after c.English pronounciation is impossible and spelling worse.I s
like topsy in "Uncle Tom's Cabin": it just "GROWED",As Churchwill once
said ."That is something with which I wil not put up".True but
"finalize" is stupid.Al least English does NOT HAVE masuline, feminine,
and neuter pronouns and corresponding aadjectival endings plus singular
and plural.Also "ain't" ain't proper but I do NOT want language cops!
> Sunday, May 22, 2011
> Top 10 Useless, Outdated English Grammar
> Rules<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2011/05/top-10-useless-outdated-english-grammar.html>
> *By Farooq A. Kperogi*
>
> Unlike French, the English language does not have a language academy that
> polices usage norms across the English-speaking world. So notions of proper
> and improper grammar are mediated by the prescriptions of professional
> grammarians, dictionaries, and popular usage patterns, that is, by what the
> majority of the people speak.
>
> William Lewis Safire, the late famous American grammar columnist, once said,
> ?In the long run, usage calls the shots.? He meant that proper usage is, by
> and large, what people actually speak as opposed to what snooty, armchair
> grammarians prescribe.
>
> That is why expressions that were regarded as unpardonable solecisms in one
> era may become perfectly legitimate and socially prestigious in another.
> Below I have identified once religiously observed usage conventions that
> have now lost currency in contemporary English grammar in both America and
> Britain.
>
> *1.* *??Each other? is for two and ?one another? for three or more.?* For
> several years, it was a grammatical taboo to use the phrase ?each other? for
> more than two people or things (such as this sentence: ?The three brothers
> like each other?) or to use ?one another? for fewer than two people or
> things (such as this sentence: ?The husband and wife love one another?).
>
> In contemporary grammar, however, the distinction between the two phrases
> has disappeared. They can now legitimately be used interchangeably. The
> current edition of *Merriam-Webster Dictionary*, one of America?s most
> authoritative dictionaries, writes: ?Some handbooks and textbooks recommend
> that each other be restricted to reference to two and one another to
> reference to three or more. The distinction, while neat, is not observed in
> actual usage. Each other and one another are used interchangeably by good
> writers and have been since at least the 16th century.?
>
> Before you think this is an American grammatical deviation, read what Sidney
> Greenbaum and Janet Whitcut, two of Britain?s leading grammarians, wrote in
> their celebrated *Longman Guide to English Usage*: ?There is no basis for
> the superstition that ?each other? should refer to two people or things, and
> ?one another? to more than two.?
>
> *2*. *?Don?t start a sentence with a conjunction*.? Many old grammar books
> taught that it was unacceptable to start a sentence with a conjunction, such
> as ?and,? ?but,? and ?or.? Sentences like, ?And it came to pass that his
> wish was fulfilled,? ?But how do we know that he is real?? ?Or we can change
> the rules as we go? would have attracted swift rebuke from grammatical
> purists. But from the late twentieth century (notice that I began my
> sentence with a ?but?!) the rule began to change. Now, it is perfectly
> proper?and, in fact, very effective especially in advertising and creative
> writing?to begin sentences with conjunctions, i.e., with ?and,? ?but? and
> ?or.?
>
> *3.* *?Don?t end a sentence with a preposition.?* It was also considered
> bad grammar to end sentences with prepositions. So instead of writing, ?I
> don?t remember the name of the drug he was addicted to,? grammarians of the
> previous generation would write, ?I don?t remember the name of the drug to
> which he was addicted.?
>
> This rule emerged from the uncritical, unreflective mimicry of the
> syntactical structure of Latin, the language of science and scholarship in
> Europe until the 17th century. But the
> ?no-preposition-at-the-end-of-a-sentence? rule is not only counter-intuitive
> and senseless, it is also antithetical to the natural rhythm of the English
> language. How do you, for instance, avoid ending with a preposition in the
> following sentences: ?I don?t know what she is talking ABOUT? (who says ?I
> don?t know about what she is talking??); ?What does she look LIKE?? (who
> says ?What like does she look??), ?The details have been attended TO.?
>
> Since English was first written, revered writers in the language have ended
> sentences with prepositions. The demonization of this practice started when
> English-speaking Latin enthusiasts in the sixteenth and seventeenth
> centuries attempted to impose the structure of their newfound language on
> the then less socially prestigious English, which used to be called a
> ?vernacular? language. Today, many serious writers ignore the rule because
> it?s patently stupid and unnatural. Late British Prime Minister Winston
> Churchill captured the stupidity of the rule when, in an elegant mockery of
> the "no-preposition-at-the-end-of-a-sentence" rule, he famously quipped:
> "This is the kind of nonsense up with which I shall not put"!
