *Who's* going to the store?
Me: Oh, sorry. Greg and me are going to the store.

I always notice the following construction: He is bigger than me.
Yes, it bugs me.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Don't forget Cairo, IL (pronounced Kay-ro).


----------



## Dave Dykema (May 18, 2009)

Loved the Arsh story.


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

I was raised to never split infinitives, but not too many years ago, I read that the rule was invented by some 19th century twit who wanted to make English closer to Latin. In Latin, however, (and Spanish, and Italian, and probably French) an infinitive is one word. You can't split it!

This same twit put the silent "b" in "doubt" and "debt" because the Latin words had a b in them, but one that was pronounced, not silent. That kind of grammatical meddling is silly, if you ask me.


----------



## The Hooded Claw (Oct 12, 2009)

In Oklahoma, we have the town of Miami, pronounced "Mi-ahm-uh".  That's actually the official pronunciation, not just accent.


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

Daphne: Re. The changes to Harry Potter - this could be regarded as patronising, I mean patronizing ...

Mark: In one of the earlier books the kids are eating satsumas. In America, satsuma would work only for original Southerners, but not for new (or young?) Southerners. So in the American version satsumas became, of all things, peanuts. How many of you know what a satsuma is? Brits do. Old Southerners do. Aussies?

Half-Orc: I swear, one day I'll die of a blood vessel bursting in my brain while trying to decide between lay and lie.

Mark: I lay down, she lied down. I dove into the water, he dived. Variation is the spice of life. Of course, depending on who we are writing for and what we are writing, we have to make concessions to the standard. But for the words that are in flux I tend to go with what is natural for me.

Autenfiend: 'an historic event' drives me right out of my tree.

Mark: That “rule” was invented by people who didn’t pronounce h in history, at a time when their dialect happened to be the prestige dialect. Prestige moved to h-pronouncers but the rule stayed put. “An ‘istory” is great. “An history” makes no sense at all according to the REAL rules of English phonetics that we all taught ourselves when we were children.

Dave and Austen: "Where are you at?"  Arrggghhh!

Mark: Hey guys, live and let live! Not everyone uses the current prestige dialect, and English is much richer for it.

Victorine: To lay is transitive.

Mark: Well, for some people, anyway. But not everyone.

Andra: Y'all is short for "you all" and here in Texas, that can be both singular and plural.  It's just y'all either way you use it. (You do get some serious bonus points for knowing how to spell it correctly though.  Ya'll is totally wrong.)

Mark: English could use a plural “you.” And when a language needs something it generally develops it spontaneously. In America, “you guys” is probably the most common plural outside the South. In the South things are more interesting. Usage shifts the further south you go, or so I’ve read.

Outer reaches of the South: you (sing or plural), y’all (plural).
Middle South: y’all (sing or plural), all y’all (plural).
Deep South: all y’all (sing or plural), all y’alls (plural)

Susan: Does that mean that "all y'all" is never correct?

Mark: Susan, you’re a Virginian? What do all y’all say over there?

Claw: there are two schools of thought, grammarians who want to prescribe formally correct rules of English that are brought down from Mt. Sinai, and those who feel that "what is being used is what is correct." 

Mark: Linguists call the schools Prescriptive Grammar and Descriptive Grammar. Once you have studied linguistics it is near impossible to be a Prescriptivist anymore.

R. Reed: I was raised to never split infinitives, but not too many years ago, I read that the rule was invented by some 19th century twit who wanted to make English closer to Latin. In Latin, however, (and Spanish, and Italian, and probably French) an infinitive is one word. You can't split it!

Mark: It wasn’t just a single twit. The entire intellectual establishment a few hundred years ago was dreadfully upset that English “had no grammar.” Yes, they actually believed that. The only grammar they had studied was Latin (the “perfect” language) and they couldn’t conceive of anything else. So they tried to force English into Latin forms. Sometimes that required inventing rules out of whole cloth, like “no split infinitives” and “no sentence-ending prepositions.” Sometimes it involved reviving inflected forms of Old English (like whom) even though Modern English indicates case perfectly well through word order and prepositions. Nobody EVER mistakes an Objective Who for a Subject because the intended meaning is always absolutely clear. In Old English, with its flexible word order, that was not true. So, in Old English, “who” had 5 or 6 different forms whereas now we have only two forms (who and whose) or three if you count whom.

Claw: In Oklahoma, we have the town of Miami, pronounced "Mi-ahm-uh".  That's actually the official pronunciation, not just accent.

Mark: There’s a technical term for that: overcorrection. When speakers of non-prestige dialects try to adjust to the prestige forms, they tend to “overcorrect.” People who said Ameriky would adjust to America. But they’d also adjust to Cincinnata (my grandpa), Missoura, and apparently Miama. When enough people do it, the overcorrection occasionally becomes the standard form (like Miama in Miami).

Here’s an example of overcorrection that probably all of us here do. In order to avoid that terrible word “ain’t” (originally a contraction of am not), our ancestors, newly arisen from poverty into the middle class, stopped using it even where it was normal. Consider tag questions:

She’s supposed to go, isn’t she?
They’re supposed to go, aren’t they?
I’m supposed to go, aren’t I?

Aren’t I?  It should clearly be ain’t I.

This overcorrection has become so solidly standardized that even now some readers probably don’t see what I’m getting at. Look again, without the negative: she is – is she. they are – are they. I am – are I.  Huh?

In closing, can I axe you all a question I just thought of? Who says nuclear and who says nucular? Our former president got pilloried for that one, but sounds flip-flopping is another linguistic phenomenon. (I forget the technical term, metathesis?) Bird used to be brid. Ask used to be acsian (aks – ian). So people who axe you a question are actually using the “original” pronunciation.

And with that I’ll retire from language lessons for today. Hope all y’all enjoyed at least some of it! If it appears that you did, I may jump in with some more.

Cheers

Mark Ledbetter


----------



## Daphne (May 27, 2010)

Re: In one of the earlier books the kids are eating satsumas. In America, satsuma would work only for original Southerners, but not for new (or young?) Southerners. So in the American version satsumas became, of all things, peanuts. How many of you know what a satsuma is? Brits do. Old Southerners do. Aussies?

The genius of JK Rowling is her invention of imaginative detail, which includes a whole lexicon of outlandish words. Since children (of all ages) were happy to take on board words like quidditch, boggart, muggle, wizengamot etc, as well as a wealth of Latin based spells, it's odd that someone felt that they wouldn't be able to manoeuvre round "satsuma"!


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

I have never heard of a satsuma.

So called "dangling participles" is another rule that I still follow most of the time, but I think is unnecessary.


----------



## Daphne (May 27, 2010)

R. Reed said:


> I have never heard of a satsuma.
> 
> So called "dangling participles" is another rule that I still follow most of the time, but I think is unnecessary.


Just out of interest - Satsuma used to be a Japanese province - and the type of tangerine grown there is (sometimes) called a satsuma. That's what I love about these threads - you can start off with grammar and end up in Japan. Mind you, I haven't the smallest idea what a "dangling participle" is. Does it require surgery?


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> Who says nuclear and who says nucular?


Having worked in the nuclear process control industry for 35+ years, I say "nuclear." I am disturbed by those who say "nucyular," but that's the tip of the iceberg.  

Mike


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Daphne said:


> Just out of interest: do you notice a difference between Australian English, American English and, well, English English? Ive come up against minor spelling differences (traumatise/ traumatize neighbour/ neighbor) and since I use English spelling, I wonder if what I write looks like spelling errors to Americans. Also "gotten" sounds odd to my English ears, although I understand that far from being "modern" this is actually a more traditional Anglo-Saxon usage.


I work for a Swedish company, Ericsson, and we're a global company who's official language is American English. The vast majority of my overseas colleagues do not speak English as their first language which can create interesting conversations when a global group gathers for a workshop or whatever. When I'm in Europe and South Asia, my English changes to include more British words. In China and Latin America, I tend to use my regular American accent just with less Texan. But I also use quite a few Swenglish phrases no matter where I am - since Swedes are everywhere in the company, we've all learned their version of the language.

When writing documents, my language can get rather messed up between English and American. I will use a more formal English for proper documents but with American spelling. For less formal documents or in emails (and depending on the audience) I sometimes write colloquially but I usually stay with a simplified language that does use too many synonyms or overly complex sentence structures.


----------



## nomesque (Apr 12, 2010)

T.L. Haddix said:


> Nomesque,
> 
> Please forgive a dumb blonde question but I've often wondered - is 'arse' pronounced arrrrse or assssss? Seriously.


