"This is the way how [somebody] [do] [something]"
Tacia
It is said by an unknown grammar book/material that "how" cannot be
placed after "the way". "This is the way how [somebody] [do]
[something]" is vetoed in the book/material. Someone is not convinced,
so she asked on a forum for learners in Taiwan.
I searched /BBC/, /CNN/, /Time/ and /New York Times/ websites via
Google Web with this query text "the way how," and saw in a few
snippets such sentence structures as "It/That/This is the way
how ...." The majority is "by the way, how ...?"
If my friend asked me about what I did during the previous weekend,
then I told her about what she wanted to know. Is it okay to say "This
is the way how I spent time during the previous weekend." in the end?
I will be very much obliged that you can explain to me in terms of
grammar and/or custom. =)
Regards,
Tacia
Cheryl
The grammar book was right - you cannot say 'the way how'. You can say
'the way I spent my time last weekend' or 'how I spent my time last
weekend'. 'By the way, how..' is a different case because there 'way' is
part of the phrase 'by the way' and not clashing with the 'how'.
I don't know the grammatical rule for this, if there is one. All I know
is what it is customary to say.
--
Cheryl
Jerry Friedman
> Tacia wrote:
> > Ladies and Gentlemen:
>
> > It is said by an unknown grammar book/material that "how" cannot be
> > placed after "the way". "This is the way how [somebody] [do]
> > [something]" is vetoed in the book/material. Someone is not convinced,
> > so she asked on a forum for learners in Taiwan.
>
> > I searched /BBC/, /CNN/, /Time/ and /New York Times/ websites via
> > Google Web with this query text "the way how," and saw in a few
> > snippets such sentence structures as "It/That/This is the way
> > how ...." The majority is "by the way, how ...?"
>
> > If my friend asked me about what I did during the previous weekend,
> > then I told her about what she wanted to know. Is it okay to say "This
> > is the way how I spent time during the previous weekend." in the end?
>
> > I will be very much obliged that you can explain to me in terms of
> > grammar and/or custom. =)
>
> The grammar book was right - you cannot say 'the way how'.
And it's a common non-native-speaker error.
> You can say
> 'the way I spent my time last weekend' or 'how I spent my time last
> weekend'. 'By the way, how..' is a different case because there 'way' is
> part of the phrase 'by the way' and not clashing with the 'how'.
>
> I don't know the grammatical rule for this, if there is one. All I know
> is what it is customary to say.
In fact, the situation is odd. "The person who", "the place
where",and "the time when" are used by everyone, I believe. "The
reason why" is very common, but some prescriptivists object to it.
"The thing what" is non-standard, and though it shows up as rustic
dialect in old books, I'm not sure I've ever heard it. And "the way
how" is, as far as I know, not English.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Moylan
> If my friend asked me about what I did during the previous weekend,
> then I told her about what she wanted to know. Is it okay to say "This
> is the way how I spent time during the previous weekend." in the end?
If you deleted "how" from that sentence, you would get a sentence that
says exactly what you want to say. This might be the simplest
explanation of why the "how" is neither necessary nor desirable.
There's another way of looking at this. Another acceptable way of
phrasing your sentence would be "This is how I spent time ...". That's
because "how" and "the way" have the same meaning in this sort of
sentence. (That is, "the way" means "how", and vice versa.) You can use
one or the other, but to use both would be repetitive.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Joe Fineman
> In fact, the situation is odd. "The person who", "the place
> where",and "the time when" are used by everyone, I believe. "The
> reason why" is very common, but some prescriptivists object to it.
> "The thing what" is non-standard, and though it shows up as rustic
> dialect in old books, I'm not sure I've ever heard it. And "the way
> how" is, as far as I know, not English.
I haven't heard it either, but it doesn't surprise me. It seems that,
at least in kid talk, it sometimes occurs the other way around:
Oh, it makes me sick how the way it smears
And it gets all over your hair and ears.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: One martini is just right. Two are too many, and three are :||
||: not enough. :||
R H Draney
>
>On Dec 15, 11:17=A0am, Cheryl <cperk...@mun.ca> wrote:
>>
>> The grammar book was right - you cannot say 'the way how'.
