Ask the English Teacher

Negatives with no positives

Florence asked:

Why is there the word Insouciant but not the word Souciant in the English language?

I don't know, but it's a good addition to a long list of negatives with no positives:

People are often disgruntled, but no matter what you do, you can never gruntle them.

No hairdresser or tailor, finding you dishevelled, can hevel you. And if you're unkempt, you will never be kempt again.

If you face your opponents and find yourself dismayed, even if allies come to rescue you won't be mayed. 

If you face a challenge badly, you may be disconcerted. Face it well, though, and no one will ever say: "You were very concerted!" 

You're nonchalant when you don't show emotion. Even so, no one will say "You were really chalant," if you get upset.

If you feel bad about something, you have misgivings. But however optimistic you are, you never say: "I have givings about this."

When you take something apart, you dismantle it. But you'll never mantle it by putting it together again.

Did something startle you? You were disturbed. But when were you ever turbed?

Give the teacher the wrong answer, and she'll say: "No, I think you're mistaken." Give her right answer, and she'll never say: "Excellent! You're taken!"

Your room will never be immaculate, at least in your mother's eyes, but she never told you: "Your room is maculate! Clean it up right now!"

Can you think of any other negatives with no positives?

Does President Obama make English errors?

Russell Smith in the Globe and Mail often writes about English usage, and I thought I'd share this morning's column with you: Obama stands corrected. Here's the start of the column:

Barack Obama's supposed grammatical gaffes have stirred up the hornet's nest of disagreement between grammarians and historians, and we're back to arguing about an old topic: I and me. 

It has been pointed out by various reporters that Obama, like a nervous junior librarian, has a tendency to hypercorrection. At his first press conference as President-elect, he said, “President Bush graciously invited Michelle and I to meet with him and first lady Laura Bush.” 

He should have said “Michelle and me,” of course, according to contemporary convention. He frequently makes this mistake, actually, in phrases such as “a very personal decision for Michelle and I.” 

You say I when it's the subject of the verb, me when it's the object, direct or indirect. The preposition “for” takes an object – you don't say “a very personal decision for I.” 

People probably make this mistake because they are trying to sound educated, and they were told in childhood not to say “Me and Johnny are going to the store,” but “Johnny and I are going to the store.” (Hence the term hypercorrection.) Or at least that's what we all agree today.

It's a widespread usage; I've even heard my English-teacher colleagues say "for John and I." As Smith points out, the rigid "I-me" distinction didn't appear until the late 19th century. As a student I got the distinction drilled into me, and it grates a bit to hear it ignored.

But as Smith points out in his article (and as I used to tell me students), it's much more "natural" to say "It's me" instead of "It's I," which is technically the correct usage.

When English is Scottish

Today is New Year's Eve, and it's traditional in English-speaking to sing "Auld Lang Syne." But very few people really know what "auld lang syne" actually means.

According to Wikipedia, the expression is actually from a Scottish dialect of English. Literally, it means "old long since," but we would normally say "a long time ago." The lyrics are also in the Wikipedia post, complete with a pronunciation guide.

A "cup of kindness" means the custom of drinking something alcoholic in honour of someone or some thing. We may also hold a drink in our hand and say: "Here's to you," or "To your good health!" or  "Cheers!" or "Happy new year!" before taking a sip of the drink.

A related custom is called "drinking a toast," which is somewhat more formal. At large celebrations, a "toastmaster" may lead the drinkers: "Gentlemen, a toast to Her Majesty the Queen!" followed by "A toast to the Duke of Edinburgh!" (the queen's husband), and so on. As mentioned on the page about toasting, if the person being toasted is present, he or she is expected to stand up and offer a brief reply.

Wherever you may be, and however you celebrate it, I wish you a very happy, prosperous and peaceful new year.

Going "a-calling"

Gloria asks:

What is the meaning of the following phrase:

Suitors went ‘a-calling’

The “a-” prefix was once common in many English words. It can mean “out,” “in,” “on,” “up,” or “of.” We still see it in some very old writing: “Let’s go a-Maying” (let’s go out and enjoy the spring weather); “he went a-hunting” (he went out to hunt). So in your example, suitors went “out calling” on some attractive woman or women.

We also have the prefix “buried” in other words: aboard (on board a ship), asleep (in sleep), arise (rise up), akin (in a family), anew (from a new start).

Be careful not to confuse this usage with another “a”  and “an” prefix that comes from Greek and Latin and means “not” or “without”: amoral (without morals), anarchy (without government), apathy (without feeling or interest).

Thanks for a good question!

Subject-verb agreement

A reader sent me the following sentences and asked if the underlined words are the subjects. They are, and here's why:

1. Neither of my two suitcases is adequate for this trip.

"Neither" means "not this one and not that one." "of my two suitcases" is just a prepositional phrase, explaining what "neither" means, but a prepositional phrase can't be the subject. (However, as we'll see, it can So when "neither" refers to two, the subject has to be singular.

