ENGLISH AS IT IS BROKEN 22 (24.12.06)

A Confusing Variety
Up for discussion this week was a poster for a prata stall: MR. PRATA / 24 HOURS / 30 Variety of PRATA / 20 Variety of THOSAI / & Many Kinds of FRIED FOOD / Variety of Soups.

Most of what the master teachers say in this section is unproblematic, except for one point: their claim that, in the sentence North Point has a variety of shops and restaurants, the word variety is uncountable.

Surprisingly, it appears that the experts still do not understand basic facts about noun types and continue to misinterpret what they read in dictionaries (in this case, the Collins Cobuild).

If a noun can take an indefinite article (a/an), how then could it possibly be uncountable? It is precisely because you can count a variety as a singular noun that makes it countable. Notice that uncountable (or mass) nouns cannot take indefinite articles; hence the following are wrong: *an equipment, *a flour, *a furniture, *a rice. (Note that * means an example is ungrammatical.) Because they are uncountable/mass nouns, they take determiners such as the, amount of, some and much: the equipment, a huge amount of flour, some furniture, (not/this) much rice.

Most dictionaries list at least four main senses of the word variety; each differs with respect to whether it is countable or uncountable. The following explanations and examples are adapted from the Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture (3rd ed.):

1. the fact of varying; difference in quality; type, or character: She didn’t like the work because it lacked variety; she was doing the same things all the time. In this sense, variety is an uncountable or mass noun: Note that you cannot say *She didn’t like the work because it lacked varieties.

2. a number or collection of different sorts of the same general type: Everyone arrived late at the party, for a variety of (=many different) reasons. Note that, in this sense, variety is an invariant singular, meaning that it is always singular and never plural (Longman marks such nouns [S]). Note also that, if a noun is referred to as singular or plural, it is by definition countable — that’s why we can decide if there’s one (singular) or many (plural). Observe that this is the same sense in which variety is used in the teachers’ example: North Point has a variety of shops and restaurants. It is invariant singular, because it would be wrong to say *North Point has many varieties of shops and restaurants.

3. a particular type that is different from others in a group to which it belongs; sort: We’re growing a new variety of wheat this year. This is the countable sense: it can be singular (a new variety) or plural (twenty new varieties).

4. a form of entertainment for theatre or television in which a number of different types of short performance are given, such as singing, dancing, telling jokes, etc.: a variety show/artiste. This is an uncountable sense, because you cannot say *a varieties show (the article a modifies show, not variety).

Invariant singular nouns or noun phrases are not at all unusual. Other examples include stiff upper lip (My uncles were taught to keep a stiff upper lip, not *My uncles were taught to keep stiff upper lips); think (I’ll have a think about it, not *I’ll have several thinks about it); gaggle (a gaggle of geese, not *several gaggles of geese); dash (The hostages made a dash for freedom, not *The hostages made their dashes for freedom).

Writing-up
In their discussion of the differences between write down, write out and write up, the master teachers explain the last thus: ‘When you “write up” something (a report of an article) that has been said or done, you record it on paper, usually using notes that you have made. So you might tell your classmate: “I’m going to write up my lecture notes”.’

Wrong again. The phrasal verb write up, according to Longman, means ‘to write (again) in a complete and useful form’. Writing on paper is not a criterion; writing or rewriting in a fuller form is. One might well write up the initial findings of an investigation and send them to interested parties — all by e-mail and without the need for paper.

ENGLISH AS IT IS BROKEN 21 (17.12.06)

Instructions Quite Contrary
The master teachers consider a warning label on a seatbelt that reads: Do not ware (sic) seatbelt if you are shorter than 130cm.

They quite rightly caution that, if an instruction appears to contradict conventional wisdom, it should be phrased in such a way as to leave the reader in no doubt that the message means what it says. However, curiously, they omit to suggest a correction.

Variations on the following might do: Seatbelt is not intended for those below 130cm in height; Seatbelt may be unsafe if you are shorter than 130cm in height.

A Real Turn-on
The teachers discuss the expression to turn somebody on, which intrigued an eight-year-old who had heard a participant declare on Project Runway that he ‘couldn’t help but be turned on’.
The discussion is somewhat confused, because the teachers cite one expression in the active voice (Peter turned on Tom) and another in the passive voice (a person being turned on by something).

It would have been clearer if both expressions had been exemplified in the active: (1) Peter turned on Tom (= Peter attacked Tom suddenly and unexpectedly); (2) Jazz really turns Henry on (= Henry gets excited by jazz).

Now, we can see more clearly that, in (1), on must not be separated from the verb, whereas (2) strongly favours a separation. Indeed, the verb in (1) is known as a prepositional verb, whereas that in (2) is known as a phrasal verb. This is even clearer when the objects, Tom and Henry, are replaced by pronouns:

(3) *Peter turned him on.
(4) *Jazz really turns on him.