The R is definitely pronounced. We use the english 'arrs' pronunciation, but use 'ass' (pronounced assss) for the donkey-type critter 



Mark Ledbetter said:


> Mark: In one of the earlier books the kids are eating satsumas. In America, satsuma would work only for original Southerners, but not for new (or young?) Southerners. So in the American version satsumas became, of all things, peanuts. How many of you know what a satsuma is? Brits do. Old Southerners do. Aussies?


I knew of them, but so vaguely I had to google (hey look, verbification!) them to remember exactly what type of food they were. Brit friends, you see.



Mark Ledbetter said:


> Mark: English could use a plural "you." And when a language needs something it generally develops it spontaneously.


Over here it's - *wince* youse. eg "are youse coming?" I know, language in transition - but I've been conditioned to hate that one. Mum would've beaten me round the head with a dictionary if I'd used it. Less punishment for swearing... 



Mark Ledbetter said:


> Ask used to be acsian (aks - ian). So people who axe you a question are actually using the "original" pronunciation.


Now THAT's an interesting one. 'Aks' (although Aussies put an invisible r in there - arks and arsk) was my mother's other 'worse than swearing' thing. Both of them very common where I grew up, in the country.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

BTW, here in NJ there is no y'all (except from southern expatriates who have not yet gotten acclimated). However, certain segments of the NJ population have the enchanting 2nd person plural: "youse guys".


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

NogDog said:


> BTW, here in NJ there is no y'all (except from southern expatriates who have not yet gotten acclimated). However, certain segments of the NJ population have the enchanting 2nd person plural: "youse guys".


In SW Michigan of all places, I grew up with 'Youze guys' and 'Youze guyses' but I dropped them immediately after moving to Texas. I much prefer 'Y'all' - especially after I learned the plural is 'All y'all'.


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

Daphne said:


> Mind you, I haven't the smallest idea what a "dangling participle" is. Does it require surgery?


Well, I misrememberized my childhood grammar lessons. I was thinking of sentences like "India is the country she came from." I was always told to make it, "India is the country from which she came."
However, that is NOT a dangling participle.

Googling (what would my English teacher have said about that word?) "dangling participle" made me remember that when you use an "ing" word you have to match it to a subject. The example I saw was "Flitting among the flowers, the football player watched the bees." Well, the football player wasn't flitting, and he might object to you saying that he was. The participle, the "ing" word, seems to describe the wrong subject.

Did anyone else here get the Roberts English system in grade school? It was around in the 1960's. It was sort of the New Math of English. My grade school used it, but my high school used the traditional system. My freshman English class was hard because the teacher expected me to know stuff like diagramming a sentence, which I had never heard of. Or, of which I had never heard. Strange thing was, the two schools were in the same school district.

As for Latin being the perfect language, that was only because it was preserved in amber by the church and scholars. If it had been allowed to live and breathe, it would have become, well, Italian.


----------



## Imogen Rose (Mar 22, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> I swear, one day I'll die of a blood vessel bursting in my brain while trying to decide between lay and lie.
> 
> David Dalglish


Lol, I pretty much did! I have just gone through a bunch of edits... decided to stop worrying about this too much... at least in the conversational bits, just make it sound real....

I was a struggle inserting "Yeh and Yup" instead of "yes" in bits as I never use them...


----------



## Imogen Rose (Mar 22, 2010)

NogDog said:


> BTW, here in NJ there is no y'all (except from southern expatriates who have not yet gotten acclimated). However, certain segments of the NJ population have the enchanting 2nd person plural: "youse guys".


Hi there! I am in NJ as well... my pet peeve is "carmel" instead of "caramel" from the NJeans.


----------



## Lyndl (Apr 2, 2010)

My latest pet peeve is "bored of"  as in  "I'm bored of watching TV"


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Andra said:


> At least where I come from, you won't hear "all y'all" because "y'all" already includes "all". You might hear someone say "you all".
> Claw, I do hear it aimed at individuals sometimes, but that is probably another local variation...


I've heard the standard usage of y'all means you if there's just one person standing there. But it can mean 'all of you' if there are several people. But it could still mean just one person. So if you want to be sure that people know you mean everyone, the better usage is "all y'all". This is standard in northern Kentucky.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Ann in Arlington said:


> I've heard the standard usage of y'all means you if there's just one person standing there. But it can mean 'all of you' if there are several people. But it could still mean just one person. So if you want to be sure that people know you mean everyone, the better usage is "all y'all". This is standard in northern Kentucky.


I spent one week in KY for a band camp with the high school band I would be student teaching with that fall, and I think I was using y'all for the next 3 months or so back in OH. Besides being useful, it's just kind of fun to say.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

NogDog said:


> I spent one week in KY for a band camp with the high school band I would be student teaching with that fall, and I think I was using y'all for the next 3 months or so back in OH. Besides being useful, it's just kind of fun to say.


It IS quite useful!. . . .especially just in every day language. Many semi-yanks who've adopted it definitely use it to distinguish between a singular you and a plural you. It's just clearer! Here in NoVa I usually hear YOU for singular and YOU ALL, not contracted, for plural.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

It's pretty much a North Texas standard to say 'all y'all' as a plural.  I think its fun to say and a good clarification when addressing a group.  But then 'fixin' is a perfectly acceptable word here too.  

Actually, 'fixin' is a bit of an measuring stick for those of us transplanted from the north.  It's proof we've crossed over and intend to stay .... 

Another bit of proof that we intend to stay is when we start referring to ourselves as a Texan when normal folks would say American.    I didn't understand that al all when I first moved down here, but I now do it myself ....


----------



## Merlilu (Feb 23, 2010)

This is great!!!! My big problem is when to use take and bring.  ie. Do you bring a bottle of wine to the party or do you take a bottle of wine to the party?  I understand when you are requesting someone to bring an item to you or take something from you - can anyone let me know the correct usage in other circumstances?


----------



## Steph H (Oct 28, 2008)

Geoffrey said:


> It's pretty much a North Texas standard to say 'all y'all' as a plural. I think its fun to say and a good clarification when addressing a group. But then 'fixin' is a perfectly acceptable word here too.


On the other hand, I was born and raised in North Texas (well, moved here when I was 5 and that was 40 years ago), and I pretty much never say 'all y'all'. It's just 'y'all' for the plural, and 'you' for a singular. I never use 'y'all' for singular. So I guess even standards are meant to be broken. 

(Then again, all my mid-West and Yankee friends say I don't have a Texas accent either, despite 45 years of living here and talking *like* one....)


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

I lived in North Carolina for several years, and "y'all" was addressed to one person or several. I don't think I've heard "all y'all" except from African Americans.


----------



## Daphne (May 27, 2010)

Geoffrey said:


> I work for a Swedish company, Ericsson, and we're a global company who's official language is American English. The vast majority of my overseas colleagues do not speak English as their first language which can create interesting conversations when a global group gathers for a workshop or whatever. When I'm in Europe and South Asia, my English changes to include more British words. In China and Latin America, I tend to use my regular American accent just with less Texan. But I also use quite a few Swenglish phrases no matter where I am - since Swedes are everywhere in the company, we've all learned their version of the language.
> 
> When writing documents, my language can get rather messed up between English and American. I will use a more formal English for proper documents but with American spelling. For less formal documents or in emails (and depending on the audience) I sometimes write colloquially but I usually stay with a simplified language that does use too many synonyms or overly complex sentence structures.


I think this makes you, if not multilingual (which you may be) but multi-Englished. Most Germans I meet speak very American English, mainly because they pick it up from Hollywood films. Having said that, my daughters learnt their German from watching German films (Lola rennt, Das Leben der anderen, Goodbye Lenin) and now watch so many Japanese anime that they are learning some spoken Japanese - albeit with a crazy vocabulary.


----------



## Daphne (May 27, 2010)

Well, I misrememberized my childhood grammar lessons. I was thinking of sentences like "India is the country she came from." I was always told to make it, "India is the country from which she came."
However, that is NOT a dangling participle.

I'm charmed by the idea of a dangling participle. I'm now a firm believer in the dangling participle and shall try and use one in at least one sentence a day. I will confess now that grammatical terminology is a mystery to me (shh, don't tell the others on the thread) I just go by ear - if it sounds OK, I'll assume it is.


