|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's it about? American English—how we use it, its beauty, its challenges. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was quite a few years ago—more that several—but I still remember my friend's words: "I only had several dollars."
That use of "several" struck me as odd, paired as it was with "only." The two don't seem to go together, because to my ear "several" carries a positive charge, a slight emphasis on the "more than" quality of the word, while "only" feels the opposite.
It would sound okay to say "I only had a few dollars," or "I wasn't broke; I still had several dollars." In both cases, things match—"only—a few" and "wasn't broke—several dollars." But mixing the "only" and "several" is a little like putting the same poles of two magnets together—there's something in their nature that pushes them apart.
On the other hand—and there's almost always another hand—I recently came across this wording: "...four species represented by no more than several individuals."
So, was the writer wrong? Careless? Insensitive? Not likely. The phrase comes from a book by E. O. Wilson, one of the most-intellegent and cogent writers I've ever read. Which leads to another possibility—that not all smart, literate people consider "several" to have a positive charge.
Which answer is right? I don't know, but am pretty sure that it's the second one—different people, different opinions. Probably several different opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A reader asks:
I remembered a rule from a forgotten English teacher from the 50’s and I want to check: after I use a “wish” or “if” is it necessary to change a subsequent “was” to a “were”?
And here’s our answer:
As with most things in life, it depends.
The key point in deciding whether to use “was” or “were” is whether or not you’re talking about something that’s true (or probably true). If it’s true (or probably so), use “was”; if untrue (or probably so), use “were.”
So if you say “He thinks that if he was/were somewhere else, he’d be rich and happy,” you’d use “were.”
But if you say “If that noise was/were the phone, I didn’t realize it,” you’d use “was.” In the first example, it’s not true that he’s somewhere else; in the second, it appears likely that the noise was the phone.
What we’re dealing with here is what grammarians call “moods” or “mode,” the use of different verb forms to show the speaker-writer’s intent. The indicative mood is used for ordinary sentences like simple questions or statements of fact. The main use of the subjunctive mood is to show “conditions contrary to fact.”
So someone who says “If the mailman were here...” is indicating that the mailman is not present—”If the mailman were here, I’d give him this letter.” But saying “If the mailman was here...” suggests that the mailman may well have been there—“The mailman has almost always comes by before this time, but if he was here, he left no mail.”
We used to see the subjunctive much more frequently, but for present-day writers and speakers, the most important thing to know is what’s been covered here—use “was” with factual things, “were” with non-factual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, not exactly commodes—but a question closely associated with them.
The question is—should the loose end of the toilet paper hang down in front? Or should it unroll off the back (the side nearest the wall)?
Someone did a study on that (don’t know why), and it seems that many people have strong opinions on the subject. They’re about equally divided between front-siders and back-siders, and there’s a range as to how important they think it is. People in the middle (like me) don’t much care one way or the other, but some do—a lot. Some have even confessed to doing a roll-reversal when using someone else’s bathroom.
Reminds me of the attitudes toward serial commas. If you write about A, B, and C, do you need a comma after B? As with most things in life, it depends. Sometimes you do need a comma to clarify, but most of the time you don’t—the meaning is usually clear without punctuation.
Still, even when no comma is needed for clarity, some people insist that we shove one in. Others insist that we leave it out.
Why? Don’t know that either.
It could be for the sake of consistency—foolish or otherwise. But I suspect the underlying reason has more to do with the toilet-paper mentality than with any desire for clear writing.
Some people learned a rule way back when, and have trouble giving up their certitude.They're sure their way is the right way, and just can’t stand to see others doing things the any other way.
Many (I think most) well edited publications do use that serial comma, yet many do not. So do it your way, but recognize that others have the right to differ. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
During a writing workshop we conducted in Washington D.C. last week, we mentioned the fact that people can get very emotional about their language—even about points of usage that many of us consider unimportant.
One woman told about a problem in her office, where people had formed two opposing camps over a disagreement about the spelling of a word. It wasn’t a trivial matter to them—they had serious arguments—ongoing and heated. “One man,” she said, “was so angry he was nearly in tears.”
So, what was the word? It was gauge, or gage, depending. When I asked the workshop participants how they might have handled the situation, one man (intelligent, good writer) said, “Tell them to just shut up and get back to work.”
Well, that’s one way to do it. We’ll give you our ideas about it next week, but in the meantime, let us know what you think. Tell us what you might have done—before, during, or after the problem came up. Give us your opinion on the spelling, or anything else you’d like to say on this topic of disagreements about usage.
We’ll try to ga—um, consider—your ideas before adding ours. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Know any doryphores? You probably do, and wish you didn’t. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