2.  Neither the teacher nor the students seem to understand this assignment.

Here, "neither" introduces two possible subjects, "teacher" and "students." In this case, the subject is either singular (teacher) or plural (students). In this case, the verb has to agree with the closer of the two possible subjects...in this case, "students." So "seem" is the correct verb form.

3. Some of the grain has gone bad.

"Some" can be singular or plural depending on the number of the noun in the prepositional phrase that follows it. "Grain" is singular, so the verb is "has gone." But if we wrote "Some of the students ___ gone home," the verb would be "have," to agree with "students."

4. John or his brother is going to be responsible for this.

The subject is "John" or "brother," but not both. Each is singular. So a singular subject takes a singular verb.

5. Has either my father or my brothers made a down payment on the house?

Like #2, the verb agrees with the closer noun, which in this case is the singular, "father." Turn it around, and the verb is plural: "Have either my brothers or my father made a down payment on this house?"

6. A few of the students are doing so well they can skip the next course.

"Few" is plural, so the verb is "are." But here are some variations:

"One of the students is doing so well that he or she can skip the next course." (If we know that the student is male or female, however, we can use just the right pronoun.)

"A number of students are doing so well that they..."

But if we need to use "The number," we switch to singular:

"The number of students who can skip the next course is very small."
  

"You know"

Art asks:

When did "you know" enter the English language?  When I listen to  people talk, "you know" is spoken about 25 times a minute!  It irritates me to no end and I want to respond that NO I DON'T know!  I would think an English teacher would put a stop to this in our schools!  What gives?

"You know" is a "vocalized pause"—a sound we make when we're trying to think of the next word or phrase. In some people, it becomes an ingrained habit, and yes, it can be irritating.

But don't expect English teachers to stamp out vocalized pauses! If we tried, we wouldn't have time to teach anything else. (Besides, we English teachers are major producers of vocalized pauses. Anyone who's survived an English course knows that.)

While "you know" is a familiar vocalized pause, it's not the only one. Other popular noises include "uh," "um," "like," "Omigod," and (at least in Canada) "eh?" Among politicians, "going forward" is a big hit.

In my public-speaking classes, I urged students not to resort to vocalized pauses in their presentations. They make the speaker sound nervous, and the vocalized pause becomes distracting. When you're reaching for that next word, I told them, you'll get more attention if you ... remain silent ... until the next word comes to you.

Expressing yourself well in English

Ivan just sent me a wonderful question:

I would like to know how do I express myself better in English? I notice that some people are very good at expressing themselves well, for example day to day conversation or even writting an essay.

I read somewhere that you need to be a well-read person to express yourself well. To me expressing myself well would probably give me lots of confidence. I'm not that bad right now but i feel I have a lot to improve. Please let me know of any way that I could improve my English usage and express myself more clearly and confidently.

This is not the usual kind of question (drink, drank, drunk?) I get here, but the whole point of good English usage is to be able to write clearly and eloquently. An error in grammar is not really serious—except that it distracts readers from what you're trying to say.

You're right, Ivan—you need to read as much as you can, and to find the best writers. When you read a good writer, you let that writer into your mind. He or she is thinking for you, putting words and sentences and ideas into your head.

When you read Shakespeare, you are thinking Shakespeare's thoughts. When you read Charles Dickens, you travel in time to 19th-century England, and you see what Dickens saw. When you read Emily Dickinson or Dorothy Parker, you are thinking like an amazing woman.

You don't have to read just the famous authors. A good newspaper story or blog post can teach you new words and new ways to write. That's how you learned to speak when you were a baby, listening to your parents and other people in the house. It's difficult to learn language as we grow older, but we can still improve—if we pay attention.

Of course it's hard. A few years ago, I started to teach myself to read Korean—not understand it, just recognize the letters. I read a short passage to a Korean student. When I was through, I felt as if I'd been lifting weights! When your brain has to do something new, it needs more blood. It's working hard, and even making new connections between nerve cells.

So when you're reading or listening to good English, you'll soon feel very tired. Don't worry. As you grow new brain cells, and the old cells make new connections, your skill in English will improve. It will get easier.

If you drive a car, you remember how hard it was at first. You had to think about everything: Starting the car, checking the rear-view mirror, turning the wheel, pressing the gas pedal, pressing the brake, watching the traffic. Every lesson was exhausting.

But after a few weeks you didn't even think about it. You did everything smoothly, and no one would imagine that you were still a new driver.

It's the same with expressing yourself in English. Read a lot, and write a lot. Listen to spoken English, and speak it every chance you get—even if you have to read Shakespeare or Emily Dickinson out loud. You won't always understand what they really mean, but you'll understand how words should flow in good English.

