标签: grammar

I am currently writing a book about punctuation and grammar as one of my "back burner" hobby projects (and there are those who say I don't know how to have a good time).   As part of this, I happen to mention in a footnote that the famous English classical scholar and poet, A.E. Housman, is a distant relative. The reason I know this is that I remember once going to Poet's Corner with my mom, whose maiden name was Housman. Poet's Corner refers to a section of the South Transept of Westminster Abbey, and is so-called because of the high number of poets, playwrights, and writers who were buried and commemorated there. A. E. Housman's name appears in one of the stained glass windows -- my mom pointed it out and said, "he's a distant relative," and you can't argue with facts like that.   Here are pictures of A. E. Housman and yours truly. (I'm the one on the right.)   I since discovered that A. E. Housman -- who is best known to the general public for his cycle of poems "A Shropshire Lad" -- was one of the foremost classicists of his age and has been ranked as one of the greatest scholars of all time . Obviously, I don't find any of this to be too surprising -- after all, he was related to me!   But we digress... Several of my friends are being kind enough to review my book for me as I write it. One, EETimes blogger Duane Benson, emailed me to say: "How distant is A. E. Housman? Back when I was much, much younger, I used to carry a verse from 'Shropshire Lad' in my wallet."   Well, in order to answer this poser, I turned to the repository of all knowledge past and the oracle of all things to come -- my mother -- whose memory is so sharp she can recall things that haven't even happened yet! I just received the following reply:   Dearest Clive, all I know is that Auntie Hilda Housman (my dad's sister who was a well-known teacher of the blind in Harrogate) was a guest at a Civic Dinner. The chief guest was Lawrence Housman, the brother of A. E. Auntie Hilda told me that Lawrence came up to her and said he was intrigued as he had never met anyone with that spelling other than family and he thought they must be related. Auntie Hilda said that she didn't think that could be, but he asked if she knew anything about our past family. She said that the only thing she had heard was that she had a "great, great, great someone" who had been a hangman at Staffordshire Gaol. A couple of weeks later, she received a letter from Lawrence saying: "Dear Cousin Hilda, I was right, we are related, we share the same great, great, great hangman..." I don't know how many greats there were and -- as Auntie Hilda left everything to charity -- I never saw the letter again.   I just called my mom for more details. She says that Auntie Hilda was "an indomitable woman" (this is saying something, because my mom is one of the most indomitable women I know). My mom says that one of the people Auntie Hilda cared for was an Anglican Minister who had gone blind. He mentioned that the one thing he really missed was being able to read the Bible in Greek, so Hilda went off and learned Greek so she could teach the Minister to read Greek in Braille.   Auntie Hilda also used to have a companion who was aptly named Ida Worship. When she sent Christmas cards she signed them "I Worship" and the family added "Hilda" because Ida pretty much worshiped the ground Hilda walked on.   In later life (in her late 60s and early 70s) Hilda went totally blind herself when blood vessels ruptured first in one eye and later in the other. Apparently this didn't stop Hilda from driving around to visit people with Ida in the co-pilot's seat. My mother describes these trips as being something like the following:   Ida: We're drifting a little to the right, Hilda. Hilda: Thank you, Ida. Ida: We're approaching a traffic light, Hilda. Hilda: Thank you, Ida. Ida: The light has turned red, Hilda. Hilda: Thank you, Ida.   Well, that certainly sounds like my family. So, my next task will be to find out when there was a Hangman named Housman at Staffordshire Gaol. I'm assuming this would have to be sometime around the late 1700s or early 1800s. Hmm, where would one go to look for information like this?