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

There are also colloquialisms that make it into wide usage, and they grate my nerves. "Waiting on" means you are waiting while you are on something, like a platform or a couch. Or, you are a server, waiting on a customer. It does not mean "waiting for". Unless it suddenly does - which it seems to, to my endless dismay.

My son came home with this one, and I thought he'd made it up because he was little. Then I started hearing it everywhere, including TV. "It happened on accident." When did that surface? It's cringe-worthy.

There's more. I could go on for days. I was a technical writer for years, which is an invitation to neurosis. I'm only now recovering.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Speaking of colloquialisms....  do you wait "in"  a line or "on" a line?


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Nell Gavin said:


> There are also colloquialisms that make it into wide usage, and they grate my nerves. "Waiting on" means you are waiting while you are on something, like a platform or a couch. Or, you are a server, waiting on a customer. It does not mean "waiting for". Unless it suddenly does - which it seems to, to my endless dismay.
> 
> My son came home with this one, and I thought he'd made it up because he was little. Then I started hearing it everywhere, including TV. "It happened on accident." When did that surface? It's cringe-worthy.
> 
> There's more. I could go on for days. I was a technical writer for years, which is an invitation to neurosis. I'm only now recovering.


Generally I'm fairly tolerant of such things, but there are a few that can get to me. I think my most irksome one now is the use of "was like" in place of "said", e.g. "And he was like, 'Dude, that's awesome!'" There's a TV commercial (for Rogaine, I think?) that has a 30- or 40-something man using that expression, and it drives me up the wall every time it comes on. It was almost cute when I heard it from some "Valley girls" and such in a few comedy movies, but now...ugh!


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

Geoffrey said:


> I work for a Swedish company, Ericsson, and we're a global company who's official language is American English. The vast majority of my overseas colleagues do not speak English as their first language which can create interesting conversations when a global group gathers for a workshop or whatever.


I used to be a software product manager, and my programmers were frequently from somewhere else. Usually Asia, like Vietnam or China. We were in Texas, which has its own way of doing things. I recall someone giving the Chinese programmer instructions in Texan-ese, and the words were the exact opposite of what she meant (I wish I could recall her exact words - this was a priceless example of miscommunication). I knew what she meant, but the Chinese programmer did not. So he programmed the interface exactly the opposite of the way in which he had been instructed. The woman who gave the instructions was furious, because she didn't understand the literal meaning of her own words, and the programmer blew up at her. You have to be really, really careful when you're dealing with different languages, don't you? They hear what you say, not what you mean.


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

scarlet said:


> Speaking of colloquialisms.... do you wait "in" a line or "on" a line?


I wait "in line", unless I'm online and waiting.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

And then I was like, "what are all ya'll waiting in line for?" and they were like, "we got bored of watching tv."


----------



## The Hooded Claw (Oct 12, 2009)

scarlet said:


> Speaking of colloquialisms.... do you wait "in" a line or "on" a line?


Birds sitting between utility poles wait on line (really on A line, I know). The rest of us wait in line!

Seriously, I don't believe vie ever heard of waiting on line. I understand Brits cue up, though I'm not really familiar with it. Or is it queue up? I forget.


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

By the way, Scarlet kindly informs me the kids were eating walnuts in the American HP, not peanuts (and of course satsumas in England). Satsuma was a former semi-independent province in southern Kyushu in Japan. Japanese know satsuma-imo (sweet potato) but mandarin oranges are mikan. The wife of an American diplomat in old Satsuma took some mikans home with her and called them satsumas. They became huge in the early 20th century, with satsuma orchards springing up all over the South (many were destroyed by early frost a few years later). Even now there are towns called Satsuma in Florida and Alabama. Japanese are shocked to learn that Satsuma High School (google it) is in Alabama, not Kagoshima.

Merlilu: Do you bring a bottle of wine to the party or do you take a bottle of wine to the party?

Mark: You “sound” like a native speaker but that’s a non-native’s question. Native speakers rarely notice, but go/come and take/bring can be quite difficult. “I’ll come over at 9 and bring some beer with me.” Uhh, shouldn’t you be “going” over and “taking” the beer if you are leaving where you are at and going somewhere else? Nope. Not if you’re speaking English. To (partially) answer your question, Merlilu, English speakers often place themselves in the listener’s position when using go/come/take/bring. So go becomes come and take becomes bring. (For those who noticed, sorry for the “at” after “where”!)

Geoffrey: I work for a Swedish company, Ericsson, and we're a global company who's official language is American English…

Mark: AMERICAN English? Interesting. English has become the international Lingua Franca of the world. Many non-English companies use English as their official in-house language. But specifying specifically American English is interesting. Especially when, as you point out, it’s actually Swenglish, in your case.

English, in fact, is well on its way to no longer being the possession of English speakers. The first signs of a flood of influences from around the world are already altering the language.

Nell: You have to be really, really careful when you're dealing with different languages, don't you? They hear what you say, not what you mean.

Mark: Yes, International English is an altogether different and generally more literal, less colloquial version that takes some getting used to.

An Earlier Poster: bored of

Mark: Old English, which relied on inflections rather than word order and prepositions, hardly used prepositions. And we use them differently than our parents did. The language that children recreate in their minds is always a little bit different than the language around them. I’m guessing that “bored of” was patterned on “tired of” and “sick of” etc.

Nell: My son came home with this one, and I thought he'd made it up because he was little. Then I started hearing it everywhere, including TV. "It happened on accident." When did that surface? It's cringe-worthy.

Mark: Only cringe-worthy for us old people, I’m afraid. Once we all die, no one will be left to cringe. In fact, your children’s children will be surprised to hear that “happen on accident” was once a mistake. Btw, having been out of the US for 30 years, I haven’t heard “on accident”. Interesting. Probably modeled on “on purpose”?

Sometimes these changes happen to regularize expressions (on accident, bored of). Sometimes to bring language into a new balance (prepositions to compensate lost inflections). And sometimes, as mentioned earlier, a simple “mistake” becomes standard through overcorrection (I’m supposed to go, aren’t I). Here’s another example, part mistake and part regularization. Until fairly recently you could say: “I got it for nothing” or “I got it free” but not “I got it for free.” That last was a jocular variation that became so common in the 1940s that kids thought it was for real. And now it is.

NogDog: I think my most irksome one now is the use of "was like" in place of "said", e.g. "And he was like, 'Dude, that's awesome!'" There's a TV commercial (for Rogaine, I think?) that has a 30- or 40-something man using that expression, and it drives me up the wall every time it comes on. It was almost cute when I heard it from some "Valley girls" and such in a few comedy movies, but now...ugh!

Mark: You can also use “go” for said. Some quotes from a Newsweek interview of Academy nominees a couple of years ago:

George Clooney: She was like, “You were in that, were you?” And I was like, “Yep.” And she goes, “Because I cast that.”
Scottish Actor sitting next to George: “But even in Scotland I think there’s kids going, “I want to be a famous actor.”

(Notice the There’s for plural?)

You can also use like to emphasize: “It was, like, this big!” “There’s like 10 or 20 crazed demons running straight at me!”

Altogether a quite useful word! And surprisingly (thankfully?) difficult for non-native speakers to master. That’ll certainly change after it is included in textbooks in, like, twenty or thirty years.

Mark Ledbetter


----------



## Addie (Jun 10, 2009)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> Claw: In Oklahoma, we have the town of Miami, pronounced "Mi-ahm-uh". That's actually the official pronunciation, not just accent.
> 
> Mark: There's a technical term for that: overcorrection. When speakers of non-prestige dialects try to adjust to the prestige forms, they tend to "overcorrect." People who said Ameriky would adjust to America. But they'd also adjust to Cincinnata (my grandpa), Missoura, and apparently Miama. When enough people do it, the overcorrection occasionally becomes the standard form (like Miama in Miami).


I lived in Oklahoma for a couple of years and was told Miami, OK was named after the tribe, and the tribe pronounces it My-am-uh.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

AddieLove said:


> I lived in Oklahoma for a couple of years and was told Miami, OK was named after the tribe, and the tribe pronounces it My-am-uh.


Yeah, here in southwest MO, we kind of make fun of you my-am-ee and my-am-uh people. Sheesh. Learn to pronounce your own city.

David Dalglish


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Half-Orc said:


> And then I was like, "what are all ya'll waiting in line for?" and they were like, "we got bored of watching tv."


To quote a book I just finished, "I have a slap in my pocket that I haven't used yet." I think it has your name on it.