>
>And it's a common non-native-speaker error.
It's even a common native-speaker error: "It ain't what you do, it's the way how
that you do it"....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
Eric Walker
[...]
> I don't know the grammatical rule for this, if there is one. All I know
> is what it is customary to say.
I am not sure it's an issue of grammar so much as simple logic: "the way"
and "how" here mean exactly the same thing--it's just repetition, vaguely
like referring to "the road highway" or "the rock stone".
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/
Robert Bannister
It seems to me that "the way that" means the same thing as "how", so you
wouldn't want both.
--
Rob Bannister
Jerry Friedman
> Jerry Friedman filted:
>
>
>
> >On Dec 15, 11:17=A0am, Cheryl <cperk...@mun.ca> wrote:
>
> >> The grammar book was right - you cannot say 'the way how'.
>
> >And it's a common non-native-speaker error.
>
> It's even a common native-speaker error: "It ain't what you do, it's the way how
> that you do it"....r
Apparently the title of a Little Richard song. There are quite a few
hits that don't refer to the song, too. So I guess this one slipped
past me. I still wouldn't call it common, though.
--
Jerry Friedman
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:47:05 -0330, Cheryl wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> I don't know the grammatical rule for this, if there is one. All I know
>> is what it is customary to say.
>
> I am not sure it's an issue of grammar so much as simple logic: "the way"
> and "how" here mean exactly the same thing--it's just repetition, vaguely
> like referring to "the road highway" or "the rock stone".
Your "logic" would also exclude the examples of perfectly ordinary
usage that Jerry cited ("the place where", etc.). It's usually a
mistake to invoke logic when describing usage.
I think the truth is that we don't know why "the way how" is
non-standard. We just recognize that it is, though in my case I don't
find it as non-standard as some of the other commenters have done. I
wouldn't say it, but I wouldn't immediately identify someone as
non-native if they did.
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> Tacia wrote:
>
>> If my friend asked me about what I did during the previous weekend,
>> then I told her about what she wanted to know. Is it okay to say "This
>> is the way how I spent time during the previous weekend." in the end?
>
> If you deleted "how" from that sentence, you would get a sentence that
> says exactly what you want to say. This might be the simplest
> explanation of why the "how" is neither necessary nor desirable.
Well yes, but we use an awful lot of redundancy in speech, and that's
why we can usually understand one another. You could make the same
argument about "the place where I slept last night", which would mean
exactly the same if we left out the "where", but, as Jerry pointed out,
that sort of sentence is perfectly normal.
--
athel
HVS
The thing is, is that redundancy is common...
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
James Hogg
To "the time when we were happy" and "the place where I was born" we may
add "the reason why he did it", although I seem to remember someone
objecting that the "why" is unnecessary. Only "the way" lacks the
relative adverb in standard English.
--
James
Ildhund
> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> Peter Moylan said:
>>> Tacia wrote:
>>>
>>>> If my friend asked me about what I did during the previous weekend,
>>>> then I told her about what she wanted to know. Is it okay to say "This
>>>> is the way how I spent time during the previous weekend." in the end?
>>>
>>> If you deleted "how" from that sentence, you would get a sentence that
>>> says exactly what you want to say. This might be the simplest
>>> explanation of why the "how" is neither necessary nor desirable.
>>
>> Well yes, but we use an awful lot of redundancy in speech, and that's
>> why we can usually understand one another. You could make the same
>> argument about "the place where I slept last night", which would mean
>> exactly the same if we left out the "where", but, as Jerry pointed out,
>> that sort of sentence is perfectly normal.
>
> To "the time when we were happy" and "the place where I was born" we may
> add "the reason why he did it", although I seem to remember someone
> objecting that the "why" is unnecessary.
Theirs but to do and die...
