ESL School

. . . So here we are, nearly 1000 years after the Norman invasion, and English has its own distinct voice once again. Over the past 500 years the language has suffered enormous growing pains but it has matured and spread its influence so thoroughly that it is now the leading international language of statesmanship, business and science. With this degree of success we might ask why so many language 'mavens' think that it is under threat. Their fears in fact belie their ignorance of the very language they claim to wish to protect.

Virtually every grammatical rule in English is artificial. As the language that re-emerged in 1500 was so radically different from the highly rule-governed Old English from which it sprang, there were no undisputable rules in operation. This was too great a temptation for the eighteenth-century grammarians who set about constructing rules based on the model of Latin. But it was a thankless and ultimately futile task. Many of the rules we learnt so diligently school don't bear logical scrutiny.

For instance, we all know that sentences must not end with a preposition. This sounds fair enough since prepositions govern nouns. A preposition without a following noun is like hammer poised to fall but without a nail to hit. Yet this logic fails to take account of the numerous phrasal verbs in English such as 'pick someone up' or 'drop someone off'. These multi-part verbs behave similarly to German multi-part verbs such aus'fahren or ab'geben. The loose particles in the German verbs can sit happily at the end of a sentence and so, I argue, can the particles of phrasal verbs: 'it was getting late so I dropped him off'.

And what about split infinitives? I am about to boldly go into the lions' den and suggest that infinitives are split for the very logical reason that the adverb has a fatal attraction for the part of the verb to which it refers. Since 'to' carries so little meaning in the infinitive form, the writer or speaker feels sorely tempted to wrench the 'to' from its base verb and insert an adverb. I wonder if my daring to make this point will lead me to eventually repent my audacity.

I have no desire to defend sloppy or inaccurate language use. The ability to write or speak lucidly and cogently is a powerful tool and we must fight against shoddy or dishonest word-mongering. When medical staff speak of a 'state of negative existence', we must insist on knowing if the patient is or is not dead. Let us insist on plain speaking and eschew all the attempts of scurvy politicians to obfuscate and confuse rather than elucidate.

It would be wise also never to lose sight of the origins of language. Lords and ladies sound like fine people and maybe they have long family histories, but in the beginning these two words meant 'keeper' and 'kneader' of the breadloaf. Where were the servants then? And, by the way, the next time you are tempted to call someone 'feisty', do try to bear in mind that this word has its roots in a verb meaning 'to fart'.

Let me know you views on language.

Bye for now,

Brenda.