Category Archives: Uncategorized

Everybody with Negatives

Dear NT:

You wrote:

1-Everybody didn’t have a book.

Can’t this sentence mean two things:

1a-Not everybody had a book.
1b-Nobody had a book.

Yes, that is why no English speaker would ever say that.
An English speaker would say either a or b.

2-Each of them didn’t have a book.

This is very awkward English. No one would speak this way.

Can’t this sentence mean two things:

2a-Not each of them had a book.
2b-None of them had a book.

Truly, NT, no native English speaker over the age of six would likely every say either sentence 1 or 2.

A Word Redefined? – Protestant

As I read the news today, there is an article stating that “Protestants” now make up a minority of Americans. It is still the religious plurality in the United States, but it is no longer a majority.

There are two reasons for this change.

First, nearly twenty percent describe themselves as having no religious affiliation. This is not because they moved or are searching for a new church, it is that they do not care for any affiliation. This includes atheists and agnostics, but according to the Pew poll also includes people who call themselves “spiritual” but have no cause to identify with a specific religious group.

Second, the growth of nondenominational churches in the United States has rendered many churches with no particular affiliation. In most cases such churches would call themselves “Christian,” and perhaps might classify themselves as Pentecostal, charismatic, or fundamentalist, but they do not belong to a larger church group. In many cases they form informal groups with likeminded churches, but they have no specific organization structure outside of their local church body.

Now, most Roman Catholics would insist that such churches were indeed Protestant because they are Christian (i.e., believe in the deity and physical resurrection of Jesus Christ) and neither Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. However, since such churches do not have any denominational affiliation our polltakers have decided to call them merely Christian. Frankly that is what most of them would prefer to be called anyhow.

This is an interesting indication of how things have changed in the United States in about a generation. In 1955 Will Herberg published a distinguished and magisterial sociological study of religious belief in America entitled Protestant, Catholic, Jew. The title summed up the affiliation of nearly every American back then. When I was a kid in the fifties and sixties, I do not believe I knew anyone who was not one of those three, at least, if you count Unitarians as Protestants, which Pew still does. (They are not Christians because they do not believe in the deity of Jesus, but they originated in the Congregational tradition and meet in churches).

Still, Pew probably is more accurate in calling the nondenominational churches neither Protestant nor Catholic. When I was a kid, I recall one time my best friend asking me if I were Protestant. I was about eight, and that was not a word I was familiar with. My friend was Catholic, so he had been taught that anyone who was not a Catholic was a Protestant. I told him that I was not a Protestant, that I was a Lutheran. We actually got into a little argument because he kept on calling me a Protestant when I knew full well that my family attended a Lutheran church. My mother settled the argument by telling me that Lutherans and other churches that were not Catholic were often called Protestant.

Now as an adult I have been attending for many years a nondenominational church. (For what it is worth, it had a denominational affiliation at one time, but it ended up going in a different direction). In a way it is much less complicated for people at my church. We just call ourselves Christian. But to illustrate the impact this has I must tell a little story.

For many years an Irish family attended our church. They have since moved to another state, but they do come back to visit the church when they are in town. Since they are from the Irish Republic, they were brought up in Irish history. Catholics were good and Protestants were evil. Cromwell and the British overlords were Protestant. Irish identity and nobility of character largely comes from its resistance to Protestantism. One of the family members once said, “Oh, I would never join a Protestant church. I couldn’t. But this church is not Protestant, it is just Christian.”

A generation ago such unaffiliated churches would have been classified as Protestant. But now there are so many of them, and they have had an impact on many lives in America, like this Irish “just Christian,” so that the term Protestant still has a meaning, but it is not a significant or as inclusive as it once was.

For more on this see
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444024204578046250891660698.html

Random Review – Moonrise Kingdom

OK, this has nothing to do with Grammar or the English language, but I have no other place to readily post this. Perhaps someone has a suggestion? I just saw a film that actually got me thinking about a number of things that I wanted to share. The review may not be all that well structured, but I hope it gets you thinking as well.

The main plot of Moonrise Kingdom is a coming of age story as the two main characters, 12-year-old Sam and Suzy, discover one another. Sam is an orphan, though no one seems aware of the fact; Suzy is a strong-willed pre-teen who already hates her family. We care for both kids because they have hearts on the verge of breaking or hardening, and like most young people of that age they feel they are outsiders (and in this case they probably are). Sam is a skilled “Khaki Scout” and picture painter; Suzy loves to read Young Adult fantasy novels with strong heroines. (Her books are all made-up titles, but they seem to be like the time travel stories of Madeleine L’Engle or the adventures of Mr. Bass on his planetoid.)