--
Noel
Robert Bannister
Yes. I reread Jerry's message several times, and I realise that "the way
that" = "how" and "the place that" = "where".
Clearly, I can say "This the place I slept last night" or "This is where
I slept last night". I don't think I can say "This is the place that I
slept", although I feel "This is the place that it happened" is
okay-ish. It's just that I feel an undefinable difference in meaning
between "This is the place (where) I slept" and "This is where I slept"
- the first would almost certainly refer to a building or room; the
second might just be a spot on the floorboards.
--
Rob Bannister
Eric Walker
You see no difference between a pronoun and an adverb? In--
The place *where* . . .
The time *when* . . .
--the highlighted words are pronouns. But in--
The way *how* . . .
The reason *why* . . .
--the highlighted words are adverbs.
That's why one set is acceptable and normal and the other unacceptable
and bizarre.
John Lawler
Dear Tacia,
Don't believe everything you hear.
especially when it's verified by citing
an unknown source. OK?
That said, whoever said this is right about
that particular combination being wrong, but as
you point out they didn't tell you why, except
perhaps to appeal to something like "Logic",
which is no help at all.
The reasons why this is a problem are that
1) "how" is a question ('interrogative') wh-word,
like "who" and "which"
2) "who" and "which" are also relative wh-words
(pronouns in this case)
3) however, there is some non-overlap between
the relative and the interrogative wh-words:
in particular, "what" and "how" are not
relative wh-words at all
(parentheses indicate optional material,
asterisks ungrammatical possibilities):
the man (who(m)/that) I saw
the place (where/that) we met
the time (when/that) we met
the book (*what/which/that) I read
the way (*how/that) I did it
So, if you can distinguish between questions and
non-questions, (including embedded questions, like
"I don't know how to use it"), then you can tell how
to use "how" and "what".
Or at least some of the ways *(how/that) to use them.
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue
#include http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/disclaimers.html
James Hogg
That's "*not* to reason why".
Anyway, that poem is far too long and repetitive. Here it is in proper
kamikaze style:
Cannon either side,
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
--
James
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:45:09 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
>> On 2009-12-16 02:20:44 +0100, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> said:
>>
>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:47:05 -0330, Cheryl wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> I don't know the grammatical rule for this, if there is one. All I
>>>> know is what it is customary to say.
>>>
>>> I am not sure it's an issue of grammar so much as simple logic: "the
>>> way" and "how" here mean exactly the same thing--it's just repetition,
>>> vaguely like referring to "the road highway" or "the rock stone".
>>
>> Your "logic" would also exclude the examples of perfectly ordinary usage
>> that Jerry cited ("the place where", etc.). It's usually a mistake to
>> invoke logic when describing usage.
>>
>> I think the truth is that we don't know why "the way how" is
>> non-standard. We just recognize that it is, though in my case I don't
>> find it as non-standard as some of the other commenters have done. I
>> wouldn't say it, but I wouldn't immediately identify someone as
>> non-native if they did.
>
> You see no difference between a pronoun and an adverb?
You wrote "'the way' and 'how' here mean exactly the same thing". I see
no mention there of pronouns and adverbs. (I don't see any pronoun,
either.)
> In--
>
> The place *where* . . .
> The time *when* . . .
>
> --the highlighted words are pronouns. But in--
>
> The way *how* . . .
> The reason *why* . . .
>
> --the highlighted words are adverbs.
>
> That's why one set is acceptable and normal and the other unacceptable
> and bizarre.
Unrelated to your original argument that "'the way' and 'how' here mean
exactly the same thing".
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> [ ... ]
> 3) however, there is some non-overlap between
> the relative and the interrogative wh-words:
> in particular, "what" and "how" are not
> relative wh-words at all
[ ... ]
> the book (*what/which/that) I read
Is it as simple as that? We can all agree that Miss Thistlebottom or
whoever first introduced us to English grammar would not have approved
of "the book what I read", but it's the kind of thing one can hear
every day in an English street (maybe not in an American street), and
in many native speakers idiolects "what" is most definitely a relative
wh- word.
