GRAMMAR
Tips
2003
the grammar
underground
© Professor PJH Titlestad (2003)
Layout: Alan Gray
Contents
PAGE
Tip 01. Introduction: basic skills
4
Tip 02. Sentence analysis – Winston Churchill
5
Tip 03. Sentence structure and analysis – the Declaration of Independence
6
Tip 04. Sentence analysis - the Declaration of Independence
7
Tip 05. Style and structure - the Declaration of Independence
8
Tip 06. The “periodic” sentence – Boswell on Dr Johnson
10
Tip 07. Compound sentences – co-ordinating conjunctions
11
Tip 08. Churchill again
13
Tip 09. Discussion and analogy
14
Tip 10. Sentences and fragments
15
Tip 11. Boswell repucntuated
16
Tip 12. Analysis is implicit
17
Tip 13. Vocabulary – “synonyms”
19
Tip 14. Hazards of the English vocabulary
20
Tip 15. Latin and Saxon - style
21
Tip 16. Variety of vocabulary – Dicken’s Mr Micawber
23
Tip 17. Dr Samuel Johnson
24
Tip 18. Gentle – a lesson in “synonyms”
25
Tip 19. Saxon and Latin – the first Volkswagen and William Barnes
26
Tip 20. Anglo-Saxon and loan words
28
Tip 21. The Vikings
29
Tip 22. The Norman Conquest
30
Tip 23. French Borrowings
31
Tip 24. Early Modern English
33
Tip 25. Early Modern commentators and the King’s English
35
Tip 26. Shakespeare
36
Tip 27. Euphemism
37
Tip 28. Some modern borrowings - cybersex
38
Tip 29. Prefixes and suffixes – affixes
39
Tip 30. Stress in pronunciation: reduction
42
2
Tip 31. More about stress and reduction
44
Tip 32. Stress changes meaning and function
46
Tip 33. Yet more about stress
48
Tip 34. Stress and poetry
49
Tip 35. Motivation – a problem word
51
Tip 36. Speakers of indigenous African languages
53
Tip 37. Wrong stress and faulty intonation
56
Tip 38. Farewell – a summary of material on intranet
58
3
GRAMMAR TIP 01
Dear Colleagues All,
This is the beginning of a new year, with a new intake of students who may have passed “matric”
but may never have learnt to plan and carefully compose a piece of clear expository prose. And, of
course, the older students have all come back again. What do we do in terms of the general
communicative skills that apply to all languages and in terms of the grammar and vocabulary of
particular languages, especially Afrikaans and English, the two teaching languages of the
University of Pretoria?
We are all teachers of language, of grammar and of general communicative skills, a task that we
have to perform with large numbers of “them” and not enough of “us”. Language work needs
individual attention, marking, following up. Staffing is not always adequate.
Sound sentences, well-organised paragraphs and control of tenses are the essentials. Does the
writing contain good signposts and a sense of structure? Do sentence have a subject and a finite
verb, or are students jotting down sentence fragments? Is the time sequence clear?
There are of course, a host of possible grammatical errors. Something like concord is worth making
a point of because it does focus the students on the subject/verb basis of the sentence. In general,
we want written work to be as fault-free as possible.
As far as vocabulary is concerned, do the students have a decent dictionary, and do they know how
to use it?
Then, all these skills are essential for reading comprehension. What is the subject and the verb?
What are the signposts in the writing? They must be looked for. What is the point of each
paragraph? (We hope that there is a point!) Writing skills and reading skills go hand in hand.
Please excuse this opening of the new year with a lugubrious exhortation to language teaching
virtue. The letters that follow will try to be a little more entertaining.
Regards,
Peter Titlestad
4
the grammar
underground
GRAMMAR TIP 02
Dear Colleagues All,
It is fashionable to look back with pity and contempt at what is called the “formal” teaching of
grammar. Teaching must be “communicative”. The trouble is that one does not communicate
without being coherent, and coherence requires a touch of discipline. In the following passage,
Churchill describes how he was taught sentence structure. (Incidentally he was thought to be a
dullard, and so kept down for a bit).
‘I continued in this unpretentious situation for nearly a year. However, by
being so long in the lowest form I gained an immense advantage over the
cleverer boys. They all went on to learn Latin and Greek and splendid things
like that. But I was taught English. We were considered such dunces that we
could learn only English. Mr Somervell – a most delightful man, to whom my
debt is great – was charged with the duty of teaching the stupidest boys the
most disregarded thing – namely, to write mere English. He knew how to do
it. He taught it as no one else has ever taught it. Not only did we learn English
parsing thoroughly, but we also practiced continually English analysis. Mr
Somervell had a system of his own. He took a fairly long sentence and broke it
up into its components by means of black, red, blue and green inks. Subject,
verb, object: Relative Clauses, Conditional Clauses, Conjunctive and
Disjunctive Clauses! Each had its colour and its bracket. It was a kind of drill.
We did it almost daily. As I remained in the Third Fourth three times as long
as anyone else, I had three times as much of it. I learned it thoroughly. Thus I
got into my bones the essential structure of the ordinary British sentence –
which is a noble thing. And when in after years my schoolfellows who had
won prizes for writing such beautiful Latin poetry and pithy Greek epigrams
had to come down again to common English, to earn their living or make their
way, I did not feel myself at any disadvantage. Naturally I am biased in favour
of boys learning English. I would make them all learn English: and then I
would let the cleverer ones learn Latin as an honour, and Greek as a treat. But
the only thing I would whip them for is not knowing English. I would whip
them hard for that.’
Is this a glimpse into the dark ages of education? Or does it point to something that has
unfortunately been lost?
Regards,
Peter Titlestad
5
the grammar
underground
GRAMMAR TIP 03
Dear Colleagues All,
The previous two letters touched on the question of sentence structure and of conscious
awareness, both in writing and in reading, of the elements of syntax. One of the sentence
types is called a complex sentence. This is made up of a main sentence, that can stand by
itself, and one or more subordinate clauses, which cannot exist by themselves, needing a
main sentence as a cornerstone of the structure. Another image that can be used is that of the
trunk of a tree, with branches connected to the main trunk. A subordinate clause starts with a
conjunction that joins it to something else, and contains a subject and a finite verb, but cannot
stand by itself. Sometimes a subordinate clause connects to another subordinate clause, like a
branch that has a smaller branch attached to it. Both the composition of such a sentence and
the reading of such a sentence require a conscious sense of structure.
Here is one of the famous sentences in history. It is the opening sentence of the American
Declaration of Independence. Can you find the main sentence or the main clause i.e. the
trunk of the tree, and can you trace the structure of the subordinate clauses? (Watch for the
conjunctions).
When, in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve
the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the
powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of
Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that
they should declare the causes that impel them to the separation.
This is, of course, eighteenth century prose. Use of this sentence in English courses for
teaching staff on the UP campus has shown a wide inability to grasp the structure of this
sentence. We may be more advanced than the eighteenth century in some respects, but
perhaps in others we are not. If the teaching staff are not all able to decipher this sentence,
what about the students? (Actually, some can!)
For an analysis of this sentence you will have to wait in suspense until the next letter. This
letter is long enough. Meanwhile give it a go!
Regards,
Peter Titlestad
6
the grammar
underground
GRAMMAR TIP 04
Dear Colleagues All,
Here is that sentence again, the opening of the American Declaration of Independence. You were
supposed to find the main clause and to trace all the subordinate clauses.
When, in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve
the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the
powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of
Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that
they should declare the causes that impel them to the separation.
The opening cannot be the main clause. It starts with the conjunction when. It is an adverbial
clause of time. “When … it becomes necessary … to dissolve the political bands ….” At this
point we launch into another subordinate clause, a relative clause that starts with which, that
describes (or “qualifies”) bands: “which have connected them with another.”
The opening when clause then continues with “and to assume … the separate and equal
station.” Then we have another subordinate clause starting with “to which” that qualifies
station: “to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.”
And still we have not reached the main clause. However, note that most important comma
after “entitle them.” It marks a most important pause. Here it comes: “a decent respect to the
opinions of mankind requires.” This is the main sentence. It is not preceded by a conjunction.
What is the object of requires? You must “require” something. You can, for example, require
a pen, or a rest, or a stiff drink. The object of require is, however, not a single thing, but a
whole clause. This kind of clause we call a noun clause, because it functions like a noun:
“that they should declare the causes…” We are not finished yet. ”Causes” is qualified by a
last relative (adjectival) clause: “which impels them to the separation.”
Hands up all those who got it right – or, should we ask, all those that got it wrong? A last
thought. Can a statement like this be properly understood if the sentence structure cannot be
methodically followed through? Grammar means reading skill as well as writing skill.
Regards,
Peter Titlestad
7
the grammar
underground
GRAMMAR TIP 05
Dear Colleagues All,
We have not yet finished with the American Declaration of Independence, as an example of
complex sentence structure and as an example of effective writing. Up to now we have looked at
the first sentence. Now let us look at the second. The texts of the Declaration differ a little with
regard to punctuation, so you may, at some stage, come across a slightly different version. Here is
the first sentence (which has already been dealt with) and the second, which starts a new
paragraph.
When, in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve
the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the
powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of
Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that
they should declare the causes that impel them to the separation
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ─ That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ─
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The first paragraph is introductory, the second swings forcibly into the main statement. It
does this by firmly stating the main idea in the main sentence, followed by a series of noun
clauses. Remember that in the first sentence the main clause or main sentence is held back.
Now the main sentence comes forcefully first, before the subordinate clauses, and opens a
new paragraph. The syntax has structure that goes with the presentation of the ideas and there
is a reason behind the variation in the syntax.