>
> *4*. *??Between? is for two and ?among? for three or more.?* This rule is
> still partly relevant. The problem is that it tends to be over-generalized.
> It is still the case that where more than two persons or things are
> involved, ?among? should be preferred to ?between,? as in: ?The books were
> divided between the two students/among the three students.?
>
> However, when we speak of exact positions or of precise individual
> relationships, ?between? is the only acceptable choice. For instance, it is
> wrong to write: ?A memorandum of understanding among five African
> countries.? It should properly be ?A memorandum of understanding BETWEEN
> five African countries. ?African? brings precision to the relationship.
> Similarly, it is wrong to say ?Nigeria lies among Cameroun, Niger, Benin and
> Chad.? It should be ?Nigeria lies BETWEEN Cameroun, Niger, Benin and Chad.?
> The mention of the names of the countries surrounding Nigeria brings
> exactness to the relationship.
>
> *5.* *?It?s machete, not matchet.?* This distinction is a staple of Nigerian
> newspaper grammar columnists. But the truth is that both forms are
> acceptable to refer to the large heavy knife used as a weapon or for cutting
> vegetation. Matchet is the older form and machete is the more contemporary
> form, but both words are rarely used in American and British English because
> the people in these countries have no use for the instrument. Lawn movers
> and guns do the jobs that machetes do in Nigeria and elsewhere in the Third
> World. Machete is pronounced ?mashe-tee? while matchet is pronounced
> ?ma-chit.?
>
> *6.* *?Avoid split infinitives.?* First, what is an infinitive? A simple
> definition of an infinitive is that it is the uninflected (i.e., unchanged)
> form of a verb. That means it is the basic form of a verb with or without
> the particle ?to.? Examples: ?to go? or simply ?go?; ?to see? or simply
> ?see?; ?to eat? or simply ?eat.? In grammar, these verbs will be regarded as
> ?inflected? if/when they change form to reflect change in tense or number.
> For instance, when ?go/ to go? changes to ?went? or ?goes? or ?gone? it will
> no longer be an infinitive; it will be regarded as inflected.
>
> So a split infinitive occurs when an adverb ( e.g. those words that end with
> ?ly? such as ?beautifully,? ?nicely,? ?boldly,? etc) comes between the
> particle ?to? and the uninflected form of a verb. Examples: ?They were told
> TO SERIOUSLY THINK about their plans,? ?You ought TO DEFINITELY SEE him,?
> ?They are sure TO NICELY say hello to you,? etc. In the first example,
> ?seriously? comes between ?to? and ?think,? in the second sentence
> ?definitely? appears between ?to? and ?see,? and in the third sentence
> ?nicely? comes between ?to? and ?say.?
>
> From the eighteenth century to much of the twentieth century, the split
> infinitive was regarded as an unpardonable solecism. So, for example, the
> sentence ?you ought to definitely see him? would have been corrected to ?you
> definitely ought to see him.? Notice that the adverb (that is, ?definitely?)
> is no longer between ?to? and ?see?. But the ?no-split-infinitive? rule is
> another mechanical and thoughtless transference of Latin grammar to English.
> Modern grammarians have now discarded it. So feel no guilt when you split
> your infinitives.
>
> *7. ?He and ?his? as generic third-person singular pronouns.* In traditional
> grammar, the pronouns ?he? and ?his? had two meanings. Their first meaning,
> which is still true to this day, is that they function as the pronoun used
> to refer to a male human. E.g. ?He is a great guy,? ?It is his work.? In
> their second usage, they functioned as the generic pronouns to refer to
> humans of either sex. So in constructions where reference is made to both
> males and females, it was usual to use ?he? or ?his.? For example: ?Everyone
> should bring HIS books to school today.? Feminists objected to this usage
> for several years. They advocated replacing the generic ?he? and ?his? with
> ?they? and ?their.? This was initially met with resistance from (male)
> grammarians.
