What is the matter with you?
Yoshito Okubo
I would like to know whether the following sentnce is correct or not.
<She asked me what the matter was with me.>
Thanks.
Franke
Yoshito Okubo wrote:
"She asked me what thematter with me was".
David Gerlach
>
> "She asked me what thematter with me was".
>
Yeah, I'd prefer this version, too. Still without writing "the matter" as
one word. So,
"She asked me what the matter with me was."
Joe Pairman
How about 'She asked me what was the matter with me', because it
follows the same syntactical structure as the presumed question;
'What's the matter with you?'.
--
Joe Pairman
Leeds, UK
Franke <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote in message
news:3A095711...@seed.net.tw...
>
>
> Yoshito Okubo wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to know whether the following sentnce is correct or
not.
> >
Franke
David Gerlach wrote:
> > > <She asked me what the matter was with me.>
> >
> > "She asked me what thematter with me was".
> >
>
> Yeah, I'd prefer this version, too. Still without writing "the matter" as
> one word. So,
>
> "She asked me what the matter with me was."
You're quite right, "the matter" and not "thematter". I apologize for the
typo.
Franke
Joe Pairman wrote:
> I don't think either are correct so far.
>
> How about 'She asked me what was the matter with me', because it
> follows the same syntactical structure as the presumed question;
> 'What's the matter with you?'.
The rules of English syntax require that in reported speech the question
be recast with the copula at the end.
Yes/no questions:
"Do you eat cake?" ==> She asked {if/whether} I ate cake.
"Who are you" ==> She asked who I was.
The suggestion I made is grammatically correct even though it may not
please your ear -- correct grammar doesn't always please.
> Joe Pairman
> Leeds, UK
>
> Franke <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote in message
> news:3A095711...@seed.net.tw...
> >
> >
> > Yoshito Okubo wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I would like to know whether the following sentnce is correct or
> not.
> > >
Joe Pairman
As I am still learning about traditional English grammar, I
appreciated the info. 'What's the matter with you' is a very
idiomatic phrase, however; all the words belong together and in that
order. I think that 'she asked me what was the matter with me' makes
it more immediately clear to the reader that this idiom is being used.
Your version, although correct according to the rules of
prescriptivist grammar, requires a longer 'decoding' time before the
reader understands this.
As you may have guessed, I am more of a descriptivist! Although at
the moment it is still very useful to know the rules of prescriptivist
grammar, in a hundred years time they will be of use only to language
historians. They fail to describe the richness in variety of the
many registers and usages (and regional and national differences) of
current English.
--
Joe Pairman
Leeds, UK
Franke <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote in message
news:3A0A0F74...@seed.net.tw...
Franke
> Hi Franke,
>
> As I am still learning about traditional English grammar, I
> appreciated the info. 'What's the matter with you' is a very
> idiomatic phrase, however; all the words belong together and in that
> order. I think that 'she asked me what was the matter with me' makes
> it more immediately clear to the reader that this idiom is being used.
> Your version, although correct according to the rules of
> prescriptivist grammar, requires a longer 'decoding' time before the
> reader understands this.
Hi, Joe,
I think you make too much of the disctinction between prescriptive and
descriptive grammar. We all despise the prescriptive idiots who insisted
on and still insist on absurdities that were never really a part of the
English language, e.g., not ending a sentence with a preposition, not
having double negatives, and the like. But if there is to be a meaningful
grammar, there have to be rules, if only because language is rule-governed
and when those rules are broken, communication becomes anywhere from
slightly more difficult to totally garbled.
The descriptive rules of grammar include how the best speakers and writers
use the language, not how illiterates do. The latter is a subject for
linguistic and sociolinguistic theses. As is the case today -- no need to
wait 100 years -- the only people concerned about the rules are those
concerned about the language as more than just an everyday vehicle of
mundane communication.
The idea that language is something to be decoded is old and, I thought,
dead. If it were merely something to be decoded, it would not be
interesting.
> As you may have guessed, I am more of a descriptivist! Although at
> the moment it is still very useful to know the rules of prescriptivist
> grammar, in a hundred years time they will be of use only to language
> historians. They fail to describe the richness in variety of the
> many registers and usages (and regional and national differences) of
> current English.