Note the bit between the dashes, and the full stop before the first dash. This is a little
unorthodox, as the noun clause “That … governed” is made to stand by itself, which a clause
should not really do. However, the force of the main clause at the beginning of the sentence
is such as to carry the sense through. It is not a random sentence fragment. One can be a little
unorthodox, and take liberties, when one knows what one is doing, and when what one does
is a deliberate feature of style and called for by the sense. Perhaps the drafters wanted a
slightly stronger pause than just a comma and, certainly, a new stage of argument is
8
presented after each of the two dashes, although the list of points, each signalled by a that,
continues.
Content is improved by taking conscious thought about style. And this is the last of the
Declaration of Independence but not the last you will hear about eighteenth century prose.
Regards,
Peter Titlestad
9
the grammar
underground
GRAMMAR TIP 06
Dear Colleagues All,
Could you recognise a “periodic” sentence? It is a sentence in which certain key elements are held
back until the end. In contrast, we have a “loose” sentence, in which the main point or feature
comes at the beginning, followed by a succession of lesser details. “Loose” is, here, not a word of
condemnation ─ there is nothing inherently wrong with “loose” sentences, we use them all the
time. However, the periodic sentence probably requires the greater conscious artistry. The
“periodic” and the “loose” are the range within which we alternate in our writing. To look at the
occasional notable example may sharpen our sense of style and possibility, and increase our
enjoyment.
Here is the opening sentence of the mammoth biography that the sycophantic James Boswell wrote
of Dr Samuel Johnson. The formidable Johnson had himself written biographies of various poets.
Now Boswell was undertaking a biography of a biographer. He obviously laboured over his
opening sentence, wanting maximum effect.
To write the life of him who excelled all mankind in writing the lives of
others, and who, whether we consider his extraordinary endowments, or his
various works, has been equalled by few in any age, is an arduous, and may
be reckoned in me a presumptuous task.
The key word is task which is the last word of the sentence. It is an arduous task and, even more
important, (for Boswell is trying to be very modest and very respectful towards Johnson) a
presumptuous task. This conclusion is separated from the opening To write by three subordinate
clauses, beginning with who, who and whether.
While “loose” structure is acceptable (and, indeed, while we most certainly cannot write “periodic”
sentences all the time) it is interesting to note that if we convert Boswell’s carefully turned
sentence into a “loose” structure, it rather loses its impact.
It is an arduous and in me a presumptuous task to write the life of him who has excelled all
mankind in writing the lives of others and who, whether we consider his extraordinary
endowments, or his various works, has been equalled by few in any age.
Regards,
Peter Titlestad
10
the grammar
underground
GRAMMAR TIP 07
Dear Colleagues All,
The last few letters have been on the question of sentence structure and its analysis. However, the
kind of sentence used has been the kind that illustrates subordination. We have been dealing with a
main sentence (or main clause) and with subordinate clauses, subordinate because they depend on a
main clause and cannot stand by themselves. Each subordinate clause is started by a conjunction
which is its attachment or link to something else. Sentences of this kind are called complex
sentences.
There are, however, other kinds of sentences. There is, obviously, the simple sentence; one subject,
one finite verb, no subordinate clauses. Then there is the compound sentence, in which two or more
simple sentences retain their capacity to stand by themselves, and have equal status, so there is no
subordination. The sentences are joined by a special set of conjunctions, the co-ordinating
conjunctions, of which and and but are the most frequent.
The cat ran away.
The dog gave chase.
The cat ran away and the dog gave chase.
Here is a multiple example.
Jack and Jill
Ran up the hill
To fetch a pail of water,
Jack fell down
And broke his crown
And Jill came tumbling after.
Each of the co-ordinating sentences can have subordinate clauses attached. This makes a
compound-complex sentence.
The cat, which was terrified, ran away and the dog, which wanted nothing better, gave
chase.
(By the way, does one use which or who for cats and dogs?)
Here is a list of co-ordination conjunctions. They are a very necessary group of words.
11
And, but, or, for, yet, therefore, consequently, hence, otherwise, thereafter, nevertheless,
moreover, furthermore, meanwhile, either/or, neither/ nor, both/ and.
In general, let it be said, conjunctions (whether co-ordinating or subordinating) are an essential tool
for the presentation of an argument, and this area of vocabulary should be cultivated. The
subordinating conjunctions of English are too numerous to list.
Regards,
Peter Titlestad
12
the grammar
underground
GRAMMAR TIP 08
Dear Colleagues All,
Judging by the responses, some of you seem to have had some fun with the letters on sentence
structure, and I have had fun with the responses and would like to weave together a few thoughts in
return, for which I must be permitted to indulge a little whimsy.
First, let me confess, thought it is little to my credit, that I do not actually believe in thrashing as the
golden road to syntactical competence. Neither, I think, did Churchill. If we are to believe the
evidence of My Early Life, which is a very good read and has some other interesting passages on
his early sufferings as a classical scholar, he was severely flogged by a sadistic pedagogue at a very
young age. Nevertheless, he was not beyond wanting to send a shudder down the spines of his
“gentle readers”, as the eighteenth century novelists, used to say.
Even taken at face value, the Churchillian passage is moderately liberal: in an age when boys got
flogged for defective Latin, Greek and English, it was an improvement to have them flogged only
for bad English, with “Latin as an honour, and Greek as a treat” for only the cleverest boys. The
first casualty of political correctness is a sense of humour. Bless the reader who responded (like
some others): “Thank you for providing us with such a gem!” (But don’t you sometimes itch to
employ a little violence!?)
Where, by the way, were the girls? In Churchill’s social milieu most were not at school at all ─
they were at home, being instructed by governesses, who dared not thrash them, however richly the
little horrors deserved it. The lower orders of society were in the newly established state schools.
Education for all in Britain dates only from 1870 ─ barbarous.
The main point, however, is the use and efficacy of sentence analysis. One of my correspondents,
while enjoying Churchill, explained that he had had a teacher who never taught grammar. Instead
they had to learn by heart ten lines of prose or verse every day. I am sure that his syntactical skills
are excellent. I am not sure that Churchill would not have approved. I am strongly in favour myself.
All staff and students must learn by heart ten lines of good English poetry or prose every day.
Regards,
Peter Titlestad
P.S. Is it not strange how the essential point crops up at the end, as a kind of afterthought?
13
the grammar
underground
GRAMMAR TIP 09
Dear Colleagues All,
The last letter ended with the suggestion that if we all were exposed to, and even learnt by heart,
models of good English, we should instinctively acquire patterns and, without knowing the
technique of formal analysis, or being able to name the different types of clauses, should all write
good English. There is something in this. Among other things, this is why extensive reading is so
important to those learning a language, and to those in need of remedial help with a language.
Language teaching has expended much ingenuity in trying to get away from formal grammar. This
has included repetitive pattern drills (often using a language laboratory). All things have their uses
and, in fact, so does a touch of formal grammar. Perhaps one is in the strongest position when
instinct and conscious knowledge work happily together.
One of the commentators suggested an analogy with dancing. One does not analyse a step before
one does it. The trouble is that this is really the final stage with dance of any complexity beyond
standing in one place and waggling one’s derrière. Learning ballet is extremely painful. Nureyev
had enormous natural athletic ability and an instinctive affinity for dance. He had the Russian
tradition of ballet as the surrounding milieu from which he could absorb. But he had a savage
training and he knew what he was doing, however unbelievably effortless and graceful those
enormous leaps were. (Do you remember, years ago, the rumour went around that our rugby
players were doing ballet as part of their training, and the cartoonists had a grand time drawing
front-row forwards trying to imitate the likes of Nureyev? Perhaps you are all too young, or I am
getting old).
The tip for today is not only a grammatical one. It is about the dangers of arguing by analogy.
Analogy does not prove anything. It is an illustration. To be effective it has to correspond point by
point with what it illustrates, and there must not be aspects of the analogy that rebel against the
proposition that is being illustrated.
I used the analogy of a tree trunk and branches for syntax, and this has come in for some rough
treatment, too. Back to syntax in the next letter (a sentence fragment, but then, this is an informal
letter).
Regards,
Peter Titlestad
14
the grammar
underground
GRAMMAR TIP 10
Dear Colleagues All,
The last letter ended with a sentence fragment, but with the excuse that in an informal letter, with a
chatty style, this was permissible. It was, too, a conscious device, employed for a specific purpose,
to establish a certain tone (and, of course, to initiate further debate on sentences). Every course
book on writing skills that comes out of America has a section on sentence fragments, as it also has
a section on run-on sentences, the rambling rose kind of structure that needs a full stop somewhere,
and not just the “comma splice”, as sometimes happens. Both these errors of sentence structure
were discussed in the previous series of grammar tips. They should be corrected in students’
writing.
What is a sentence? The linguists (who do not actually have to teach) have come up with all kinds
of answers. However, when they get down to analysis of structure, which is often done by
diagrams called “tree diagrams”, they usually use complete structures. The doctrine of the
complete sentence is still very much alive. The chief constituent is a subject and a finite verb, with
an object perhaps, too. A subordinate clause also has a subject and finite verb, and a conjunction to
link it to the main sentence, or to some other part of the structure. Of course, clauses can often be
reduced to participial phrases. There is nothing wrong with this.
Running down the stairs, I fell.
While running down the stairs, I fell.
While I was running down the stairs, I fell.
Grammar books sometimes talk about main clauses. I prefer to talk of a main sentence and
subordinate clauses. There is less chance of muddle. I prefer to use the term phrase for a group of
words that has no finite verb, rather that a “verbless clause” ─ less chance of muddle, again. Some
grammars talk, very usefully, of an “independent sentence”, which can stand by itself, unlike a
subordinate clause, or phrase, which is dependent on another structure.
Naturally the spoken language uses fragments much more frequently that the written. Academic
writing, in particular, generally calls for complete sentences, and this is what students must learn.
At an elementary level, or in a remedial situation, when one is trying to fix what has gone wrong or
never ever been got right, one is actually teaching analytic skills (perhaps the first basic positions
and steps of ballet).
