Archive for June, 2007
Today is the anniversary of the 1944 invasion at Normandy Beach, France, more commonly called [tag]D-Day[/tag].
The world back then had many virtues we’ve lost, including a need to use the English language in written form with correct spellings and grammar usage. However, the biggest virtue may have been that the world itself, no matter how tumultuous, made sense. There was good and evil, and good was on its way to victory. Even the D-Day nomenclature somehow sounded right.
Since then we’ve been deluged with fantastic technological innovations and conveniences that were hardly imaginable in the dark days of 1944. Are we now better off scribbling ungrammatical e-mails with ridiculous acronyms, abbreviations and emoticons, or somehow did actually having to write letters with pens and paper make us more complete persons? Up to you to decide.
(By the way, letter writing is one of the best ways to learn English, or for that matter, any language. There’s an old saying used when someone has writer’s block: "Just imagine you’re writing a letter to a friend." Trouble is, we can’t say that anymore since no one writes letters, and the updated advice to "just imagine you’re writing an e-mail to a friend" would result in gibberish.)
Not only do [tag]sportscasters and radio jocks[/tag] abuse English grammar, but they also make a mockery out of tone, inflection and our ear drums.
Heard in the final few moments of the Cleveland Cavaliers’ victory over the Detroit Pistons in the NBA Eastern Finals from the arena announcer as [tag]LeBron James[/tag], 22-year-old phenom, made a difficult basket: "Le Braaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn Jaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaames!"
Give me a break. Does some idiot screaming in our ears in excruciatingly and overbearingly long pronunciations make the on-court action any more interesting? Silence would be golden. Let the crowd speak in appreciation.
Let me jump into the fray here and confuse you even more. Actually, maybe I can clarify matters. Is this sentence correct: "A number of us is going downtown to watch the baseball game"?
I would say yes, but most modern grammarians/English teachers would say it’s incorrect. My reasoning is that "a number" is singular, so it must take the singular verb is. They would counter that "a number of us" refers to a collective group and should take the verb are.
Let me settle it by saying you’ll raise fewer eyebrows by using the plural form are, so you should just stick with that (while I continue to use is). However, and here’s where all of us would probably agree, if you said or wrote, "The number of people going to the baseball game is great," that would be correct. The reasoning here is that "the number" refers to a single entity, which is the number, whether it’s 32, 13 or whatever. Therefore it commands a singular verb.
Clear as mud? A number of you are (is) probably still confused.
0 Comments 