There is a brief campfire scene where Suzy is reading one of her novels to a group of Khaki Scouts. She is ready to put the book down and go to sleep, but the boys want to hear the rest of the story: Clear echoes of Wendy telling stories to the Lost Boys of Never Never Land.

That perhaps illustrates some of the tension of the age of the protagonists–in that impossible neverland between childhood and adolescence, part of them does not want to grow up, happy to stay in childhood, but part of them wants to grow up, to escape the limitations of childhood. In both cases we understand, if nothing else, they want to grow out of their present situations–the military styled scout camp where Sam is picked on by everyone or the gingerbread family home of Suzy whose efficiency-minded mother uses a megaphone to call the kids to supper from upstairs.

At the same time everyone is on an island. When Suzy’s mother breaks off a relationship with the island’s sole policeman, she says, “I’ll probably see you tomorrow”–not because she is still in love. It is simply that they are on an island–everyone sees everyone else almost daily.

The island is called New Penzance. Old Penzance is right before Land’s End, the last tip of southwestern England before sailing out into the ocean. So the kids are sailing off into the ocean of life. The island is shaped remarkably like Fishers Island, New York, though the surrounding mainland is quite different. We are told that the events take place right before a landscape-altering hurricane hits.

The hurricane becomes a factor in the film, but more like Captains Courageous than Nights in Rodanthe. The storm also has some symbolic value as standing for the storms of youth which contribute to most of the conflicts in the story. The church pageant near the beginning of the film (actually a flashback where Sam first sees Suzy) tells the story of Noah, a kind of foreshadowing of the flood to come. Suzy is a raven on the Ark. In the story from Genesis, the raven flies back and forth around the Ark, trying to leave but unable to do so until the waters have abated. So Suzy herself is trying to grow up and leave home, but is not going to be able to get too far unless she leaves the island.

Compared to the two Wes Anderson films that I have seen, this has more action. The story keeps moving, and there is a good balance between interior scenes which emphasize character and exterior scenes which have plenty of adventure. The interiors of Suzy’s family’s home are perfect renditions of New England beach houses (not cottages). Sam’s scout tent has stenciled figures on its walls to make us think of a tepee.

The conversations are somewhat stylized, more like stage acting, not unlike The Royal Tennenbaums, but they are effective. There is a sense of disjointedness throughout which highlights something of the human relationships in the film: the lonely policeman and scoutmaster, the parents who have difficulty carrying on a normal conversation with each other, and the social outcasts Sam and Suzy who are just looking for someone who understands them. The social worker on Sam’s case, as an orphan he is a ward of the state, has no name. She is a detached bureaucrat whom everyone calls Social Services.

But the film itself is set in 1965, a time in America when the culture itself was becoming disconnected or disjointed: the beginning of the sexual revolution, the so-called War on Poverty which institutionalized the breakup of families and the perpetuation of the underclass at the hands of bureaucrats, the escalation of the Vietnam War, and the rise of drug use.

While there is nothing in the film hinting at Vietnam or drug use (though Sam tries smoking a corncob pipe), the first two items do seep into the film. Though a few viewers might be offended or stimulated, the reference to sex in the film is awkward and as befits 12-year-olds in 1965 and is a minor part of Sam and Suzy’s attempts to find their places in the world. The orphaned Sam has drifted among foster homes as a pawn or a social services statistic. The disjointedness is highlighted by the discrete framed visuals in much of the film and the occasional use of split screens. The framed approach may also suggest Sam’s paintings and the covers of Suzy’s books.

There is some orchestral music from Benjamin Britten and Camille Saint-Saens. The church pageant about Noah is based on Britten’s Noye’s Fludde. Suzy’s brothers listen to Britten’s A Young Person’s Guide to the Orchestra, but we mostly hear about each instrument or group separately–we rarely hear the whole symphony together. That, too, adds to the theme of alienation, but it also suggests a possible finale: What would it be like when all the instruments play together?