Regards,
Peter Titlestad
15
the grammar
underground
GRAMMAR TIP 11
Dear Colleagues All,
Full marks to a colleague who has produced a parody of the Boswellian periodic sentence that I
sent out for your admiration a short time ago. He also suggested some improvements to Boswell’s
punctuation.
“To suggest an alteration in the punctuation of him who excelled many of his
time in writing procedures, and who, whether we consider his extraordinary
endowments, or his various works, has been equalled by few in any age, is an
arduous, and may be reckoned in me a presumptuous, task.”
A comma has been added after “presumptuous” ─ “presumptuous, task.” This complements the
comma after “arduous”, for the co-ordinated sentence “and may be reckoned in me a presumptuous
(task)” interrupts the flow. One can spend a lot of time agonising over a comma. I wonder how
long Boswell pondered the matter, and whether he is now turning in his grave.
Our correspondent suggests yet another possibility, to further disturb Boswell’s rest.
“To suggest an alteration in the punctuation of him who excelled many of his
time in writing procedures, and who, whether we consider his extraordinary
endowments, or his various works, has been equalled by few in any age, is an
arduous ─ and may be reckoned in me a presumptuous ─ task.”
This also works very well. Poor Boswell.
Regards,
Peter Titlestad
16
the grammar
underground
GRAMMAR TIP 12
Dear Colleagues All,
A knowledgeable applied linguist and language teacher writes to me that he knows of no researchbased proof over the past twenty years or more that sentence analysis improves the capacity to
write. I know of none myself. However, I suggest, that we can’t get away from analysis ─ it is
implicit in all we do.
1.
If a student makes elementary errors, sentence fragments or run-on sentences, or writes
longer structures that don’t hang together, we have to trace and explain the fault ─ subject,
finite verb, subordinate clause, and so on. The identification of the fault and the
explanation of the fault, however elementary, require analysis. We are all teachers of
language ─ would that we had the time, in relation to marking loads and student numbers,
to do the job more thoroughly.
2.
Textbooks on writing skills for American community colleges and for what is sometimes
called “bonehead English”, the practical first-year writing and grammar courses, that are a
feature of USA university life, have for generations given, and still do give, instruction on
basic sentence structure: fragments, run-on sentences, subordination, co-ordination.
(Incidentally, such textbooks have only recently begun to be a feature of the British
academic scene. I wonder what this indicates?)
3.
Serious grammars devote considerable time to the analysis of full sentence structures,
simple, complex and compound.
4.
We should, as educated persons, be able to do analysis and to enjoy well-shaped
sentences, and be equipped to deal with syntactically complex statements, (and even to use
them ourselves). Conscious awareness adds to enjoyment. There is a tag born of the
romantic movement in poetry: “We murder to dissect.” However, we are likelier to miss
what calls for admiration if we don’t look carefully and know how to direct our search.
5.
Finally, an understanding of sentence structure, essential though it may be, is not the be all
and end all of language teaching. We also need words ─ vocabulary. The next few tips
will be on this subject. As far as sentence structure is concerned, a vital area of vocabulary
17
is that of connectives and signposts. Students must be encouraged to acquire this area of
vocabulary. Connectives and signposts aid syntax and make for clear argument.
Regards,
Peter Titlestad
18
the grammar
underground
GRAMMAR TIP 13
Dear Colleagues All,
One can know all the grammatical rules in the world but if one lacks words to arrange in these
beautiful grammatical structures one can’t say very much. In a way, if one has the vocabulary, one
can manage with defective grammar. Of course, one actually needs both.
Students should be encouraged to have dictionaries and to use them. There are English dictionaries,
bilingual dictionaries, and the thesaurus. The thesaurus gives lists of words that are “synonyms”.
The trouble is that these “synonyms” usually have subtle, or not so subtle, differences of
connotation. The vocabulary of English is notorious for having multiple words for the same broad
concept which all say slightly different things. This is partly because of the extraordinary history of
English, during which the basic Old English (Anglo-Saxon) had huge borrowings, largely from
Latin and various forms of French, grafted on to it. This will be the subject of some later letters. A
thesaurus should be supplemented by a full dictionary, preferably one that gives examples of use.
Similarly, a bilingual dictionary should be supplemented by a full English dictionary. Bilingual
dictionaries tend to provide lists of words without very much explanation or exemplification.
Students should all consider something like the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary or the
Collins Cobuild. The explanations provided in these dictionaries use a limited vocabulary, and this
vocabulary is printed as a list in the dictionary. For students whose command is limited, this list
offers a useful basic target vocabulary. These dictionaries are very user-friendly and have sections
that offer all kinds of help and information, apart from the main dictionary portion itself.
Obviously, students should have access to bigger dictionaries when the occasion demands. All
students should be told about the monstrous OED, the Oxford English Dictionary, in the library. It
gives very full examples of use, historically arranged. The OED should feature in bibliographies in
students’ essays, and dissertations.
An interesting book has only just appeared: Developing Your English Vocabulary, A Systematic
New Approach, Gabriele Stein, Stauffenberg, 2002. Educationists generally, language teachers,
lexicographers and interested parties, will all find this very useful.
Regards,
Peter Titlestad
19
the grammar
underground
GRAMMAR TIP 14
Dear Colleagues All,
The last letter was about some aspects of vocabulary and about dictionaries. The hazards of the
English vocabulary are many, and are well illustrated by a hoary and ancient, and somewhat sexist,
joke. A group of men with limited English, somewhere on the European Continent, are trying to
assist a friend who has to find the right terms in English to say that his wife cannot have children.
Says the first: “Your wife, she is impregnable.”
Says the second: “No, no! Your wife, she is inconceivable.”
Says the third: “No, no, no! Your wife, she is unbearable.”
The joke is an exercise in two aspects of vocabulary, connotation and the uses of affixes (prefixes
that you attach to the fronts of words and suffixes that you add to the end of words).
Impregnable is usually used about a fortress that cannot be captured. A woman may conceive, and
the Roman Catholic Church has the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, but a conception
belongs to the realm of ideas, and only ideas are conceivable or inconceivable. A woman may bear
a child, but add the affixes un and able, which turn the verb into adjectives, and the words are no
longer used with connotations of childbirth. Woe betide the unwary wanderer in the forests of the
English word hoard.
It is odd how, sometimes, the word of Anglo-Saxon origin and that of French or Latin origin can
acquire different shades of meaning. Take loveable and aimable, the first from Anglo-Saxon, the
second borrowed from French, but fully acclimatised. We could add likeable to the group, also
from Anglo-Saxon. While aimable in the French could probably best be translated by loveable,
amiable is closer to likeable, but even between those two there are slight shades of meaning or
differences of use. We could say of someone that he is “likeable enough”, implying a faint
reservation. We could not use amiable precisely in the same context.
Note, too, how the suffix able, borrowed from French and ultimately from Latin, is so acclimatised
to English that it can be added to love and like, words of Germanic origin.
One of the ways of getting to understand the meanings of English words is to learn to distinguish,
and to understand the meanings and functions, of prefixes and suffixes.
Regards,
Peter Titlestad
20
the grammar
underground
GRAMMAR TIP 15
Dear Colleagues All
One of the features of the vocabulary of English is that one can say a thing in more than one way
because of the variety of vocabulary that is available. This variety comes from the way in which
enormous borrowings, chiefly from Latin and French, were grafted onto the original Old English or
Anglo-Saxon. Very often, the word of Latin origin is more impressive, more fine sounding, more
elevated, and sometimes more abstract, than the Germanic word.
H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, compilers of that classic, The King’s English (1906), start the book
off with a set of useful rules about the choice of words.
Prefer the familiar word to the far-fetched.
Prefer the concrete word to the abstract.
Prefer the single word to the circumlocution.
Prefer the short word to the long.
Prefer the Saxon word to the Romance.
It would appear that the King’s English is the plainest English possible. By “Romance”, they mean
words of French and Latin origin. They put that rule last, and explain that it is the least important.
One can play around with English. Take this bit of nonsense.
Cryptogamous concretion never grows on mineral fragments that decline repose.
i.e. A rolling stone gathers no moss.
Here is another.
He died poor.
He expired in indigent circumstances.
“Expired” is from Latin, as is “indigent circumstances”. But it is worth noting that “poor” is a
borrowing from Old French and ultimately Latin, too. Not all words from, as Fowler and Fowler
put it, “Romance” are necessarily “elevated” or “high-flown”.
Note the following:
put out
extinguish
21
put off
stick out
postpone
project
The first column consists of so-called Phrasal Verbs, which are frequent in English. The second
column consists of words from Latin: they are slightly more formal. You would not say that
somebody’s ears “projected”: you would say that they “stuck out”. You would “stick out” your
tongue at somebody.
If you rushed into a lecture hall and shouted “conflagration!”, the students would stare at you and
laugh\; if you shouted “fire!”, they would get out quickly enough.
There will be more about the varied English vocabulary in later letters. In the mean time,
extinguish all conflagrations.
Regards,
Peter Titlestad
22
the grammar
underground
GRAMMAR TIP 16
Dear Colleagues All,
Recent letters in this series have been about how the varied resources of the vocabulary of English
can be used. In particular, the theme has been how words of Anglo-Saxon origin are perhaps
plainer and more down to earth than words of Latin, French and Greek origin. However, there have
been warnings that this generalisation does not always hold good. Many words of Latin and French
origin are plain, very necessary and thoroughly acclimatised. Just look at the number of words in
the above statement that are not of Germanic origin.
Writers have sometimes exploited the varied capacity of the English word hoard, sometimes to
comic effect. In the passage that follows, from Dickens’s novel David Copperfield, tricks of speech
and of vocabulary are used to help create the comic character of Mr Micawber. David Copperfield,
still a very small boy, has been sent to London by his cruel step-father, Mr Murdstone, to earn his
living. He has just arrived in London, and just met Mr Micawber, with whom he is to have
lodgings.
