From the BBC:
"We are judged by how we speak and we are judged - when we put things on paper (1) or online - by how we write," he says. Now he's calling for schools to put more emphasis on grammar in the classroom. "There are many contexts in life (2) where formal communication in every sense of the word (3) is required. I think (4) the education system needs to acknowledge this," he argues...
Surrounded by well-stocked bookcases in the school's learning centre, the writer - now Associate Editor of the Daily Telegraph - became a temporary English teacher to a group of students (5). "The difference between 'I will' and 'I shall'. Have any of you been taught that?" (6) he asked.
1) "Put things to paper", surely? "Put" is an ugly word anyway, so why not say "commit things to paper"? And you don't "put things online", you "post" them or "upload them" or something. Actually, the whole clause (or whatever that things between the hyphens is called) is superfluous, we know that "writing" is usually on paper or online.
So he could have boiled that down to "We are judged by how we speak and by how we write." But that's the stupid passive form, so even better would have been "People judge us by how we speak and write."
2) WTF is a "context in life"? Wouldn't "situation" have been better?
3) Which word - "formal" or "communication"?
4) Missing "that". And there's no need to prefix every opinion with "I think that...". It's almost as irritating as people who say "should" all the time. This is quite different to from him his saying "I think that platinum is denser than gold", which is a tacit admission that he is not sure whether the statement is factually correct or not (it is).
5) They're pupils, FFS (although that was down to the BBC, not The Heff).
6) What a rubbish sentence. "Have any of you been taught [what] the difference between 'I will' and 'I shall' [is]?" would have sounded much better, but even that would have at best elicited a "yes" or "no" answer, and not furthered his cause. Why didn't he just tell them that there is a difference are differences, and go on to explain what the difference is the differences are?
Gosh she is a wag
2 hours ago
19 comments:
Feel better now? I have developed the impression that Heffer is a UKIP ally. He certainly professes (confesses?) to be 'traditional liberal'.
MW, Be fair, he can't heffer be right!
Take your point though, naturally.
I'm with him in spirit, I care enough to try to be right in my own English (only my own, it is for others to choose how much they care). However, I heard that piece too. It was pretty dreadful.
He chose the worst example; the difference between "I will" and "I shall" is fairly subtle, and he had to resort to using words which were ambiguous to explain it ("one was "intent" and one was "resolution" -- how is that meant to help people who don't already know?). What's worse is that "will" and "shall" invert their meaning when used second person. Well done Simon.
I do find the "descriptivists" even more annoying though. They say things like "as long as you know what is meant, it doesn't matter does it?" Completely forgetting that "meaning" is what grammar is all about. The gradual blurring of word meanings and sentence construction means that it becomes harder and harder, or more and more verbose to get a concept from one person to another.
For example, what does the following mean? "Sam's friend has a new boyfriend and Sam is jealous." and is it the same as "Sam's friend has a new boyfriend and Sam is envious."?
I don't actually want an answer; I use the above merely to point out that once language is stripped of its subtlety, it isn't possible to express thoughts. That can't be a good thing.
Hidebound grammar obsessives always use the passive voice - possibly the biggest bar to ease of reading there is. You see this when less literate people try to sound "formal" and simply end up sounding prissy and turgid (even more so than Heffer).
I'm all for precise, clear communication though, and I dislike the textspeak argot one sees online. Because it's so curtailed, it leads to misunderstandings and I think it's one of the reasons so many messageboard threads deteriorate into slanging matches, for example. Everyone's at angry dolphins*.
*Does anyone remember which comedy show that comes from? I say it all the time, but I don't remember the origin at all.
L, The Heff is very much a Ukipper.
WFW, do you not heffer better pun than that? :-(
OP: " What's worse is that 'will' and 'shall' invert their meaning when used second person." Can you explain that?
Jill, re passive voice, I tend to overdo that, and I am to some extent grateful for Microsoft grammar check when it says "Passive voice, consider revising".
I'm just delighted someone else is pedantic enough to understand that "pupils" aren't "students"!
FT, that's me being old-fashioned rather than pedantic. If we have two different words 'pupils' and 'students' then it is very useful to use them to mean two separate things.
Will vs Shall is just a form of grammatical OCD. If you write to a customer saying "I shall send out replacment widgets to reach you by Friday", do they care about:-
1) That you should have said "will"?