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

Half-Orc said:


> Yeah, here in southwest MO, we kind of make fun of you my-am-ee and my-am-uh people. Sheesh. Learn to pronounce your own city.
> 
> David Dalglish


And just how do you pronounce your state name? With an "i" or "a"?


----------



## nomesque (Apr 12, 2010)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> Geoffrey: I work for a Swedish company, Ericsson, and we're a global company who's official language is American English&#8230;
> 
> Mark: AMERICAN English? Interesting. English has become the international Lingua Franca of the world. Many non-English companies use English as their official in-house language. But specifying specifically American English is interesting. Especially when, as you point out, it's actually Swenglish, in your case.


LOL. Ditto with my employer, a European/American hybrid. Basically - the Europeans don't much care which version of English we use, the Americans DO. So we humour the poor folk and write American for them 



Mark Ledbetter said:


> English, in fact, is well on its way to no longer being the possession of English speakers. The first signs of a flood of influences from around the world are already altering the language.


ROTFL. So what's changed? People have been stomping their own words into the English language for centuries 

Hey, speaking of transitions, I have another for you. 'Versing'. As in, "We're versing the Swans in football tonight!" (ie, the root word is 'versus') *private shudder* Yes, it's logical. Yes, I'm sure I'll get used to it. But dear Lord! Versing


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

Nomesque: "We're versing the Swans in football tonight!" (ie, the root word is 'versus') *private shudder* Yes, it's logical. Yes, I'm sure I'll get used to it. But dear Lord! Versing

Mark: Thanks for the translation! LOL. BTW, whts ROTFL? I C it a lot. Jst dont no wht it mns. (cells phones r taking written language N2 all kinds of new territory, 2)

Nomesque: So what's changed? People have been stomping their own words into the English language for centuries

Mark: True, but it’s different now. First it was invaders who suppressed us (Danes, French). Then it was the invaded who needed to talk to us (Indians, Indians, Indonesians etc etc). But now it’s people talking to each other even when we’re not around. Chinese and Brazilian businessmen speak English to each other. Italian guys woo German girls in Venetian cafes in English (thinking of the next table over a few years back). And after a while all these foreigners begin to take over what was once clearly ours. At least we can keep our local variations, which seems to be a developing theme of this thread.

Mark Ledbetter


----------



## Bigal-sa (Mar 27, 2010)

I find "y'all" pretty irritating, especially in the written word. It *is* a colloquialism and very specific to certain areas of the USA. In a book I recently battled to finish, y'all was totally overused.

I also hate the use of an before some "h" words, especially history and it's derivatives.

@Mark L: ROTFL - roll on the floor laughing. Was in use way before cellphones 

@Nomesque: Being a Safrican, I feel your pain with the language differences. I had to deal with student essays and it was not easy to convince the students that the Oxford English Dictionary contained the spelling I was after, not the WWW.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

intinst said:


> And just how do you pronounce your state name? With an "i" or "a"?


The school I was teaching at took a vote with the kids. It split 50/50 either way. Just shows half our kids are dumb . And it's an "i" dangit!!!!

David Dalglish


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> Geoffrey: I work for a Swedish company, Ericsson, and we're a global company who's official language is American English&#8230;
> 
> Mark: AMERICAN English? Interesting. English has become the international Lingua Franca of the world. Many non-English companies use English as their official in-house language. But specifying specifically American English is interesting. Especially when, as you point out, it's actually Swenglish, in your case.
> 
> English, in fact, is well on its way to no longer being the possession of English speakers. The first signs of a flood of influences from around the world are already altering the language.


It's a matter of spelling, really. Do we have repair centers or repair centres? Is an order a Return Material Authorisation or Return Material Authorization? (I gave it away, yes, I work in Repair) .... and since no one seems to know when to use 'bespoke' in a sentence, it wasn't that difficult a decision ...



nomesque said:


> LOL. Ditto with my employer, a European/American hybrid. Basically - the Europeans don't much care which version of English we use, the Americans DO. So we humour the poor folk and write American for them


I've been working there for 15 years now and I do find more and more British popping into both my spoke and written language. for example I use all those silent u's when I'm not paying attention to my fingers - favourite, behaviour, etc .... but the 's' versus zed thing I just cannot do. It just feels too wrong.

Now, I have no problem reading it when someone else uses it, I just can't do it myself.


----------



## austenfiend (Nov 17, 2009)

-'In line' versus 'on line': my husband is from New York, apparently they say on line.  We've been disagreeing on this for 22 years.

-overusage of 'like': this makes me want to throw something.  I tend to notice it more with girls.  In the carpool, one of the girls would be telling a story, using the word like about every second word.  My son, bless him, said "Do you know how many times you said 'like'?  I don't even know what you were talking about you said it so much!" (I was glad I didn't have to say it!).  Thankfully she took it to heart and is now more conscious of it and tries to correct herself.

-Axe a question - I'm sorry, that just really bugs me.  There is, however, a wonderfully funny Catherine Tate UTube skit where she says, "Can I axe you a question?  I want to axe you a question.  Can I just axe you a question?"  Cracks me up every time.

-'goes' instead of 'said' - I recall (vaguely, since it was LONG ago) my mom calling me on this one.  It was a big problem for me at that time apparently.


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

NogDog said:


> Don't forget Cairo, IL (pronounced Kay-ro).


And_ Sault _Ste. Marie, Michigan, pronounced _Soo_...


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> Mark: In one of the earlier books the kids are eating satsumas. In America, satsuma would work only for original Southerners, but not for new (or young?) Southerners. So in the American version satsumas became, of all things, peanuts. How many of you know what a satsuma is? Brits do. Old Southerners do. Aussies?


They sell satsumas at Whole Foods. Not_ that _exotic....


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> Susan: Does that mean that "all y'all" is never correct?
> Mark: Susan, you're a Virginian? What do all y'all say over there?


Technically, yes. But unlike Richmond or Norfolk or Charlottesville, Northern Virginia isn't_ really_ Virginia, it's effectively a suburb of DC. A majority of the people here are originally from someplace else. So you hear all sorts of strange things....


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

austenfiend said:


> -overusage of 'like': this makes me want to throw something. I tend to notice it more with girls. In the carpool, one of the girls would be telling a story, using the word like about every second word. My son, bless him, said "Do you know how many times you said 'like'? I don't even know what you were talking about you said it so much!" (I was glad I didn't have to say it!). Thankfully she took it to heart and is now more conscious of it and tries to correct herself.


This is a whole new topic... it's a variation of the mindset of ending every sentence with a question. "So, I was walking home this afternoon? And just when I got to the corner I remembered I left my book at school? So of course I had to walk back to get it?" You _never_ hear this from boys. It's not really a linguistic issue as much as a psychological one. And it's sad how early it sometimes starts.


----------



## Merlilu (Feb 23, 2010)

Okay - haven't heard anyone cringe over this one and I hear it several times a day....When someone wants you to repeat something you've just said - "Do What?"  My ears bleed.

BTW - Thanks Mark Ledbetter for helping to clarify the bring/take conundrum!!


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

She goes, "Can I axe you a question?"

... and then, like, I was all, "Do What?"


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

Geoffrey, Geoffrey, Geoffrey. Tsk, Tsk, Tsk


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

Using the written word, I have all sorts of hang-ups when I am reading. Verbally though, only one thing drives me nutso... when I hear someone say they are going to "aks" about something. My brain immediately shouts "the word is 'ASK' you moron!"


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

Susan: They sell satsumas at Whole Foods.  Not that exotic....

Mark: I guess the Harry Potter people don’t shop at Whole Foods! Great store, though. Been several times when back in the States.

Susan: it's a variation of the mindset of ending every sentence with a question.  "So, I was walking home this afternoon?  And just when I got to the corner I remembered I left my book at school? So of course I had to walk back to get it.

Mark: LOL. I know what you mean. There is a sentence-ending equivalent for girls here in Japan. Impossible to show in writing, but it’s so strong in carries over into their English conversation.

Susan: You never hear this from boys.

Mark: Researchers into women’s and men’s speech find a number of differences in vocabulary, grammar, and especially rhetorical style. Women’s speech tends to be less certain and more cooperative (which are actually two ways of saying the same thing.)

These things can shift with cultural shifts. In Japan there used to be quite clear differences between a whole range of vocabulary and grammatical patterns for men and women. Recently, though, this system is breaking down. For example, “eat” used to be Kuu for men and Taberu for women. Both sexes now use both, though men still use Kuu more.