Note that, as indicated by *, the above are incorrect. Sentence (3) cannot mean ‘Peter attacked him suddenly and unexpectedly’, because prepositional verbs cannot be separated. Rather, (3) can only mean one thing: Peter got him excited. This is the phrasal verb meaning.

ENGLISH AS IT IS BROKEN 20 (10.12.06)

‘Come’ vs ‘Go’
This week’s fodder is an advertisement for McDonald’s delivery service: Can’t come to us? We’ll come to you!

The master teachers take exception to it, declaring that while it ought to ‘conjure thoughts of the arrival of a Big Mac of Happy Meal at our doorstep … language-wise, there’s a need for accurate directions!’. Observing that ‘“Come” means “to advance towards the speaker or towards a specified place”, as in “come to me” or “come here”’, they declare that ‘If McDonald’s wants to deliver its hamburgers to customers’ homes, it will be advancing away from its restaurant. Hence, the sign should read: “Can’t come to us? We’ll go to you!”’

If you thought that sounded bizarre, you were absolutely right — once again, the experts got it spectacularly wrong. (Their version is an excellent example of what is known in Linguistics as hypercorrection — when learners overextend rules and apply them in the wrong places, resulting in learners’ errors.)

What you and the McDonald's copywriter intuitively understand — but which the teachers fail to appreciate — is that in English discourse it is natural for one interlocutor (conversational partner) to assume the point of view of the other. While A might technically be going towards B, it would be more natural (and idiomatic) for him or her to see things from B’s perspective and speak of coming towards B.

Here is one situation to illustrate the above principle: Jean is feeling down and would like her mother to visit. They are making arrangements by ’phone. Does her mother say A or B?

A: Shall I come on Wednesday?
B: Shall I go on Wednesday?

The answer is most definitely A. Answer B would suggest that Jean’s mother is going elsewhere, not visiting Jean. Note that she might also say Shall I come to see you on Wednesday?, but Shall I go to see you on Wednesday? would sound distinctly odd. (This appears to be a linguistic universal — other languages likewise prefer come, for example German, in which A would be rendered Komme ich am Mittwoch?)

Here’s another example: Rob is having problems with his computer and rings a colleague, Pat, for help. After five minutes they are still stuck, and Pat decides it would be futile to continue on the ’phone. Does she say A or B?

A: Shall I go over right now?
B: Shall I come over right now?

Again, come is more natural. Pat would say Shall I go over right now? only if she were seeing another person who is not party to the conversation — say, Eric.

Here’s a further example, from Longman: Would you like to come to the concert with me? Note that the speaker cannot already be at the concert; yet, come has been chosen instead of go. What this illustrates is that in good, idiomatic English, come is used to convey solidarity or empathy between speakers. The McDonald's copywriter was obviously aware of this, and used it to good effect.

In conclusion: McDonald’s was right; the master teachers were wrong. The copywriter, as a professional user of the English language, clearly has a better ear for ‘real’ language than the master teachers — even if he/she lacks their technical knowledge of grammar.

This illustrates that using words strictly according to dictionary definitions, without any regard for or understanding of discourse conventions, has little to commend it. The result is artificial, textbook language — not real, idiomatic, precise English.

Nouns Again…
In discussing nouns and agreement, the teachers explain that police, poultry, cattle and livestock are ‘used only as plural nouns to refer to more than one item’, and note that these nouns pattern like children.

This is quite an astonishing misunderstanding — and not the first time the master teachers have failed to understand the elementary differences between noun types. (See English as it is Broken 14.)

Whereas the first four nouns are uncountable (meaning that they do not have plural forms although they are inherently plural), children is an entirely different class of noun: It is countable. The singular form is, of course, child. Note that, unlike child~children, the other nouns do not have distinct singular and plural forms. Hence, the following are wrong: *polices, *poultries, *cattles, *livestocks. (In Linguistics, * denotes an ungrammatical form or construction.)

Observe also, however, that poultry can be either singular or plural. When it refers to animals (chickens, ducks or geese) it is plural, as in the example given by the teachers: Poultry are kept for eggs and meat. But when it refers to food, it is singular: Poultry is cheaper than meat at the moment (Oxford Advanced Learner’s). This is typical of food terms. Similarly, we say These four salmon were caught by Bob this morning, but Salmon is a rich source of antioxidants.

Media
The teachers note that the (mass) media is technically plural, but is increasingly used as singular. A notable omission from the discussion was data, which is likewise treated by most speakers as singular nowadays . It might have been useful to point out that media in this sense is short for medium/media of (mass) communication.

Incidentally, in the sense of ‘person who can communicate with spirits of the dead’, medium takes an –s ending: Some of these temple mediums are obviously bogus.

ENGLISH AS IT IS BROKEN 19 (3.12.06)

‘During a Conversation’
The master teachers analyse a faulty sentence, ‘Watch out on the information you reveal during a conversation’.

