The British Daily Telegraph, as I have mentioned before, is the natural home of the language pedant who knows what’s right because he remembers (or thinks he does) what he was taught at school about the English language; and knows too that as a freeborn, educated person he can lay down the law on the subject. As Anthony Burgess said almost half a century ago in Language Made Plain.
In quarrels about words, people seem unwilling to see reason. Mercury, the rogue-god who presides over language, renders them blind to dictionaries and to experts. There is a general conviction that language is not a matter for experts. We all know about language because we all use language. No similar conclusion is drawn from the fact that we all use kidneys, nerves, and intestines.
Now, as the Stroppy Editor informs us, the Telegraph chooses to educate and amuse its readers with an English test compiled by ‘Nevile Gwynne, a self-taught teacher whose book on grammar and slot on Radio 5’s Up All Night have earned him a cult following which includes Prince Charles.’ It asks:
Which of these sentences is grammatically correct?
A) “Do you see who I see?”
B) “Do you see whom I see?”
While native speakers who do understand language goggle in astonishment, I have found that Google Ngram shows no records for “Do you see whom”. And for my readers who are not native speakers I can mention that while whom is indeed the object case of who, it is never used as the object of a question, being reserved essentially for use in relative clauses with prepositions – and even there its use is declining.
This mention of relative clauses brings me on to the main point of this post. The test also asks this question. (I should point out again for the benefit of non-native readers that Evelyn is a name that can be used equally for men and women.):
“I should like to introduce you to my sister Amanda, who lives in New York, to my brother Mark who doesn’t, and to my only other sibling, Evelyn.”
· Evelyn is male
· Evelyn is female
· Impossible to know from the wording of the sentence whether Evelyn is male or female.
According to Gwynne, the correct answer is male. This is purely and simply wrong. The rule, or convention if you prefer, is that a non-defining relative clause is marked off with commas to indicate the parenthesis that it actually is, whereas defining relative clauses have no commas. In this example the speaker has three siblings:
· A sister called Amanda. She lives in New York.
· A brother called Mark. He doesn’t live in New York.
· A third sibling called Evelyn. It is not stated whether Evelyn is a brother or sister, or where he or she does or does not live.
The absence of commas in
my brother Mark who doesn’t [live in New York]
makes it a defining clause, implying the existence of at least one other brother. The case is slightly complicated because it could be written
my brother, Mark, who doesn’t [live in New York]
with commas to indicate the apposition of Mark; but even so the comma after Mark is not, or at least not necessarily, indicative of a non-defining clause. By omitting the name we read:
my brother who doesn’t [live in New York]
That is clearly defining. Mr Gwynne has tripped up over his own rule. Although the brother Mark doesn’t live in New York we have no information about whether Evelyn is a brother or sister. He might be a brother who does live in New York.
The Telegraph writes of Nevile Gwynne:
It is astonishing that an elderly former businessman who has never been to teacher training college, worn an academic gown or taught in a school should be creating such a commotion.
If only it were astonishing that such a person could become known and respected as a teacher and usage guru! It’s the sort of thing that gets professional teachers and usage guides a bad name.
It also demonstrates the absurdity of relying on punctuation to make a subtle difference in meaning, not least because punctuation is only noticeable in writing; in speech – and this example is obviously spoken and is presented as such with inverted commas – the intonation provides the necessary information for clear understanding. It is of a piece with the silly, invented examples of apostrophes and commas that allegedly change meaning; it is not the way in which anyone would ever express themselves naturally. A sentence that relies on punctuation to make its meaning clear is badly written, not because punctuation is too weak to carry that burden but because it is not designed to do so. Punctuation is a guide to ease the reader’s path through what should be a clearly designed and well-constructed sentence. It is no more responsible for structure and design than a guide book to a city can be expected to ensure that the buildings don’t fall down on top of you if you take a wrong turning.
I have mentioned the Guardian’s disastrous attempt to publish a language quiz.
Footnotes.
In 1928 the British author Evelyn Waugh married a woman called Evelyn Gardner. They were known to their friends as “He-Evelyn” and “She-Evelyn”.
The link above to Nevile Gwynne leads to a Telegraph article entitled ‘The glamour of grammar’. It is not widely known, and will come as a shock to many who have struggled at school, that these words are doublets – that is, they are variations on the same word, as the COED says of glamour:
glamour (US also glamor)
· n.
1 an attractive and exciting quality, especially sexual allure.
2 archaic enchantment; magic.
– DERIVATIVES glamorous adj. glamorously adv.
– ORIGIN C18: alt. of grammar, with ref. to the occult practices assoc. with learning in medieval times.
Comments