Even with social equality, though, the certainty-cooperative aspect MIGHT be inbred. If it is, young people will find a way to express that in their rhetorical style no matter what us old guys feel about it.

Geoffrey: She goes, "Can I axe you a question?" ... and then, like, I was all, "Do What?"

Mark: Too funny! However, nothing to scoff at. I could probably spend several pages examining the linguistic depth of that example. You’ll never hear non-native speakers say that, not because it’s beneath them but because it’s too complex. Only natives can pull that one off.

BTackitt: Verbally though, only one thing drives me nutso... when I hear someone say they are going to "aks" about something. My brain immediately shouts "the word is 'ASK' you moron!"

Mark: Also too funny! Except for one thing, discussed a couple o’ pages back. ‘AKS,’ is correct, at least if you consider “original” forms correct. It was acsian (aks-ian) in Old English. In Middle English the –ian dropped off of verbs. And more recently, some people started inverting the k and s giving a new pronunciation: ask. That form became dominant, but there are still some “aks” sayers in parts of both England and the US. Apparently in Australia, too. An Aussie earlier pointed out the old AKS pronunciation is maintained, but sometimes with a twist: ARKS: I arksed you a question!

Mark L


----------



## nomesque (Apr 12, 2010)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> Apparently in Australia, too. An Aussie earlier pointed out the old AKS pronunciation is maintained, but sometimes with a twist: ARKS: I arksed you a question!


That's just our vowel pronunciation, though. Many words are pronounced with the - longer? - 'ar' sound rather than the American short? 'a' sound. 'Arse' instead of 'ass', castle said as 'carsel' instead of 'cassel' (although this varies regionally, oddly enough), arsk or arks instead of ask, etc. Mostly we follow the southern English 'a' pronunciation, I think.


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> Susan: You never hear this from boys.
> 
> Mark: Researchers into women's and men's speech find a number of differences in vocabulary, grammar, and especially rhetorical style. Women's speech tends to be less certain and more cooperative (which are actually two ways of saying the same thing.)
> 
> ...


I don't believe it's "inbred" or in any other form _natural_. I know half a dozen young girls (ages 6-12) who, as small children, were self-assured, confident, and certain in their responses when you asked them questions. As soon as they started school, that changed within a couple of months. For example, the answer to "What's five time six?" used to be a gleeful "I know that one, it's thirty!"..... and after exposure to peer and/or school expectations, that became a hesitant "Ummmmm.... I'm not sure, but I think that's.... thirty??"

I alternate between being sad and being angry about that development. I see it in most young girls I know, and I think that it has implications far beyond speech patterns.


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

Mark, Aks may once have been correct, but it still sounds uneducated to me. Probably because I usually hear it on TV when they are interviewing people that I don't believe have very high IQ's.


----------



## Dave Dykema (May 18, 2009)

Here's a quote from something I'm working on. It goes back to the lay/lie question. Is this correct?

"All the cult victims’ bodies were marked by indentations from lying on a bed of crystals."

Or should it be laying?

Thanks!


----------



## lonestar (Feb 9, 2010)

Interesting topic.  We use y'all and all y'all.  Personally, I use you for one person, y'all for more than one, but just a few, and all y'all for more than just a few people.  It sounds complicated but it works.

Close to my home is a town named Montague- pronounced Mon tag.  And there is Vashti- pronounced Vash tie.

I do believe the "I'm like" comes from school.  We never used that at home but my daughter used it, as did her friends.  I used to ask her- Are you LIKE that?  She's older and doesn't use it as much.  It isn't really great in the workplace.  I'm glad to hear it fading from her speech.

We use in line but my friends from New York use on line.  I was confused for awhile thinking they were on their computer.  They hated to hear anyone say they were fixin to do something.  That's just how people talk here.

Well, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.  Hope all y'all are having a wonderful day.


----------



## Martel47 (Jun 14, 2010)

I think someone around here has been reading too much Deborah Tannen.

Some subtleties are not really subtleties.  What do I mean?  Well, it's a subtle distinction. 

At some point we're talking prescriptive grammar versus generative grammar.  I once argued my way into an 'A' with a professor when I defended my use of a preposition at the end of a sentence as correct because it more accurately reflected the Germanic roots of English, if you consider certain verbs as having a removable affix, as many verbs in German do.  Not having a preposition at the end is a construct from French, especially, that was brought into English in order to "civilize" the language away from its Anglo-Saxon roots.  Granted, this argument only works in certain cases, with certain verbs, as far as the removable affix goes.  The argument could be made that ending a sentence with a preposition is perfectly acceptable, anyway.

This same sort of thing goes for who/whom or the use of "they/them" as a neuter alternative to using he/him or (s)he, or any other awkward construction that works better in writing but cannot be spoken.

Spoken language evolves fairly rapidly in comparison to written language, at least formal written language, but in some cases this is detrimental to our understanding of the written word, imho.


----------



## Guest (Jul 14, 2010)

Dawn McCullough White said:


> I will admit to not understanding when to use "effect" or "affect". I don't fully trust my own editing capacity which is why I have an editor.
> 
> Dawn


"Affect" is a verb (unless used synonymously with "mood").


----------



## patrisha w. (Oct 28, 2008)

Ann in Arlington said:


> All I know is it wouldn't be the same if the Time Lord was Dr. Whom.


 First I snickered and then I laughed aloud!
Patrisha


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

Not to beat (whack) a dead horse, but some more on sound flip-flopping, which has a long and noble ‘istory in all languages. IE, it’s a characteristic of human language that will never be gotten (got) rid of.

We’ve seen how brids became birds and how aks has almost completed its transformation to ask, except in the hinterlands of Australia, where it’s arks. Nuclear is likely on its way to becoming nuk-yuler, which bothers the nuclear (nukyuler) engineer some posts back, and probably many others here. Nuk-yuler never bothered Prez Bush, but it certainly bothered the media when he used it.

I wonder… Did engineers in the i-ron industry some 800 years get upset when their workers started calling their product i-earn? Oh, the i-ron-y (i-earn-y) of it. The workers pronunciation has now become standard and any engineer who followed spelling and called it i-ron would be laughed out of the industry!

Mark L


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> Nuk-yuler never bothered Prez Bush,


That's _not_ a recommendation.

Mike


----------



## D.A. Boulter (Jun 11, 2010)

William Campbell said:


> Considering Mr. White's advice to omit needless words, what is the opinion of "and then," after a comma, versus "then" going it solo? Isn't the word _and_ preceding _then_ somewhat redundant?
> 
> "He swung around, took two steps, and then opened the door."
> 
> ...


I prefer to just shake my had, then ignore anyone who comes from Warshington (state or city).


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

Mark L: Nuk-yuler never bothered Prez Bush,

Mike: That’s not a recommendation.

Mark L: Lol. However, come to think of it, I’ll take it as a recommendation. Anyone reading closely will have noticed I don’t give too much respect to the rule-makers, calling them things like “clueless.” I support the linguistic underdogs, especially when they are roasted in the media, and doubly especially when the media takes their ignorance of grammatical/phonetic “rules” as a sign actual ignorance.

D.A. quoting W. C.: Lastly, there is no 'r' in the word "idea." Never did get that one.

Mark L: r’s and h’s must be the two slipperiest English sounds.

British standard and American non-standard drop many of the r’s. Air in posher areas of England is eeh. Doesn't even sound like a word to me. On the other hand, British standard and Boston will often add r to a sentence-ending vowel to separate that word from a sentence-beginning vowel, much like what the rest of us do with ‘a’ and ‘an’ to separate vowels: “an” idea but “a” thought. Thus, JFK worried that “CubeR is a threat” and came up with a dandy idearR of how to take care of the problem.

D.A.: I prefer to just shake my head, then ignore anyone who comes from WaRshington.

Mark L: Check it out, Nomesque! We have those funny r’s too.

Nomesque points out: (In Australia) Many words are pronounced with the - longer? - 'ar' sound rather than the American short? 'a' sound. 'Arse' instead of 'ass', castle said as 'carsel' instead of 'cassel' (although this varies regionally, oddly enough), arsk or arks instead of ask, etc. Mostly we follow the southern English 'a' pronunciation, I think.

Mark L: Thanks. Next time an Aussie points out a majestic carsel to me, I’ll know that ‘e’s talking about.