I often find myself sitting on the horns of a dilemma. (Note to self, must buy some padded undergarments.) This time it's with regard to creating gender-neutral prose in my engineering writings. In around a quarter of the world's languages, nouns inherently reflect the grammatical category called gender. Common gender divisions include masculine and feminine (as in French and Spanish) and masculine , feminine , and neuter (as in German). Generally speaking—in the wider scheme of things—modern English is not considered to have grammatical gender. However, Old English did employ the concept of gender, and a few remnants of that system still exist, such as the distinct third-person pronouns he , she , and it . Of course, we have all sorts of words that are gender-biased, such as "chairman" and "mankind." When I was younger, I didn't think about this at all, it was just the way of the world. I remember when things started to change and it was no longer politically correct to refer to someone as the chairman, for example. Initially, "chairperson" grated on my ears, but I've grown used to it (and similar substitutions) over time. On the other hand, the idea of referring to someone as the "chair" tends to drives me up the wall. I also think it makes perfect sense to refer to everyone collectively as "humanity" or "humankind," as opposed to "mankind." The other day while working on my forthcoming book about grammar and punctuation for engineers, I caught myself about to say "penmanship" and swapped this out for "handwriting skills." (I know, even my mother is amazed that I would be writing such a book.) But then there are times when you want to say something like, "An engineer should look after his tools." Eeek! I used the gender-specific "his," even though engineers come in all shapes, sizes, and genders. There are, of course, all sorts of different tricks to get around this. First of all we can use plurals, as in, "All engineers should look after their tools." Or we can move to the second person and say "If you want to be an engineer, you should look after your tools." Some writers take the approach that they will simply swap out "his" and "him" with "her," as in, "An engineer should look after her tools." I think the idea here is either to try to redress the historical balance by going the other way, or mayhap to tweak the reader into thinking... well, I'm not sure what, really. Other writers flip back and forth using "his" and "her" alternately. Still others use the incredibly awkward "he or she" or "his or her," as in, "An engineer should look after his or her tools." Similarly, it's not uncommon to see "(s)he" or "s/he," as in, "You would be surprised if (s)he were to take a bite of your bacon sandwich." (It's surprisingly difficult to come up with good examples when you are trying to write something like this blog. Contrary-wise, it's surprisingly easy to run into them when you really don't want to.) The ideal solution would be to have a gender-neutral pronoun. Indeed, people have been suggesting options like nis and hiser for over 150 years, along the lines of, "Everyone loves nis mother," or, "Everyone loves hiser mother." Personally, I would grab onto a solution of this ilk with gusto and abandon, but I fear the chances of something like this coming to pass in my lifetime are slight. How about you? How do you tiptoe your way through this metaphorical minefield? If you see something like, "An engineer should look after his tools," does this make you cringe inside, do you not notice, or do you simply not care?  

In an article I wrote a few years ago I complained about the practice of tearing English apart for expediency when composing Twitters, email and texting. But Hamish McNab, a young person in Australia, believes I'm wrong. If his email to me about the article is any indication, he's right: it's well-reasoned and beautifully written. Here are his comments: I am a high school student in Australia, studying linguistics in year 11. I believe that technology is not the main reason for the decline in English, but rather things such as what education provides in schools nowadays, and the contact that people have with literature, especially students. I am not a particularly bright student, and do not jump at the chance to read books, but I have been lead to believe that it is more what our education provides and not the technology that surrounds us. First off, English in schools is loosing its touch on the basics. Grammar is barely mentioned as a major part of learning, and the teaching of proper use grammar and punctuation is deteriorating. As I am still in high school, it is easy to say that I have been taught little, if not none at all, about the uses of English grammar. Instruction in grammar is left down to self-correction after a neatly constructed essay has been viscously attacked by a red pen. I believe that grammar, punctuation and spelling should be taught in English in schools, no matter the groans that follow it's mention. It is for the good of our ever evolving, ever changing beautiful language, and should be considered important, as it is the basis of English. Secondly, this is a reflection on me as well as my peers, I have noticed that the connection between people and proper literaturesuch as books, and literary masterpieceshas lessened somewhat. People are reading less and less these days, mainly due to the busy life styles they lead. In my case, I do not have time to sit down and read a book, even before I go to sleep as I tend to go to bed too late, and wake up too early. Although we are surrounded by language, through texting, the internet, advertising and general usage throughout our environment, we are not privy to outstanding examples of English on a daily basis. The language we read affects the language we use to write, so by reading text messages, chat room converzations, and MSN "speeches" we are confined to short, almost speech like literature. I have noticed this amongst my peers, as they use very precise, short and to the point sentences, with no depth or exploration of meaning. I like to use words to 'fluff' out sentences, and fill them with stuffing, giving them more, less translucent overtones. Anyway, back to my point. Our disconnection with "proper" English is helping to see a decline in the standards of our beautiful language. Also, about EMC, or Electronically Mediated Communication, I feel that it is not the main reason for the reduction in the quality of English. In fact I think it is helping us. Think about it: if we were not surrounded by so many uses of language, language would have declined a while ago. People nowadays read and write every day. They send text messages, write emails, update their status on Facebook, add a tweet on Twitter, or even complain to someone about something on a blog. The usage of language has increased rapidly over the last decade as new technologies, such as texting, emailing and chat rooms, have become available to us. Just recently I completed a study on textinglooking at the works and theories of David Crystal which counteracted many myths that are commonly known. Firstly, a common ideology is that kids or younger people are the only people who text. This is wrong. Of course it's wrong. 