“My address,” said Mr Micawber, “is Windsor Terrace, City Road. I ─ in short,” said Mr
Micawber, with the same genteel air, and in another burst of confidence ─ “I live there.”
I made him a bow. “Under the impression” said Mr Micawber, “that your peregrinations in
this metropolis have not yet been extensive, and that you might have some difficulty in
penetrating the arcana of the Modern Babylon in the direction of City Road – in short,” said
Mr Micawber, in another bust of confidence,” that you might lose yourself ─ I shall be happy
to call this evening and install you in the knowledge of the nearest way.”
The word “genteel” in this passage will be discussed in a later letter.
Regards,
Peter Titlestad
23
the grammar
underground
GRAMMAR TIP 17
Dear Colleagues All,
You have already heard of Dr Samuel Johnson and of his engaging little toady and biographer,
James Boswell, whose beautiful periodic sentence was recently repunctuated by one of our
colleagues. Dr Johnson used the full range of the English vocabulary but enjoyed ponderous
Latinity. Boswell made it his life’s purpose to record the great man’s utterances, some of which
were more successful than others. Here are two, as narrated by Boswell.
“The woman had a bottom of good sense” The word ‘bottom’ thus introduced, was so
ludicrous … that most of us could not forbear tittering.
“Where’s the merriment? … I say that the woman was fundamentally sensible.”
Talking of the Comedy of ‘The Rehearsal” he said, ‘It has not wit enough to keep it sweet.’
This was easy ─ he therefore caught himself and pronounced a more rounded sentence; ‘It
has not vitality enough to preserve it from putrefaction.’
One hopes that the great doctor was intending a joke in the second. The use of the words of Latin
origin are overdone, except as a display of verbal pyrotechnics.
That last phrase, “verbal pyrotechnics,” is not too bad itself ─ a combination of Latin and Greek.
This is a useful reminder of the enormous importance of Greek borrowings into English, especially
of words of scientific, technical and philosophical import.
Regards,
Peter Titlestad
24
the grammar
underground
GRAMMAR TIP 18
Dear Colleagues All,
Do you remember the “genteel air” of Dickens’s Mr Micawber? “Genteel” belongs to a group of
words that can be used to show that meaning changes and how differences of connotation and
shades of meaning come into existence, so that there are no true synonyms. Here is a list: gentle,
genteel, gentleman, gentility, gentry, gentile. They are all related to the Latin gens, (a tribe or a
clan) and gentilis (of the same clan).
Chaucer (d. 1400) says of his knight, one of the Canterbury pilgrims, that: “he was a verray parfit,
gentil knicht.” It is a nice little exercise in semantic change. Verray is not very, although related: it
means true. We are reminded of the words veracious (truthful) and veracity (truthfulness) that are
still in modern English. Gentil meant of the upper class. Our modern word gentle, meaning soft,
unlikely to do harm, is a later development. The knight is a formidable fighting man. Chaucer does
tell us, however, that he never said any villainy to any kind of person. The villein was the lowest
class in medieval society. Chaucer meant that the Knight was unfailingly courteous to everybody.
This connotation of gentle has survived and is coming loose from class. One can describe someone
as “one of nature’s gentlemen”.
Gentleness derives from gentle. Gentility are the upper classes, the gentlemen, or gentry, (or,
perhaps, gentlefolk). You can say that somebody is of “gentle birth”. At one time, to be a
gentleman meant a very specific status ─ one could qualify for a coat-of-arms and wear a sword.
However, one could gain the status , too. Shakespeare, after he had made enough money from the
theatre, applied for and obtained a coat-of-arms. Money helps. There is the phrase “embarrassed”
or “straightened” gentility; it is applied to the person who could be considered “gentility” but who
is poor.
“Genteel” is tricky. It can mean to have the qualities associated with gentility. “A man might be
rich without being genteel and poor without being vulgar.” (The New Shorter Oxford Dictionary,
1993). However, genteel might sometimes have a slightly satirical connotation.
Gentile, of course, has a completely different connotation. St Paul conceived his task to be the
apostle to the gentiles as opposed to the Jews, the tribes and nations beyond the borders of Israel.
One can have “a gentleman’s gentleman”, a dying breed, a servant of a gentleman who enjoys a
little reflected glory. One has the facetious term “gentles”, sometimes used as a greeting. The
modern French word gentil is an adjective to describe a person who is pleasant or nice.
Words do play tricks with us!
Regards,
Peter Titlestad
25
the grammar
underground
GRAMMAR TIP 19
Dear Colleagues All,
The word bus comes from the Latin omnibus, meaning “for all”, that is to say, public transport. At
first, a bus was known as “an omnibus”. In the Victorian Age there was a linguist called William
Barnes who lived in the south-west of England and who went overboard over the notion that the
Anglo-Saxon portion of the English vocabulary should be developed and the French/Latin portion
eliminated. He wrote a book called The Speechcraft of the English Tongue: note how he avoided
using “linguistics” or “language”, words of Latin derivation, and how he coined the word
“speechcraft” using Germanic elements.
Barnes took exception to omnibus and proposed folkwain. Wain is the same word as wagon, with a
little slurring of consonants in the middle. Lo and behold, he had invented Volkswagen, a little
before its time! However, it never caught on, the loan word omnibus survived, and we had to wait
until the Germans caught up. (A little exercise in Phrasal Verbs – catch on, catch up.) Barnes
thought that an adjective should be called a markword of suchness. Thank goodness for loanwords!
An earlier crank, in the sixteenth century, tried a few very far-fetched examples, using the capacity
English has (but one which it has largely lost because of the availability of loan words) to create
new words from Germanic elements. For impenetrable he proposed “ungothroughsome” and he
could have gone as far as “ungothroughsomeness” for impenetrability. For inconceivable he
suggested “not-to-be-thought-upon-able”, but this was a terrible mistake, as he used the able suffix
that is from the Latin abilis. English has, of course, unthinkable, but it has slightly different
connotations from inconceivable. If something is inconceivable, it cannot be grasped or
understood. If something is unthinkable, it is so terrible that one just does not contemplate the
possibility, if you get my meaning. Actually, “not-to-be-thought-upon-able” is really unthinkable,
rather than inconceivable.
Later letters will say more about word-formation, and loan-words. For those who are interested, a
brief sketch will be given of the historical development of English ─ how did this mongrel
language come into being? William Barnes was actually a remarkable man who taught himself
many languages. He was a student of the Dorsetshire dialect and wrote poetry in this dialect and in
standard English. You may know his lovely little lyric On Linden Lea, set to a lovely tune. There is
26
a lovely setting by Vaughan Williams. (One could not use beautiful just at this moment. Barnes
would not have liked it. The ful is O.K. but the rest look suspiciously French.)
Regards,
Peter Titlestad
27
the grammar
underground
GRAMMAR TIP 20
Dear Colleagues All,
Old English or Anglo-Saxon is the language spoken in various dialects by the Angels, Saxons and
Jutes, who invaded Celtic Britain in roughly 449 AD after the Roman Empire had retreated a little
earlier. The Celts were pushed into the north and west where Celtic survives as Welsh and Gaelic
(and survived as Cornish in Cornwell until the eighteenth century). It is worth noting that English
was dialectal from the start. The multiple dialects that are still a feature of modern England did not
split away from a single central language.
Anglo-Saxon England was then converted. Latin-speaking missionaries brought Christian concepts
for which the Anglo-Saxons had to find words, either by creating new words from native resources
or by taking over loan words.
For example, the euangelion (Gk) or evangelium (Lat), meaning “good message”, was turned into
godspel, which has become gospel. The concept of the Trinity became Threeness, which was,
however,later replaced by Trinity, the loan word. For praepositio, forsetennys was created
(Afrikaans, voorsetsel), but this gave way to the Latin at a later stage, so we now have the
grammatical term preposition.
An astronomer was a tungolwita. (Witan = to know: c.f. Afrikaans weet). Again, it did not survive,
so we have the loan word astronomer. Witan survives, however, in the word wit, which has an
interesting history. Today it has the meaning of sharp humour, and we also have the adjective
witty, the noun a wit, a person who is witty, and a witticism, a clever saying. In older usage,
however, a wit was not somebody who said funny things but a man who knew, an intellectual, in
other words. Wit meant intelligence. This survives after a fashion in the term mother-wit, meaning
sound good sense. You can “use your wits” i.e. do some quick thinking.
The Anglo-Saxons had to deal with the Spiritus Sanctus, the third “person” of the Trinity. They
had the word ghast, for spirit, and the word halig, the origin of the modern word holy (Afrikaans:
heilig). The term the “Holy Ghost” survives into modern English along with “Holy Spirit” (a
mixture of Old English and Latin). If one looks ghastly, one looks pale, like a ghost. One can be
aghast, as if one has just seen a ghost. Shakespeare’s Juliet refers to Friar Laurence, her confessor,
as her “ghostly father”, but this has not survived. What a pity. One can still “give up the ghost”,
however.
Regards,
Peter Titlestad
28
the grammar
underground
GRAMMAR TIP 21
Dear Colleagues All,
The Angels, Saxons and Jutes colonised England from about 449 AD. They spoke different forms
of Old English and from the beginning there were different dialects in the north from the south.
Around 800, a new wave of invasion began, first in the form of raids, later as settlements. These
invaders were the Vikings, some from Norway, some from Denmark. Indeed, the usual Old
English word for this new menace was the “Danes”. Eventually much of the north and east was
occupied by the Vikings, who were kept out of the south and west by the famous King Alfred. At a
still later stage, England was ruled for a time by a Danish king, Knut or Canute. He it was who
stood on the beach and commanded the tide not to come in, while his flattering courtiers got their
feet wet.