There are also a number of Hank Williams songs. Country music was (still is) popular among the more rural areas in New England. A 1969 visit to my cousins in Eden, Vermont, turned me on to Merle Haggard. The songs are sometimes background songs but the AM radio in New Penzance seems to favor Mr. Williams. After about the third Williams tune, I started thinking of The Last Picture Show film, but other than the similar time period, I did not see much of a connection. Moonrise Kingdom is more hopeful than TLPS. “Kaw-liga” is played twice–both times when Sam is displaying Indian-like woodcraft. You hear a few bars of “Cold, Cold Heart” in the breakup scene.

When Same and Suzy are camping out in their semi-secret cove they call Moonrise Kingdom, Suzy shares her French Françoise Hardy record and they dance to it. (Suzy is a more skilled dancer, but she also knows the song by heart). Hardy was a popular go-go style singer in France at the time, but not as widely played in America. Even the appeal of that record to Suzy likely expresses her inability to find her place in her family, or even among the kids in the church pageant.

One flashback for me was the portable, battery-operated plastic record player. I had not seen one in decades. Suzy “borrows” this from her younger brother (who listens to Britten on it) when she runs away with Sam. In 1966, when I was a Boy Scout, I recall going on a camping trip or service project. One of the guys on the camping trip brought along a record player that was identical except for the color. He mostly played either popular dance tunes like “Hanky Panky” or folk songs like “Green Green.” Yeah, I said to myself as I was watching the film, that is what they did back then.

The acting and film shots are effective, if a bit quirky. The facial expressions, especially of Suzy and her father (played by Bill Murray), show why even though the staging is somewhat theatrical, the film medium catches detail impossible to pick up beyond the first few rows in a live theater.

There is a lot of conflict–internal psychological conflict inside Sam and others, complicated family and other interpersonal relationships, and conflict with Mother Nature once the storm moves in– but the film ultimately has a hopeful ending. You may not laugh a whole lot, though you will certainly laugh some, but you will smile. The missing ingredient in all these disjointed relationships, including the citizen-state relationship, is love. Sam and Suzy are not the only ones who discover love. And this is not a emotional or oversexed Hollywood substitute love, but one based on loyalty, honesty, and looking out for the real concerns of others.

Cast
Bruce Willis, Edward Norton, Bill Murray, Bob Balaban, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton, Jason Schwartzman, Jared Gilman (Sam), and Kara Hayward (Suzy).

Directed by Wes Anderson

Multiple Producers

Story Boards by Patrick Harpin

Style Not the Same as Grammar

Dear Mr. G:
You wrote:
>Is this sentence okay? To break the glass, you need to put out a sound that not only has the right frequency but is also loud enough to exceed the strength of the glass as it resists being vibrated.

It is a little wordy, but it is grammatically correct, and it does make sense. It might be a little clearer by making it two sentences or beginning the sentence with something like: “A sound that breaks the glass needs two qualities…”

Could, Would, or Might?

Dear RL:

You wrote:
> Is there any difference in meaning in the following sentences and are
> there any alternatives which convey the similar meaning?
> 1. He washed his hands for fear that he should be contaminated.
> 2. He washed his hands for fear that he would be contaminated.
> 3. He washed his hands for fear that he might be contaminated.
>
All three are pretty similar. “Should” is a little stronger than “would” in most cases; similarly, “might” tends to be weaker than “would” in terms of likelihood of the event happening, but the distinction is slight in most cases.

There are certainly other ways of saying this, e.g., “He washed his hands for fear of being contaminated.”

Emphasis in English

You wrote:
> please I want to know all the ways of expressing emphases in English
> grammar with examples
> ..thank you..
>
Generally, in English emphasis is provided by simply putting more spoken emphasis on a word–either by a change in volume or tone. English also has the emphatic tenses which in certain circumstances can show emphasis to a listener or reader: I did not see you there. I did go, honestly!

Please see Emphatic Tenses in the Grammar Slammer glossary or https://www.englishplus.com/grammar/00000328.htm.

Inversion can also used to express emphasis, often with conditional tenses, sometimes with the emphatic tense, sometimes with auxiliary verbs such as can or will, sometimes with the perfect tense, and sometimes with the verb to be.

Wow! Could he sing! [conditional]
Did we have fun last night! [emphatic, not a question…]
Whew! Can he play football! [emphatic, not a question]
Will she be surprised! [not a question]
Have we got a deal for you! [perfect tense]
Was she happy to see you! [verb to be]

Though most of these are constructed like questions, they are written with exclamation points. They also are spoken quite differently. A question rises in tone. An emphatic statement moves slower and goes down in tone.

