I like to talk about language issues with my friend Janis Koike, who has an enviable background in Spanish, French, and linguistics.

In a recent email, Janis made some comments about the study of Latin. She told me that she knows someone “who took Latin throughout junior high, high school and college. He was a finance major, but his academic hobbies were journalism and Latin. He insists that Latin was a great aid for understanding English grammar.  I, of course, disagree. I think the study of any foreign language enhances the command of the native language…so why not study a language that people speak?”

Guess what: I took four years of Latin in high school, plus another semester in college (we studied St. Augustine’s Confessions). So I’m going to weigh in here…and agree with Janis. (If you’re not interested in Latin, there’s a larger question here about a theory called “transfer of learning” – so I hope you’ll read on.)

I signed up for Latin because the teacher stopped by my eighth-grade English class and begged us to take her class (enrollment was low). (A contributing factor was that Latin was the official language of the Catholic Church back then, so I had some contact with the language every Sunday.)

I had exactly the same experience that Janis’s friend did: I learned grammar. If it weren’t for those Latin classes, I don’t think I’d ever have been exposed to terms like “nominative,” “indirect object,” and “past perfect.” Whatever grammar I know was drummed into me by Miss Walsh.

But wait…there’s more! Latin also helped with my vocabulary, and I learned some ancient history and had some exposure to Virgil.

So you might be surprised that I agree 100% with Janis: Don’t study Latin. You’re better off studying a language that people speak. (I did take Spanish in college, and several years later I got along pretty well chatting with some very patient Mexicans on a trip South of the Border.)

The veneration of Latin goes back to an old idea that it’s the best language and will make you smarter. But – as Janis says – exposure to any foreign language will improve your language skills. And if you choose a living language, you can talk to people!

Latin (despite a lot of wishful thinking in some academic quarters) isn’t better, or purer, or more sophisticated than any other language.

Most important (and faithful visitors to my blog already know what I’m going to say): you learned almost all the grammar you need before you were five years old. Most errors are diction problems, not grammar mistakes. If you grew up speaking English, working your way through a grammar workbook will not make you a better writer.

So what should you do to get better at writing? Write. Often. A lot. You also need to read, read, and read some more. And you need to get feedback from someone who cares about you and about language. If you can enhance your program with some curiosity about the English language – and language in general – that’s even better.

Have at it!

                                           Ancient Roman Forum

I hope you’re up for another round of challenging the rules of English!

LinkedIn (a social media platform for professionals) hosts many discussion groups about a variety of topics. Recently someone raised a provocative grammar question:  should we say “a large number of researchers is active” or “a large number of researchers are active”?

How would you answer that question?

More than 50 writing professionals embarked on a lively discussion. Some argued for “is,” on the grounds that “a large number” is singular. Others argued for “are,” reasoning that “researchers” is plural.

Everybody was wrong.

I – ahem – answered the question correctly. A few people agreed with  me – but most ignored my comments and went back to arguing about prepositional phrases and singular and plural verbs.

So…I ask you…how would you answer today’s question? And (to add to the fun) would your answer be the same if you changed “a number of researchers” to “the number of researchers”?

And while we’re at it…how can I be so sure I’m right and almost everyone else was wrong?

*  *  *  *  * 

 Here are two principles for writers to live by:

1. Usage – not grammar – is the key to writing correct English. Language is a social tool. People (not grammarians) make the rules.
2. If you’re a native English speaker, you’ve been unconsciously absorbing English usage since you were a tot. Whenever you’re up against a rule, run it past your language experience and common sense.

Let’s look at some sentence pairs. Choose the one that sounds best to you.

1:

A large number of people is going to the show.

The large number of people is going to surprise the planners.

2.

A large number of people are going to the show.

The large number of people is going to surprise the planners.

3.

A large number of people are going to the show.

The large number of people are going to surprise the planners.

 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  

Which sentence pair did you choose – #1, #2, or #3?

 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  

I’m delaying my answer to make it harder for you to cheat by looking for the answer before you’ve thought about it. OK – here it comes: #2 is correct!

The usual rules of grammar don’t apply to “a number” and “the number.” The rule is that “a number” is plural and “the number” is singular.

Chances are #2 sounded best to you when you read the sentences – but then you started to doubt yourself. What about that prepositional phrase – “of people” – aren’t you supposed to skip over that? (Yes.) And “a number” and “the number” are both singular. You couldn’t possibly make one singular and one plural, could you? (Right again.)

Except that the rules don’t apply in those case. Common sense and experience will point you to the right answer.

But how can I be so sure? By playing my trump card. I went to my bookcase and pulled down Fowler’s Modern English Usage – the absolute authority on correct English. (If you don’t have a copy, your library has one. You can even call the reference librarian and save yourself a trip.)

According to Fowler, “a number” is plural, and “the number” is singular. Case closed!

When I posted my answer (the correct answer) on LinkedIn, I added a comment about the silliness of trying to reason your way to an answer about a sticky usage question. Check an authority!

Forty-seven people ignored that sensible (and professional) advice. Sigh. 

Scott Joplin is my favorite composer. A line from his opera Treemonisha has been running through my head lately: “Wrong is never right.”

Joplin is correct, of course – unless you’re talking about language. Wrong is right when it’s more clear or more natural – or when you simply like it better. 

Here’s an example from the introduction to a personal essay by my friend Jane Brumbaugh:

Mary Ann, a music teacher, was a friend of mine. She invited me and a few other women to her living room to discuss forming a group to work toward passing the Equal Rights Amendment.

Someone in our writing group suggested that it would be better to put “me” second, like this:

“She invited a few other women and me…”

Check! Most of the time you’re supposed to put “me” after “women.” (Similarly, “Paul and I” sounds much better than “I and Paul.”) 

But I voted for putting me first in Jane’s piece. Doing it that way builds an oh-so-subtle bridge between the first sentence and the second one. Another advantage is that writing the sentence this way helps personalize Jane’s piece.

Mary Ann, a music teacher, was a friend of mine. She invited me and a few other women to her living room….

Ready for another one? Here’s a sentence I wrote myself based on a no–no in Theodore Bernstein’s wonderful book Watch Your Language. Bernstein would give this sentence a thumbs-down. Even though I’m a great admirer of his, I would leave the sentence the way it is. (And to make things more interesting, I sneaked in another problem! Can you find it?)

The trio was honored for the performance they had given in March.

Give up? Trio is singular, and they is plural, so there’s an agreement error. (The sentence should be worded this way: “The trio was honored for the performance it had given in March.”)

I like my version better (sorry, Mr. Bernstein!) because it humanizes the singers. They is a better choice than it, even though a strict grammarian might slap my wrist with a ruler.

It’s true you could avoid the problem altogether by writing the sentence this way:

The trio was honored for the performance in March.

But I like “they had given” because now I can see – for just a moment – that trio performing on stage.

Let’s go on to the second problem – passive voice. I’ve known some self-proclaimed experts who say that passive voice (“the trio was honored”) is always wrong. Here’s how they’d want me to write the sentence:

The Arts Council honored the trio for the performance it had given in March.

Word processors tend to agree, and they always put an angry red line under passive-voice constructions.

So why did I decide to stick with passive voice? Because my version puts the trio in the position of importance, right at the beginning of the sentence. I don’t even want to mention the Arts Council. I want all the focus to go on the trio – and passive voice does the job for me very nicely.

Let’s challenge one more rule. Last month I did a post about Strunk and White’s admonition to “Omit needless words” in their classic book The Elements of Style. I suggested that sometimes those apparently needless words can enhance a sentence. Along the way I quoted an excerpt from Margaret Mitchell’s novel Gone with the Wind.

Enter Darrell Turner, a regular visitor to my blog who often leaves thoughtful and intelligent comments for me. He noticed something I had missed in that excerpt from Gone with the Wind: Mitchell’s unnecessary words. Here’s Darrell’s list:

“expectantly” in “expectantly upon him”

“long” in “long harangue”

“always” in “country funerals were always long”

“loved” in “loved friend”

What a great comment! I hadn’t noticed the redundancies. What’s even better is that Darrell’s comment got me thinking. If I had been Mitchell’s editor, would I have omitted those unnecessary words?

Umm…maybe. Editors need to be wary of making changes for a writer as strong as Mitchell was. And there’s always the question of whether those seemingly unnecessary words add something to the book. On the other hand, Gone with the Wind is a huge novel. Surely some cuts would be helpful, especially for readers who might not want to tackle such a weighty book.

So – here goes. I would have cut “expectantly” and “always” on the grounds that they don’t evoke any of the five senses. I would have kept “long” and “loved,” which are more tangible words.

What would you have done?

That last question is more important than anything else I’ve told you today. If you find yourself scratching your head when you’re working on a piece – wondering if there’s a better way to word a sentence, or trying to decide if the word you’ve chosen is the right one for the job – congratulations! You have entered the realm of real-world writers.

I’ve been watching figure skating on TV since high school. Years ago, Dick Button (my favorite commentator) started a competition broadcast with a dramatic announcement: figure skating rules had changed. The new rules encompassed every aspect of competition: skating elements, scoring, music, and costumes.

Button mentioned the changes again and again that weekend: “We’re going to see something different now!”

But here’s the thing. I never found out what those changes were or what they meant. Were restrictions eased, or did the rules tighten? What was their purpose? To challenge the skaters more – or to add pizzazz to the competitions (which were big moneymakers on TV)? Most important, what did Button think of those changes – were they good or bad for the future of figure skating?

I never found out. Not once in that competition did Button explain what the changes were. (This was – of course – decades before the Internet, so I couldn’t just Google “figure skating rules” to get the answers to my questions.)

That frustrating weekend can be laid at the door of two bad habits that beset writers as well as sports announcers:

1. Forgetting to put yourself into your viewers’ (or readers’) shoes.
2. Using words that confuse rather than clarify.

Today I’m going to deal with the second point. Here are some words to put on your Do Not Use list:

change  alter  modify  revise  different

The problem is that these words are vague. Instead of change, alter, modify, and revise, consider these words: reform, improve, worsen, damage, help, enrich, enhance, harm, fix. For different, substitute better, worse, finer, superior, inferior, stricter, looser…you get the idea.

If you’re not finding the word you want, try a comparative word or phrase: stronger, happier, sadder, more clear, more miserable, and so on.

This is also a good opportunity to reinforce the first point: don’t forget about your readers. Put aside your excitement about what you know and try to think about what your readers don’t know. Trust me – they will thank you for it.

                        Dorothy Hamill