Old English/Anglo-Saxon is a West Germanic language. Old Norse was a North Germanic
language. Nevertheless, a measure of mutual comprehension is thought to have been possible.
The linguistic consequences were significant. Northern forms of English came to differ from the
southern even more. The rich monastic culture that had come into being in the north was destroyed
as the monasteries were plundered, the monks murdered and manuscripts destroyed. This is why
most of the manuscripts that we have of Old English are in southern forms of the language.
Old English was a heavily inflected language ─ the grammar depended on a complex series of
endings added to words. Old Norse was also heavily inflected, but the endings were different! The
result was a process of decay of this complicated grammatical system, for which we must all be
thankful.
Modern English got they, their, then from Old Norse. The s in the third person singular is Old
Norse, instead of eth from Old English. We get the word husband from Old Norse, (shades of
Hägar the Horrible)! Whenever an English place name ends in by (Derby, Whitby) a Viking
settlement is indicated. Skin, with the hard k sound, is a Norse word. The words law, and outlaw,
are Norse: those savage pirates has a well-developed legal system. If you get off “scot free”, (skot
= tax) you have the Vikings to thank. The sky is a Norse word. If you feel weak, the Vikings felt so
before you.
Regards,
Peter Titlestad
29
the grammar
underground
GRAMMAR TIP 22
Dear Colleagues All,
The history of English is the history of bloody invasion, conquest and colonisation. The Saxons
conquer the Celts, the Vikings pound the Saxons and then the Norman French conquer England
decisively in 1066. This is when les omlettes really hit the fan.
The Normans were originally a bunch of Norsemen who had settled an area in northern France
(Normandy) and become absorbed and French-speaking. However, they spoke Norman French
(N.Fr. in the etymological dictionaries) and not the French of Paris. William, Duke of Normandy,
got it into his head that he had a claim to the throne of England, took an army across and defeated
King Harold at the Battle of Hastings. England came to be governed by a Norman French-speaking
feudal aristocracy. The Saxons were a conquered nation. For 300 years, the kings of England could
not speak English. When they did begin to speak English, it was a much changed language.
The changes affected grammar and vocabulary. The inflectional endings of the complicated Old
English system disappeared almost entirely. This accounts for the relative simplicity of English
grammar, for which we should be duly thankful.
Until 1066, the vocabulary of English had been “homogeneous”. True, there were a few words
borrowed from Latin, but English was Germanic and the Viking invasions had not changed this.
Now English became a mongrel language, borrowing huge quantities of French words, at first
words from Norman French, later words from Parisian French. Sometimes the same word was
borrowed twice over, and differences of meaning developed. Many more words were also
borrowed from Latin.
Take the word cattle, and the phrase “goods and chattels”. Cattle is a Norman-French borrowing –
at first it meant possessions, generally. The exclusively bovine connotation was a later
development. Chattels, also meaning possessions, was a much later borrowing from central French
– it is, however, the same word. Chaucer says of a poor widow in one of his stories. “for litel was
hir catel and hit her rente.” Catel means her property, rente her income. Cattle, however, came to
mean property on the hoof, what the Saxons had called feoh (Afrikaans: vee), although they had cu
(cow). Now the cow or ox in the pasture became beef (boeuf) on the French feudal overlord’s
table, the sheep became mutton and the calf became veal, swine became pork. What the Saxon
farm labourer herded changed name in the hands or mouth of the French chef up at the castle.
Regards,
Peter Titlestad
30
the grammar
underground
GRAMMAR TIP 23
Dear Colleagues All,
The French contribution to English is enormous. Early written records soon after the Norman
Conquest show this in rather grim ways. The Norman feudal overlord was in control, the Saxons
were a conquered race. Earliest sources show words such as prison, justice, forest, tower; someone
was having a hard time.
Other words are: battle, charity, miracle, procession. The church had obviously been taken over by
the Normans, too. And, of course, the law courts: plaintiff, defendant, tort, and court, itself.
A new wave of borrowings from Parisian French came in the thirteenth century. As pointed out in
the previous letter, sometimes the same word was borrowed twice: cattle, chattels; warden,
guardian; warrant, guarantee; catch chase.
Most of these early borrowings are so well-absorbed that one is hardly aware of their French
origins. Very often the Saxon word survived and the French equivalent was borrowed as well.
Pairs of this kind are a feature of the English vocabulary and can be used with varying stylistic
effect. Of course, they may have slightly different meanings. The same thing happened with lots of
borrowings from Latin, too.
So we have board (slightly archaic) and table; unbelievable, incredible; wit, intelligence;
unthinkable, inconceivable; truthfulness, veracity; wandering, peregrination (Mr Micawber’s
word); to deem, to judge; doom, judgement; hearty, cordial. Stink and stench are Anglo-Saxon;
odour, perfume, scent, fragrance, aroma are French. Sometimes one gets triplets – Saxon, French
and Latin: fire, flame, conflagration; time, age, epoch; holy, sacred, consecrated.
Of course, many Anglo-Saxon words disappeared: dihtan was replaced by “to compose”, schyldig
by “guilty”, lof by “praise”.By about 1400 the Kings of England were once more beginning to
speak English. Parliament began to use English. French in England began to decline. The Prioress
in the Canterbury Tales likes to give herself lady-like airs and graces. Chaucer praises her French,
but with a sly reservation.
And Frensh she spak ful faire and fetisly
After the scole of Stratford-atte-Bowe,
For Frensh of Paris was to hir unknowe.
31
Of course English has continued to borrow liberally from French ever since the middle ages: ballet,
burlesque, forte, penchant, double-entendre, prestige, limousine, camouflage. And champagne!
Regards,
Peter Titlestad
32
the grammar
underground
GRAMMAR TIP 24
Dear Colleagues All,
The Old English period ended about 1066, the Middle English period in about 1450, from which
time we talk about Early Modern English (1450 – 1700). Early Modern English was the time of the
English Renaissance. Considerable borrowings from Latin (classical Latin, now, not medieval
Latin) and from Greek took place. Borrowings from Latin and Greek have continued ever since.
The borrowings are of enormous importance for the language of science but many ordinary words
came into English, too.
Some Latin borrowings were: exit, genius, fungus, miser, vacuum. Shakespeare lived in this period
(1564 – 1616). The words castigate, auspicious and critic first appear in his works, but he may not
have invented them: they were probably used by people around him. Shakespeare’s plays are a
feast of words, but they sometimes satirise the consequences of the explosion of new words that
was taking place. Some Latin suffixes were ate, ic, al: educate, elastic, abysmal.
Examples of later borrowings from Latin in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries are: alibi,
inertia, opus, ego, moratorium, referendum, bacillus.
Borrowing from Greek before 1500 are: academy, bible (from biblos=book), tragedy, tyrant. After
1500 we have: pathos, irony, chorus, dilemma, theory. Much later we have: agnostic, acrobat,
pylon. It became possible to make new words from Greek elements: phonograph, psychology,
telephone. A new age of word creation came into being.
New mixtures of the learned and the racy became possible. Some of you may just remember the
comedienne Anna Russell. She had a parody of an English folksong, to be sung to the tune of
“What shall we do with the drunken sailor?” The chorus went:
Hey libido, bats in the belfry,
Hey libido, bats in the belfry,
Hey libido, bats in the belfry,
Jolly old Sigmund Freud.
33
A friend at Cambridge thought he might become rich by ghost-writing Anna Russell’s
autobiography. I was introduced and got a handshake and a glassy smile. As far as I know, his
scheme came to nothing.
Regards,
Peter Titlestad
34
the grammar
underground
GRAMMAR TIP 25
Dear Colleagues All,
English is historically enormously varied and dialectal. However, from about 1450 a certain
uniformity begins to show itself in written texts. Caxton, the printer, who was one of the influences
that began to make for uniformity, wrote, about 1490 (in syntax that could be tidied up a little):
And certainly our language now used varyth ferre from that which was used and
spoken when I was borne. For we englysshe men ben borne under the domynacyon of
the mone, which is never stedfaste but ever waverynge, wexynge one season, and
waneth and dyscreaseth another season. And that comyn englysshe that is spoken in
one shyre varyeth from a nother.
Puttenham, a century later, advises:
Ye shall therefore take the usuall speech of the Court, and that of London and the
shires lying about London within 60 myles, and not much above.
Thomas Wilson, in 1553, considering the flood of new words into English, writes:
Among all other lessons this should first be learned, that we never affect any strange
and ynkhorn termes, but to speak as is commonly received: neither seeking to be over
fine, nor yet living over-careless, using our speeche as most men do, and ordering our
wittes as the fewest have done. Some seeke so far for outlandish English, that they
forget altogether their mother’s tongue, if a man should charge them for
counterfeiting the King’s English.
So the King’s English is the plain English of the majority, genuine coin, not counterfeit. Wilson
goes on to satirise the extravagant verbiage that could be found. However, some of the strange, new
words he condemns, (expending, affability, ingenious capacity, celebrate, superiority) became a
permanent part of English. The new and outrageous became absorbed.
Gradually something that we could call standard English began to emerge. It is very useful. It is
now an international print phenomenon.
Regards,
Peter Titlestad
35
the grammar
underground
GRAMMAR TIP 26
Dear Colleagues All,
One can hardly consider the history of English without considering Shakespeare (1564 – 1616),
who lived in the middle of the early modern period. Shakespeare arrived at a time when English
was rapidly absorbing new words, especially from Latin and Greek. Sometimes he satirised what
was happening. In Love’s Labours Lost he creates a pedantic schoolmaster, much in love with
pretentious Latinity, called Holofernes. Holofernes has an impudent page-boy, called Moth. It is
said of Holofernes that “He draweth out the thread of his verbosity finer than the staple of his
argument.” Without being aware of the ludicrous possibilities in what he is saying, Holofernes talks
of: “… the posteriors of this day; which the rude multitude call the afternoon.” Moth coins the
mock Latin word “honorificabilitudinitatibus”. He says of Holofernes and others that: “They have
been at a great feast of languages, and stolen the scraps.”
