We Never Really Talk Anymore

[Guest guest]

August 6, 2007

Editorial (The New York Times)

We Never Really Talk Anymore

Experts on language — the real ones, not those of us who merely use

it — are having an intense debate about which species can talk. On

one side are those who believe that only humans converse. On another

side (this kind of debate can have many sides) are those who say,

what about dolphins and whales and certainly the amazing Koko, the

gorilla?

Koko has a sign language vocabulary of at least 1,000 words. She can

recognize about 2,000 spoken words. And people pay attention. Once

when she had a bad tooth, Koko signed the word for pain and pointed

to her mouth and a medical team was rushed in immediately. The rest

of us mammals can only envy her.

In a new book called " The First Word, " Kenneally catalogs

the complex debate over language and includes one particularly

revealing experiment in which scientists put two male apes who knew

sign language together. One might have expected these guys to start

grousing about their keepers, to wonder at beings that are all

thumbs and actually seem to enjoy giving away bananas. But, no, they

started madly signing at each other, a manual shouting match, and in

the end, neither appeared to actually listen to the other.

So, are two creatures actually conversing if they're both talking

and nobody is listening? Where does talking-without-listening put

one in the animal brain chain?

Let's see, talking without listening. Many wives can think of

someone who might qualify. Teenagers do, easily. And parents of

teenagers. Also, a lot of successful politicians and talk show

hosts.

With a hot August and a long political season ahead, we might

venture that what really separates human from ape is not the ability

to talk in complete sentences. It is our underused capacity to

listen.

End.

Not so much my groups.. .

Mike

[Guest guest]

Mike wrote:

Let's see, talking without listening. Many wives can think of

someone who might qualify. Teenagers do, easily. And parents of

teenagers. Also, a lot of successful politicians and talk show

hosts.

With a hot August and a long political season ahead, we might

venture that what really separates human from ape is not the ability

to talk in complete sentences. It is our underused capacity to

listen.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

I agree completely! And I very much appreciate your use of conventional

punctuation. It's much easier for me to understand what you are saying.

Why don't we have classes on how to listen, so we can learn something from

each other instead of always trying to prove that we are right? At least half

of ABA is learning how to " listen " to nonverbal behavior.

Darla

************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at

http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

[Guest guest]

Hi Darla, and All,

Thanks for something... Your feelings on the matter.. . (!) I want

to assure you I am not contriving to fool you so that you may

eventually understand more, thereof.. . Don't ever do that,

yourself? ...

In that respect, it wasn't me who wrote the piece you applaud.

Listen? .. . to the content, rather than, " style, " alone, or

mostly? .. .

By the absolute of all that is relative, to understanding more... I

do not contrive of creating confusion, thereof, for the absolute of

understanding more that I strive to achieve.. . of what is true of

itself, of me as an Individual, thereof.

Content? ... of what is " more " meaningful (of substance) to me,

thereof... " not " so much of style, I'm rather " happy " to say.. .

Figure things out for your self, thereof. There's " plenty " of

material to work with in that respect.. .

More towards your seeming interest I present this, published today,

on MSN. Enjoy!

Errors That Aren't: 12 Grammar Rules You Can Toss Out the Window

by Martha Brockenbrough

In an uncertain world, it's nice to be sure of a few things:

• Socks go on before shoes, and underwear, before pants;

• An apple, when dropped, will fall toward the earth; and

• It's a crime to start a sentence with a conjunction, or end one

with a preposition.

There's a bit of a problem, though, at least when it comes to the so-

called certainties of grammar.

Despite the insistence of teachers, starchy bosses, and more than a

few well-meaning nuns, certain rules of grammar aren't actually

rules at all. They're myths, the Loch Ness Monster of language

foisted upon us, many times for reasons unknown.

The declarations against starting sentences with conjunctions and

ending sentences with prepositions are two fine examples. And of

course, there are quite a few more.

It can be upsetting to realize these solemn rules of writing don't

exist, sort of like figuring out Santa and your mother have the same

handwriting.

I still remember the time my high-school English teacher put a

disapproving check mark beside a split infinitive, and the time a

college-writing instructor told me not to use " like " as a

conjunction. Those corrections are among my most vivid school

memories, and in the years that followed, I took care not to make

the same mistakes in my writing.

And now, I must accept that those instructional gems were fake.

