|
Problems in English
 Every language has various interesting problems of usage. Here are some in English, together
with my comments. Incorrect examples are marked with an asterisk (*) and are in red.
-
"lie, lie, lay, lied, laid, lain, etc."
Here we are dealing with at least three distinct
words: (1) "lie," as in "to lie down and sleep;" (2) "lie," as in "to tell a falsehood;" (3)
"lay," as in "to lay down your arms and stop fighting." The verb "lie" (to tell a falsehood
) is not really very deeply involved. It is almost always intransitive and has a past tense
"lied" ("he lied on the witness stand") and past participle "lied" ("he has lied again and
again"). It is the other two words that cause a problem. "Lie" (to lie down) has past
tense "lay," past participle "lain." "Lay" (to put down) is normally transitive and has past
tense "laid" and past participle "laid." Specifically, it is the past tenses that cause
trouble:
- "I will lie down for a nap after lunch;" "I lay down for a nap after lunch;" "I have
lain down every day after lunch for a nap." Incorrect: * "I laid down for a nap
after lunch."
- "I will lay down the burden of office;" "I laid down the burden of office;" "I have
laid down the burden of office." Incorrect: * "I have lain down the burden of
office."
-
split infinitives.
The greatest English grammarian, Otto Jespersen, was clear in
permitting split infinitives at least for clarity. Example: "The attorney asked me to briefly
explain what I saw." The "correct" form of this would probably be "The attorney asked
me briefly to explain what I saw" (could be misunderstood - how briefly was the
attorney speaking, anyhow?) or "The attorney asked me to explain briefly what I saw."
The use of split infinitives is a very old phenomenon; there are examples at least as old
as Shakespeare. The problem is that using a split infinitive may identify the writer as
ignorant and may distract the reader. For this reason, I normally do not split infinitives,
but I reserve the right to do so when necessary.
-
ending sentences with prepositions.
It is "normally" considered bad form to end a
sentence with a preposition, as in "I'd like to see where this clue leads to." One way
out of this works in many cases - just eliminate the preposition: "I'd like to see where
this clue leads." The other way is awkward - put the preposition in front of a relative
pronoun or other word: "I'd like to see to where this clue leads." Even more ridiculous
is this kind of thing in a telephone conversation: "To whom am I speaking?" (very stuffy
). Compare "Who am I speaking to?" Often you can replace the whole phrase: "Who
is this?"
-
sexist language.
We are now past the days when everything had to have "he or she"
or grotesque neologisms such as "(s)he." We can in general resume using "he" and
masculine suffixes in language where there is no intent to discriminate. I notice, for
example, that Ann Coulter's Web site has "Quotations from Chairman Ann." Young
ladies wishing to develop neat handwriting can practice their "penmanship," rather than
their "penwomanship." However, it is often wise emphatically to be inclusive, and to
use "he or she" or similar non-sexist language. The point is not to distract the reader,
and to be clear.
-
"which" and "that."
Microsoft's annoying grammar checking device flags instances
such as "I saw the man who bought the painting." Microsoft apparently wants you to
say "I saw the man that bought the painting." This is rubbish. Supposedly the distinction
is that you use "that" in a "restrictive clause," whatever on Earth that is. I generally
would write "I saw the man who bought the painting," and would use "that" only in the
very subtle case where it improves the rhythm of the sentence.
-
"who" and "whom."
Among relative / interrogative pronouns, only "who" preserves
the old distinction of case. Theoretically, you should say "Who are you?" but "Whom
shall I say is calling?" The fact is that in ordinary usage "whom" is almost entirely lost
and should stay that way. (But, I note with a smile, I say "To whom should this letter
be addressed.")
-
capitalizing certain words.
I regularly write "Web site" rather than "web site,"
because a "Web site" is something on the World Wide Web (note capitals), while a
"web site" is a place on some spider's web, or maybe where the spider put the web. I
also refer to "the President of the United States," a very old style (early 19th-Century,
probably), but "many countries are republics, headed by presidents." I capitalize when
I refer to a specific office. This is not the normal practice, but fooey. It's my writing,
and I'm right.
|
All text on this page is the work of J W Durham and is licensed only under terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
United States License. Other licensing terms may be available.