While their suggested remedy — Be careful what you reveal in conversation — is a decided improvement, they are wrong to take issue with the phrase ‘during a conversation’. They claim that it ‘sounds awkward’, but offer no explanation.

For the record, there is nothing non-standard about ‘during a conversation’. An impressionistic Google search of the exact phrase yields approximately 379,000 instances thereof, and there is no suggestion whatsoever that ‘non-native speakers’ were responsible for the bulk of them. Indeed, the first hit is a White House press release! See www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html.

Watch Out!
While the teachers are not wrong to suggest the use of be careful of instead of watch out for, they miss a much more straightforward cure: Watch what you reveal during a conversation.

As any competent teacher or editor would know, it is often more helpful (and less demoralizing) to the student or writer to make just enough changes to a text to achieve grammatical accuracy, without suppressing personality.

ENGLISH AS IT IS BROKEN 18 (26.11.06)

‘Inflammable’ vs ‘Non-flammable’
In their discussion of negative prefixes such as in–, im–, un–, il– and ir–, the master teachers caution: ‘The “in” in the word “inflammable” does not mean “not”. “Inflammable” indicates something easily set on fire. The opposite for (sic) “inflammable” is “non-inflammable”’.

There are several points to be made about the above:

1. The Standard English opposite of (not for) inflammable is non-flammable, not non-inflammable.

2. Inflammable and flammable mean the same thing, but the former (inflammable) is chiefly British English.

3. Inflammable does not have a negative meaning because the prefix in– in this instance originates from the verb form inflame, from Latin inflammare. (Other English words with this same prefix include infer, inquire/enquire, include, inscribe and invoke.)

4. The negative in– is a different prefix altogether.

Homorganic Assimilation … or How A Sound Becomes More Like Its Neighbour
The teachers observe that ‘What determines which prefix is used is the first letter of the word. For example, to say that something is not legal, we say “illegal”, not ‘inlegal”. Something that is priceless and cannot be replaced is “irreplaceable”, while a person who cannot move is “immobile”’.

They continue: ‘As always, there are exceptions. Words beginning with “b” and (sic) “p” are also preceded by the prefix “im”. So a proposal can be “impractical”, not “inpractical”, and there can be an “imbalance” of power between rich and poor countries.’

And they conclude: ‘Without going into the technical details, this choice has to do with how we use our lips to pronounce sounds like “b”, “p” and “m”’.

More problems:

1. The teachers again (see English as it is Broken 7, discussion on ‘Shutter Bus’) confuse spelling with sound (pronunciation). It is sound, not spelling, that counts — so they should not be talking about ‘the first letter of a word’.

2. Fortunately, in the examples cited above, no problems arise. But rules like ‘Use an if the first letter of the noun is a vowel’ fall apart spectacularly with such words as university and hour, because in both there is a mismatch between spelling and pronunciation. And ultimately, it is pronunciation that wins.

3. How are impractical and imbalance ‘exceptions’ — since, like illegal and immobile, their prefixes are determined by the first sound of the root?

4. Words cannot — at least in English — simultaneously begin with ‘b’ and ‘p’. Make it or.

5. The teachers write: ‘Without going into the technical details, this choice has to do with how we use our lips to pronounce sounds like “b”, “p” and “m”’ (25 words). Here is how to do it in layman’s terms: ‘We use im– with words beginning in a ‘b’, ‘p’ or ‘m’ sound to make the join easier. Notice that they are all pronounced with the lips pressed together’ (29 words).

6. Incidentally, in phonetics the process described above is termed homorganic assimilation — this is when one speech sound becomes more like an adjacent one in terms of how it is produced by the speech organs.

ENGLISH AS IT IS BROKEN 17 (19.11.06)

‘Tell’ vs ‘Ask’
In this column, the difference between tell and ask are considered. With examples such as I’m going to tell him to do something and I’m going to ask him to do something, the master teachers claim that the choice lies in the power relationship between the speaker and the hearer.

They elaborate: ‘In Standard English, the use of “tell” in the above examples would imply that the speaker has authority over the listener. The former is instructing the latter to do something, and the listener would have no option but to do as ordered. On the other hand, “ask” in Standard English is akin to “request”’.

This is not entirely correct: The difference lies, first and foremost, in the force of the utterance. The fact that tell is associated with authority is only secondary. Indeed, tell could well be used among friends, as this example from Macmillan aptly demonstrates: I’m not asking you; I’m telling you! Similarly, if a king is displeased with his ministers and sends them away, one might say They were asked to leave.

‘Listener’ vs ‘Hearer’
Oddly enough, the master teachers misuse the word listener three times in their brief discussion. In linguistic and discourse contexts, the correct term is hearer.

By contrast, listener is mainly used in two very different senses: Pat is a good listener; Donald is an avid listener of the BBC.