Dear Colleagues All

Grammar

Tips

2003

Layout: Alan Gray

Contents

Page

Tip 01. Introduction: basic skills 4

Tip 02. Sentence analysis – Winston Churchill 5

Tip 03. Sentence structure and analysis – the Declaration of Independence 6

Tip 04. Sentence analysis - the Declaration of Independence 7

Tip 05. Style and structure - the Declaration of Independence 8

Tip 06. The “periodic” sentence – Boswell on Dr Johnson10

Tip 07. Compound sentences – co-ordinating conjunctions11

Tip 08. Churchill again13

Tip 09. Discussion and analogy14

Tip 10. Sentences and fragments15

Tip 11. Boswell repucntuated16

Tip 12. Analysis is implicit17

Tip 13. Vocabulary – “synonyms”19

Tip 14. Hazards of the English vocabulary20

Tip 15. Latin and Saxon - style21

Tip 16. Variety of vocabulary – Dicken’s Mr Micawber23

Tip 17. Dr Samuel Johnson24

Tip 18. Gentle – a lesson in “synonyms”25

Tip 19. Saxon and Latin – the first Volkswagen and William Barnes26

Tip 20. Anglo-Saxon and loan words28

Tip 21. The Vikings29

Tip 22. The Norman Conquest30

Tip 23. French Borrowings31

Tip 24. Early Modern English33

Tip 25. Early Modern commentators and the King’s English35

Tip 26. Shakespeare36

Tip 27. Euphemism37

Tip 28. Some modern borrowings - cybersex38

Tip 29. Prefixes and suffixes – affixes39

Tip 30. Stress in pronunciation: reduction42

Dear Colleagues All,

This is the beginning of a new year, with a new intake of students who may have passed “matric” but may never have learnt to plan and carefully compose a piece of clear expository prose. And, of course, the older students have all come back again. What do we do in terms of the general communicative skills that apply to all languages and in terms of the grammar and vocabulary of particular languages, especially Afrikaans and English, the two teaching languages of the University of Pretoria?

We are all teachers of language, of grammar and of general communicative skills, a task that we have to perform with large numbers of “them” and not enough of “us”. Language work needs individual attention, marking, following up. Staffing is not always adequate.

Sound sentences, well-organised paragraphs and control of tenses are the essentials. Does the writing contain good signposts and a sense of structure? Do sentence have a subject and a finite verb, or are students jotting down sentence fragments? Is the time sequence clear?

There are of course, a host of possible grammatical errors. Something like concord is worth making a point of because it does focus the students on the subject/verb basis of the sentence. In general, we want written work to be as fault-free as possible.

As far as vocabulary is concerned, do the students have a decent dictionary, and do they know how to use it?

Then, all these skills are essential for reading comprehension. What is the subject and the verb? What are the signposts in the writing? They must be looked for. What is the point of each paragraph? (We hope that there is a point!) Writing skills and reading skills go hand in hand.

Please excuse this opening of the new year with a lugubrious exhortation to language teaching virtue. The letters that follow will try to be a little more entertaining.

Regards,

Peter Titlestad

Dear Colleagues All,

It is fashionable to look back with pity and contempt at what is called the “formal” teaching of grammar. Teaching must be “communicative”. The trouble is that one does not communicate without being coherent, and coherence requires a touch of discipline. In the following passage, Churchill describes how he was taught sentence structure. (Incidentally he was thought to be a dullard, and so kept down for a bit).

‘I continued in this unpretentious situation for nearly a year. However, by being so long in the lowest form I gained an immense advantage over the cleverer boys. They all went on to learn Latin and Greek and splendid things like that. But I was taught English. We were considered such dunces that we could learn only English. Mr Somervell – a most delightful man, to whom my debt is great – was charged with the duty of teaching the stupidest boys the most disregarded thing – namely, to write mere English. He knew how to do it. He taught it as no one else has ever taught it. Not only did we learn English parsing thoroughly, but we also practiced continually English analysis. Mr Somervell had a system of his own. He took a fairly long sentence and broke it up into its components by means of black, red, blue and green inks. Subject, verb, object: Relative Clauses, Conditional Clauses, Conjunctive and Disjunctive Clauses! Each had its colour and its bracket. It was a kind of drill. We did it almost daily. As I remained in the Third Fourth three times as long as anyone else, I had three times as much of it. I learned it thoroughly. Thus I got into my bones the essential structure of the ordinary British sentence – which is a noble thing. And when in after years my schoolfellows who had won prizes for writing such beautiful Latin poetry and pithy Greek epigrams had to come down again to common English, to earn their living or make their way, I did not feel myself at any disadvantage. Naturally I am biased in favour of boys learning English. I would make them all learn English: and then I would let the cleverer ones learn Latin as an honour, and Greek as a treat. But the only thing I would whip them for is not knowing English. I would whip them hard for that.’

