Ye Olde Grammarian Is Ba-a-ck! (No. 4)

       It's about time I wrote a lighter-style post, isn't it?  And yes, Ye Olde Grammarian is still in the land of the living!  I can't believe that old curmudgeon hasn't put up anything in this series since January!  This one was inspired by a piece I found through somebody's Facebook link: "Apostrophe Now: Bad Grammar and the People Who Hate It," by Tom de  Castella (BBC News Magazine).  I'll use that piece as a take-off point for some remarks.

 

       The article itself deals with the resurgence of emphasis on grammar in the British school systems, but it also hits on specific grammatical gaffes.  To quote: "Grammar is not just an educational issue. For some adults, it can sabotage friendships and even romantic relationships."  The article cites statistics showing that bad grammar and bad spelling can be a huge turn-off in romantic first-contacts (ah, when two aliens meet, what miscommunication we may have ... )  So make sure you don't split your infinitives when you court that girl or guy of your dreams, or she or he might just split with you!  Same thing holds when you meet that alien blob that lives on Alpha Centauri!

 

       However, the article goes on to say that knowing what constitutes good grammar is not that easy.  Some ways of speaking are simply colloquial and informal.  Thus, I personally have no objection to split infinitives, which was an artificial rule based on Latin, where, since infinitives are  only one word, they can't be split.  Ergo, you shouldn't split them in English, either.  You'll see split infinitives in my writing, depending on the context.  If it's in dialogue and the person is an academic making a speech, I probably wouldn't split it.  But if this academic is engaged in an informal conversation about her upcoming vacation, then I prefer to colloquially split it (colloquially to split it?  to split it colloquially?  To split colloquially it?  Don't be ridiculous!)

 

       The article mentions starting a sentence with "and."  I would add "but" to that.  Technically, you shouldn't start a sentence with a coordinate conjunction, because its purpose is to connect two coordinate clauses, not to serve as an adverb.  BUT I will do both of these things at times (see?)  In this case, I should have said "However, I will do both of these things at times."  In this context, I like "however" just fine.  BUT (? -- sorry, however) people don't talk that way -- they start sentences with "but" and they tie ideas together with "and" dangling at the beginning of the sentence, and to get rid of all of these is to make your style sound artificial and even choppy.  Too many "howevers" become a pedantic bore, especially in dialogue.

 

       AND (ha, ha!) so I pass on to another subject, which is going to dominate the rest of this post.  (Somewhere there is a stylistic rule against verbosity, but Ye Olde Grammarian never mastered that one, she fears!) 

 

       The author of the article brings up the Oxford comma.  I always use the Oxford comma, although I didn't know it was called that at the time I was taught it.  It is sometimes called the serial comma, and it consists of retaining the comma between the penultimate and the ultimate elements of a sequence: What I would write is "He ate bread, eggs, meat, and jam." It seems this usage is favored by Oxford University Press, and what's good enough for that venerable publisher is good enough for Ye Olde Grammarian!  BUT (ha!) seriously, sometimes this comma is essential to prevent hilarious ambiguity.  If you wrote "He ate bread, eggs, meat and jam" it sounds like (or preferably "as if") he is eating the jam with his meat.  Now, if the sentence were (instance of use of subjunctive) "He ate meat, eggs, bread and jam" then you could correctly consider "bread and jam" to be one item. 

       If you're really interested in the Oxford comma, the Wikipedia article is quite thorough.  It concludes with this remark, quoted from The Cambridge Guide to English Usage: "In British practice there's an Oxford/Cambridge divide … In Canada and Australia the serial comma is recommended only to prevent ambiguity or misreading."  Apparently, American English doesn't exist for the University of Cambridge, unless we were included in the ellipsis!

 

       Now I will close with a quotation I found on a website called Mental Floss (with deepest apologies to Nelson Mandela, a figure for whom I have much admiration and respect): 

"By train, plane and sedan chair, Peter Ustinov retraces a journey made by Mark Twain a century ago. The highlights of his global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod and a dildo collector."  The website goes on to say "Languagehat dug this gem out of a comment thread on the serial comma. It's from a TV listing in The Times. It supports the use of the Oxford comma, but only because it keeps Mandela from being a dildo collector. However, even the Oxford comma can't keep him from being an 800-year-old demigod. There's only so much a comma can do."

     By the way, did you know there is a song entitled "Oxford Comma" by an American rock group called Vampire Weekend?  Wow, what exciting trivia you can learn from the internet!