I think you overestimate the speed with which the rules of grammar,
prescriptive and descriptive, will die. As a parent, you teach your child
how to speak your dialect by talking to the child and correcting its
mistakes. That process goes on as long as you have an interest in
educating your child about your language. It doesn't matter how much or
how little grammar you know, or whether you are an English major or a bus
driver, you will always feel that some ways are speaking your language are
better than others. Once you do that, you will pass that feeling on to
your child. Language, after all, is one sign of belonging to your group
instead of another group.
In fact, you have become a prescriptivist without even being aware of it.
When you make a statement like this one: " 'What's the matter with you' is
a very idiomatic phrase, however; all the words belong together and in
that order", you are prescribing how it should be said and written. A true
descriptivist would never make such a judgmental statement but would say
something like this: "Well, it doesn't really matter how it's said or
written, as long as the meaning is understood."
And you forget that what seems "clearl" is a function of who you are and
what you are. As someone who has been saying and writing and hearing and
reading things like "She asked me what the matter with me was" all my
life, I cannot comfortably read "She asked me what was the matter with me"
because it violates my sense of what is "clear" and forces me to wonder
about whether the rest of what the writer has written is clear -- the
writer obviously does not know or use the same grammar rules I do. If I
hear someone say that sentence, then I take it down as "She asked me,
'What was the matter with me?'" I'm confused now about who "me" is. It's
ambiguous in your written sentence and in speech. Was she asking about
herself or was she asking about the listener?
> Joe Pairman
> Leeds, UK
>
> Franke <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote in message
> news:3A0A0F74...@seed.net.tw...
> >
> >
> > Joe Pairman wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think either are correct so far.
> > >
> > > How about 'She asked me what was the matter with me', because it
> > > follows the same syntactical structure as the presumed question;
> > > 'What's the matter with you?'.
> >
> > The rules of English syntax require that in reported speech the
> question
> > be recast with the copula at the end.
> >
> > Yes/no questions:
I'm sorry for not finishing my thought here. I pushed the send button
instead of the save button. Now, however, I've forgotten what I wanted to
say. C'est la vie.
Joe Pairman
of it.
> When you make a statement like this one: " 'What's the matter with
you' is
> a very idiomatic phrase, however; all the words belong together and
in
> that order", you are prescribing how it should be said and written.
A true
> descriptivist would never make such a judgmental statement but would
say
> something like this: "Well, it doesn't really matter how it's said
or
> written, as long as the meaning is understood."
I'm talking about the way that phrase is used as one unit; the way I
have heard it used hundreds of times. Who's prescribing that? I'm
describing it. Take, for example, another idiomatic usage; 'in the
nick of time'. You can have many variations; 'on the nick of time';
'in the thick of time'; 'in the nick of the moment'. They're all
grammatically correct. They're just a different phrase; not the idiom
that we are describing.
>
> And you forget that what seems "clearl" is a function of who you are
and
> what you are. As someone who has been saying and writing and hearing
and
> reading things like "She asked me what the matter with me was" all
my
> life,
When did you say/write/hear/read those words in that order?
> I cannot comfortably read "She asked me what was the matter with me"
> because it violates my sense of what is "clear" and forces me to
wonder
> about whether the rest of what the writer has written is clear --
the
> writer obviously does not know or use the same grammar rules I do.
If I
And that is what marks you as a prescriptivist. Your sense of what is
'clear' is rather limiting. You must have great problems reading
contemporary literature in English. I'm afraid that modern authors do
not have you as a reader in mind; they are more concerned with the
whole meaning and communication of a text than with slavishly
following a set of rules. Do you consider that they are
'illiterates', such as the ones who permeate British life now,
including the BBC! Perhaps, though, you manage to live in a place
where the shop assistants, your colleagues, the bus drivers, the
pensioners, the muggers and the police know and use the same grammar
rules as you do. Where is that?
> hear someone say that sentence, then I take it down as "She asked
me,
> 'What was the matter with me?'" I'm confused now about who "me" is.
It's
Maybe you're not aware that a comma is normally marked with a pause &
vice versa.
> ambiguous in your written sentence and in speech. Was she asking
about
> herself or was she asking about the listener?