Is this a glimpse into the dark ages of education? Or does it point to something that has unfortunately been lost?

Regards,

Peter Titlestad

Dear Colleagues All,

The previous two letters touched on the question of sentence structure and of conscious awareness, both in writing and in reading, of the elements of syntax. One of the sentence types is called a complex sentence. This is made up of a main sentence, that can stand by itself, and one or more subordinate clauses, which cannot exist by themselves, needing a main sentence as a cornerstone of the structure. Another image that can be used is that of the trunk of a tree, with branches connected to the main trunk. A subordinate clause starts with a conjunction that joins it to something else, and contains a subject and a finite verb, but cannot stand by itself. Sometimes a subordinate clause connects to another subordinate clause, like a branch that has a smaller branch attached to it. Both the composition of such a sentence and the reading of such a sentence require a conscious sense of structure.

Here is one of the famous sentences in history. It is the opening sentence of the American Declaration of Independence. Can you find the main sentence or the main clause i.e. the trunk of the tree, and can you trace the structure of the subordinate clauses? (Watch for the conjunctions).

When, in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to the separation.

This is, of course, eighteenth century prose. Use of this sentence in English courses for teaching staff on the UP campus has shown a wide inability to grasp the structure of this sentence. We may be more advanced than the eighteenth century in some respects, but perhaps in others we are not. If the teaching staff are not all able to decipher this sentence, what about the students? (Actually, some can!)

For an analysis of this sentence you will have to wait in suspense until the next letter. This letter is long enough. Meanwhile give it a go!

Regards,

Peter Titlestad

Dear Colleagues All,

Here is that sentence again, the opening of the American Declaration of Independence. You were supposed to find the main clause and to trace all the subordinate clauses.

The opening cannot be the main clause. It starts with the conjunction when. It is an adverbial clause of time. “When … it becomes necessary … to dissolve the political bands ….” At this point we launch into another subordinate clause, a relative clause that starts with which, that describes (or “qualifies”) bands: “which have connected them with another.”

The opening when clause then continues with “and to assume … the separate and equal station.” Then we have another subordinate clause starting with “to which” that qualifies station: “to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.”

And still we have not reached the main clause. However, note that most important comma after “entitle them.” It marks a most important pause. Here it comes: “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires.” This is the main sentence. It is not preceded by a conjunction. What is the object of requires? You must “require” something. You can, for example, require a pen, or a rest, or a stiff drink. The object of require is, however, not a single thing, but a whole clause. This kind of clause we call a noun clause, because it functions like a noun: “that they should declare the causes…” We are not finished yet. ”Causes” is qualified by a last relative (adjectival) clause: “which impels them to the separation.”

Hands up all those who got it right – or, should we ask, all those that got it wrong? A last thought. Can a statement like this be properly understood if the sentence structure cannot be methodically followed through? Grammar means reading skill as well as writing skill.

Regards,

Peter Titlestad

Dear Colleagues All,

We have not yet finished with the American Declaration of Independence, as an example of complex sentence structure and as an example of effective writing. Up to now we have looked at the first sentence. Now let us look at the second. The texts of the Declaration differ a little with regard to punctuation, so you may, at some stage, come across a slightly different version. Here is the first sentence (which has already been dealt with) and the second, which starts a new paragraph.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ─ That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ─ That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The first paragraph is introductory, the second swings forcibly into the main statement. It does this by firmly stating the main idea in the main sentence, followed by a series of noun clauses. Remember that in the first sentence the main clause or main sentence is held back. Now the main sentence comes forcefully first, before the subordinate clauses, and opens a new paragraph. The syntax has structure that goes with the presentation of the ideas and there is a reason behind the variation in the syntax.