2) The misspelling of "replacment"?
3) That your widgets arrive by Friday?
The greatest problem facing this country is entreprenuerialism and innovation. I can't think of a single major global website which started in this country, except for the Internet Movie Database.
Re your No4: I was always taught by a very strict English master that things are "different from" and not "different to" or "different than" [which is an ugly Americanism]
MW, Jill
I realize this post is just a bit of fun, but the idea that there is something iffy about the passive voice is an invention of US 'grammar obsessives' from the early 20th C. Like any word, structure or idiom, it is sometimes the best choice and sometimes not. Do you really think that 'people judge us by how we speak and write' would have been better here?
On the subject of 'shall' and 'will' I offer you this, but, as OP says, and Fowler acknowledges, it's not of much use if you don't already know. And even if you do know, the chances are the person you're talking to won't appreciate the nuance.
@Mark: " What's worse is that 'will' and 'shall' invert their meaning when used second person." Can you explain that?
I'll try, but I can see me getting into the same trouble that Heffer did. (my original explanation wasn't very good -- I should have said "swap" rather than "invert".)
Anyway, here goes:
Both "will" and "shall" are both propositions about the future.
"will" in the first person implies desire, or willing. "shall" implies necessity, or inevitability.
So:
"I will be there on Tuesday" is saying that I want to be there on Tuesday. "When I step off this cliff I shall fall to my death" is stating what is definitely going to happen during my suicide.
In one of the usual annoying inconsistencies of English, the meanings of "will" and "shall" are swapped in the second and third person.
So, the senses in the above two examples become "You shall go to the ball" and "You will fall to your death if you step off that cliff" respectively.
You can compare these meanings with other tricky pairs: should and would; and may and can.
That being said, modern grammarians (who are wet lettuces and won't say for certain about anything) seem to accept that the two are so similar that their difference shouldn't be worried about, and they may be used interchangeably.
Phew. I hope I haven't gotten that all wrong and made an arse of myself; the above is merely my understanding of it, I don't suppose I can be that sure I'm correct. For years I had no idea that the word "epitome" wasn't talking about an enormous book.
CIngram
You are, of course, quite right.
Oddly, I was just about to reply to Mark, saying that many of his posts - the fascinating ones about land tax, for example - lend themselves very well to the passive voice.
However, I maintain its frequent unnecessary use is a big barrier to effective communication and an attractive writing style.
To the point about grammar making comprehension more easy, I would add, so does capitalisation, now a dying art, thanks to t'internet. Those who say it doesn't matter might like to consider the diffference between "I had to help my Uncle Jack off a horse" and "i had to help my uncle jack off a horse".
(If this has shown up twice, please delete it)
Jill,
Indeed, many technical texts are written mainly with passive
structures, for good reasons. It's mostly a matter of style and
register. The barriers arise, as you say, when it is used
unnecessarily, inappropriately or, more generally, by people who just
aren't very good at writing.
I like the angry dolphins, btw, and I was pleased that it only took me
about 5 minutes to work it out. And Bayard's joke (sorry, important
contribution to the discussion) reminds me irresistibly of this
(at the risk of lowering the tone).
JT, don't you mean "The greatest problem facing this country is THE LACK OF entrepreneurialism and innovation"?
OT, good point, I have amended.
CI: "Do you really think that 'people judge us by how we speak and write' would have been better here?" Yes I do. What's wrong with that statement, especially if he backs it up with a few real life examples?
OP, I can only say that you may well be right. I shall stop asking dumb questions or you will only confuse me even more.
J, thanks. Although I admit that the passive voice is something I use much too often.
B, are you Rebecca Loos?
CI, you've lost me with dolphins and the sound doesn't work at this computer.
CIngram, Bayard, and Mark (I like an Oxford comma, but only sometimes!)
I liked both jokes!
Angry dolphins is cross porpoises is cross purposes.
I also say geriatric headgear but I don't know where that came from either!
J, cross purposes, thanks.
Oi! That should be "This is quite different from HIS saying...": you gotta study your verbal nouns and gerunds, young Wadsworth.
Andanotherthing, there is not A difference in the use of "shall" and "will" - there are different differences, depending where in the English-speaking world you are.
D, good stuff, I have amended.
Post a Comment