Ask the English Teacher

Too Busy

Several people have sent me questions recently, but it's the end of the semester here in Canada, and I've been too busy to answer most of the questions.

I will try to answer your questions next week, when most of my grading is done. Thanks for your patience!

Space After Periods

This is not exactly an English question, but it deserves some discussion. Maria wrote today to ask:
Is it true that one does not have to double space after a sentence in a paragraph or essay? When the piece is fully justified, does the spacing after punctuation matter? I was taught one space after a question mark and two after a period. My English teacher tells me that it no longer matters. In other words, I believe one would just single space after all punctuation. I have a hard time letting go of what I was previously taught. Please instruct me on the correct spacing.

In the days of the typewriter, every letter took up the same amount of space. An i occupied as much space on the paper as an m. This could make it hard to see if a period ended a sentence or simply meant an abbreviation in the middle of a sentence.

So the convention arose that two spaces would follow the period at the end of a sentence. And generations of typists, including me, got used to it.

But personal computers offered many different fonts, and letters took up different amounts of space. So, just as with printed text in magazines and books, it wasn't necessary to put two spaces after the end of a sentence.

Old habits die hard. It took me a couple of years to stop hitting the space bar twice at the end of every sentence. Some of my colleagues still put two spaces in. The result is text with oddly long spaces between sentences.

So when you're writing text on a computer, one space after a period (or question mark, or exclamation mark) is all you need.

Gaining Fluency in English

A reader has just sent me a good question:
I have visited your blog many times, and so interested to know what you can recommend me to be fluent in English?

I wish I could offer a short, easy answer. But fluency requires months and years of practice. Ideally, we become fluent by living in the language: studying it, shopping in it, gossiping in it. But that's not always possible.

For the student learning English in a non-English-speaking country, I suggest practice in reading, listening, and speaking. (Writing fluently can come later.)

So read everything you can find: magazines, newspapers, books, and websites. Notice the words and expressions that you don't understand. Try to learn their meanings. Look for definitions. One good way: go to Google. Suppose you want the definition of the word "magma." In the search window, type
define:magma

You'll find lots of definitions! And here is a PDF handout on how to search Google.
Download searching_the_web_with_google.pdf (The Google search functions are not the same in every country, but this will get you started.)

It's hard to listen to English if everyone around you speaks another language. But look at the ESL/EFL Resources links in the left-hand column. Many of them are for podcasts—spoken files that you can listen to on your computer or your iPod.

You can also listen to news reports on many websites like CNN, BBC, CBC, and Al Jazeera. These can help you learn different English accents. I don't know YouTube very well, but you can find many, many videos there with English spoken on them.

As for speaking, I suggest you find an "English Corner"—in China, every town has an English Corner where students can go to practice their English with one another. I'm sure other countries have something like it. Maybe it's outside a university library, or in a café, but it can be very helpful. Sometimes you will find a native English speaker at the English Corner.

No one becomes fluent easily, but practicing every day will help. Good luck!

Who or Whom?

Callie asks in a comment about this big headache for English learners. It gives me a good reason to mention the "Google Search" on this site.

If you scroll down a little, you'll see the search window in the right-hand column. Type in "whom" and you'll get links to all my uses of the pronoun (on all my blogs!).

Check the first two or three links to this blog, and I hope the posts will answer your question.

Take or Get?

Phuong asks:
What is the difference between take and get?
EX: Take this glass of water to your dad.
I'll get you a cup of coffee.

Take in this usage means "accept and carry": Accept the glass of water I'm giving you, and carry it to where Dad is.

Get is an English word with many, many uses. In this usage, it means "go and return": I will go to where the coffee is, and I will return to give it to you.

Would or Used to?

Weslei in Brasil writes:
I've seen lots of explanations about the usage of would and used to but I'm still confused. What does, exactly, "past states" mean? Is there a "short cut" which I could easier identify when "would" could not be used? I also observed that, most of the times, "would" (meaning "used to") comes in the same sentence with a time reference (My mother would bake me a cake whenever I visited her.) . Is there anything to do with a short cut or was it just a coincidence?

I love this kind of question because I've never thought about these usages before.

You're right: When we're talking about some past state of affairs, and we use would, we usually give a time reference:
When I lived in Mexico City, I would take the streetcar to visit my friend in San Angel.
When our kids were little, I would get up with them on Sunday mornings so their mother could sleep.
On Thursdays, I would take the ferry to Sechelt.

If we didn't give the time reference, it would be easy to misunderstand:
I would take the ferry to Sechelt. (When? Why? What's keeping you from doing so?)

"Used to" is more flexible. We don't need a time reference:
I used to live in Mexico City.
I used to get up with my kids on Sundays.
I used to take the ferry to Sechelt.

But we can also use it in place of "would":
When I lived in Mexico City, I used to take the streetcar ...
When our kids were little, I used to get up...
On Thursdays I used to take...

What's the Science of Learning

Joshua asks a very interesting question:
I am a student currently going for an MA in 'Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL)' at the University of Birmingham, England.

In my studies, I often run across the term 'pedagogy', usually defined as "The art or science of teaching". It got me thinking, is there such a term for "the art of science of learning"? I realize 'pedagogy' has a Greek root, but I tend to understand Latin better than Greek.

That sent me to my dictionaries--first a Greek one, then my old reliable Funk & Wagnalls.

Pedagogy literally means "child leading" (paidos, child; agogos, leader or trainer). Compare with words like pedophile (lover of children) and demagogue (leader of the many, or the mob).

The term for "science of learning" might be "mathemology." Mathematics comes from "mathema," learning (also found in "polymath," someone who's learned many subjects). Interesting that "mathemology" doesn't seem to be a word, because many people (including polymaths!) do study the way students learn.