Note the bit between the dashes, and the full stop before the first dash. This is a little unorthodox, as the noun clause “That … governed” is made to stand by itself, which a clause should not really do. However, the force of the main clause at the beginning of the sentence is such as to carry the sense through. It is not a random sentence fragment. One can be a little unorthodox, and take liberties, when one knows what one is doing, and when what one does is a deliberate feature of style and called for by the sense. Perhaps the drafters wanted a slightly stronger pause than just a comma and, certainly, a new stage of argument is presented after each of the two dashes, although the list of points, each signalled by a that, continues.

Content is improved by taking conscious thought about style. And this is the last of the Declaration of Independence but not the last you will hear about eighteenth century prose.

Regards,

Peter Titlestad

Dear Colleagues All,

Could you recognise a “periodic” sentence? It is a sentence in which certain key elements are held back until the end. In contrast, we have a “loose” sentence, in which the main point or feature comes at the beginning, followed by a succession of lesser details. “Loose” is, here, not a word of condemnation ─ there is nothing inherently wrong with “loose” sentences, we use them all the time. However, the periodic sentence probably requires the greater conscious artistry. The “periodic” and the “loose” are the range within which we alternate in our writing. To look at the occasional notable example may sharpen our sense of style and possibility, and increase our enjoyment.

Here is the opening sentence of the mammoth biography that the sycophantic James Boswell wrote of Dr Samuel Johnson. The formidable Johnson had himself written biographies of various poets. Now Boswell was undertaking a biography of a biographer. He obviously laboured over his opening sentence, wanting maximum effect.

To write the life of him who excelled all mankind in writing the lives of others, and who, whether we consider his extraordinary endowments, or his various works, has been equalled by few in any age, is an arduous, and may be reckoned in me a presumptuous task.

The key word is task which is the last word of the sentence. It is an arduous task and, even more important, (for Boswell is trying to be very modest and very respectful towards Johnson) a presumptuous task. This conclusion is separated from the opening To write by three subordinate clauses, beginning with who, who and whether.

While “loose” structure is acceptable (and, indeed, while we most certainly cannot write “periodic” sentences all the time) it is interesting to note that if we convert Boswell’s carefully turned sentence into a “loose” structure, it rather loses its impact.

It is an arduous and in me a presumptuous task to write the life of him who has excelled all mankind in writing the lives of others and who, whether we consider his extraordinary endowments, or his various works, has been equalled by few in any age.

Regards,

Peter Titlestad

Dear Colleagues All,

The last few letters have been on the question of sentence structure and its analysis. However, the kind of sentence used has been the kind that illustrates subordination. We have been dealing with a main sentence (or main clause) and with subordinate clauses, subordinate because they depend on a main clause and cannot stand by themselves. Each subordinate clause is started by a conjunction which is its attachment or link to something else. Sentences of this kind are called complex sentences.

There are, however, other kinds of sentences. There is, obviously, the simple sentence; one subject, one finite verb, no subordinate clauses. Then there is the compound sentence, in which two or more simple sentences retain their capacity to stand by themselves, and have equal status, so there is no subordination. The sentences are joined by a special set of conjunctions, the co-ordinating conjunctions, of which and and but are the most frequent.

The cat ran away.

The dog gave chase.

The cat ran away and the dog gave chase.

Here is a multiple example.

Jack and Jill

Ran up the hill

To fetch a pail of water,

Jack fell down

And broke his crown

And Jill came tumbling after.

Each of the co-ordinating sentences can have subordinate clauses attached. This makes a compound-complex sentence.

The cat, which was terrified, ran away and the dog, which wanted nothing better, gave chase.

(By the way, does one use which or who for cats and dogs?)

Here is a list of co-ordination conjunctions. They are a very necessary group of words.

And, but, or, for, yet, therefore, consequently, hence, otherwise, thereafter, nevertheless, moreover, furthermore, meanwhile, either/or, neither/ nor, both/ and.

In general, let it be said, conjunctions (whether co-ordinating or subordinating) are an essential tool for the presentation of an argument, and this area of vocabulary should be cultivated. The subordinating conjunctions of English are too numerous to list.

Regards,

Peter Titlestad