Mark L: h’s have been disappearing for a thousand years. In England, outside the London area, I ‘ear that h’s are just about non-existent. Trask (Language: The Basics) gives the ‘istory. First we lost h’s that are followed by l, r, and n: hlud became loud; hlaf became loaf; hlaford became lord; hrofn became raven; hring became ring; hnutu became nut; hnappian became nap. Then the ‘gh’ versions of h disappeared from night, light etc. Then we lost h before w (but only after, weirdly, changing the spelling so that the w came first. It was never pronounced that way): hwit became (h-less) white; hwal became (h-less) whale; hwat etc became (h-less) what. All of the h pronouns have been h-less in unstressed positions for a thousand years: Give ‘er some; Can’t ‘e come earlier? Vehicle and annihilate lost their h’s relatively recently. And in a great part of the non-American non-Irish non-Scottish world, pretty much all the rest of the h’s are gone too.

'ave a good one!

Mark L


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> Mark L: Nuk-yuler never bothered Prez Bush,
> 
> Mike: That's not a recommendation.


President Carter said "nucular" too, and he served as an officer on Nuclear Submarines in the Navy.

I admit the pronunciation drives me up a wall . . . but I tried to teach someone to say it properly once and though he could say "new" and he could say "clear" when told to pronounce "new-clear". . . .he said "nucular". I felt like Henry Higgins. . . . . .


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

Susan in VA said:


> This is a whole new topic... it's a variation of the mindset of ending every sentence with a question. "So, I was walking home this afternoon? And just when I got to the corner I remembered I left my book at school? So of course I had to walk back to get it?" You _never_ hear this from boys. It's not really a linguistic issue as much as a psychological one. And it's sad how early it sometimes starts.


I think that question mark at the end of every sentence is a Canadian thing, like "eh". When I answer the phone at work, I always know what the speaker is Canadian because of that.


----------



## lonestar (Feb 9, 2010)

Most pronunciations don't bother me much, except for ideal for idea.  Don't get it.


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

Speaking of Canada, we once went to Quebec and met a very lovely author at a winery, where she was picking up her case of wine. She gave us a copy of her book, "Bonjour, Eh?" about Quebec, of which she had many copies in the trunk of her car.


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

Did y'all notice I wrote "of which"? I didn't do that on accident. It's, like, the right way to write. (I'm sorry. Do what?)


----------



## Dave Dykema (May 18, 2009)

Nell Gavin said:


> Did y'all notice I wrote "of which"? I didn't do that on accident. It's, like, the right way to write. (I'm sorry. Do what?)


You still used the adverb "lovely" (I'm not sure if "very" is, but I think so since it describes lovely and not the author) above.


----------



## Thalia the Muse (Jan 20, 2010)

"All the cult victims’ bodies were marked by indentations from lying on a bed of crystals."

Here you want "lying." The bodies were doing something themselves (even though they were dead!) -- they were lying. They would have been laying on the crystals if they had been producing eggs or laying out a nice lunch spread upon them.


----------



## Dave Dykema (May 18, 2009)

Thanks!


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Nell Gavin said:


> Did y'all notice I wrote "of which"? I didn't do that on accident. It's, like, the right way to write. (I'm sorry. Do what?)


Que?


----------



## D.A. Boulter (Jun 11, 2010)

Dave Dykema said:


> You still used the adverb "lovely" (I'm not sure if "very" is, but I think so since it describes lovely and not the author) above.


Actually, 'lovely' is an adjective. It describes the noun. An adverb describes a verb. I think, but am not sure, that the 'very' gets combined with the 'lovely' to make an adjectival phrase. Someone else can look that up -- or correct me.


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

Nell Gavin said:


> Did y'all notice I wrote "of which"? I didn't do that on accident. It's, like, the right way to write. (I'm sorry. Do what?)


Las nite, I downloaded me a sample of Nell's book, of which, I intend to by the real thing. She does right write, and that canna be on accident.


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> Las nite, I downloaded me a sample of Nell's book, of which, I intend to by the real thing. She does right write, and that canna be on accident.


Why thank you, Mark! I might could be really grateful if you'd point out any slips you find.


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

When my brother's first book was published, he promised me he was going to credit me in the Acknowledgments with the following: "To my loving sister, without whom's help I wrote this book." Then he chickened out.


----------



## Dave Dykema (May 18, 2009)

D.A. Boulter said:


> Actually, 'lovely' is an adjective. It describes the noun. An adverb describes a verb. I think, but am not sure, that the 'very' gets combined with the 'lovely' to make an adjectival phrase. Someone else can look that up -- or correct me.


Oh, gosh. You're right. Serves me right for trying to be cleaver and snotty! I just saw the "ly" and went into mock anti-adverb mode.


----------



## sandypeach (Oct 28, 2008)

There are a few (okay, many more than a few) subtleties that send me screaming into the night.  Some have already been mentioned here; like or goes for said and where is .... at, for instance.  Some I haven't seen mentioned are:

- fewer vs. less (you have less OF something, but fewer things)
- pronouncing the "t" in the word often (you don't do it in soften)
- tuna fish (whew, I'm glad it wasn't a tuna horse)
- hot water heater (the thing heats cold water, not hot)


There are more, but they just aren't springing to mind at the moment.  Yes, I drive my wife and children crazy when I scream corrections at the TV or movie.


----------



## Thalia the Muse (Jan 20, 2010)

One  that drives me crazy, and that I hear more and more often, is someone saying "the problem is, is  that" or "what I learned is, is that." 

Also, "in this day in age," "per say," and "flushing out" an idea. Some ideas SHOULD be flushed out, but they mean fleshed ...


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

Someone mentioned "idear," which I have heard. I worked with a man who said "ideal" for the same word. I knew the meaning he wanted because he talked about patenting his "ideal."


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

R. Reed said:


> Someone mentioned "idear," which I have heard. I worked with a man who said "ideal" for the same word. I knew the meaning he wanted because he talked about patenting his "ideal."


Do you remember "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn" with the reference to the man who said "terlet" instead of "toilet"?


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

I've been noticing a lot of false formality arising with "whilst,"  "amongst" and "admidst"

Scott


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

Nell Gavin said:


> Why thank you, Mark! I might could be really grateful if you'd point out any slips you find.


Only too happy to oblige. You write:

Henry wanted a woman who could challenge him, to whom he could talk, and with whom winning an argument was a true triumph.

Suggested change:

Henry wanted a woman who could challenge him, who he could talk to, who winning an argument with was a true triumph.

Ehh That's not exactly the kind of slip you were referring to? Well, that's what comes of soliciting help from strangers!

Everyone, despite our differences on what constitutes correct grammar, Nell's book Threads is worth reading. Good writing, good history, good story. And I strongly suspect that I'll discover upon finishing it, that it has a really good point to make.

Nell, not having your genius for storytelling, I write straight history. However, I also try to make it a good story with a point. Anyway, in Part One I have just a bit on Henry and Anne. I may put it up for your perusal. I'll call the thread Tudors or some such thing. Fingers crossed that you find no glaring historical slips, but please tell me if you do.

Mark L


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> Only too happy to oblige. You write:
> 
> Henry wanted a woman who could challenge him, to whom he could talk, and with whom winning an argument was a true triumph.
> 
> ...


Here's where we go with the archaic speech. I addressed it in another thread, where I said I rearranged the words in sentences to give the flavor of Renaissance speech patterns, without relying on archaic terms that most people don't understand. So, you're modernizing the language against my very careful efforts to suggest the 1500s without using "verily". Please keep that in mind as you read, because there's more of it. The narrative gets more modern later in the book, and I write sentences and phrases that end with prepositions, just as you suggest I do here. But she has to move past that period in history first.

As for glaring historical inaccuracies, there was only one, and I think I corrected in in the Kindle version. The rest of Anne's history is subject to a great deal of debate, and anyone who saw "The Other Boleyn Girl" thinks its me, not them, who's wrong. I was extremely careful about everything, and have biographies to back things up. Unfortunately, none of the biographies agree. I can only suggest to readers that they read another biography, and they'll find it there.

Unfortunately, there is no "History Check" the way there is a "Spell Check" and "Grammar Check". It's an arduous, grueling task to go line by line with a biography in your hand, checking your facts. I did that, and like I said, I missed one. A reader once indignantly pointed it out to me in a message that read "Historical Innacuracies" (sic) in the Subject line. Thank you, reader. As I recall, I made that change. But I'm not sure.

Also, at the end of the book, I have a list of historical things I purposely changed.

I also have a "The Story Behind the Book" prompted by questions, reviews and comments I received over the past 10 years or so.


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

Having said that, thank you very much for your kind words!!!!