Shakespeare’s great contribution was not so much to create new words as to put the great feast of
words to use, and to create a multitude of memorable phrases. Take just the well-known phrases
from the “To be or not to be,” soliloquy (Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 3).
To be or not to be, that is the question…
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune…
‘tis a consummation devoutly to be wished…
Ay, there’s the rub…
To shuffle off this mortal coil…
the whips and scorns of time…
the proud man’s contumely…
the pangs of despised love…
the Law’s delay…
the insolence of office…
quietus…
who would fardels bear…
The undisclosed country, from whose bourne
No traveller returns…
The native hue of resolution…
Such phrases have passed into English idiom. The other great source of phrases that have in the
past adorned English is the Authorised Version of 1611. The downside of translating the Bible into
modern English in the interests of comprehensibility has been the potential loss of a treasure house
of notable and loved phrases.
Regards,
Peter Titlestad
36
the grammar
underground
GRAMMAR TIP 27
Dear Colleagues All,
The theme of recent letters has been the variety of English vocabulary and how this vocabulary has
been drawn from varied sources, largely through accidents of history. The consequence has been a
very large vocabulary which has the peculiar feature that there are often many words for the same
thing, but words with different connotations. There are no true synonyms. So one can say that a
statement is a lie or an inveracity, the latter being less bluntly condemnatory. One could also say an
untruth, which is also not as blunt as a “lie”.
Churchill once accused one of his opponents in the House of telling a “lie” and, when called to
order by the Speaker, changed the expression to “a terminological inexactitude,” which passed
muster as parliamentary language. It is not what you say but how you say it. Mark Twain had a
lovely euphemism for a “lie”, “a stretcher” – you stretch the truth.
The rich resources of English and the varied shades of meaning that are possible furnish one with
considerable possibilities for euphemism. Euphemism is not, however, always a good thing. The
language of politics and administration can use euphemism to avoid the unpleasant. Civilian
casualties are “collateral damage”. In recent history (and less recent, too) we have been privileged
to observe that the establishment of a repressive tyranny is “liberation”.
This is a theme that George Orwell, author of Animal Farm and 1984, tackled in his essay “Politics
and the English Language”, which you will find in the volume Inside the Whale and Other Essays.
In 1984 Orwell invents a language which, by limiting thought, becomes a system of control.
Language is a dangerous tool, as well as being great fun.
Regards,
Peter Titlestad
37
the grammar
underground
GRAMMAR TIP 28
Dear Colleagues All,
In a previous letter it was pointed out (I pointed out?) that Anglo-Saxon had a capacity for creating
new words for new concepts out of its own resources, a capacity that was weakened by the flood of
loan words from French, Latin and Greek.
However, this capacity is still there, and is very active in modern civilization. If a “supermarket”
does not sound tremendous enough, we can have “hypermarket”. Or you can have just “hype” – the
Greek prefix is turned into a noun.
Take the words that can be made with the morpheme cyber. First we had the science of
“cybernetics”, of electrical control systems. The word comes from Greek kybernetes, a steersman
or a governor. The Latin equivalent is gubernator, again a steersman of a ship or a ruler: obviously,
governor is descended from this word.
Cyber has taken off. A system of production can be “cybernated”. Anything to do with electrical
information systems has this morpheme tacked on as the signal. So one has a “cybercafe”, in which
one can have “cybersex” or a “cyberflirtation”, which all exists or not, as the case may be, in
“cyberspace”. One may be a “cyber-chondriac”, going to the doctor to describe symptoms learnt in
“cyberspace”. A “cyber terrorist” functions in cyberspace, as does a “cybersquatter”. Literature
now has a genre called “cyberpunk” – what a marvellous combination of elements! And cyberpunk
tells us about “cyborgs” i.e. cybernetic organisms, a quasi-human mechanical being.
I wonder what Shakespeare could have done today with this new feast of words? What would
Thomas Wilson have said? Do we speak a language our mothers would have understood? What
price the King’s English?
Regards,
Peter Titlestad
38
the grammar
underground
GRAMMAR TIP 29
Dear Colleagues All,
As I have indicated earlier, it is a great help to understanding words and to improving vocabulary if
one can distinguish the prefixes and suffixes (the affixes), and if one knows their functions and
meanings. For example, in, and un show a negative meaning: unaware, incapable. Suffixes can
change the function of a word: the noun marriage becomes the adjective marriageable, the adjective
sweet becomes the noun sweetness, the verb conceive becomes the adjective conceivable, and with
in becomes inconceivable.
I am going to throw a long list of prefixes and suffixes at you, to use at your discretion. It might be
useful for students. I fear that the list is a little formidable and that this letter will therefore be a
very long one.
Regards,
Peter Titlestad
prefix
An affix placed before a root to modify its meaning and so build a new word, e.g.:
prepaid, uncover, import, export, transport. Here are the main prefixes in English, with examples of
their use:
aabacadafananteantibebicocomconcounterdedisenexhyper-
: abide, awake, amoral, abridge, abreast
: abnormal, absolve, abuse, aborigine (-al)
: acknowledge, accustom, accountant, acclaim, account
: administer, adventure, adjoin, adjunct
: affix, affirm, affinity, affluence, afford
: annul, announcer
: antediluvian, antechamber, antechapel
: antiseptic, antithesis, antidote, anticlimax
: begrudge, besiege, begone, behalf, befriend
: bilingual, bilateral, biped, biplane
: co-operate, co-ordinate, co-opt, copartner
: combat, combine, commemorate, commingle, commiserate
: concede, concourse, condescend, condole, confederate
: counterbalance, counterfoil, countermand, counterpart
: debar, debase, decompose, default, depend
: disarrange, disbelieve, discredit, dislodge, displace
: enlarge, enlighten, enable, enrich
: exchange, exclaim, export, express
: hypercritical, hypersensitive
39
iliminmisnonpostpreproresubsuperun-
: illogical, illegal, illiterate, illegible
: immortal, immovable, impersonal, impious, import
: incapable, incivility , inclement, incoherent
: misadventure, misbehave, miscalculate, misfortune
: non-aggression, non-sequitur,. non-political
: post-war, postdate, postgraduate, postscript
: precaution, preconceive, predetermine, premature
: pro-French, pro-consul, prolong
: react, rebound, reform, rekindle, reinstate
: subconscious, subdivide, subheading, sub-lieutenant
: superabundant, supercharged, super-human, superimpose
: unaware, unbending, uncover, untiring, untruth
Suffixes A suffix is added at the end of a word or stem to produce a new derivative word, e.g.:
length, lengthen; wide, widely; conscious, consciousness.
The following list contains all the main suffixes in use in the English language, apart from suffixes
used in the formation of plurals, case endings, declensions and non-finite parts of verbs.
-able
:used to form adjectives from verbs, giving the meaning of able or
liable, or worth to be …..ed, e.g.: marriageable, distinguishable, insupportable,
valuable
-al
:forms nouns and adjectives, e.g.: nouns: removal, acquittal; adjectives:
musical, fatal, official
-age
:forms nouns: breakage, carriage, usage.
-an (ean) :forms adjectives, meaning pertaining or belonging to, e.g.:
suburban, Shakespearean, Euclidean
-ance
:forms nouns from verbs with the meaning of the state or quality of, e.g.
perseverance, endurance, ignorance, deliverance.
-ant
:forms nouns with meaning of agent or doer, e.g.: assistant, accountant.
-ate
:forms verbs from nouns or adjectives, e.g.: estimate, hyphenate, formulate,
liquidate, validate
-ation
:forms nouns from verbs, with the meaning of the act or state of, e.g. :
emendation, consideration, exclamation, damnation, temptation.
-dom
:forms nouns from nouns, with the meaning of rank, domain or condition, e.g.
: kingdom, serfdom, martyrdom, earldom.
-en
:forms verbs from adjectives with the meaning of to make, e.g. soften, lighten,
thicken.
Also forms adjectives expressing material, e.g.: golden, wooden, woollen.
-ence
:indicating a state, e.g.: permanence, corpulence, concurrence, precedence,
transference.
-er
:forms nouns from nouns, adjectives or verbs, to give the meaning of one who
performs the action, person belonging to a place or instrument or object that
does something, e.g. : follower, gardener, Londoner, foreigner, paper-cutter,
decanter.
-ess
:feminine formation as in goddess, lioness, countess, giantess, governess,
adventuress.
-ful
:forms adjectives with the meaning of full of or having the quality of, e.g. :
beautiful, masterful, tasteful, wasteful.
40
-fy
-hood
-ible
-ion
-ish
-ism
-ist
-ise
ity(ty)
-ive:
ize
-less
-ly :
-ment
-ness
-ology
-or
-ory
-ship
-some
-th
-ure
-y :
:forms verbs with the sense of to make, to make into, to produce, e.g.: amplify,
classify, purify , stupefy .
:forms nouns of condition or quality , e.g. : motherhood, fatherhood, manhood,
statehood.
:forms adjectives with the meaning that can be…. ed, e.g.: contemptible,
digestible, divisible, legible.
:forms nouns of condition, action e.g.: abstraction, constitution, delegation,
speculation, suggestion.
:forms adjectives meaning belonging to, in the nature of, of sometimes with
the meaning of somewhat, e.g.: boyish, girlish, foppish, bookish, greenish,
reddish.
:forms nouns from adjectives, suggesting a disposition to be what the adjective
describes, e.g.: barbarism, socialism, idealism, modernism, spiritualism.
:forms nouns meaning an agent, believer or one who follows and practises,
e.g. : violinist, atheist, fatalist, cyclist, organist, specialist.
:is the suffix ending of a small group of words of which the most common are:
advertise, chastise, compromise, despise, disguise, enterprise, exercise,
supervise, surprise.