>
> Today, it is acceptable to write, ?Everybody should bring THEIR books.? This
> can sometimes lead to awkward constructions, such as: ?Anyone who thinks
> THEY can sing should raise THEIR hands.? Here, we have a disruption of
> subject-verb agreement. People who are uncomfortable with this either use
> the clumsy ?his or her? or completely change the sentence structure to
> something like ?people who think they can sing?.?
>
> *8. ?The expression ?at about? is vague and should be avoided.?* Old
> grammarians insisted that the preposition ?at? expressed exactness in
> position, direction, or point in time and that ?about? expressed imprecision
> in position, direction, or point in time and therefore that the expression
> ?at about 10 p.m.? was redundant, even self-contradictory. I agree.
>
> However, the phrase has endured fierce criticism since the eighteenth
> century and has now been admitted into the pantheon of English idioms. This
> supports William Lewis Safire?s argument that, ?In the long run, usage calls
> the shots.? Similar expressions to ?at about? include ?close proximity,?
> ?aid and abet,? ?large fortune.? These are now fixed phrases that are used
> for emphasis, and it seems churlish to resist them.
>
> *9. ?Say ?It?s I,? not ?it?s me?.?* For many years, grammarians objected to
> the expression ?it?s me.? They said the correct form of that expression
> should be ?it?s I.? As Sidney Greenbaum and Janet Whitcut wrote, ?The verb
> ?be? is a linking verb, and the pronoun following it is not an object but a
> complement that refers back to the subject.? Following this rule,
> grammarians objected to expressions like ?This is me? (they said it should
> be ?This is I?), ?This is him? (they said it should be ?This is he?).
> However, in contemporary English, almost no one says ?It?s I,? or ?This is
> I,? or ?This is he.? These expressions now sound stilted and unnatural.
>
> Many grammarians have relaxed their objections to ?it?s me? and ?this is
> him.? The same fate awaits the expression ?between you and I? (which should
> correctly be ?between you and me?), etc. Popular usage is subverting many
> time-honored prescriptive rules.
>
> *10. ?Say ?If I were,? not ?if I was?.?* There is still a fierce battle
> among grammarians about the appropriateness of these phrases. In grammar,
> ?if I were? is referred to as being in the ?subjunctive mood.? The
> subjective verb represents the form of a verb used to represent an act or a
> state that has not happened and has no likelihood of happening but that has
> nevertheless been imagined. For instance, when Beyonce sang ?If I were a
> boy,? she clearly implied that she was actually not a boy nor could she be
> one, but imagined herself as one nonetheless. Semantic purists insist that
> on occasions such as this, ?if I were? is the only acceptable expression.
>
> But the subjunctive verb, which was prevalent in Middle English (i.e. from
> about 1100 to 1450), is now obsolete. It?s only in the expression ?if I
> were? that it has endured in modern English. Increasingly, however, people,
> especially young people in both Britain and America, are replacing ?if I
> were? with ?if I was,? although ?if I was? used to be considered uneducated
> English. (For recent notable examples of the use of ?if I was? in popular
> hit songs, refer to Far East Movement?s ?If I was
> you?<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCnrVd4iwi8> and
> Liza Minnelli?s ?If there was
> love?<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLsOADB7pbg>).
> It is inevitable that ?if I were? will ultimately die and be replaced with
> ?If I was.? But, for now, my advice is this: use ?if I were? in formal
> contexts and ?if I was? in informal contexts.
