Lavengro

Carcfully scannod

This is a digital copy of a book that was prcscrvod for gcncrations on library shclvcs bcforc it was carcfully scannod by Google as parí of a projcct to make the world's books discoverablc onlinc.

These words are quoted from a site called internet archives, which contains electronic versions of public domain texts. That is a worthy thing to do as it makes them available for online use. But the main way of accessing online material of this kind is by searching for it, and if the text is scannod carcfully instead of being scanned carefully it is not easy to find what you are looking for! The very first Spanish text that appears is this. You don’t need to know much Spanish to see that something has gone seriously wrong.

EXAMEN RAZONADO 

DEL EMPIPO DE LOS VERBOS SER T ESTAB; 

DEL USO DE LOS TIEMPOS DEL SBBJDKTITOi 

DEL DE Lis FBBPOStCIOSES FOB Y PARA; 

DE LOS iCCIDESTEá DEL ADJETIVO, ¥ DE LOS PEONOMBEES : 

gt^niltajp prmci|ial;2 tu ta 3t«sm énfuñún. 

TROZOS ESCOGIDOS 

BN P&08A Y TBHBO DB LOS HAS DISTIIf SUIDOS AUTOKBS CLÁSICOS. 

Y DN APÉNDICE, 

BR BL QDB 8B SBSBNVnSLTBN COK KOTBDAD t INTBBÍ8 

LAS DIFICULTADES DB U PREPOSICIÓN Á 

T Ua que vfnet la Fonnaaion de los AUHEniTIVOS j DIHiXUTIVOB : 
con VAEIA8 BTIMOIiOaiAS OUBIOSAS. 

TODO BX GOItroiUCIDAS DB LAB DOCTBINAS DH LOS lUS BIUNBHTBB FILOLOOOS, 

POB ENTftB LOS «ÜB FiaURÍK, 
DdD Jun OALDEEOF, PÜIOBLAICH, SALTA, LÓPEZ KAIIIEL, T I,A ACADEMIA. 



MANUEL ÜSABTiNEZ SE MORENTIN, 



LONDRES : 

PUBLICAN LA OBRA TRÜBNER T O'. 

No. 6», PATERNÓSTER ROW. 

1857. 



NOTA, 

Esta obra es propiedad del Autor ^ y nudie podrá reimprimirla sin su 

consentimiento y aprobación^ reservándose él derecho de su 

traducción al Ifiglés y demás Idiomas Europeos. 

EITTEBED AT STATIOITEBS' HALL. 



w DNrvET?<5rTY V 
^ í 2 MAY m^ i 

Tierra chica

Tierra chica is an emotive Spanish expression meaning the small area where you come from, not your homeland in general. My tierra chica for example would be the coastal area of Merseyside or West Lancashire (or whatever it calls itself these days). Tierra of course means land, but chica means small, which is its first definition in the Spanish Royal Academy’s Dictionary.

Chica is also a term for a girl or young woman. It is usually positive in implication (something that surprises and appals British feminists). But that is also why Google translates tierra chica as earth girl

A problem with the present simple.

The other day I received an email from a student that began with:

I send you the homework for this week.

This morning I was working with a student who was writing an email. She wrote:

I send you the completed questionnaire.

This is wrong. It should be I attach, as it would be I enclose in the case of a letter written on paper and put in an envelope. The mistake here is direct interference from the Spanish equivalent Te envío but just why is this form of words wrong in English?

This is the present simple used to describe an action that is done with the words themselves. I congratulate you, I present the manager of our Ruritanian office and even Thank you are examples of this use. So it seems clear and natural that I attach and I enclose are typical examples. Why then is I send you not acceptable? Why would it have to be I am sending you…?

I don’t know. Moreover, I have a feeling that the very formal I send you herewith… or I send you as an attachment… would be possible.

Any suggestions welcome.

Today’s BBC crash blossom

The headline says

Concern at bowel cancer survival

The article itself is titled

'Worrying' bowel cancer surgery differences

but the point is that with the space available the BBC could have added the word rates to make the meaning clear

Public dissection

Yahoo! News

 

Rembrandt

 

Hat-tip to Crash Blossoms

Split infinitives

A BBC report contains these two sentences (my emphasis):

1 In turn, the problems with immigration and emigration statistics had a knock-on effect on attempts to accurately calculate the net effect of migration on the population.

2 The department is pressing ahead with the massive e-borders programme which aims to count accurately the number of people coming to and going from the UK.

Sentence 1 contains a split infinitive while 2 contains an awkwardly placed adverb that separates the verb from its object. What can be said? These examples clearly show an intractable problem in English Language usage. A split infinitive is a great taboo, yet an attempt to solve it leads to other problems. Could these sentences be recast? The possibilities would be

1 to calculate the net effect of migration on the population accurately.

2 to count the number of people coming to and going from the UK accurately.

The first is awkward with eight words between the verb and adverb but 2 is quite unacceptable, not only because we now have 11 intervening words but because they include two verbs. The idea of people coming and going accurately springs immediately to mind. This may not make much sense itself but if the numbers were to be counted speedily, for example, real confusion could arise:

2 to count the number of people coming to and going from the UK speedily.

Surely the best solution here is to split the infinitive:

2 to accurately count the number of people coming to and going from the UK.

Another solution would be to paraphrase:

1 to offer an accurate calculation of the net effect of …

2 to provide an accurate count of …

But what is the point? The meaning is perfectly well expressed with the split infinitive forms:

1 to accurately calculate the net effect of migration on the population.

2 to accurately count the number of people coming to and going from the UK.

or, if this is to be avoided, with the forms that have the adverb following the verb:

1 to calculate accurately the net effect of migration on the population.

2 to count accurately the number of people coming to and going from the UK.

The original BBC report contains both forms within the space of a few paragraphs, which suggests an inconsistency that goes beyond style and seems to show an uncertainty in dealing with the positioning of such adverbs. One example has a split infinitive of the kind that occurs naturally to many speakers, while the second appears to be a conscious attempt to avoid splitting, and the fear of splitting an infinitive has led to a solution that is certainly no more elegant and is, for many people, less so.

It is true, nevertheless, that the reaction to split infinitives is so strong that people writing formally or for public consumption will tend to play safe and avoid splitting. But the contrast that the BBC offers here, in two very similar sentences, strikes me as undesirable. In my Guide to English Language Usage I write:

… it must be said that there is still, rightly or wrongly, a considerable feeling among English speakers that a split infinitive is wrong. Sometimes it seems natural to do so but a decision to split an infinitive deliberately should never be taken lightly.

It might also be interesting to point out that the problem in this case only arises in the case of a single-word adverb. If these numbers were to be calculated or counted to a tolerable degree of accuracy, the adverb phrase could not possibly split the infinitive:

1 *to to a tolerable degree of accuracy calculate the net effect of migration on the population.

2 *to to a tolerable degree of accuracy count the number of people coming to and going from the UK.

An end position might be acceptable for 1:

1 ?to calculate the net effect of migration on the population to a tolerable degree of accuracy.

but not for 2

2 *to count the number of people coming to and going from the UK to a tolerable degree of accuracy.

A parenthesis, however, would be acceptable for both:

1 to calculate, to a tolerable degree of accuracy, the net effect of migration on the population.

2 to count, to a tolerable degree of accuracy, the number of people coming to and going from the UK.

Roads and streets

Recently a friend asked me about a phenomenon of English pronunciation. It is that Oxford Road (Manchester) has an even stress while Oxford Street (London) has the stress on the first syllable. On reflection I realised that Liverpool Road (in my home town on Merseyside) and Liverpool Street (in London) also have their stress similarly placed. What is the reason?

I think that the answer may lie in the fact that the road forms are descriptive: Oxford Road is the road that leads southwards towards Oxford and Liverpool Road in Crosby is the road to Liverpool, while the street forms have no direct connection with the cities that they are named for. This is not surprising considering that a road can join cities but a street must always have buildings along its sides.

Something similar is found with a green house (one painted green) and a greenhouse (a glass structure used for cultivating fruit and vegetables), and also a white house (of the sort commonly found in Mediterranean countries) and the White House in Washington.