:forms nouns meaning the quality of being what the adjective describes, e.g.:
liberality, formality , humility , reality , universality.
:forms adjectives from verbs meaning to have the nature of tending to, e.g.
:impressive, active, coercive.
:forms verbs from nouns and adjectives, e.g.: civilize, patronize, equalize,
realize, sympathize.
:forms adjectives meaning without, devoid, free from, e.g.: witless, useless,
guileless, countless, fearless.
(a) an adverbial suffix, e.g.: cruelly, beautifully, quickly, slowly, etc.
(b) an adjectival suffix, e.g. :kingly, scholarly, soldierly, lovely.
:forms nouns with the meaning of the act of or the means of, e.g. atonement,
amendment, requirement, payment.
:forms nouns expressing a state or quality , e.g. : sweetness, bitterness,
tiredness, laziness, etc.
:from Greek logos, a word -means the study of something, a branch of
knowledge.
:forms nouns with the meaning of agent or instrument, e.g.: editor, surveyor,
donor.
:forms adjectives meaning the state or quality of, e.g. : compulsory ,
perfunctory , illusory.
:forms abstract nouns with the meaning of the quality of or other nouns
meaning the status or office of, e.g. : hardship, salesmanship, scholarship,
lordship.
:forms adjectives with the meaning productive of or apt to be, e.g. :
quarrelsome, lonesome, wholesome, awesome.
:forms nouns from verbs and adjectives: growth, health, stealth, truth, width.
:forms nouns from verbs: closure, seizure, departure, mixture.
(a) forms adjectives meaning having the character or, composed of, e.g.:
milky, thorny, slangy, bluey, misty.
(b) forms nouns from verbs: delivery flattery, discovery.
41
the grammar
underground
GRAMMAR TIP 30
Dear Colleagues All,
We have had enough about vocabulary building. How do we pronounce all these words and how
does a dictionary help us? An earlier letter did say something about this but some more detail might
be more helpful.
The main thing is stress. English rhythm consists of stressed and unstressed syllables and it is
important that in a word of two or more syllables the stress should go in the right place. The stress
is marked by a short, thick vertical line placed before the stressed syllable.
about
catastroph
e
potato
error
hammer
Europe
European
consider
concert
The above is what we call “word stress”. There is also “sentence stress”.
Did you have a fine time?
In the above sentence the a is unstressed.
Of course you can go.
The of and the can are unstressed.
What are you doing?
The are is unstressed. Of course, we could say this last sentence with a different intonation. If we
suddenly come upon a child making a mess we could ask:
What are you doing?
42
Very often, although not always, the vowel in the unstressed syllable becomes “reduced”. We talk
of “vowel reduction” in unstressed positions. The phonetic symbol for the reduced vowel is [].
The sound is a vague uh noise. The name for this vowel is the neutral vowel.
When you look up the pronunciation of a word in a dictionary, look for the mark that shows the
stressed syllable, and look for the symbol of the neutral vowel [].
Thus we do not say “aybout” but “uhbout”. We do not say “Have you had ay good time?” but
“Have you had uh good time?”
There will be more about this in later letters. Stress, and reduction, give a lot of trouble in South
Africa.
Regards,
Peter Titlestad.
43
the grammar
underground
GRAMMAR TIP 31
Dear Colleagues All,
In the last letter you learnt (unless you knew it all, already) that in a dictionary the stressed syllable
of a word is marked with the sign  before the stressed syllable, and that very often the vowel in
the unstressed syllable is the “neutral vowel”, [] used when “reduction” takes place. Always
watch out for the stressed syllable and for what are sometimes called “weak syllables.”
(Incidentally, phonetic symbols are usually put in square brackets.)
Not all words have to be stressed in only one way. An obvious one is garage. It can be stressed as
garage or as garage. In the second one it is quite possible that the neutral vowel [] could be
used in the first syllable, i.e. that “reduction” will take place. Sometimes you will hear the second
syllable reduced in garage.
Educated speakers of English say contribute and contribute. I was brought up rather strictly to
say contribute as being “correct” but sometimes things change. Obviously, in contribute it
would be possible to have [] in the unstressed first syllable. Controversy can also be done in two
ways.
Sometimes it is possible to have another vowel [] in unstressed positions. You may find this
symbol in dictionaries. This symbol is called the “barred ” because of the bar at the top and the
bottom.
I notice that the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary has used the “barred ” in the first,
unstressed, syllables of erect, erode, erotic, erupt. The sound of the [] is the sound in sit, but said
with a Received Pronunciation accent. Spelling does not help. English spelling is a very rough
guide to pronunciation. The phenomenon of vowel reduction in unstressed positions is one of the
many factors that causes spelling to be a weak guide to pronunciation.
At any rate, in the above list of words, one should not say eerect, eerode, eerotic, eerupt.
There is some inconsistency with regard to reduction in English spoken in South Africa and in the
USA, but it is worth knowing about reduction when one looks up a word in a dictionary.
44
Regards,
Peter Titlestad.
GRAMMAR TIP 32
Dear Colleagues All,
the grammar
underground
45
Knowing where to put the stress in a word can sometimes be most important. There is a long list of
words that are spelt the same but then are separated in meaning and in function (noun, verb etc.) by
where one puts the stress.
a convict (noun)
to convict (verb)
It is essential at least to get the stress pattern right, if not the reduction, which is indeed desirable
but not absolutely essential.
Sometimes this happens with adjectives, adverbs and verbs:
frequent (occurs often, numerous) frequently (adverb)
to frequent (to go to a place often)
“He frequented the pub in his spare time. He was a frequent visitor there; he went there
frequently.
Here is an extensive list: it is worth knowing.
abstract (adjective or noun)
to abstract (verb)
alternate (adjective)
to alternate (verb)
an attribute (noun)
to attribute to (verb)
a compact (noun)
to compact (verb)
compact (adjective) or
compact(adjective)
compactly (adverb)
a convert (noun)
to convert (verb)
a desert
to desert (verb)
desert (last course of a meal)
an escourt
to escourt
invalid (advective) (not acceptable)
invalid (noun) (a very sick person)
an object
to object
a pervert
to pervert
the refuse (garbage)
to refuse
a contest
to contest
a secret
to secrete
absent (adjective)
to absent (oneself/himself etc.)
a protest
to protest
an essay
to essay
a prospect
to prospect
a reject
to reject
a product
to produce
46
progress
to progress
Regards,
Peter Titlestad.
GRAMMAR TIP 33
Dear Colleagues All,
the grammar
underground
Vowel reduction occurs in sentences as well as in individual words. The underlined words in the
following sentences are unstressed and the vowels should be reduced.
47
He was convicted of fraud.
What are you going to do?
He waited for a while for a bus, but then decided to walk.
Naturally some syllables of the words with more than one syllable could also be reduced:
convicted, waited, decided.
If you add the reduced syllables of these words to all the reduced vowels in the small one-syllable
words, you will see that a reduced vowel, either [] or [], can be very frequent.
Vowel reduction is one of the phenomena (there are others too) that separate English pronunciation
from spelling. It can also pose a problem in listening comprehension to those not familiar with the
kind of spoken English that shows this feature. Word recognition may be more difficult.
It is actually the lack of stress on certain words and syllables, coupled with vowel reduction, that
gives English its natural flow.
In a sentence, obviously, the small words should not have undue emphasis. Look again at the
unstressed small words in the above sentences. There must be a particular reason for such small
words to be stressed.
It is unfortunate that a lot of the announcers on the English services of the SABC have acquired the
bad habit of giving unnecessary and illogical emphasis to small words in a sentence.
He saw large crowds IN the park.
The President has just returned FROM Europe.
Listen for this phenomenon, but be careful not to catch the disease yourself.
Regards,
G
Peter Titlestad.
RAMMAR
TIP 34
Dear Colleagues All,
the grammar
underground
We have been considering the rhythmic patterns of English, based on the way that English rhythm
consists of stressed and unstressed syllables, often with vowel reduction in the unstressed portions.
48
This forms the basis of English poetic metre. One has to be able to spot the stresses and the
unstressed syllables. This is one reason why small children should be taught nursery rhymes, which
usually have a very marked rhythm. Adults who are second or foreign language learners should be
fed a diet of verse with strongly marked rhythms. Songs with a good swinging tune (and suitably
harmless words) also help. It must be pointed out that many languages do not work with the
stressed/unstressed pattern of English and that some effort is needed to attune the learner to the
unfamiliar.
Not all English poetry is rhythmically regular but let us use some that is. Look for the stressed
syllables and, wherever possible, reduce the unstressed vowels to the neutral vowel.
When the hounds of spring are on winter’s traces,
The mother of months in meadow or plain
Fills the shadows and windy places
With lisp of leaves and ripple of rain.
Intoxicating stuff! Not quite sure what it means.
Who is this “mother of months”? Lots of lovely alliteration, of course: (you know – all those
repeated consonants.)
However, we are concerned with stress and reduction. Look particularly at the last line. How much
better it goes if one really does not stress the of, and, and of, and really reduces the vowels in them
to the neutral vowel []. Of course, the f of the two ofs must be a v sound, not an f.
If somebody from you know where says,
WITH lisp OF leaves AND ripple OF rain
then all is spoilt.
If you don’t hear from me again, I have probably been assassinated by an irate colleague, a stray
lover of Swinburne’s poetry or a demolition squad from Auckland Park. Tell the police. (Reduce
the first vowel and make the vowel in the stressed second syllable long).
Regards,
49
Peter Titlestad.
GRAMMAR TIP 35
Dear Colleagues All,
the grammar
underground
This letter is about two problem words: motivate and motivation. We are all faced here with a
distinctive South African usage, one that flourishes on the UP campus, but is not unknown
50
elsewhere in the South African academe: Rhodes for example, no less, at the heart of Englishspeaking culture.