--
athel
James Hogg
This ruling also seems to be based a totally arbitrary division into
"pronouns" ("where", "when") and adverbs ("how", why"). In this context
they are all relative adverbs.
--
James
Eric Walker
> Unrelated to your original argument that "'the way' and 'how' here mean
> exactly the same thing".
You said:
Your "logic" would also exclude the examples of perfectly ordinary
usage that Jerry cited ("the place where", etc.). It's usually a
mistake to invoke logic when describing usage.
The statement that "the way" and "how" being equivalent is what makes
"the way how" unacceptable was apparently supposed to be refuted by a
counter-example--"the place where"--that is acceptable even though "the
place" and "where" can be considered identical. My response was that
those are not parallel cases because "where" is a pronoun and "how" is an
adverb. The pronoun can be considered appositive to its governing noun;
no like thing can be said of the adverb.
Eric Walker
[...]
> This ruling also seems to be based a totally arbitrary division into
> "pronouns" ("where", "when") and adverbs ("how", why"). In this context
> they are all relative adverbs.
To the best of my knowledge, "how" is never considered a relative adverb
even by those who use such terminology (only where/when/why). But to
qualify for that title, they need to be introducing a relative clause; I
scarcely think that "The reason why I call it a relative adverb is
unclear" qualifies. And "The way how we use pronouns is important"
certainly doesn't.
--
James Hogg
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:42:42 +0100, James Hogg wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> This ruling also seems to be based a totally arbitrary division
>> into "pronouns" ("where", "when") and adverbs ("how", why"). In
>> this context they are all relative adverbs.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, "how" is never considered a relative
> adverb even by those who use such terminology (only where/when/why).
> But to qualify for that title, they need to be introducing a relative
> clause; I scarcely think that "The reason why I call it a relative
> adverb is unclear" qualifies.
It is labelled in the COD as "rel. adv." The same label is given to
"where" and "when" in relative constructions.
> And "The way how we use pronouns is important" certainly doesn't.
This usage, of course, doesn't occur in the COD. As others have pointed
out, its absence is an inconsistency in English for which there is no
good reason. Yet "how" as a relative adverb used to be acceptable, as in
this quotation from Locke (1690):
"We perceive not the ways and manner how they are produc'd."
--
James
Eric Walker
> Eric Walker wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:42:42 +0100, James Hogg wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> This ruling also seems to be based a totally arbitrary division into
>>> "pronouns" ("where", "when") and adverbs ("how", why"). In this
>>> context they are all relative adverbs.
>>
>> To the best of my knowledge, "how" is never considered a relative
>> adverb even by those who use such terminology (only where/when/why).
>> But to qualify for that title, they need to be introducing a relative
>> clause; I scarcely think that "The reason why I call it a relative
>> adverb is unclear" qualifies.
>
> It is labelled in the COD as "rel. adv." The same label is given to
> "where" and "when" in relative constructions.
Do you think that in that sentence it is functioning as a relative
adverb? Would you write "He quit his job recently; the reason why was &c
&c"? Any more than you would write "John had a motoring accident
recently; the place where was &c &c"?
>> And "The way how we use pronouns is important" certainly doesn't.
>
> This usage, of course, doesn't occur in the COD. As others have pointed
> out, its absence is an inconsistency in English for which there is no
> good reason. Yet "how" as a relative adverb used to be acceptable, as in
> this quotation from Locke (1690):
>
> "We perceive not the ways and manner how they are produc'd."
Good grief. Are we to suppose that any usage that can be found extant is
1690, no matter from whose pen or lips, is thereby rendered sound English
in 2009? Oh, my. (And there is no warranty that it was sound even in
1690: usage manuals typically take their examples of error from the best
of sources, exactly to demonstrate that from time to time even Homer
nods.)
--
Cordially,
Jerry Friedman
The idea that "where" and "when" are pronouns in this situation is new
to me (and to lexicographers). Is it from Curme? Is there any
evidence for it beside the acceptability of "the place where", "the
room where", "the time when", "the day when", etc.?