See above;
a pause; herself
no pause; the listener.
English belongs to its users; that includes the so-called
'illiterates' who, in fact, are in the majority and who play a large
part in the continual reshaping of a dynamic and almost infinitely
varied language. Do you mind if I ask where your exposure to
contemporary English is coming from?
Franke
Joe Pairman wrote:
> > In fact, you have become a prescriptivist without even being aware
> of it.
> > When you make a statement like this one: " 'What's the matter with
> you' is
> > a very idiomatic phrase, however; all the words belong together and
> in
> > that order", you are prescribing how it should be said and written.
> A true
> > descriptivist would never make such a judgmental statement but would
> say
> > something like this: "Well, it doesn't really matter how it's said
> or
> > written, as long as the meaning is understood."
>
> I'm talking about the way that phrase is used as one unit; the way I
> have heard it used hundreds of times. Who's prescribing that? I'm
> describing it.
But that isn't what you said, is it. You said: " 'What's the matter with
you' is a very idiomatic phrase, however; all the words belong together
and in that order". This is different to " 'What's the matter with you' is
an idiomatic phrase I have heard used hundreds of times with all the words
in that order".
Just a note on style and usage: "very idiomatic" is verbose. Expression
are idiomatic or not idiomatic; "idiomatic" is not a gradable adjective
and "very idiomatic" makes as much sense as "She is very dead" or "She is
very pregnant" or "She is very perfect". It's colloquial but imprecise and
suggests a great degree of the attribute when there is none. Or am I
stepping on the toes of contemporary English as she is spoke and writ?
> Take, for example, another idiomatic usage; 'in the
> nick of time'. You can have many variations; 'on the nick of time';
> 'in the thick of time'; 'in the nick of the moment'. They're all
> grammatically correct. They're just a different phrase; not the idiom
> that we are describing.
But if you were teaching someone the language, how would treat answers
that do not agree with what you have heard? If you mark them wrong, then
you are being prescriptive; if you mark them right because you can
understand them, then your test is of no objective value, I fear.
> >
> > And you forget that what seems "clearl" is a function of who you are
> and
> > what you are. As someone who has been saying and writing and hearing
> and
> > reading things like "She asked me what the matter with me was" all
> my
> > life,
>
> When did you say/write/hear/read those words in that order?
You missed two words: "things like".
> > I cannot comfortably read "She asked me what was the matter with me"
> > because it violates my sense of what is "clear" and forces me to
> wonder
> > about whether the rest of what the writer has written is clear --
> the
> > writer obviously does not know or use the same grammar rules I do.
> If I
>
> And that is what marks you as a prescriptivist.
No, it doesn't. It just marks me as someone who isn't used to seeing or
hearing the language I read and speak used in what to me are unusual ways.
E.g., when I first moved to Atlanta, Georgia, from New York City, I was
startled to hear people pronouncing the word "insurance" with the stress
on the first syllable. I got used to it, though. And when I hear British
English speakers say "A is different to B", I not only understand what
they mean, but I know that it is idiomatic British English and not
incorrect.
> Your sense of what is 'clear' is rather limiting.
I suppose that is because I was brought up to read texts closely, before
the deconstructionist invasion of the world of literary criticism. When I
see possible ambiguity, I do not assume that I understand what it means
unless I have a context in which to verify the assumption. As I said, any
old junker of a sentence will communicate something, and even, perhaps,
just what the speaker/writer intended it to communicate. That doesn't
always make it a good sentence, though, does it?
I do not subscribe to the theory that "whatever is is good", but I do do
my best to understand what people mean when they use the language. I am
usually spot on, but sometimes I misunderstand.
> You must have great problems reading
> contemporary literature in English.
You will have to stipulate what you mean by the term "contemporary
literature in English". I don't have much time to read novels these days,
although I have dipped into a few only to find the literary waters too
brackish to abide. And I don't think there is much contemporary poetry
worth reading. I prefer John Donne.
> I'm afraid that modern authors do not have you as a reader in mind;
I do not know whom they have in mind, but their publishers have only one
kind of reader in mind: The ones with money to buy the books they publish,
whatever their value.
> they are more concerned with the whole meaning and communication
> of a text than with slavishly following a set of rules.
Please do not insult me thus without knowing if your scurrilous allegation
is true. "Modern authors" encompasses a wide range of people who write
lots of different kinds of things. Who did you have in mind? What of value
or interest have they written? Once I know who your literary idols are, I
will be able to look at their work and see if we agree that they are worth
the time and effort.
I always look for a meaning for the entire text and do not restrict myself
to reading sentence by sentence looking for grammatical barbarisms. But,
like everything else that is greater than the sum of its parts, if most of
the parts are faulty or low quality or incorrect, the structure of the
whole will be a fraud and will crumble before too long.
> Do you consider that they are
> 'illiterates', such as the ones who permeate British life now,
> including the BBC!
I do not worship the BBC any more than I worship the ABC, the NBC, the
CBS, or the CNN. And I do not know who these modern authors you refer to
are. Please name names and give titles.
> Perhaps, though, you manage to live in a place
> where the shop assistants, your colleagues, the bus drivers, the
> pensioners, the muggers and the police know and use the same grammar
> rules as you do. Where is that?
Taiwan. ;-)
>
> > hear someone say that sentence, then I take it down as "She asked
> me,
> > 'What was the matter with me?'" I'm confused now about who "me" is.
> It's
>
> Maybe you're not aware that a comma is normally marked with a pause &
> vice versa.
I am aware, but not all speakers obey that prescriptivist rule as they are
not as slavish a follower of the rules as you think I am.
> > ambiguous in your written sentence and in speech. Was she asking
> about
> > herself or was she asking about the listener?
>
> See above;
> a pause; herself
> no pause; the listener.
Only if people who say the sentence follow your rules. Have you ever read
any 18th-century English prose? Filled with commas. Commas everywhere.
After every bloody phrase and clause. But I am certain -- even though I
was not there -- that speakers did not pause at every comma.
> English belongs to its users; that includes the so-called
> 'illiterates' who, in fact, are in the majority and who play a large
> part in the continual reshaping of a dynamic and almost infinitely
> varied language.
They have always been the majority and have always owned the language they
speak. That doesn't mean the rest of us have to speak or write like them
unless we want to "be" one of them.
> Do you mind if I ask where your exposure to
> contemporary English is coming from?
CNN, contemporary movies, the Economist, the Washington Post, the New York
Times, the Guardian Unlimited, books about anything that interests me (a
wide range of subjects), and the few foreigners (i.e., non-Taiwanese) I
know here in Taiwan.
Franke
typos.
Franke wrote:
> Joe Pairman wrote:
>
> > > In fact, you have become a prescriptivist without even being aware
> > of it.
> > > When you make a statement like this one: " 'What's the matter with
> > you' is
> > > a very idiomatic phrase, however; all the words belong together and
> > in
> > > that order", you are prescribing how it should be said and written.
> > A true
> > > descriptivist would never make such a judgmental statement but would
> > say
> > > something like this: "Well, it doesn't really matter how it's said
> > or
> > > written, as long as the meaning is understood."
> >
> > I'm talking about the way that phrase is used as one unit; the way I
> > have heard it used hundreds of times. Who's prescribing that? I'm
> > describing it.
>
> But that isn't what you said, is it. You said: " 'What's the matter with
> you' is a very idiomatic phrase, however; all the words belong together
> and in that order". This is different to " 'What's the matter with you' is
> an idiomatic phrase I have heard used hundreds of times with all the words
> in that order".
>
> Just a note on style and usage: "very idiomatic" is verbose. Expressions
> are idiomatic or not idiomatic; "idiomatic" is not a gradable adjective
> and "very idiomatic" makes as much sense as "She is very dead" or "She is
> very pregnant" or "She is very perfect". It's colloquial but imprecise and
> suggests a greater degree of the attribute when there is none. Or am I
> stepping on the toes of contemporary English as she is spoke and writ?
>
> > Take, for example, another idiomatic usage; 'in the
> > nick of time'. You can have many variations; 'on the nick of time';
> > 'in the thick of time'; 'in the nick of the moment'. They're all
> > grammatically correct. They're just a different phrase; not the idiom
> > that we are describing.