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

scottnicholson said:


> I've been noticing a lot of false formality arising with "whilst," "amongst" and "admidst"
> 
> Scott


Those are mostly Brits. I don't think they use the words "while", "among" and "amid". Any Brits care to comment?


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

Nell, actually I have been taking note of your "archaic" usages, and you do it very well and, as far as I can tell, accurately. They are easy to read but clearly bring out the period atmosphere. As for my little "correction," I was just joking around. I "corrected" not only preps but whoms since I just happened to read that line right after a "whom" discussion here.

As for the historical accuracy bit, I wasn't refering to your story. I'm just assuming it's as accurate as it possibly could be within the confines of conflicting evidence and the requirements of the story. What I was refering to was my own books, about which I have less confidence. Book One of America's Forgotten History has a few episodes from English history including a bit about Henrys VII and VIII, a tiny bit on Anne, and some on Elizabeth. If it's not against the rules here, I thought I might put up a bit a let you find any glaring inaccuracies.

Have a good weekend!


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> As for the historical accuracy bit, I wasn't refering to your story. I'm just assuming it's as accurate as it possibly could be within the confines of conflicting evidence and the requirements of the story. What I was refering to was my own books, about which I have less confidence. Book One of America's Forgotten History has a few episodes from English history including a bit about Henrys VII and VIII, a tiny bit on Anne, and some on Elizabeth. If it's not against the rules here, I thought I might put up a bit a let you find any glaring inaccuracies.
> 
> Have a good weekend!


Well gosh. It's been 10 years since I finished Threads, and I've moved past the Tudors, so I may not be as adept at catching inaccuracies in your English history as you might like. I kind of flushed my brain when I started a second book. But I'm happy to give it a shot, knowing as I do that I might get shot down. The Tudors have a very virulent fan base. I knew that going into it, which is one of the reasons I was so frightened. Ye gods. They all read everything they can, and they take your slips personally. That period in history and the Civil War both have really tough audiences to write to.


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

Supposably. There's one.

My technical writing neurosis gave me fits whenever I read a book where the author used "which" instead of "that". Sometimes I couldn't even finish books that did it repeatedly. It's a particular problem with books written by Brits, where "which" is the standard usage when they mean "that". Also, older books tend to do that as well. Language didn't get a good scrubbing until the last couple of decades or so. 

And as I said, I'm recovering slowly. I can even occasionally write sentences in passive voice without gasping.

Also, one notable biography I used (but not too much) when I was researching Threads contained the word "extant" in virtually every paragraph, including descriptions of images and photographs. My mind shrieked. In fact, I hurled that particular book against a wall. When I went back to it, I attacked it with a Sharpee and blacked out "extant" until I ran out of ink.


----------



## austenfiend (Nov 17, 2009)

irregardless.  Even though it's technically a word, it's not a standard word.  It bothers me when people use it.


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

As a linguistic live and let live type, I’ll take a look at the short list of “misusages” a few posts back.

First, “less” for “fewer.”

I’ve noticed this one, too. Young people (including my son) often do it. Fewer may be on the way out. At one extreme, we have only one word: more. So it actually makes sense to have only one word at the other extreme: less.

Of course, using “less” for “fewer” will send most of us old guys “screaming into the night,” but once we are all dead, no one will even remember that “less” was once wrong with count nouns. Unless, of course, fewer is nominated as one of the small number of words, like whom, that English teachers spend decades, even centuries, and inordinate amounts of class time and media ink trying to preserve, long after they have died a natural death.

- pronouncing the "t" in the word often (you don't do it in soften)

I agree, it’s kinda weird, but weirdness does occasionally become standard. And writing sometimes influences the development of the weirdness. For example, the last sound of “laugh” and “tough” etc should have disappeared when the other “gh” sounds did (night, though etc). Influenced by spelling, though, the “gh” sound was changed to an f sound and “incorrectly” added to a few words. That incorrectness though has now become correct. It happens sometimes, and yet the language seems survive quite nicely.

- tuna fish (whew, I'm glad it wasn't a tuna horse)

At least a tuna is a fish! I suggest you don’t start thinking too deeply about starfish, shellfish, crayfish, jellyfish or cuttlefish.

Nell: Language didn't get a good scrubbing until the last couple of decades or so.

Mark: Really? I didn’t know. Starting with Bishop Lowth, the scrubbers have been diligently at work, with very little to show for it, for centuries. Have they now found some success? I rather doubt it. If you believe the scrubbers of each generation, English has clearly been degenerating for hundreds of years. Strangely, it has degenerated from being a rather insignificant language of a small island kingdom to become the language of the world. Quite a degeneration! (Maybe I better scrub supposedly and “that for which” before I put up Tudors for your perusal? Nah, you’ll forgive me!)


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> Nell: Language didn't get a good scrubbing until the last couple of decades or so.
> 
> Mark: Really? I didn't know. Starting with Bishop Lowth, the scrubbers have been diligently at work, with very little to show for it, for centuries. Have they now found some success? I rather doubt it. If you believe the scrubbers of each generation, English has clearly been degenerating for hundreds of years. Strangely, it has degenerated from being a rather insignificant language of a small island kingdom to become the language of the world. Quite a degeneration! (Maybe I better scrub supposedly and "that for which" before I put up Tudors for your perusal? Nah, you'll forgive me!)


Technical writing is where the scrubbing begins. Now that life has gotten complicated and we require instructions for everything, they made rules for clarity.

1. Never use a word that has more than one meaning if there is a word that only means one thing. For instance, you never use "start" unless you're writing, "Click Start." You use "begin". Only use "may" when you grant permission, or mean "possibly". Otherwise, you say "can" or "must". Never use "which" when you mean "that". "Which" compares two things ("Which one do you want?") or provides further explanation (The thing, which I put over there...). "That" means "that".

2. Never use a long word when there is a short one. "Utilize" is a bad word they warn you about in Day 1 of Technical Writer training. You say, "use". Utilize means nothing beyond "use", except that you want to sound professional and important. (It's a lip curler and an eye roller among technical writers.) This rule is hard for people with large vocabularies. You spend your early years rejecting the four-syllable word in search of the one-syllable word until the one-syllable word finally comes naturally.

3. Never, never, never write anything in passive voice, unless you don't want to point fingers or you sincerely do not know who does something. "The book was written" should be "Mary Smith wrote the book."

There's more. However, my point is that this simplified, clearer form of writing is beginning to make the rounds, particularly in e-mails where you won't read anything that doesn't get straight to the point.It had to. Nobody has time to search through reams of writing to find out where to ship the widgets. Our lifestyles have all changed, and writing is adapting to that.

Then it began to infiltrate literature, as publishers began to refuse to publish books over 100,000 words. How many hundreds of words can you remove, just by rewriting passive voice to active voice? Things like that have an influence.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Nell Gavin said:


> 2. Never use a long word when there is a short one. "Utilize" is a bad word they warn you about in Day 1 of Technical Writer training. You say, "use". Utilize means nothing beyond "use", except that you want to sound professional and important. (It's a lip curler and an eye roller among technical writers.) This rule is hard for people with large vocabularies. You spend your early years rejecting the four-syllable word in search of the one-syllable word until the one-syllable word finally comes naturally.


I fell into business writing and technical writing by accident back in the early '90's. I hated it. Smaller words. Removing unnecessary prepositional phrases, adverbs and adjectives. simple sentences. Blech. I had no training in it - just an evil managerial overlord - and had to learn to transform a writing style developed in a Catholic Liberal Arts university into one accepted as American corporatespeak. Blech.

I'm used to it now - but it's probably why I break so many rules when writing outside of work.

I don't think it comes naturally for me yet. Maybe that will change after the 20-year mark ... but I do it well. Blech.


----------



## nomesque (Apr 12, 2010)

Geoffrey said:


> I'm used to it now - but it's probably why I break so many rules when writing outside of work.
> 
> I don't think it comes naturally for me yet. Maybe that will change after the 20-year mark ... but I do it well. Blech.


Me too. Complete with 'Blech'.  Except I don't want to doing this in another 10 years' time. Dear Lord, have mercy?


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

I do admire good writing. But coming from a linguistics background rather than literature background, our views on the rules are somewhat different. Linguists talk about two kinds of grammar: Prescriptive Grammar (the one taught by literature and English teachers) and Descriptive Grammar (the one pursued by linguists).