--
Jerry Friedman
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Did you miss the words "used to be"? How does that suggest anything
about what is sound English in 2009?
--
athel
James Hogg
I was just pointing out that the construction has been used in English.
By the way, how do you define "sound English"?
--
James
Robin Bignall
wrote:
John Snagge and Alvar Liddell reading the news. Great sound.
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
Eric Walker
[...]
> By the way, how do you define "sound English"?
Best, but hard to assemble coherently at need, is the prevailing usage of
careful and expert writers--folk known for their loving attention to the
mother tongue (which, at times, is not the writer's mother tongue).
Almost as good is the consensus (when it exists, which is in the great
majority of cases) of the leading usage references; those, to me, are
Follett's "Modern American Usage", Fowler's "Modern English Usage" (1st
edition only), Bernstein's "The Careful Writer", and Garner's "Dictionary
of Modern American Usage". Also worth consulting (when either there is,
after all, a split, or when the case is minor and does not appear in some
or all of those) are Partridge's "Usage and Abusage", Barzun's "Simple &
Direct", and Gowers' "Complete Plain Words". For sheer grammar, Curme's
"English Grammar" usually suffices.
Since those references generally represent, in fact, the habits of most
careful writers, they essentially summarize the patterns of those
writers, reduced to convenient look-up forms.
Till somewhere now about a half century back, the ever-increasing rate of
literacy and ease of publishing meant that there was a converging
feedback process at work: usage and grammar authorities made efforts to
summarize the patterns of the best writers, while in turn those writers,
in cases of doubt, turned to the references to see what their peers were
doing. By the middle of the twentieth century, agreement on most matters
of English usage and grammar was, if not universal, certainly widespread.
Then came the "Whatever" movement--in everything from language to
ordinary civility--and the rest, as they say, is history.
James Hogg
Summing up the key adjectives in that definition, I see that "sound"
means "careful" and that "sound English" is what is written by the
"best" writers and "leading" authorities.
--
James
Eric Walker
[...]
> Summing up the key adjectives in that definition, I see that "sound"
> means "careful" and that "sound English" is what is written by the
> "best" writers and "leading" authorities.
Does that represent a difficulty?
Do you reckon it would be better to say that it is what is used by the
careless, and is what is written by mediocre and bad writers? Or what is
set forth by the obscure unlearned and ignorant? We only ask because we
want to know.
James Hogg
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:16:43 +0100, James Hogg wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Summing up the key adjectives in that definition, I see that
>> "sound" means "careful" and that "sound English" is what is written
>> by the "best" writers and "leading" authorities.
>
> Does that represent a difficulty?
More a circularity.
> Do you reckon it would be better to say that it is what is used by
> the careless, and is what is written by mediocre and bad writers? Or
> what is set forth by the obscure unlearned and ignorant? We only
> ask because we want to know.
Even the unlearned and ignorant have a native language. They can't help
where they were born. They grow up speaking the language of their
childhood environment.
--
James
Eric Walker
> Eric Walker wrote:
[...]
>> Do you reckon it would be better to say that it is what is used by the
>> careless, and is what is written by mediocre and bad writers? Or
>> what is set forth by the obscure unlearned and ignorant? We only
>> ask because we want to know.
>
> Even the unlearned and ignorant have a native language. They can't help
> where they were born. They grow up speaking the language of their
> childhood environment.
Certainly. No sane person deprecates folk whose English is poor owing to
circumstances over which they had (and, typically, have) no control; what
one deprecates is that English. It is, I suppose, the difference between
how one thinks about a person crippled (or whatever we're supposed to say
these days) by polio and how one thinks about polio, the disease.
What is, however, profoundly disturbing is to see people defending that
poor English as though the misfortunes of those who speak it somehow in
and of themselves ennoble the end product, poor English, making it
something good and wonderful. No: it remains poor English.