>
> But if you were teaching someone the language, how would you treat answers
Joe Pairman
Expression
> are idiomatic or not idiomatic; "idiomatic" is not a gradable
adjective
> and "very idiomatic" makes as much sense as "She is very dead" or
"She is
> very pregnant" or "She is very perfect". It's colloquial but
imprecise and
> suggests a great degree of the attribute when there is none. Or am I
> stepping on the toes of contemporary English as she is spoke and
writ?
You got me there!
> > Take, for example, another idiomatic usage; 'in the
> > nick of time'. You can have many variations; 'on the nick of
time';
> > 'in the thick of time'; 'in the nick of the moment'. They're all
> > grammatically correct. They're just a different phrase; not the
idiom
> > that we are describing.
>
> But if you were teaching someone the language, how would treat
answers
> that do not agree with what you have heard? If you mark them wrong,
then
> you are being prescriptive; if you mark them right because you can
> understand them, then your test is of no objective value, I fear.
Changing a word in an idiom means that it is no longer the same idiom;
the meaning is completely different. Marking that wrong isn't being
prescriptivist. It's correcting idiomatic usage.
According to prescriptivist grammar rules, even in Britain, it should
be 'from', not 'to'.
> > Your sense of what is 'clear' is rather limiting.
>
> I suppose that is because I was brought up to read texts closely,
before
> the deconstructionist invasion of the world of literary criticism.
When I
> see possible ambiguity, I do not assume that I understand what it
means
> unless I have a context in which to verify the assumption. As I
said, any
> old junker of a sentence will communicate something, and even,
perhaps,
> just what the speaker/writer intended it to communicate. That
doesn't
> always make it a good sentence, though, does it?
Precise communication does not necessarily follow traditional
grammatical rules. There's a 'middle way'.
> Please do not insult me thus without knowing if your scurrilous
allegation
> is true. "Modern authors" encompasses a wide range of people who
write
> lots of different kinds of things. Who did you have in mind? What of
value
> or interest have they written? Once I know who your literary idols
are, I
> will be able to look at their work and see if we agree that they are
worth
> the time and effort.
James Joyce is an extreme example; he's certainly not my idol, but he
manages to communicate an impression remarkably well. Salman Rushdie
uses many different styles, particularly in reported speech. Roddy
Doyle does what many authors have done for some time; he represents
dialect, accent, and regional idioms in his writing style. My English
friends not only understand it but love it. Something which
distinguishes literature in English from much literature in other
languages is the wide use of variations in lexicon, spelling and
syntax for specific stylistic effects. That is part of its richness.
As for the others; just look down the shortlist for the Booker prize
for the last few years. They're not all my idols, but they're
certainly representative of current trends in literature in English.
>
> I always look for a meaning for the entire text and do not restrict
myself
> to reading sentence by sentence looking for grammatical barbarisms.
But,
> like everything else that is greater than the sum of its parts, if
most of
> the parts are faulty or low quality or incorrect, the structure of
the
> whole will be a fraud and will crumble before too long.
Faulty? Incorrect?
> > Perhaps, though, you manage to live in a place
> > where the shop assistants, your colleagues, the bus drivers, the
> > pensioners, the muggers and the police know and use the same
grammar
> > rules as you do. Where is that?
>
> Taiwan. ;-)
That's because you taught them! ; ) Seriously, though, I'm going to
Taiwan to teach English for a year or two, and I agree that most
foreign learners want to learn prestige varieties of English; in other
words, those which closely follow 'prescriptivist' grammar rules.
>
> >
> > > hear someone say that sentence, then I take it down as "She
asked
> > me,
> > > 'What was the matter with me?'" I'm confused now about who "me"
is.
> > It's
> >
> > Maybe you're not aware that a comma is normally marked with a
pause &
> > vice versa.
>
> I am aware, but not all speakers obey that prescriptivist rule as
they are
> not as slavish a follower of the rules as you think I am.
Sorry; that is entirely descriptivist. Just because it's a rule
doesn't mean that it's prescriptivist. It is a 'rule' that has been
observed, although if it changes in the future, descriptive grammar
will reflect that.
>
> > > ambiguous in your written sentence and in speech. Was she asking
> > about
> > > herself or was she asking about the listener?
> >
> > See above;
> > a pause; herself
> > no pause; the listener.