Anyway…

I agree with POINT TWO (small words, when possible; use, not utilize)

I don’t agree with POINT ONE (use the correct word: "For instance, you never use "start" unless you're writing, "Click Start.")

Anybody who has studied the history of English or any language knows that word meanings (and pronunciations and grammatical forms) are always in a constant state of flux. Some people may not like it, but that is the unalterable reality of human language.

Linguists also know that words never mean only one thing. Every word acquires and imparts its intended meaning only in context.

The word start, for example, will rarely if ever be misunderstood. If that potential exists, a good writer will notice and look for alternatives, but it’s hard for me to concoct a scenario for that potential in the case of start. Sure, start has several meanings. “start reading” means begin and “start the car” means turn on. But nobody will ever think “start reading” means “turn on the book” because words are always interpreted in context. In fact, the “turn on the book” possibility will never even occur to anyone unless they have been specially trained to search out such weird interpretations. (notice I did not edit out “anyone” followed by “they”! (smile))

RULE: Only use "may" when you grant permission, or mean "possibly". Otherwise, you say "can" or "must".

The very need to teach the “real” meaning of fundamental words is rather strong proof that the real meaning is not actually being taught. Rather a presumed real meaning is simply being proclaimed. Auxiliary verbs have been in a high state of flux for half a millennium. Trying to wind time back to an earlier (but not earliest) meaning is a somewhat pointless exercise, and doomed to failure anyway.

I kind of agree with POINT THREE (avoid passives).

Poor ol’ passive. Even my spell check relentlessly condemns it. Those from a literature background, who most vocally proscribe passive, generally don’t actually have a very firm understanding of what a passive is. What does it do? Why do we need it? The short answer, a passive turns a natural object into a subject. Why would we want to do that? For emphasis, to avoid responsibility, because we don’t know the subject, because the subject is unimportant, or, in writing, to coordinate a string of subjects. I could talk about passives in other languages. But that would be overkill. I could tell you why passives are beloved of bad writers, children, and politicians. But who wants to read that much about passives?

Side note: I have a feeling that a tiny part of the anti-passive feeling is cultural. Being passive is generally not considered a good thing in the land where, some decades back, Assertiveness Training was actually taught as a necessary life skill for people who already looked way too assertive to those from some other cultures.

Second side note: Maybe my defense of the passive is just sheer contrariness, enjoyment in doing something that no one else has thought of doing!

G' day!

Mark L


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> I do admire good writing. But coming from a linguistics background rather than literature background, our views on the rules are somewhat different. Linguists talk about two kinds of grammar: Prescriptive Grammar (the one taught by literature and English teachers) and Descriptive Grammar (the one pursued by linguists).
> 
> Anyway&#8230;
> 
> ...


Mark, if language is in a constant state of flux, shouldn't we be as clear as possible for future readers? Say my book survives me. Don't I want to know I communicated effectively to someone who has an understanding of the language that may evolve into something different? Granted, we have no control over things. "Start" may mean "shoe" in future generations. But I wrote text for years that was headed for translation in six different languages (one of them, Japanese - and one time I wrote a book for Tanzania, that was translated into Swahili), so I'm predisposed to make things easy for someone who could misinterpret a word. I went through the hassle of correcting the Portuguese translator who thought "airline" meant "trucking company", and the German translator who thought "computer screen" meant "store display". I have other tragic translations I could share.

I hate passive voice. It's the language of the misinformed. It uses two or three more words than the same sentence in active voice, and when you're shaving your word count for a publisher, those two or three words add up.

Take Threads. You're reading it, right? You can count my passive voice sentences on one hand. There is also one sentence where I use "which" when the appropriate word is "that" (I did this because the sentence also contains "that"). I also use short words. I was very spare with the language, which is a trick when you're writing historical fiction about a period in history where the whole point of speaking was to be verbose. Do you get the sense that I was being spare? Or do you still get a feel for the period, even though I don't pile it on?

There were a bunch of challenges in writing that book, and spare language was one of them. I placed myself into a little box for every sentence, and had to find exactly right word to convey every thought, in order to save words. I could have conveyed those thoughts with more words, but that was the challenge I gave myself. You, the reader, can tell me if I was effective, but you haven't mentioned it so I imagine you haven't noticed, and are reading it as if I've given you reams of information. In fact, I give very little. I place the weight on each word. I guess it's "writing style" and preference. But I think you can do it with less, as well as with more, and still be "evocative", to quote a friend.


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

NELL: I could have conveyed those thoughts with more words, but that was the challenge I gave myself. You, the reader, can tell me if I was effective, but you haven't mentioned it so I imagine you haven't noticed, and are reading it as if I've given you reams of information.

MARK L: I haven't mentioned it? Well, I will now, to the world. The book is excellent, spare, lovingly put together, and accomplishes perfectly everything Nell is describing here. Yesterday, I took the liberty of putting up an excerpt from Threads (Reply 8 of Tudors! Precursors to America) precisely because it is so good. And spare. That little excerpt (check it out) is the essence of, uh, sparseness? sparity?

But, Nell, I separate your writing (and in fact the writing of virtually all good writers) into two parts. Pointing out devotion to certain unnecessary rules created over several centuries by people who never had a deep grasp of language in no way implies there is anything wrong with the other part: carefully crafted, clear, spare writing.

So why do I make such a big deal out of this? First, I'll quote myself back on 25 of this thread:

"You, when you were a child, recreated in your brain, using nothing but the chaos of vocal sounds around you, a language marvelous in its depth, complexity, and expressive capacity far beyond the little imaginings of the rule-makers or the system defined by their silly rules. Sadly, the adult brain, despite its wonderful ability to analyze, has lost that ability to recreate language. This accounts for our accents and horrendous mistakes (kindly forgiven by natives) when we speak a foreign language." Close quote.

It also accounts for the inability of prescriptive grammarians (all of whom are adults) to recognize the incredible achievement of all children, every single one. To approximately quote myself from one of these threads: "the recreation of perfect language in our brains as children is the most marvelous and difficult accomplishment of our lifetimes, greater than a degree from Harvard, greater than making a new discovery, greater than writing this year's best novel. The creation of language as children, therefore, is the great leveler, showing that none of us are actually any better than another."

When you degrade the semi-miraculous accomplishment of having created a perfect language by formulating silly rules, you have de-leveled people, placing an intellectual elite above the great masses. Nell, I KNOW from reading Threads that you are not naturally a de-leveler. But lovers of language who do not also study linguistics (few do, few in fact even know what linguistics is) really have no choice but to accept the proclamations made by language de-levelers.

Hope that was not too harsh! I feel some freedom in getting a bit harsh and personal simply because your book and obviously its writer are so wonderful. By the way, the first time I wrote that "greatest human accomplishment" speech over on another thread, I played around with the idea of adding that their actually _is _ one potentially greater accomplishment. I didn't say at the time, but that one greater accomplishment would be, the point of Threads (which I haven't gotten to yet, but I can see it coming!)


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

Okay, Mark. You win. I defer to you. Let's just call it "preference" and "writing style". I lean toward the spare because I was whipped into it. I believe in the spare because I see patience dwindling (who hasn't opened a voluminous e-mail, and groaned?). I think it has a future.

But I can also appreciate word craft in someone who can milk a scene. Years ago, I met a writer on the boards named Jack Mauro. He's languishing out there, for no good reason, and isn't even on Kindle. But I read his Spite Hall. He can make you spew that milk out through your nose with over-long descriptions that grow increasingly more hilarious as he adds more words to them. His style is the complete opposite of mine. I believe you would enjoy it. It would definitely be tragic to lose that writing style to "rules".

As for your comments on Threads, I never know what to say, really, except to thank you, and to tell you I am very, very happy and grateful you like it.


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

Ah, Nell. I didn't really win. You make me feel bad when you say that, in fact I feel like I've lost. Nothing wrong at all with your spareness of style. I'm just using you as an excuse to sound off against grammatical "rules" that I consider unnecessary. Well, I'll be gone for a day or two. Busy at work. But I've finished your great book. I'll get to the "point" when I get back.

G' nite all!


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

I recall some people here flip out a bit at that weird r between vowells in some dialects in England, and in Boston.

JFK: Cuber is a threat.

Guess it holds in Liverpool, too.

Yesterday, I was reading my kindle and eating a beenzu baagaa (bean burger) at Freshness Burger (despite the name, a nice little burger and coffee shop here in Japan). Background music was all Beatles. Suddenly, the line rang out, certainly familiar to anyone of a certain age:

I sore a film today oh boy.


----------