>
>
> *Related Articles:*
>
> *1. A Comparison of Nigerian, American and British
> English<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2007/09/divided-by-common-language-comparing.html>
> 2. <http://www.blogger.com/goog_2036618659>Why is "Sentiment" Such a Bad
> Word in
> Nigeria?<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2009/12/why-is-sentiment-such-bad-word-in.html>
> 3. Ambassador Aminchi's Impossible Grammatical
> Logic<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2009/12/yaraduas-health-amb-aminchis-impossible.html>
> 4. 10 Most Annoying Nigerian Media English
> Expressions<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2009/12/10-most-annoying-nigerian-media-english.html>
> 5. Sambawa and "Peasant Attitude to
> Governance"<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2009/12/sambawa-and-peasant-attitude-to.html>
> 6. Adverbial and Adjectival Abuse in Nigerian
> English<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2009/12/adverbial-and-adjectival-abuse-in.html>
> 7. In Defense of "Flashing" and Other
> Nigerianisms<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2010/01/in-defense-of-flashing-and-other.html>
> 8. Weird Words We're Wedded to in Nigerian
> English<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2010/01/weird-words-were-wedded-to-in-nigerian.html>
> 9. American English or British
> English?<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2010/01/american-english-or-british-english.html>
> 10. Hypercorrection in Nigerian
> English<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2010/02/hypercorrection-in-nigerian-english.html>
> 11. Nigerianisms, Americanisms, Briticisms and Communication
> Breakdown<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2010/02/nigerianisms-americanisms-briticisms.html>
> 12. Top 10 Irritating Errors in American
> English<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2010/03/top-10-irritating-errors-in-american.html>
> 13. Nigerian Editors Killing Macebuh Twice with Bad
> Grammar<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2010/03/nigerian-editors-killing-macebuh-twice.html>
> 14. On "Metaphors" and "Puns" in Nigerian
> English<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2010/04/on-metaphors-and-puns-in-nigerian-media.html>
> 15. Common Errors of Pluralization in Nigerian
> English<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2010/04/common-errors-of-pluralization-in.html>
> <http://www.blogger.com/goog_704080340>16. Q & A About Common Grammatical
> Problems<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2010/04/q-and-about-common-grammatical-problems.html>
> <http://www.blogger.com/goog_704080340>17. Semantic Change and the Politics
> of English
> Pronunciation<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2010/04/semantic-change-and-politics-of-english.html>
> *
> *18. Common Errors of Reported Speech in Nigerian
> English<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2010/05/common-errors-of-reported-speech-in.html>
> *
> *19. Broken English, Pidgin English and Nigerian
> English<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2010/05/broken-english-pidgin-english-and.html>
> *
> *20. Top Cutest and Strangest Nigerian English
> Idioms<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2010/06/top-cutest-and-strangest-nigerian.html>
> *
> *21. Back-formation and Affixation in Nigerian
> English<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2010/07/back-formation-and-affixation-in.html>
> *
> *22. The Politics of Usage and Meaning in
> English<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2010/08/politics-of-meaning-and-usage-in.html>
> *
> *23. When Food and Grammar
> Mix<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2010/08/when-food-and-grammar-mix.html>
> *
> *24. Q and A on
> Grammar<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2010/09/q-and-on-grammar.html>
> *
> *25. The African Origins of Common English
> Words<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2010/09/african-origins-of-common-english-words.html>
> *
> *26. Reader Feedback and My
> Responses<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2010/09/reader-feedback-and-my-responses.html>
> *
> *27. Top 10 Oxymoronic Expressions in
> English<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2010/10/top-10-oxymoronic-expressions-in.html>
> *
> *28. The Grammar of Titles and Naming in International
> English<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2010/10/grammar-of-titles-and-naming-in.html>
> *
> *29. Q and A on Nigerian English
> Usage<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2010/10/q-and-on-nigerian-english-usage.html>
> *
> *30. Comparing the Vernaculars of American and British
> Universities<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2010/11/comparing-vernaculars-of-american-and.html>
> *
> 31. Neologisms and Ebonics in American
> English<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2010/12/neologisms-and-ebonics-in-american.html>
> 32. Patience Jonathan's Peculiar
> Grammar<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2011/03/patience-jonathans-peculiar-grammar.html>
> 33. Top 10 Words Nigerians Commonly
> Misspell<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2011/04/top-10-words-nigerians-commonly.html>
> 34. Is American English Bastardized (British)
> English?<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2011/04/is-american-english-bastardized-english.html>
> 35. Top Election-Related Grammatical Errors in Nigerian
> English<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2011/05/top-election-related-grammatical-errors.html>
> 36. Of Origins, American English and British
> English<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2011/05/of-origins-american-english-and-british.html>
> 37. When is "Nigerian English"
> Legitimate?<http://farooqkperogi.blogspot.com/2011/05/when-is-nigerian-english-legitimate.html>
>
>
> Farooq A. Kperogi, Ph.D.
> 1 Park Place South
> Suite 817C
> Atlanta, GA, USA.
> 30303
> Cell: (+1) 404-573-9697
> Blog: www.farooqkperogi.blogspot.com
> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/farooqkperogi
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/farooqkperogi
>
> "The nice thing about pessimism is that you are constantly being either
> proven right or pleasantly surprised." G. F. Will
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of
> Texas at Austin.
> For current archives, visit
> http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
> For previous archives, visit
> http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
> To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
> unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment