English Made Easy

By John Tourian

I have often been frustrated and amused by natives who want to be understood only by the collusive, other natives and thus resort to the use of esoteric expressions the meanings of which are only privy to their people or even group. The most enduring manner to memorialize the truth is to render the language understandable, even if it entails going back to its proper roots. Typical of me, I chose the hardest of them all: English, specifically because its rules have been intentionally overlooked or, in some cases, glossed over in favor of a wider comprehensibility, as happened in plastics, computer science or military jargon. Let me put it this way: if there already is a way to say something well, there is no need to create a new way of saying itto the glaring degradation of the language. The purpose of a language is universal understand of what is said. In the case of the English language, make that what is said, how it is said, how it is written and even how it is pronounced. It is pointless for English-speaking people to wrongly interpret the intent of another of their kind or to answer in an equally obfuscating fashion. If I say something, I want to be universally understood in as clear a manner as possible!

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Dec 11, 2003
• ISBN: 9781465331632

Book preview

Copyright © 2003 by John Tourian.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

To order additional copies of this book, contact:

Xlibris Corporation

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

[e-mail]

18108

Contents

I

INTRODUCTION

II

SPECIFIC USES OF WORDS

AND EXPRESSIONS

III

GRAMMATICAL RULES

IV

PARTS OF SPEECH

1—NOUNS

2—PRONOUNS

3—ADJECTIVES

4—VERBS

5—ADVERBS

6—EXCLAMATION MARKS

7—QUESTION MARKS

8—CONJUNCTIONS

9—PREPOSITIONS

V

FORMATTING

VI

CONSONANTS AND VOWELS CONSONANTS

VOWELS

VII

CREEPING DISTORTION

OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

VIII

INFERANCE OF OLD RULES

I

INTRODUCTION

As he was struggling to make sense with long vowels, I observed my son with trepidation trying to make sense of it. You could palpably feel his dis-belief at his pronouncing words that the teacher had said were short vowels, such as ‘Bob, common and doctor’ with his drawn-out American pronunciation. Finally, he committed them to memory and can recall them even now. Since then, I have had quite a few discussions about the English language with him. Since I had been educated overseas, I explained to him where American English does not meet the grammatical rules of the mother tongue. He is an excellent debater. I felt that it would be a shame if we did not collaborate to write a book on what English is and should be to make it more comprehensible. I agree with many of his deliberations.

There are so many exceptions to the rules that it is easier to ask youngsters to commit the spellings, pronunciations and forms to memory rather than to follow them. These apply to the mother tongue. American English is worse. The problem was precipitated or exacerbated by not having formed a commission to study the language with an eye to standardizing, simplifying and, if necessary, devising ways to reduce or eliminate the inconsistencies. If English has become the universal language, we must be able to reproduce all the sounds of other tongues. Not only should we be able to express ourselves succinctly, but other English-speaking peoples should be able to understand us without resorting to ‘interpretations’. The language is so complicated intentionally, it is a miracle that even English-speaking people know how to write it halfway decently. It is a dilemma: what do you do to a drowning person? Do you start by lecturing him on his folly, investigate how he got into trouble or save him first? It is probably easier if I give concrete examples than talking in abstract principles. Let’s start somewhere.

II

SPECIFIC USES OF WORDS

AND EXPRESSIONS

There are specific uses for some expressions. These include: each other vs one another, each the other vs one the other, between vs among and amongst, much vs many (but both use the same words for the comparative and superlative: more and most, which are totally different in form from either much or many), continuous vs continual, cloths vs clothes, few vs a few, flammable vs inflammable compared to probable vs improbable, fish vs fishes, people vs peoples, bread vs breads, each vs every, produce produce product and production, not to mention subtle differences among who whoever whosoever, what whatever whatsoever, affect effect impact, in front of vs the front of vs the front, come and go, here and there.

Each other is used for relationships between two individuals, animals or things, such as: they loved each other. Each the other is used when more emphasis is needed, such as: ‘Each promised the other to honour the vows’.

This is as good a place as any to distinguish between each and every. Each is more specific while every is general. For example: ‘Each one of you will remember this day’ in contra-distinction to: ‘Every man has a dream’.

One another is used for more than two things, such as: ‘The team then congratulated one another’. For a more emphatic form, we use one the other. Example: ‘Each bid the other farewell’. Usually, such refinements are not called for.

Tall is the animate version of how much above a datum a living creature is while high is for the inanimate. A giraffe is 18 feet tall while a tree is 18 feet high.

