In a recent post I wrote, with special reference to split infinitives, that like the Economist I played safe with controversial aspects of grammar:
My job is to teach and advise people who need to use English for their business and professional purposes. I also translate texts, sometimes for publication, for people who are demanding in their requirements. I simply cannot afford to have a student come back to me with a complaint that something that I have taught or tolerated has been criticised in no uncertain manner as a grammatical solecism by a native speaker; nor can I afford to have an argument with a translation client on the same matter. As a result, I play it safe just as the Economist does.
I thought that that point of view would be fairly uncontroversial but it was not. Indeed, I was called to order by Geoff Pullum for it. So why have I just written these words in a translation:
We can’t do that ’cos there’s only four of us.
The answer is, of course, to be found in the context. Here I am transcribing a video of children playing. The register is entirely different from that of professional correspondence or formal business negotiation. In other words, I write what my client expects and needs while keeping, obviously, within the accepted norms of English usage.
Comments