"Poor English" means simply English that is either inherently inferior to
the extant standard in its ability to communicate with precision and
elegance, or English that is too variable--either with respect to those
standard forms or with respect to other alternate forms--to so
communicate. That is not any sort of value judgement on either the
English itself or on those who use it: it is an practical assessment of
its utility.
One must remember that a good part of what makes sound communication is
consensus agreement on the significance of both the symbols and the
patterns of arrangement of those symbols (that is, words and grammar);
that means that on occasion even a form that may seem in the abstract
"better" is non-optimal merely owing to its being non-standard.
Sometimes such variant forms, after they emerge, will over time come out
successful in the evolution of the tongue; and if one believes with some
fervor that non-standard form X significantly augments the tongue
compared to currently standard form Y, one can--at some cost--soldier for
form X by using it oneself at all times. (That cost is, of course,
communicating less effectively with those accustomed to standard form Y
or being considered ignorant by them of Y, or both; but soldiers are
forever at risk.)
I personally prefer to try to maximize precision and elegance by use of
long-accepted standard forms; if English evolved during one's lifetime to
the point that the extant standard for some form shifts enough to make
use of the former standard inferior for precision and elegance compared
to that new form, naturally one would shift to the new form. But that
remark needs to be conditioned--as any discussion of language use must--
on the issue of which readers or listeners one is speaking of; I am
speaking of those with sufficient knowledge of the tongue to appreciate
the distinctions possible with different forms, as opposed merely to
their sheer familiarity. An audience more accustomed to "Hand me them
there pliers" than the standard "Hand me those pliers" does not, even
should it exceed in size those familiar with the standard, make the
former "superior to" the latter.
For those wanting a spectacularly better expression of these ideas, I
cannot recommend heartily enough Wilson Follett's 28-page "Introductory"
to his wonderful book "Modern American Usage" (original edition only, not
the hideous revision by Wensberg), a treasure chest of eloquent and
logical sense about usage and grammar (that remark applies to both that
Introductory and to the book itself).
tony cooper
<em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
I
>cannot recommend heartily enough Wilson Follett's 28-page "Introductory"
>to his wonderful book "Modern American Usage"
For someone who aspires to elegant language, that sentence is an ugly
step-child.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Eric Walker
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 02:37:49 +0000 (UTC), Eric Walker
> <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>
>> I cannot recommend heartily enough Wilson Follett's 28-page
>> "Introductory" to his wonderful book "Modern American Usage"
>
> For someone who aspires to elegant language, that sentence is an ugly
> step-child.
Aspiration is not achievement; but there is rarely if ever achievement
without aspiration.
Mind, I am not so sure that variants of the general form "cannot
recommend highly enough" are necessarily infelicitous, mais chacun a son
gout. (Unless, of course, that was simply an ad hominem swipe at the
main thesis of the post.)
Nick
> Is it as simple as that? We can all agree that Miss Thistlebottom or
> whoever first introduced us to English grammar would not have approved
> of "the book what I read", but it's the kind of thing one can hear
> every day in an English street (maybe not in an American street), and
> in many native speakers idiolects "what" is most definitely a relative
> wh- word.
I'm having a lot of experience of it in my six-year-old's speech at the
moment. As I'm not a native speaker of the local ideom I'm not sure if
it's a normal learner's error or a local variety.
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Is it as simple as that? We can all agree that Miss Thistlebottom or
>> whoever first introduced us to English grammar would not have approved
>> of "the book what I read", but it's the kind of thing one can hear
>> every day in an English street (maybe not in an American street), and
>> in many native speakers idiolects "what" is most definitely a relative
>> wh- word.
>
> I'm having a lot of experience of it in my six-year-old's speech at the
> moment. As I'm not a native speaker of the local ideom I'm not sure if
> it's a normal learner's error or a local variety.
I had thought that "lady what does" was a very common expression in
England. Google doesn't seem to agree, however, and "lady wot does"
gets many fewer hits than I would've expected.
--
athel
Chuck Riggs
Could it be that most of the people who use this expression are not
people what usually writes?
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE