Language tips

Q: It seems that the older I get the more I take issue with the ungrammatical construction our government spokesmen use. When I saw two on the same page of the New York Times (October 20, p. A15), I decided that maybe I was just old-fashioned.

Hence, the question: Are the following sentences now grammatical? (1) ”If you would have told me a year ago that the three Democratic committees would raise more money than the three Republican committees, I would have said you're on a different planet.” (Democratic senator Charles Schumer of New York). (2) “The president understands it's important to set high standards. But the other thing the president is doing is he's going to go out and let the candidates speak for themselves.” (White House spokesman Tony Snow).

A: No, you're not wrong. The probable reason you notice more errors in usage as the years go by is that over the years the errors add up. Each generation takes liberties with language. Most new expressions are transitory and they disappear, but some take hold and they eventually become grammatical.

The quotations you sent contain several errors. Mr. Schumer violates two grammatical rules: The first rule is that only one “would have” is permitted in a sentence that is introduced by an “if” clause. So Mr. Schumer should have said, “If you had told me a year ago that the three Democratic committees would raise more money than the three Republican committees, I would have said ... .” This error is so widespread that it may eventually become correct; but until it does, educated speakers should retain the conventional and traditional usage. It is what remains of the subjunctive mood in English, which is moribund in English but still viable in European language. There's a less noticeable grammatical error in Mr. Schumer's sentence: his failure to observe the rule governing the sequence of tenses. In the second clause of the sentence, he should have used the past tense of the verb be, not the present tense. Thus he should have said, “If you had told me a year ago that the three Democratic committees would raise more money than the three Republican committees, I would have said you were on a different planet." The rule governing the sequence of tenses requires that the tense of the verb in the “if” clause decides the tense of the second verb.

For example, if I told you, “He asked me how old I . . . .,” what tense of the verb be would you use? You've guessed right if you chose the past tense: (“He asked me how old I was.”) If the verb in the first clause is in the past tense, the verb in the second clause must be also. (Whether I am now a different age is inconsequential. He asked me then; I was a certain age then.) This grammatical rule is more often ignored than obeyed, and may soon disappear.

So the Democratic spokesman made a couple of errors. But the Republican spokesman should not be too quick to point a finger, for his single error is also flagrant. Correct and traditional grammar requires that his statement be, “The president understands it's important to set high standards, but the other thing the president is doing is going out and letting the candidates speak for themselves.” Mr. Snow's error is both grammatical and rhetorical. His language is also redundant. What does he add by the phrase “going out”? Nothing but verbiage.

Probably it's not fair to point out these errors, for the occasions during which they were used were impromptu and extemporaneous. But in past years public spokesmen seemed to have been better grounded in grammar, so their off-the-cuff comments were more elegant.

FROM THE MAILBAG I:

Regarding the use of more elegant language by spokesmen of the past, frequent correspondent David Lester e-mailed a list of remarks he called, “When insults had class.” Here are a few:

“I am enclosing two tickets to the first night of my new play; bring a friend . . . if you have one.” George Bernard Shaw to Winston Churchill

“Cannot possibly attend first night; will attend second . . . if there is one.” Winston Churchill, in reply

“He has never been known to use a word that might send a reader to the dictionary.” William Faulkner (about Ernest Hemingway)

“Poor Faulkner, does he really think big emotions come from big words?” Ernest Hemingway (about William Faulkner)

“He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire.” Winston Churchill (about a fellow politician)

FROM THE MAILBAG II:

From West Princeton, Illinois, Attorney Robert F. Russell sent the following e-mail about last month's “Language Tips” column, which discussed the etymology and pronunciation of the word colonel. He wrote, “You used as examples the words through, enough, and bough. After a brief chuckle, it occurred to me that though, cough and thought (or ought) are similar examples of the same phenomenon.” Mr. Russell is right. You may agree when you read the following poem. “The Chaos,” by G. Nolst Trenite (selected lines):

Dearest creature in creation

Studying English pronunciation

I will teach you in my verse

Sounds like corpse, corps, horse, and worse.

I will keep you, Susy, busy,

Make your head with heat go dizzy. . .

• • •

Finally: which rhymes with “enough”

Though, through, plough, cough, hough, or tough?

Hiccough has the sound of “cup.”

My advice is –“Give it up!

Gertrude Block is Lecturer Emerita at the University of Florida College of Law. Her book ,”Legal Writing Advice: Questions and Answers” (William S. Hein & Co., Inc.) was published in December 2004. Ms. Block is also author of “Effective Legal Writing”, 5th Edition (Foundation Press), with an accompanying instructor's manual. She is co-author of the “Judicial Opinion Writing Manual” (published by the American Bar Association, 1991). Send questions to the ISBA Bar News – Language Tips, Illinois State Bar Association, Illinois Bar Center, Springfield, IL 62701, or e-mail her at block@law.ufl.edu.