|
The English language is not blessed (or
cursed) with the equivalent of the Académie Française, a more or less
official body in France that regulates the French language. Differences
about correct grammar are sometimes hotly argued within the Académie, but
outside their decisions are accepted as law. English grammarians also are
continually arguing with each other. There is of course broad agreement on
many things. However, when there isn't, you can pretty much do as you
like.
Over my 40-year career as a writer, I have purposely chosen to
"violate" some aspects of English grammar that many people consider to
be inviolable. Why? Because I believe their rigorous application often
impedes emphasis and/or understanding.
I would like to share some of these with you. You may never have thought
about them before, so here is your opportunity. Once you have reflected on
the matters, you may accept or reject them as the mood takes you.
Although a native of Southern California, I have been living in Brussels,
Belgium, for the past 34 years. In Europe, British English is generally
preferred to American English, so I am quite accustomed to seeing the
language used somewhat differently from what I knew before I came here.
Past vs. Present Tense
|
|
|
One of my particular pet peeves is something
I hear daily on the BBC, the prestigious British Broadcasting
Corporation. This is not a condemnation of British vs. American
English. It's just that I became aware of the practice while listening to
the BBC. Americans do pretty much the same thing.
What am I talking about? The annoying, even ludicrous stricture that if
a sentence starts in the past tense, it must remain in the past tense.
|
For example: The United Nations this
morning reported that malaria "was" still a worldwide health menace. To
me, it makes much more sense to say: The United Nations this
morning disclosed that malaria "is" still a worldwide health menace.
Or what about this: The President
asserted that the economy "was" going to remain strong at least until
2011. Again, it makes much more sense to say: The President
asserted that the economy "is" going to remain strong at least until 2010.
This practice is relatively harmless; nevertheless, I cringe
at it. Clearly, the speaker didn't mean to suggest that the
situation was likely to change almost the instant he had uttered
his statement. He was projecting into the future. So while
he may have said it five minutes ago (past tense), it seems
ludicrous to paraphrase his statement in the past tense, which
only diminishes its force. If you believe that casting the
beginning of a sentence in the past tense, then the rest in
the present or future tense is bad grammar, you are in poor
company. When the logic of the situation calls for it, many
good writers and speakers ignore the "rule". The
above examples were in fact taken from two the world's leading
international daily newspapers.
Capitalizing Bullet Points
The purpose of bullet points is to
make thoughts and information stand out. So why go against the current by
not capitalizing the first letter of each point? For example:
A. Our system helps people:
-- write better;
-- write faster;
-- write persuasively;
-- reduce errors;
-- reduce formatting problems.
B. Our system helps people:
-- Write better
-- Write faster
-- Write persuasively
-- Reduce errors
-- Reduce formatting problems
You will notice that in addition
to capitalizing each bullet point, example B also eliminates
the semi-colons and the period. What logic is there
for putting in commas semi-colons, and periods? The fact that
the next line is a new bullet point, i.e. clearly a new thought,
makes such punctuation unnecessary, and even distracting.
Of course, it can be contended that each bullet point is a
continuation of the main sentence, so starting with a capital
would be incorrect. Likewise, each bullet point is the end
of a thought, so punctuation is necessary. Valid arguments,
for a grammarian. However, for a writer whatever weakens
the power of bullet points negates the reason for using them
in the first place. Capitalizing and inserting punctuation
both tend to weaken bullets points, and therefore should be
avoided.
Names and Titles
My final grammatical pet peeve may not be
grammatical at all. It has to do with how people are introduced in a
document. I am not certain there is any "rule" governing this; it is more
a matter of choice.
A. The president of the International Federation of Tuba Players, John
Jones, has just celebrated his 18th year of service.
B. John Jones, president of the International Federation of Tuba Players,
has just celebrated his 18th year of service.
Both A and B are legitimate ways of introducing John Jones. Some good
writers choose the one, some choose the other. I would like to argue that
in most cases, B is probably preferable because it is more "natural".
After all, at a party you wouldn't say to someone, "I would like to
introduce you to the president of the International Federation of Tuba
Players, John Jones." Preferably you would say, "I would like to introduce
you to John Jones, president of the International Federation of Tuba
Players."
Paragraphing
This article is full of a heresy that many
grammarians would be happy to chastise me for -- and have.
You may have noticed that many of the paragraphs are quite short, even
only one sentence. I am certain that you didn't learn paragraphing like
this in school and would have been marked down if you had tried it.
Some people who use "ungrammatically" short paragraphs claim that they
help maintain reader interest, because readers dislike large blocks of
text. This is true. However, there is an even better reason for using
them. Short paragraphs help to dramatize certain
key idea, thereby enhancing clarity.
The first paragraph of this section is a case in point.
The sentence starting "This article is full of a heresy that . . ." could
easily have been combined with the next sentence starting "You may have
noticed that many of the paragraphs are quite short . . ." to form a
single paragraph. This is probably what most grammarians would do and
insist that others do, as well. However, some of the emphasis of that
first sentence would have been lost, to the detriment of clarity.
If you have doubts about using such unorthodox paragraphing,
look at any leading newspapers and magazine for reassurance.
Short, dramatic paragraphing is one of the things that make
these popular publications so easy and enjoyable to read.
|