>
> Only if people who say the sentence follow your rules. Have you ever
read
> any 18th-century English prose? Filled with commas. Commas
everywhere.
> After every bloody phrase and clause. But I am certain -- even
though I
> was not there -- that speakers did not pause at every comma.
I'm describing what normally happens now.
> > English belongs to its users; that includes the so-called
> > 'illiterates' who, in fact, are in the majority and who play a
large
> > part in the continual reshaping of a dynamic and almost infinitely
> > varied language.
>
> They have always been the majority and have always owned the
language they
> speak. That doesn't mean the rest of us have to speak or write like
them
> unless we want to "be" one of them.
Okay, but when the language changes, we want to be able to communicate
with 'them'. Actually, there is no 'them' and 'us'. There are many
varieties throughout every socioeconomic level and geographical
region. Language changes affect all of us, often unconsciously.
Franke
Joe Pairman wrote:
> [snip]
> Changing a word in an idiom means that it is no longer the same idiom;
> the meaning is completely different.
It's not the same idiom, agreed, but the meaning is not necessarily
completely
different. Changing the idiom (this might be an Americanism) "That's a
horse
of a different color" to "That's a cow of another color" doesn't change
the meaning.
> Marking that wrong isn't being prescriptivist. It's correcting
> idiomatic usage.
This suggests that what you consider to be "prescriptivist" is demanding
that
people write or speak according to rules that are arbitrary and that do
not
reflect what even the best speakers and writers do with the language,
e.g.,
"That is something up with which I will not put". Unfortunately, once
usage
becomes "the rule", whether it's based on the idiomatic usage of the
general
population of native speakers of the language of the educated elite, it
becomes a prescription for proper English.
One American EFL teacher I worked with in Tokyo used to get all his
idiomatic
expressions wrong when he spoke. He wasn't as good as Mrs Malaprop and
all his colleagues merely snickered in response to his butchering of the
language.
> [snip]
> > And when I hear British
> > English speakers say "A is different to B", I not only understand
> what
> > they mean, but I know that it is idiomatic British English and not
> > incorrect.
>
> According to prescriptivist grammar rules, even in Britain, it should
> be 'from', not 'to'.
From what I have heard all my life, "to" is the rule in speech and
informal
writing. The rules, be they descriptive or prescriptive, are always behind
the
times because the language is always changing. There are also many points
of
grammar and usage that even the educated experts disagree on.
> [snip]
>
> Precise communication does not necessarily follow traditional
> grammatical rules. There's a 'middle way'.
This is far too ambiguous for me to agree or disagree with. I must
interpret. By
"traditional grammatical rules" do you mean all the rules that are written
in Quirk
and Greenbaum et al's _A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language_
(as descriptive a grammar as exists in English)? Or do you mean all those
mid-20th century grammars that still have the stupid rules added in the
19th century?
Well, it doesn't matter. This issue is a polecat of a different stripe. I
don't agree
that there is "a middle way", however. There is no compromise on
precision;
compromise usually results in something that is neither fish nor fowl. For
me,
the most important question is context. If you are writing a doctoral
dissertation,
the standards of precision are quite different from those demanded in a
novel or
a poem or a personal letter. In the former, everything must be spelled out
in great
detail at least once so that no one reading the thing will misunderstand.
in the
latter, however, the standards of precision are different. They are not a
compromise but a function of the discourse as a whole. You mention Joyce
below. A wonderful writer, but I am unable to plow through _Ulysses_
because
the style or the content or both put me off at about page 60. It happened
twice.
I did manage to read the first 32 pages of _Finnegan's Wake_, but the
style put
me off -- it was just too much work for too little gain. _Dubliners_, _A
Portrait of
the Artist . . . _, and _Stephen Hero_, though, were wonderful and I've
read
them all many times. I would never quarrel with the way he used the
language,
but that does not mean -- great writer that he was -- he wrote to be
understood by everyone.
> >"Modern authors" encompasses a wide range of people who
> write
> > lots of different kinds of things. Who did you have in mind? What of
> value
> > or interest have they written? Once I know who your literary idols
> are, I
> > will be able to look at their work and see if we agree that they are
> worth
> > the time and effort.
