The Grammar School
Yes, I went to a grammar school. It raised my expectations
considerably and now I realise what an incredibly apt name it had. We had six
lessons of English a week in our first year. There were two lessons on English
literature, one on composition and three on grammar. In addition we learnt
Latin and French through the Grammar Grind method. We thoroughly deconstructed
language.
Grammar as a tool
The analysis is interesting and understanding how language
works is very useful. I recognise a run-on sentence when I see one, though it
is difficult to explain to someone who doesn’t have the terminology.
I also really understand what my computer means when it says
“fragment – consider revising”. It’s telling me I’ve produced a piece of
writing that does not contain a finite verb.
What’s a finite verb? A verb that has a defined tense,
voice, person and mood. Pardon? A verb that is working, if you prefer.
What grammar does
Grammar is the backbone of the language. It shows who is
doing what to whom. Without grammar what does this string of words mean: broken
chair window caretaker mend. There are several possibilities. Grammar sorts it
out.
No hard and fast rules
Surprisingly there are not except in those languages where
there is some sort of authority looking after it. How grammar works differs
from language to language. In the end it is about clarity. Interestingly, English
is allowed to be fluid and evolve. It has no authority insisting on certain
qualities. The OED advises us about words and Fowler about how we string them
together. Both, however, bow to usage.
Many people still frown on split infinitives but we now tend
to boldly split them. And many frown upon sentences starting with “and” or
“but” yet sometimes it can be quite effective. We were always admonished for
using “different to” – it should be different from – but this is being more
widely accepted now.
The misunderstood imperfect tense
This is what prompted me to write this article. We are
beginning to lose the sense of difference between “He was sitting.” and “He
sat.” The former is imperfect, the latter preterit (though often used in an
imperfect sense). He was sitting when the next action came along. He sat there
may be over a protracted amount of time but the action is over and done with. “He
used to sit” or “he would sit” imply a habit, all three conveyed in many other
languages by what we call the imperfect tense. The action is not yet over. It
is “imperfect”.
Knowing when to break the rules
This depends a little on knowing what the rules are in the
first place. Then it’s important to ask the question “Is my change really
effective?” It often has less impact than you might think. A copy-editor will
pick this up. If they’ve used “track changes” to edit it may be worth hiding
those changes and only putting them back on when you think any passage has lost
its impact and even then consider whether
you can still keep the impact but keep to the rules and just
rephrase.
If we all understand what the writer means, what does it
matter, we might ask.
Well, firstly, American publishers expect correct grammar.
We all want our work published both sides of the Atlantic, don’t we?
Secondly, grammar brings clarity and we want our texts to be
as clear as possible. As English is a widespread first language, though its
usage differs considerably form continent to continent, and the first foreign
language for many people, we need as much clarity as possible.
Worth getting to know grammar, then?