At best, many commonly passed-down " rules " might politely be called

convention. But even that's shaky, because crafty dictionary users

can always dig up examples where respected writers have departed

with said convention for literally hundreds of years.

That, alone, isn't a reason to discard a rule, of course. After all,

people have been killing each other for millennia, and it's still

not OK. Or, to use a less extreme example: Just because your

grandfather did something one way doesn't mean he did it the right

way simply because he was born before you.

School Choice

• Compare schools nationwide

• See parent reviews of schools in your hometown

• Choose the right school for your child

The truth is that writers--even great, dead ones--sometimes make

grammatical errors.

In Pride and Prejudice, for example, Jane Austen's narrator

says, " Every body declared that he [Wickham] was the wickedest young

man in the world; and every body began to find out that they had

always distrusted the appearance of his goodness. "

To be correct, she should have written " and people began to find out

that they had always distrusted the appearance of his goodness. "

This doesn't mean Jane Austen was anything less than a brilliant

writer. Grammar is important, but it's not the hallmark of great

writing. Rather, it's a tool to help us express ourselves and

understand others.

It's what separates " Let's eat children! " from " Let's eat,

children! " (If you can't see the difference there, please do not

invite me to your house for dinner.)

Where rules help us say what we mean, they're worth learning and

obeying. Where they get in the way and twist our syntax--or worse,

change the meaning of a sentence--they should be rejected. Here are

12 grammatical " errors " that aren't actually wrong, according to my

own judgment, and that of a variety of experts, including:

• T. O'Conner (Woe is I),

• s (Common Errors in English Usage, and his Washington

State University Web site),

• Wardhaugh (Proper English: Myths and Misunderstandings

about Language), and

• Mark Liberman and Geoffrey K Pullum (Far from the Madding Gerund).

It Ain't So No. 1: It's wrong to end a sentence with a preposition.

The suffix pre means " before. " This is perhaps where people got the

idea that a " pre-position " couldn't be positioned last in the

sentence. It's just not true, though. Even Shakespeare did it.

There are certain times, though, when it's ugly to do this. " Where's

he at? " is one of those times. " Where is he? " is better form.

It Ain't So No. 2: You are not to split your infinitives.

The Roman Empire is long gone, but Latin's luster remains to a

surprising degree. The ban on split infinitives--those " to-plus-a-

verb phrases " --owes its existence to the idea that Latin grammar is

superior to English.

Balderdash.

In Latin, you can't split infinitives because they're one word. In

English, infinitives are two words, and it's not only fine to split

them, it's sometimes necessary for the sake of clarity.

As T. O'Conner puts it in her book, Woe is I, there really

is no other way to say " To more than double " your rent without

splitting the infinitive. The landlord " expects more than to double

your rent " just doesn't fly.

It Ain't So No. 3: Use " that " with restrictive clauses, " which " with

nonrestrictive clauses.

I fed the dog that barked.

I fed the dog, which barked.

These two sentences have almost identical words, but their meanings

are slightly different. The first one is restrictive--the only dog I

fed is the one that barked. In the second sentence, the barking is

incidental. It's not essential to the meaning of the sentence. Some

people, including many publications, insist that writers use " that "

with restrictive phrases (those not set off by commas), and " which "

with nonrestrictive ones. It's not wrong to do this, and there is a

certain amount of elegance to making that distinction.

But, you can say " I fed the dog which barked " and still be correct.

It sounds a bit more pompous, but it's not wrong, not if we're to go

by the example of many accomplished writers.

That said, it's not correct to write, " I fed the dog, that

barked. " " Which " can go both ways, but " that " can't.

It Ain't So No. 4: It's wrong to start a sentence with " and "

or " but. "

Writers have been doing this for more than 1,000 years, despite the

hand-waving of frantic English teachers. And they're going to keep

on doing it. I could have used a comma between the " teachers " and

the " and, " but the period gives a longer pause and more emphasis on

the second sentence.

The conjunction still links the two ideas together; they just happen

to be two sentences instead of one. It's fine to do with good

reason, but your writing will be choppy if you do it too much.

It Ain't So No. 5: Don't say " hopefully. " Say " I'm hopeful " or " It

is hoped. "

While many people still avoid the technical misuse of " hopefully, "

it's misused often enough that it sounds a bit stilted to say " I'm

hopeful, " and even worse to say, " It is hoped. "

Language does evolve, and this is one of those cases where the

incorrect use has won out. It doesn't mean you have to

say " hopefully " yourself, but holding out the hope and expectation

that people will stop doing this is the equivalent of being outraged

that people are no longer holding up their socks with garters.

It Ain't So, No. 6: Thou shalt not say healthy food.

Extreme language purists still insist that we describe nutritious

food as " healthful. " But if you don't want to sound as though you've

just snapped on a fresh pair of sock-garters, you don't have to.

It's fine to describe food as being " healthy. " That said, the two

words are not interchangeable. As Bill Walsh points out in Elephants

of Style, a " healthy " appetite is not always " healthful. "

It Ain't So No. 7: None comes from " not one " or " no one, " and is

therefore always singular.

Actually, it just might have come from " not any of them, " which is

plural. " None " is very often plural. None of the sorority girls have

hair, for example. If you're talking about something that can't be

divided into units, then make it singular. None of their hair is

real.

Another way to remember: If " of it " could be swapped in for whatever

follows " none, " use the singular. If " of them " could be swapped in,

use the plural.

It Ain't So No. 8: " Since " must always refer to time.

Many people are under the impression they cannot correctly

use " since " as a synonym for " because. " That's crazy-talk, because

it's been used this way since at least 1450. While it's nice to keep

distinctions of meaning between words, it's not a crime against

language to use " since " for " because, " even if you can't

use " because " for " since. " Like healthful and healthy, and which and

that, they can be synonyms even if they're not interchangeable.

It Ain't So, No. 9: Don't use " like " as a conjunction.

Is it wrong to say, " I feel like a million bucks " ? Or is it better

to say, " I feel as though I am worth a million bucks " ? If you were

to say the latter, anyone in earshot would be perfectly justified in

making fun of you. It's been used as a conjunction since at least

1200, according to the Oxford English Dictionary [OED]. That said,

many people--such as my college writing teacher--bristle at this

usage. In formal contexts, this is a rule worth obeying, just so

people don't think you're a rube.

Want More Martha?

Read more columns by Martha Brockenbrough. It Ain't So, No. 10: When

answering the phone, you must say, " This is I " or " This is she. "

" It is I, " and " This is she " are two phrases that reek of eau de

pomposity. At least 400 years before Shakespeare wrote " O, Woe is

me, " we've used that particular expression in English. That's ample

precedent.

Where you do want to be careful, though, is with sentences such as

this: " He likes chocolate more than me. " Do you mean he likes

chocolate more than you do? Or he likes chocolate more than he likes

you?

If he prefers you to chocolate, then you're better off saying, " He

likes chocolate more than I do. " If you're second in his heart,

well, here: Have some chocolate. It'll make you feel better.

It Ain't So No. 11: You must always use " whom " when it's the object

of a sentence.

Remember that Noah Webster guy? The one who wrote the first

dictionary of American English? Even way back when, he had the sense

to advocate " Who did you speak to? " over " Whom did you speak to? "

Sometimes, " whom " is just a bit too stuffy. This doesn't mean it's

not nice to know the rule--use " who " as the subject of the sentence,

and " whom " as an object--but you can break this rule on occasion

with Mr. Webster's blessing.

It Ain't So No. 12: Ain't isn't a word.

It is. Right here, see? And it isn't just a lower-class expression;

once upon a time it was an upper-class colloquialism the OED reports-

-the cousin of won't, don't, can't and shan't. Keep it to music

lyrics, musical titles, and appropriate rhetorical sprees. Even with

its centuries-long pedigree, it just ain't a word to bring with you

to fancy places.

> Let's see, talking without listening. Many wives can think of

> someone who might qualify. Teenagers do, easily. And parents of

> teenagers. Also, a lot of successful politicians and talk show

> hosts.

>

> With a hot August and a long political season ahead, we might

> venture that what really separates human from ape is not the

ability

> to talk in complete sentences. It is our underused capacity to

> listen.

>

> -------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------

> -------------------------------------------------

>

> I agree completely! And I very much appreciate your use of

conventional

> punctuation. It's much easier for me to understand what you are

saying.

>

> Why don't we have classes on how to listen, so we can learn

something from

> each other instead of always trying to prove that we are right?

At least half

> of ABA is learning how to " listen " to nonverbal behavior.

>

> Darla

>

>

>

> ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-

new AOL at

> http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

>

>

>