Peter Bissmire

19-08-08

Not all they teach you about language is true

To dangle or not to dangle

During the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, when schools were obsessed with rules, it became fashionable to condemn dangling prepositions. Unfortunately, it has, for many centuries, been an English peculiarity that certain prepositions, in certain circumstances, come last, not first. "For what are you waiting?" is not natural English. We say, "What are you waiting for?".

Over the last couple of decades, it has become fashionable to regard dangling prepositions as obligatory. This is just as stupid as forbidding them and leads to such abominations as "...the car in which he was riding in." or "...the man who I gave it to..." being regularly heard on the BBC.

The rule should be If you've already got your preposition in or if dangling leads to overweighting, e.g. to 'for' sounding like 'four', 'to' becoming 'too' or 'in' turning into 'inn', then don't dangle. Otherwise, do what comes naturally. For further discussion and examples, see the Oxford Dictionary of English Usage, H.W. Fowler, revised by Sir Ernest Gowers, to* which Jacob Rees-Mogg should have referred instead of issuing his masterfully misguided pontifications.

It is my belief that the compulsion to dangle arises largely from:
1. An inability to distinguish phrasal verbs; to switch on is a phrasal verb ('on' used adverbially), to refer to is not.
2. A wish to avoid using which, who, whose and whom — for correct usage see the ODEU.

* this 'to' is an example of one that, when delayed (i.e. dangled), only makes the result uglier. Personally, I would rather you didn't. If you can't resist dangling, its proper delayed position is between 'referred' and 'instead' - not, for heaven's sake, at the end of the sentence.

What is a vowel?

We are persistently taught that the only vowels are a, e, i, o and u. In many languages using the Latin alphabet in its modern version, this is bunkum.

The point is best made by considering what is a consonant. Consonants are pronounced by interfering with airflow in some way. There is no way that, in English, this applies to the sounds represented by the letters w and y. These are generally parts of diphthongs. W is the equivalent of oo pronounced as in 'book', y, unless terminal, is the equivalent of i pronounced as in 'hit' and terminal y (not part of a diphthong) is the equivalent of a short ee pronounced as in 'three'.

Most native English speakers would instinctively pronounce 'iapetus' in the same way as 'yapetus'. Americans might tend to say 'eye-apetus' but they do often have a peculiar outlook when in doubt. Many "authorities" insist that, in 'yes', y is used as a consonant. Rubbish! The only problem is that, presented with 'ies', many would try to make it a single vowel as in 'enemies' or a diphthong as in 'flies'. I leave further consideration of w to the reader, just drawing attention to 'oo-ood' as a parting shot.

The Oxford, serial or Harvard comma

This refers to to the insistence by certain "authorities" that the penultimate item in a list must be followed by a comma despite the presence of a following 'and' or 'or'.

I refer again to the Oxford Dictionary of English Usage. In general, since the commas separating the items in a list are substitutes for 'and' or 'or', the Oxford comma amounts to redundant repetition of the conjunction. To that extent, we can support Jacob R-M. However, there are cases where an Oxford comma is essential for clarity.

Suppose that we have a list of companies of which the last two are:
Procter and Gamble
and
Harland and Wolff.
If we do not insert an Oxford comma - ...Proctor and Gamble, and Harland and Wolff - it is not clear which names are paired together.
There was (is?) a law that declares an exemption for:
The... ...storing, packing for shipment or distribution of: (1) Agricultural produce; (2) Meat and fish products; and (3) Perishable foods.
Without an Oxford comma or an extra 'for', we cannot tell whether this covers:
packing for shipment or for distribution
or
packing for shipment, or distribution.
This particular omission led to a $10 million law suit.
We can also note the inclusion of an "Oxford semicolon".

Some might say that, in view of the above, it is safer to insert an Oxford comma even where not needed. However, I have seen cases where this, too, can lead to ambiguity. Better assume that there is no safe ground and always navigate with care.

Finally, note that, in other contexts, 'and' can be preceded or followed by an interjection and therefore necessarily have a comma before or after it. "No comma before/after and", as reported in the press, is a totally inadequate and therefore bad rule.