Pronunciation watch

[Serial_Apologist]

Sewt. Dad used to insist on "syoot", but he was brought up by Bertie Wooster types.

[cloughie]

I really don't thing you are taking me very seriously.

See my edit!

[french frank]

But I could conceive of saying syoot. For unknown reasons - perhaps having heard someone say it. Perhaps depending on the surrounding sounds in the sentence. Perhaps it depends on whether it's a noun or a verb...

[Lateralthinking1]

I am a teacher and all but one of my pupils writes the word "slowly" in an accepted context. Fred writes "slow", I add "ly" to his essay in red and his parents request a meeting. When they arrive, they quote Shakespeare and ask me to apologise. I refuse to do so on the basis that authors have never necessarily been reliable sources, a lot of language is now standardised, to learn to use the word "slowly" would improve Fred's job prospects in the long term and his colleagues will be less likely to consider him stupid.

His parents are not convinced. Fred has become hyper-correct apparently. He has started to add "ly" to words like "boat" and "cabbage". Furthermore, he is confused because the trendy kids are saying that "bad" is now a word for "good". I explain that I would correct "bad" to "good" in any essay where it was used inappropriately. If the essay was intended to convey anything other than a modern street style, it wouldn't be appropriate. Fred's parents tell me that in the former case I am dismissing history and in the latter I am dismissing modernity. It appears that I am making my own rules and being inconsistent. Please justify my position.

I say that language is always on a journey. Some principles have lasted and some haven't done so. Many were never very clear to most people centuries ago. Arguably, the ones that are common sense and were used consistently are likely to have had a better chance of surviving but there are many exceptions too. In the event of well-established norms, it is probably reasonable to say that those are correct and that marked variations are incorrect, even if they were used by a few writers or even a scientist in distant times. Our duty is to note changes that have been occurring in recent decades and to assess whether they should be accepted as valid. A part of the assessment is based on the perceived derivation and the known usefulness of ongoing precision.

It emerges that Fred's parents are not only well-read but are political. They tell me that they have concerns about elitism. Who am I as Fred's teacher to judge whether one derivation is more valid than any other? Am I saying that changes emanating from, say, ordinary people, the kids who are better at woodwork than English, foreign people or the young have less validity? If so, why? My answer is "it depends". I too make many errors but my opinion is that changes which can be justified on the basis of grammar tend to be more valid. The alternative is to permit general ignorance to rule the day and the tail really should not be wagging the dog.

Do I agree with split infinitives? In the main, no, as English should not be changed by "Star Trek". The ending of sentences with "of"? "No" as it is ungainly, it serves no useful purpose, and it merges those who can avoid such things linguistically with the ones who can't do so. It is similar to a computer spelling check in that way, suggesting an equality of ability where it doesn't exist. "Bad" as a word for "good"? "No". It is best kept to the playground which is nearer to the American "hoods" from where it came. And beginning a sentence with "And" or "But"? "Yes" because it serves two distinct purposes - emphasis and splitting long sentences. I feel that I am doing what I can to safeguard the language. Would Fred's parents really have good reason to continue to complain?

[Serial_Apologist]

But I could conceive of saying syoot. For unknown reasons - perhaps having heard someone say it. Perhaps depending on the surrounding sounds in the sentence. Perhaps it depends on whether it's a noun or a verb...

A mute point?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

The alternative is to permit general ignorance to rule the day and the tail really should not be wagging the dog.

This is the point I have been making, but it's exactly what I believe is happening. The tolerance police are all-powerful

[french frank]

Lat - as a teacher (you), there are some points that require judgement. Spelling mistakes like Brittania or devestate (to mention two I've seen lately, uncorrected ) require quiet correction (google corrects them automatically). But other cases have to be considered carefully, and in context. Where there is hesitation or different uses, I would leave well alone. Ending a sentence with 'of'? What are you thinking of? I might offer alternatives for students to think about themselves, or to discuss with the remark that 'I would say ...', rather marking something wrong.

[Serial_Apologist]

One question which has not so far been asked is, if changes to our language are to be accepted at the present rate, how will non-English speaking peoples ever be able to learn it?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Lat - as teacher (you), there are some points that require judgement. Spelling mistakes like Brittania or devestate (to mention two I've seen lately, uncorrected ) require quiet correction (google corrects them automatically). But other cases have to be considered carefully, and in context. Where there is hesitation or different uses, I would leave well alone. Ending a sentence with 'of'? What are you thinking of? I might offer alternatives for students to think about themselves, or to discuss with the remark that 'I would say ...', rather marking something wrong.