Between is used when referring to two things. For example: ‘Between them, the couple had a lot of resources’. Among is used for more that two people or things, such as: ‘There is no honour among thieves’ or ‘Among men, he was unique’. If the group is disparate or non-homogeneous, then you could use amongst. For example, if the crowd consists of adults and children, where children’s food intake is less than that of adults, you could say: ‘The food was divided amongst them’. In some cases of collective nouns, between is more appropriate if the activity of the group is more on a one-to-one basis, as in: ‘The congregation divided into small groups and there were heated discussions between them’. We also have the synonym of between in the word betwixt. It is more often than not used in the expression of ‘betwixt and between’ meaning an agreement or compromise that is halfway between two opposing stands.

Continuous signifies that the state of being or action is going on without interruption, such as: ‘The continuous flow of water in the ravine cut a deep gorge in the rock’. Continual indicates that the action may not be constantly occurring, but returns in a regular fashion, such as: ‘The continual raid on Social Security funds depleted the surplus’ or ‘The continual draught has transformed the land into a desert’.

Cloths are the fabrics from which clothes are made, such as ‘Her clothes were beautiful, made from the best cloth or cloths’, meaning different fabrics.

A few indicates a number that is small. Few indicates an even smaller number. This exemplifies the first concept of measurement: numbers. Examples of this are: many, few, a few, myriad, numerous, a great many, horde, some, multitudinous, etc. For more specific delineations, they are denoted by numbers, such as one or one million. The other concept of measurement is volume, or quantity again. This is where we tend to get confused, because the word quantity refers to both the numerical and the volumetric measurements. Even the words less and more can be used interchangeably between the numerical and the volumetric, such as ‘more brutality’ (volumetric) or ‘more soldiers’ (numerical).

Examples of the volumetric are: much, less, amount, quantity, barrels, basketfuls, some, loads, cart-fuls, shiploads, tankfuls, etc. More precise or quantifiable measurements can be had by recognized volumetric measurements such as gallons, cubic feet, cubic miles, liters, etc. To complicate matters more, we have not yet converted to the metric system of measurement and we are using both the metric and British systems simultaneously. Is it not ironic that even the pompous British have adopted the French Napoleonic system of measurement and weight while Americans are still following the old British system?

The third concept of measurement is weight. Here, we start adding more complicated equations because weight depends on the density of a material. Five pounds of vegetables can fill a pot, but five pounds of gold is only a handful, while five pounds of air can fill a large room at Normal Temperature and Pressure or an entire ship at low pressure. Obviously, there are many other measurements, such as pressure, temperature, etc. What makes these more difficult is that they are inter-related. The problem is that the English language evolved as the need for new words arose, and nobody ever thought of reconciling them to existing words or to the logical rules of grammar. Since Britain extended its colonial rule to every corner of the world and was in the van-guard of knowledge back then, the English language developed hap-hazardly. One example of this is the use of the comparative and superlative in the volumetric as opposed to the numerical measurements.

Volumetric: much, less, plenty, some, a lot, etc

Numerical: many, less, plenty, some, a lot, etc.

It can at once be seen that we are using the same words for both types, but that is not all. The comparative for both much (volume) and many (numerical) is more and the superlative for both is most. This also applies to a great deal of, a heap of, plenty, some, etc (volumetric) and to a great many, numerous, plenty, some, etc (numerical). The distinction between the two distinctly different types of measurements was blurred. You start pulling the remnants of your hair when you try to find rhyme or reason in the comparatives and superlatives for the common less and plenty. First the comparatives and superlatives are the same for both the volumetric and numerical measurements. Secondly, there is absolutely no connection between the words in the normal, comparative and superlative forms. For less (which applies to both types), they are lesser (good) and least, and not lessest. We have a totally new word. For the common word plenty, they are more and most plentiful! You lost me again, because we coined a new word. For the common ‘some’, they are ‘more’ and ‘most’, which also apply to ‘a lot’ which is the direct opposite of ‘some’. Excuse me, I need to see my shrink! No wonder, most youngsters hate English! Even differential calculus seems easy in comparison! At least it is logical.

In many ways, the English language does not make sense. Take the word probable. The opposite word is improbable. Good! This is one of the rules of the language: you can form the opposite meaning of the word by adding the prefix a, non, im, un, ir, il, in, un, etc, instead of using not. In fact, the prefix is even more emphatic as in plausible vs implausible. Logically then, if flammable means capable of bursting into flames and rapid burning, then inflammable would mean the opposite. It does not; it is the same as flammable, only more so. How come? This is not an isolated case. Genius and ingenious, among numerous other anomalies, have the same connotation too. Numerous means a great many, but innumerable means an even greater number. Invaluable has the same meaning as valuable, only much more so.

Another case of using words incorrectly is here, there, come and go, when it is so easy to determine where to use each. If a person is at the