And at some point, when you speak or write in English, other people will be surprised. They'll say: "What an interesting idea!" or "Well said!"

They won't say: "How grammatical!" or "What good punctuation!" They won't even notice your grammar and punctuation, because your English will convey what you really want to say.

Yes, it will be a lot of work. And I can tell you that you will never stop learning. Here I am, 67 years old; I started speaking English sometime in 1942, and I started writing it around 1947. I'm still learning. I hope I never stop.

Simply perfect and perfectly simple!

Amer asks another good question:
For me as a German it is often difficult to distinguish between the simple past, the present perfect and the past perfect. Could you please give me some advice?

We use the simple past tense about an action or situation that began and ended sometime in the past:

I lived in California in the 1950s. (But I don't live there now.)
We bought a new car last spring. (The deal is complete.)
She kissed him. (Whenever it happened, she's not kissing him right now.)

Sometimes we use the simple past tense twice in one sentence: In a subordinate clause starting with "when," and in an independent clause. We assume that the action in the subordinate clause happened first:

When I got the news, I cheered. (First: the news. Second: the cheer.)
I cheered when I got the news. (Same thing.)
When the thunder rumbled, he hurried home. (First: thunder. Second: hurry.)
He hurried home when the thunder rumbled. (Same thing.)

The present perfect describes something that happened (or never happened) in the past, at an unspecified time:

I have moved from California to Canada.
We have paid all our bills.
I have never visited Germany.
They had never been robbed.

We also use the present perfect to express a repeated activity (or something never repeated) both in the past and the present:

She has performed at many concerts. (And she is still performing.)
We have made many friends in Vancouver. (And we are still making friends in Vancouver.)
We have never known a more talented artist. (And we are still looking for more-talented artists, but we can't find any.)

We can also use the present perfect, with for or since, to describe something that started in the past and continues into the present:

They have been waiting here for over an hour.
She has played the violin since she was six years old.
I have taught English since 1967.
I have taught English for 41 years.

The past perfect describes something that happened in the past—before something else in the past:

I had graduated from college when I moved to Canada. (First: I graduated. Second: I moved to Canada.)
They had already left when we arrived. (First: They left. Second: We arrived.)

Here is where past perfect can be confusing: If you use before or after, the time relationship is clear. So you can use the past perfect or the simple past. For example:

I had graduated from college before I moved to Canada.
I graduated from college before I moved to Canada.
She had phoned us after we had left.
She phoned us after we left.
They had left before we arrived.
They left before we arrived.

Both versions are correct.

One common error for English learners is to use "since" with the simple past:

I lived in England since 2005.
She worked for an advertising agency since January.

Just remember that if you want to use a "start time," you need to use present perfect:
I have lived in England since 2005.
She has worked for an advertising agency since January.

Sentence endings

Amer asks two interesting questions:

1. I am not sure about the following sentences:

i) They have once again won
ii) They have won once again

Which one is correct?

Actually, both are correct. But here is an odd fact about English. We tend to pay the most attention to the beginning and end of a sentence, and the beginning and end of a paragraph. I call these the "hot spots" of sentences and paragraphs. We read the words in between, but they don't have as much impact.

This is why a "bad news" business letter usually puts the bad news in the middle of a paragraph, with some neutral information at the beginning and end. The bad news doesn't hurt as much.

So in the sentences you ask about, it depends on what you want to emphasize: If it's "won," then leave it at the end. If you want to emphasize that they have won "once again," put that at the end.

2. Can you end a sentence with a preposition?

Yes. We end sentences with prepositions all the time, in both speech and writing.

Once an editor corrected something that Winston Churchill had written, saying that Churchill should not end a sentence with a preposition. Churchill wrote back: "This is the kind of hairsplitting up with which I will not put." He didn't end the sentence with a preposition, but it sounded silly.

What kind or Which kind?

Carla writes:
I have a question. Which are the differences between which kind, and what kind? I think the correct way is which kind. Also, interesting or intresting?

This was such a good question I really had to think about it for a few days. It seems to me that they're largely interchangeable--but not completely.

You can say "Which kind of ice cream would you like?" or "What kind of ice cream..." No real difference.

But a classic song is titled "What Kind of Fool Am I?" and it would sound odd as "Which Kind"! Same with "What kind of monster would do such a thing to a harmless puppy?"

The difference is that the last two questions are rhetorical--we don't really want someone to answer by saying what kind fool I am, or to name the kind of monster. We're really making a statement in the form of a question: I'm a fool. He's a monster.

So if you're asking a rhetorical question, use "What kind." If you really want to know the answer, use "Which kind" or "What kind."

As for your second question, it's interesting. That's two e's, so you can remind yourself of the correct spelling by telling yourself, "I can spell interesting with e's."