The international English-speaking meaning of to motivate is to provide encouragement, to make
people want to do something, to feel keen. A motivation is what motivates. Closely related is the
noun a motive, especially in crime stories and particularly related to murder most foul. One of the
ways of finding out “who done it?” is to ask who has a motive for the crime.
Motivation is important in education. The teacher must motivate the pupils, make them want to
learn. It is important in sport and business leadership: in any sphere in which it is necessary to get
people to show enthusiasm, play and work hard, try their best. Sometimes, it can smack of
emotional exploitation.
However, the South African usage, (which may possibly be attributable to Afrikaans motiveer and
motivering) goes off at a tangent. It is, by the way, in dictionaries. The Dictionary of South African
English on historical principles, that weighty but fascinating tome produced by the Dictionary Unit
of ISEA, (The Institute for the Study of English in Africa, at Rhodes), and published by Oxford
University Press, gives some space to it, complete with examples of use from official documents at
Rhodes University. The New Oxford Dictionary, the large, new (1997) one-volume dictionary that
sets out to be innovative, records South African usage. To motivate is “to present facts and
arguments in support of a proposal;” a motivation is a “set of facts and arguments used in support
of a proposal.”
Well then, what more do we want? What we must at least know is what we are doing. We aspire to
being an international university. Beware of its use in documents for overseas use – you may not be
understood. Furthermore, before you use the word in an examination question (“motivate your
answer”) consider what other English terms might be used: they are legion, and expressive.
Explain, prove, give evidence or proof, put a case for, argue your case, argue the case for, justify,
substantiate, demonstrate, show: what a lovely set of words! Resorting to motivate is an
impoverishment. Do your students know all these expressions? They should, and the teaching staff
should make sure that they do – they are an essential vocabulary group for academic writing.
Regards,
51
Peter Titlestad.
GRAMMAR TIP 36
Dear Colleagues All,
the grammar
underground
From time to time I have received sundry enquiries about a sensitive matter, the question of
lecturers whose mother tongues are indigenous African languages, and who would like to
52
“improve” their accents. This kind of case needs knowledge and understanding, informed
sympathy. This will be a rather long and somewhat technical letter. One might as well take the bull
by the horns. Everyone should have some insight into this situation. In South Africa we have two
very different phonological systems rubbing up against each other. However, the problems outlined
below are not local only: they are found in non-native speakers of English all over the world.
There are a few specific points that go a long way to explaining the features of the accent of
speakers of the indigenous African languages. The same points apply, broadly, whichever one of
the nine languages is in question. Some abelungu (not least of the English speaking variety) might
also learn a thing or two.
1.
Stress, Rhythm and Vowel Reduction.
A number of recent letters in this “tips” series have already dealt with some of the things
that need saying under this heading. These letters have explained “vowel reduction” in
unstressed syllables to the “neutral vowel” [], and sometimes to [], the sound in sit, (if
you have an accent that approximates to “Received Pronunciation”).
English has a powerful, basic rhythmic system of stressed and unstressed syllables. A
technical term that is sometimes used for this is that English is “stressed-timed.” The
unstressed syllables are got over quickly, with the help of “vowel reduction”. The African
languages have a very different rhythmic principle. The technical term is “syllable timed”.
There are no unstressed syllables and there is no reduction to some equivalent of the
neutral vowel. There are no “weak syllables” which can be got over quickly between
stresses. This results in a rhythm that sounds a little odd to those accustomed to the rhythm
of native-speaker English. Furthermore, it results in uncertainty about where to put the
stress in words and in sentences.
2.
Central vowels and “tense” vowels.
Vowel sounds are made in a space in the mouth above the tongue, below the palate and
behind the teeth. This a space, without solid boundaries of either flesh or ivory. If anything
53
either narrows the steam of breath to cause audible friction or momentarily dams up the
stream of air, then we have a consonant and not a vowel.
Within this tiny space, the tongue performs miracles of agility and precision. It is the
position of the highest point of the tongue that is the chief, but not the only, determiner of
vowel sounds.
Some vowel sounds have a tongue position in the central area of this space. These are
called “central” vowels. Other vowels have a tongue position at the perimeter of the space.
These are, in the jargon of the phonetician, “tense” vowels. The African languages have
only tense vowels. Therefore, any vowel that is “central” tends to cause difficulty. For
example, the vowel in bird might become bed.
The neutral vowel [] and the “barred i” [], which are used in reduction in unstressed
syllables, are both central vowels. This further complicates the question of reduction for
African speakers of English, apart from the question of rhythm that has been discussed in
1. above.
In general, there is a tendency for central vowels to be replaced by tense vowels. As
already stated, there are a number of central vowels in English: bird, butter, about
(neutral), sit, pot, book/pull.
These tend to have tense vowels substituted for them. In addition, there are two “tense”
vowels in English that are not in the African system: cat and calm/part. Substitutes are
often found for these.
3.
Vowel Length: the ship, sheep syndrome.
English is rather pernickety about vowel length. There are five “long” vowels: speak/see;
bird/germ/heard; part/calm; port/call/caught; fool/mule. The other numerous English
vowels are “short”. This causes a lot of trouble. Long vowels become short, and short
long. Ship becomes sheep and sheep ship (or an approximation – lets cut down on detail).
Some of you may remember, years ago, the howl of indignation that went up when a new
54
announcer on the SABC, trying to say that New Zealand had “beaten” South Africa, used
a short vowel that seemed to indicate the word bitten.
The above three factors are the most important. There are certain others, to be briefly
mentioned.
4.
Diphthongs
These are vowel glides – the tongue glides from one position to another: fine/time; here;
there/fair/hair; go; play; how now brow cow; boy; etc. There are no true diphthongs in the
African languages. Mind you, most white South Africans are not so hot at putting in the
glides at the end of diphthongs either – one of the key features of the “South African
accent.”
5.
Consonant clusters and terminal consonants
English has lots of consonant clusters. The African languages like to separate consonants
by vowels. Also English very often ends words with consonants. The African languages
like to end on a vowel.
Conclusion.
Learners of second and foreign languages are prone to mother-tongue interference. The
later the learner comes into significant contact with good examples of mother-tongue
speech in the target language, the harder it becomes to acquire a native speaker accent. A
lot of practice and individual guidance is needed.
I shall consider offering a course through CE at UP (for which staff can get funding
through Louw Botha). I shall also give thought to a helpful tape.
Regards,
Peter Titlestad.
GRAMMAR TIP 37
Dear Colleagues All,
the grammar
55
underground
Languages have tunes and rhythms. Very often, the wrong tune or rhythm can spoil the sense.
Unfortunately, a number of TV announcers, across the board, set bad examples, and the nation is
receiving bad instruction as a result.
This letter will be about two phenomena: stress on the wrong word, and an incorrect rhythm at the
end of sentences and phrases.
Toronto citizens are outraged.
St Lucia is a unique water system.
The chemical warfare programme
Set up a hotline
Future South African role models
Have agreed to a cease fire
Being a stunt man
Testifying to his son’s murder case
All those examples were said with a falling, lower tone on the second last word or syllable, and
then with a raised tone and more emphasis on the last syllable. In fact, the raised tone should be on
the second last word or syllable.
out
raged
water
murder
system
case
Now for incorrect stress on small words that should be unstressed, and often have a “reduced”
vowel.
In a row
(a as in play)
Sets up a hotline
(a as in play)
The emphasis should fall on row and hotline, and hotline should have the emphasis and the raised
tone on hot.
The table tennis championships will be held later this month.
56
The plain statement of fact needs an unstressed will and the emphasis on later this month. One
would only stress the will if you were arguing with somebody who had said that the championship
would not be held later in the month.
Many South African think it will not happen to them.
Obviously, the to must be unstressed and the emphasis must fall on them. The meaning demands
this.
Don’t catch the dreaded lurgy. Listen critically.
Regards,
Peter Titlestad.
GRAMMAR TIP 38
Dear Colleagues All,
the grammar
underground
57
There is a song with the chorus
So long, it’s been good to know you.
This has to be my tune for today. I retire shortly and this is my last letter. My thanks to all who
have sent comments, queries, criticism and expressions of appreciation. I am most grateful. I have
had fun – I hope that all you have had some too. I might, however, still give courses through CE at
UP.
There is, however, a little business to transact. The first series of grammar tips was put on the
intranet some time ago. This was the series on grammar and writing skills that appeared in 2002.
The letters that have appeared in 2003 will be put on the intranet shortly.
Also, the set of zany grammar posters that have been sent round to departments this year will be put
up on the intranet. They constitute a brief guide to editing.
Then a full set of expanded grammar notes, comments on vocabulary, on the history of English, on
pronunciation, in other words, a handbook on English, will soon be put on the intranet.
Lastly, a word list will, in due course, be put on the intranet. This list, of about 900 words, is
intended to provide a core vocabulary for academic discourse. Brief definitions and examples will
be given. This is a general list. The specific vocabulary of each subject must be given by the
lecturers concerned. However, a general vocabulary for academic purposes has been identified.
Students should know this vocabulary.
In this regard, there is a recent book, which I have mentioned before, that discusses improvement of
vocabulary and the uses of various word lists. A copy has been ordered for the library. However,
some of you may want to posses a copy yourselves.
Stein, Gabriele. (2002) Developing your English Vocabulary A Systematic New Approach.
Stauffenberg Verlag, Germany, ISBN 3-86057-727-1
58
All who are interested in improving English and facilitating students’ academic performance
should take note of this book.
In case anyone has been severely infected by the English teaching bug, I should like to mention the
language teaching catalogues of the Oxford University Press and the Cambridge University Press:
courses of all kinds, tests, placement tests, books about teaching. They are absolutely mouthwatering.
Over and out,
Peter Titlestad
the grammar
underground
59
the grammar
underground
60