I hope this helps.

“And” is like a Plus Sign

Dear NT:

You wrote:
> John and Harry can repair our car.
> Our car can be repaired by John and Harry.
>
> Do these sentences mean necessarily that they can repair it if they work
> together or could they mean that each of them can repair it alone?
>
While either could make sense in context, normally it would mean that the two men working together could repair it or, most likely, the two men normally would work together (e.g., partners who own a repair shop). And is the same as a plus sign.

If you wanted to say that each could repair it alone, then say so: “Either John or Harry can repair our car” or “Our car can be repaired by either John or Harry.”

The Grammar of Litotes

Dear AZ:

You wrote:
> a. John writes poems not poorly.
> b. He talked to me not kindly.
>
> c. John writes poems, not poorly.
> d. He talked to me, not kindly.
>
> e. John writes poems, and not poorly.
> f. He talked to me, and not kindly.
>
>
> Which of the above sentences is grammatically correct?
>
A-d sound awkward in English. We would normally use the emphatic tense with the negative: “John does not write poems poorly.”

E and f would be used for emphasis. While a comma is fine, you usually see such sentences with a dash for emphasis: “He talked to me–and not kindly!” Usually when we speak of a person’s tone, we use the verb to speak rather than to talk: “He spoke to me–and not kindly!”

Native English speakers would most likely use such a construction with the type of understatement called litotes: “He spoke to me–and not unkindly.”

A or An before Abbreviations?

Dear VS:

You wrote:
> Can I pose this grammar question here?
>
> We all know the rule about a/an. But what is the customary usage in formal
> texts (e.g. a technical reference manual) in the case of acronyms starting
> with a vowell sound? e.g.:
> – a/an FM radio?
> – a/an HTML document?
> – a/an LSD addict?
> – a/an mpg rating?
> – a/an MTV fan?
> – a/an NMR scan?
> – a/an RF connection?
> – a/an SOS signal?
>
> And, by the way, would you recommend hyphenation in (some of these) cases?
> I’d much appreciate an authoritative reply (or a pointer to where I might
> better ask this question).
>
These all would be spoken and written with “an.” All of the first letters when spoken begin with a vowel sound: “an eff-em radio,” “an aitch tee em ell document,” “an ell ess dee addict,” etc. You would, for example, say or write “a DSL connection” (dee ess ell).

Permanent Titles of Dignitaries

Dear R:

You wrote:
> I regularly hear references made to individuals, usually in the govt, that
> currently hold a position of authority but are referred to by a title of
> an office or position they previously held. Colin Powell was refered to
> as General while he was the Sec of State, Secretary of Homeland Security
> Tom Ridge was addressed and referred to on the news as Governor. Bill
> Frist, the Majority Leader is called Doctor, as he is an MD. Why does the
> media do this? Do some titles carry weight than others? Shouldn’t people
> be referred to by their current assignment?
>

That is an editorial decision which will vary from paper to paper. The examples you gave are all examples of what are often considered permanent titles. Powell, as a legally retired general, keeps his title. Former presidents and governors (sometimes mayors) are normally referred to by their titles. (Case in point, the former governor of Connecticut served time in prison, but the Connecticut papers still called him Governor Rowland while he was incarcerated.) The same is true of the earned degree of Doctor as Dr. Frist.

Other papers (or networks or radio stations) may do it differently. Some papers, for example, call everyone “Mr.,” even presidents, unless they have a military rank or earned degree.

Practice also seems to show, as you pointed out, that some titles do seem to “carry more weight.” In the USA, I would include chief executives (presidents, governors, mayors), senators, military rank, and higher academic or religious titles (doctor, reverend, rabbi) as being “permanent” titles. Probably the greatest example from US history is William H. Taft, who was both a president and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Unless he is spoken of in the context of a court case, he is always “President Taft” rather than “Chief Justice Taft.”

After answering your first note, I read your second one. It was pretty much the same except that you noted that you had checked a number of grammar texts for guidance. This reflects editorial decisions of periodicals, publishers, and networks. Instead of a grammar book, try something like The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, The Wall Street Journal Essential Guide, or The AP [Associated Press] Stylebook. They would probably give an explanation of their practices.