I can't argue with that. The point about Google (and others) correcting automatically can be irritating, particularly when the site or program(me) defaults to U.S. English without warning. Sometimes I want to write a word on the iPad, and I have to fight it - more time-consuming than correcting an underlined word.

[jean]

Do I agree with split infinitives? In the main, no, as English should not be changed by "Star Trek".

It isn't being - Star Trek was only doing what English speakers had always felt comfortable doing, until the C18 grammar police reasoned that since an infinitive could not be 'split' in Latin, it had better not be permitted to in English either.

(See Fowler on this.)

Enslavement to Latin is also without doubt what's behind the proscription on prepositions at the end of sentences.

.

[Lateralthinking1]

Lat - as a teacher (you), there are some points that require judgement. Spelling mistakes like Brittania or devestate (to mention two I've seen lately, uncorrected ) require quiet correction (google corrects them automatically). But other cases have to be considered carefully, and in context. Where there is hesitation or different uses, I would leave well alone. Ending a sentence with 'of'? What are you thinking of? I might offer alternatives for students to think about themselves, or to discuss with the remark that 'I would say ...', rather marking something wrong.

Were they mine?

I think your "What are you thinking of?" is fine in the context of dialogue. I don't like "We asked many people to name the sweets they bought and were amazed by the number they thought of."

You might not correct that sentence. I am not sure that it is to be corrected and the Plain English Society would probably love it. Nevertheless, several of those in one essay and the absence of them in another would give me an impression. The former could be 7 out of 10 and the latter an 8. Ornate or flowery language, if stilted, might also be a 7 so it is a balance.

As I have said before, I was never taught English grammar and to many that might be obvious. I have one year of Latin, four years of German and five of French. Ironically we did have grammar there but I doubt many links were made. I am happy enough with what can be done with common sense, some instinct for sound and structure and a willingness to improve.

That is what I would hope to see in most students.

[Serial_Apologist]

Were they mine?

I think your "What are you thinking of?" is fine in the context of dialogue. I don't like "We asked many people to name the sweets they bought and were amazed by the number they thought of".

You might not correct that sentence. I am not sure that it is to be corrected and the Plain English Society would probably love it. Nevertheless, several of those in one essay and the absence of them in another would give me an impression. The former could be 7 out of 10 and the latter an 8. Ornate or flowery language, if stilted, might also be a 7 so it is a balance.

As I have said before, I was never taught English grammar and to many that might be obvious. I have one year of Latin, four years of German and five years of French. Ironically we did have grammar there but I doubt many links were made. I am happy enough with what can be done with common sense, instinct and a willingness to improve. That is what I would hope to see in most students.

How about "They thought up"? Would that be grammatically wrong?

Unlike you Lat I was taught grammar and syntax, at the age of 12. Parsing sentances, the lot. I've never managed to escape accusations of writing overlong sentances, with too many subordinate clauses.

But, what of the practicalities of teaching an English that is constantly on the move to a complete novice?

[french frank]

One question which has not so far been asked is, if changes to our language are to be accepted at the present rate, how will non-English speaking peoples ever be able to learn it?

The modernisms are in the main add-ons. Most of it remains unchanged. I am now thoroughly out of date with my French too, but still reckon I can be understood.

As far as these 'rules' are concerned, I wonder what authority people are using to assert they are right? I suspect in many cases it is no more than what they say and what they were taught. That wouldn't be considered very authoritative. Even the 'prescriptive' Fowler is more linguistically liberal. On prepositions at the end of the sentence, he has no truck with that: "It was once a cherished superstition that prepositions must be kept true to their name and placed before the word they govern in spite of the incurable English instinct for putting them late ('They are the fittest timber to make great politics of'... ). 'Inelegant' &c. 'Superstition'?

People who adhere strictly to rules could do worse than study Fowler 2nd ed. Writers aren't the best authorities? What should be remembered is that a modern language is the language people write and speak, the language they use. In grammar and vocabulary it won't be the same now as when we were young. That shouldn't surprise anyone, and certainly shouldn't be denied. Use common sense rather than rules.

[jean]

I don't like "We asked many people to name the sweets they bought and were amazed by the number they thought of."

I don't think '...were amazed by the number of which they thought' has gained much in gainliness!

[french frank]

... some instinct for sound and structure and a willingness to improve.

That is what I would hope to see in most students.

And that is what you can teach them to use