>
> James Joyce is an extreme example; he's certainly not my idol, but he
> manages to communicate an impression remarkably well.
See above. In addition, "an impression" is not a "precise communication",
merely a fuzzy one, as in the paintings of Monet, Manet, and Renoir.
> Salman Rushdie
> uses many different styles, particularly in reported speech.
I haven't read anything of Rushdie's but his articles, in which he follows
the rules of grammar.
> Roddy
> Doyle does what many authors have done for some time; he represents
> dialect, accent, and regional idioms in his writing style. My English
> friends not only understand it but love it.
Never heard of him but I will check him out.
> Something which
> distinguishes literature in English from much literature in other
> languages is the wide use of variations in lexicon, spelling and
> syntax for specific stylistic effects. That is part of its richness.
When you talk about novels and novelists, though, you talk about people
who
know (or should know) exactly how the language works and what the rules of
grammar are -- even if they cannot spell them out the way a grammar book
does -- people who know exactly how the language is and can be used not
only
by themselves, but by most everyone else as well. Picasso could draw and
paint realistic art but preferred to produce cubist and other types of
abstract art.
Same thing is true for Joyce in literature.
> As for the others; just look down the shortlist for the Booker prize
> for the last few years. They're not all my idols, but they're
> certainly representative of current trends in literature in English.
I shall.
> > I always look for a meaning for the entire text and do not restrict
> myself
> > to reading sentence by sentence looking for grammatical barbarisms.
> But,
> > like everything else that is greater than the sum of its parts, if
> most of
> > the parts are faulty or low quality or incorrect, the structure of
> the
> > whole will be a fraud and will crumble before too long.
>
> Faulty? Incorrect?
Faulty is always incorrect. If you use the wrong word, your communication
is
faulty. If your reader or listener doesn't understand what you what you
want to
communicate, whether because of your grammar or usage or vocabulary, your
language is faulty and incorrect.
> > > Perhaps, though, you manage to live in a place
> > > where the shop assistants, your colleagues, the bus drivers, the
> > > pensioners, the muggers and the police know and use the same
> grammar
> > > rules as you do. Where is that?
> >
> > Taiwan. ;-)
>
> That's because you taught them! ; ) Seriously, though, I'm going to
> Taiwan to teach English for a year or two, and I agree that most
> foreign learners want to learn prestige varieties of English; in other
> words, those which closely follow 'prescriptivist' grammar rules.
True. But I tell them to forget about all the stupid rules of grammar that
they
learned in jr & sr high. They learned rules that are not rules and are all
too often
more concerned about following non-rules than in communicating clearly. My
advice is to read good writers and learn how they use the language. That's
the only decent way of learning grammar and usage, IMHO. So you see, we
are
not at all different on that point.
> [snip]
>
> Okay, but when the language changes, we want to be able to communicate
> with 'them'. Actually, there is no 'them' and 'us'. There are many
> varieties throughout every socioeconomic level and geographical
> region. Language changes affect all of us, often unconsciously.
Of course there is a "them". "They" are the ones who write that awful
Orwellian Newspeak that we see in the statements of politicians and their
spin-doctors, and in the prose of illiterate academicians and business
people who believe that the more difficult the syntax and the more
abstruse the vocabulary, the better. "They" are the ones who write
sentences like "There will be a buffet from 12:00 to 1:00 so that parents
can eat and meet their children's teachers" (from a book about improving
your written English ).
One final point. I don't think there is much we disagree about. I wouldn't
use novelists as mentors for the writing of formal academic prose, though,
unless I use their essays, in which they write quite differently from they
way they write in their novels, which only a pedant of the worst sort
would demand be written according to all the rules of grammar..
Joe Pairman
different registers for different purposes.
Maybe we'll meet in Taiwan!
Meliss1079
ambiguous. I would prefer to say, "She asked me what was wrong with me."
Franke
Meliss1079 wrote:
> It may be correct, but it is by no means a good sentence. It is very
> ambiguous. I would prefer to say, "She asked me what was wrong with me."
You might prefer this, but if you want to be accurate and literal in
translating direct speech into indirect speech, you would have to say "She
asked me what the matter with me was" if the question was "'What's the matter
with you?" she asked me".
And what might be correct? You have eliminated all the possibilities.