80% or people who text are about the age of 25. Secondly, the idea that these young people fill their texts with abbreviations that when read properly do not make sense at all. This is not true in any way. A team of linguists from Oxford found that only 6% of words used in text messages are abbreviated. David Crystal's research lead him to find that only 10% of words are abbreviated, whilst the other 90% are normal standard English words, with the occasional misspelling. Thirdly, people have been lead to believe that abbreviations are a modernism of our language. Wrong. Abbreviations have been around for decades. Queen Elizabeth used them. Lewis Carol used them. Charles Dickens used them. A famous example of an abbreviation is the following sentence: YY U R YY U B I C U R YY 4 ME. This is a simple sentence, where each word is replaced by a letter with the same pronunciation, i.e. a homonym. People have used abbreviations such as 'C U L8R' for many years, and a classic example is the abbreviation 'SWALK'Sealed With A Loving Kiss- as found on the back of many hand written letters, many decades ago. Fourthly, people believe that because younger people are leaving the letters out from words they do not know how to spell. But as David Crystal says, for the person to leave out a letter, they must know it is there in the first place and therefore must know how to spell. These "misspellings" are all just ways of saving time and increasing efficiency. Text, and all instant messaging, try to mimic speech, using speed. The only difference between speech and these EMCs is that there is no immediate feedback from the listener. I.e. there is no one receiving the unedited message straight away, giving feedback along the way in the form of "mmhmm, yes, yes, what?, no, of course not, mmhmm, oh, hahaha, yes" etc. Texting tries to mimic the speed of which speech is received by sending quick instant messages, using abbreviations, acronyms and misspellings to speed up the process. That's all that it is, a way of saving time. And fifthly, there have been many rumors that students use 'IM slang' (Instant Messaging slang) in their essays and writing at school. This is absolute nonsense. I have never, ever used an example of IM slang in an essay or writing piece unless I was quoting it from someone. And never ever, would I use it in an exam. Why use it when you know it will inevitably loose you marks? No one I know uses IM slang in their school work, and to quote my teacher not three days ago: "I have never read an essay with an abbreviation or textism in it." I for one, believe that texting is helping our language, as it allows us to use it, to read and write, and to interact with language on a daily basis. As the saying goes, 'practice makes perfect', and the more people read messages, and write emails, the better their understanding and use of English will become. And in response to the first point. English isn't entirely about memory. It's about how you use what you have, although being able to remember how to spell a certain word can take you a long way.

In an article I wrote a few years ago I complained about the practice of tearing English apart for expediency when composing Twitters, email and texting. But Hamish McNab, a young person in Australia, believes I'm wrong. If his email to me about the article is any indication, he's right: it's well-reasoned and beautifully written. Here are his comments:   I am a high school student in Australia, studying linguistics in year 11. I believe that technology is not the main reason for the decline in English, but rather things such as what education provides in schools nowadays, and the contact that people have with literature, especially students. I am not a particularly bright student, and do not jump at the chance to read books, but I have been lead to believe that it is more what our education provides and not the technology that surrounds us.   First off, English in schools is loosing its touch on the basics. Grammar is barely mentioned as a major part of learning, and the teaching of proper use grammar and punctuation is deteriorating. As I am still in high school, it is easy to say that I have been taught little, if not none at all, about the uses of English grammar.   Instruction in grammar is left down to self-correction after a neatly constructed essay has been viscously attacked by a red pen. I believe that grammar, punctuation and spelling should be taught in English in schools, no matter the groans that follow it's mention. It is for the good of our ever evolving, ever changing beautiful language, and should be considered important, as it is the basis of English.   Secondly, this is a reflection on me as well as my peers, I have noticed that the connection between people and proper literature—such as books, and literary masterpieces—has lessened somewhat. People are reading less and less these days, mainly due to the busy life styles they lead. In my case, I do not have time to sit down and read a book, even before I go to sleep as I tend to go to bed too late, and wake up too early.   Although we are surrounded by language, through texting, the internet, advertising and general usage throughout our environment, we are not privy to outstanding examples of English on a daily basis. The language we read affects the language we use to write, so by reading text messages, chat room converzations, and MSN "speeches" we are confined to short, almost speech like literature.   I have noticed this amongst my peers, as they use very precise, short and to the point sentences, with no depth or exploration of meaning. I like to use words to 'fluff' out sentences, and fill them with stuffing, giving them more, less translucent overtones. Anyway, back to my point. Our disconnection with "proper" English is helping to see a decline in the standards of our beautiful language. Also, about EMC, or Electronically Mediated Communication, I feel that it is not the main reason for the reduction in the quality of English. In fact I think it is helping us. Think about it: if we were not surrounded by so many uses of language, language would have declined a while ago. People nowadays read and write every day. They send text messages, write emails, update their status on Facebook, add a tweet on Twitter, or even complain to someone about something on a blog.   The usage of language has increased rapidly over the last decade as new technologies, such as texting, emailing and chat rooms, have become available to us. Just recently I completed a study on texting—looking at the works and theories of David Crystal —which counteracted many myths that are commonly known. Firstly, a common ideology is that kids or younger people are the only people who text. This is wrong. Of course it's wrong. 80% or people who text are about the age of 25.   Secondly, the idea that these young people fill their texts with abbreviations that when read properly do not make sense at all. This is not true in any way. A team of linguists from Oxford found that only 6% of words used in text messages are abbreviated. David Crystal's research lead him to find that only 10% of words are abbreviated, whilst the other 90% are normal standard English words, with the occasional misspelling. Thirdly, people have been lead to believe that abbreviations are a modernism of our language. Wrong. Abbreviations have been around for decades. Queen Elizabeth used them. Lewis Carol used them. Charles Dickens used them.   A famous example of an abbreviation is the following sentence: YY U R YY U B I C U R YY 4 ME. This is a simple sentence, where each word is replaced by a letter with the same pronunciation, i.e. a homonym. People have used abbreviations such as 'C U L8R' for many years, and a classic example is the abbreviation 'SWALK'—Sealed With A Loving Kiss- as found on the back of many hand written letters, many decades ago.   Fourthly, people believe that because younger people are leaving the letters out from words they do not know how to spell. But as David Crystal says, for the person to leave out a letter, they must know it is there in the first place and therefore must know how to spell. These "misspellings" are all just ways of saving time and increasing efficiency.   Text, and all instant messaging, try to mimic speech, using speed. The only difference between speech and these EMCs is that there is no immediate feedback from the listener. I.e. there is no one receiving the unedited message straight away, giving feedback along the way in the form of "mmhmm, yes, yes, what?, no, of course not, mmhmm, oh, hahaha, yes" etc. Texting tries to mimic the speed of which speech is received by sending quick instant messages, using abbreviations, acronyms and misspellings to speed up the process. That's all that it is, a way of saving time.   And fifthly, there have been many rumors that students use 'IM slang' (Instant Messaging slang) in their essays and writing at school. This is absolute nonsense. I have never, ever used an example of IM slang in an essay or writing piece unless I was quoting it from someone. And never ever, would I use it in an exam. Why use it when you know it will inevitably loose you marks? No one I know uses IM slang in their school work, and to quote my teacher not three days ago: "I have never read an essay with an abbreviation or textism in it."   I for one, believe that texting is helping our language, as it allows us to use it, to read and write, and to interact with language on a daily basis. As the saying goes, 'practice makes perfect', and the more people read messages, and write emails, the better their understanding and use of English will become.   And in response to the first point. English isn't entirely about memory. It's about how you use what you have, although being able to remember how to spell a certain word can take you a long way.  

This email showed up a few months ago:   "ah 2/3 from the world Champions in thier park ah yes the Phila are back and today its the twins Meanwhile the stopper can he stop the nat spo slide tonight the tigers just teed off on the hapless spos The fightens are back and so is sec 119"   That is quoted in its entirety, and is from someone born and raised in the United States. He went to the same high school I attended in Washington, DC. The Jesuits failed him. The author is clearly an idiot. Or, someone who chooses to present himself as one.   Language matters. Email, texting, Twitter and Facebook are swell technologies, but none of them redefine the rules of grammar, all evidence to the contrary. Too many people miss the fact that when the medium is the written word, for better or worse one is judged on the use of the written word. Electronic communications doesn't have to be particularly literate, but must be grammatical and spell-checked.   Everything we create on-line lives forever. Privacy is dead. Tweet out some meaningless blather and it may come back to haunt you years from now. Employers routinely google ( and, gads, I hate "verbizing" what should be a proper noun ) job candidates. Create an on-line identity that shrieks "moron" and you're likely to be categorized as one.   We make choices in life, and one of those choices is how much care and pride we take in how we present ourselves. Men prefer ties to stained T-shirts in interviews, even though a tie is a hideous anachronism that should have gone the way of the fedora.   Conversely, a stained T-shirt is the expected attire for an engine rebuild session. ( As an ex-hippy freak this pains me to write this, but it's the truth ). When we converse we reserve the word "ain't" for rare emphasis and skip the double negatives – unless one wants to be viewed as an uneducated product of the slums.   The fact is we're being judged all the time, even when your best friend asks "are you alright? You look tired" with concern. When the parent sees chocolate smeared on the guilty youngster's face, that's a judgment that may lead to a time-out, a judgment that will be hard to dismiss even if the kid tries to explain how he had to swim through a river of Hershey's best to save western civilization.   And when your incomprehensible email arrives in a co-worker's inbox, be sure that will subtly bias the recipient's view of your expertise and education.   At the very least, poorly-written communication like the email above screams "I don't care enough to get this right." If it's an email to your child, you're teaching the unimportance of the written word, which is akin to dismissing the importance of education and erudition.   If it's too much trouble to get the spelling or grammar right, remember Abe Lincoln's admonishment: "It is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and resolve all doubt."   What's your take? Is grammar "like, oh so two minutes ago?"