The Alities: lamenting the loss of grammar
It is my first semester at the University of Maryland, College Park, and as a budding English major, I am attending a class entitled Structural Grammar. It is a challenging concept for one steeped in more traditional notions of English grammar taught with prep school precision, not to mention six years of Latin grammar under my belt. A noun is no longer "the name of a person, place or thing." In fact a noun is no longer a noun -- it is a "nominal". Nominals are words which function in the grammatical place of a traditional noun, i.e., words which occupy the place of a subject. "Objectives" are words which occupy the place of a traditional noun when used as predicates or objects of prepositions, etc. Most importantly, verbs are no longer action words, nor are they verbs. In lieu of verbs we are introduced to "verbals", words which occupy the place of traditional verbs and which express actions. With verbals, for example, one can "engine" a car, i.e., drive a car. Next we are taught about "modifiers". No longer do adjectives modify nouns and pronouns, nor do adverbs modify verbs. Modifiers, the instructor insists, are any words which occupy the place of, or perform the function of, a traditional adjective or adverb. The stated purpose of this new system of grammar is to bring to language the distinctions well known between lexicons which prescribe the usage of words, and those which describe the usage of words. We are taught to look at the patterns of speech and writing and ask if "meaning is conveyed", if one can understand what is being said or written, and if so, then to analyze the same and describe the patterns. All forms of speech and writing are considered to be correct as long as the goal of transferring meaning is met.
Although I think the course is a bit silly, it is highly recommended for English majors by my academic advisor, one Dr. Esther Birdsall, and I take my lessons seriously. I do understand the underlying cultural context of the system -- to suggest that all forms of communication are equal and that no one should fail to advance in society just because she or he has not enjoyed the benefits of a more formal, classical education. In order to get an honor grade at least one extra-class meeting is required with the instructor who is, as I recall, a very nice if not particularly profound man. When he places his hand on my leg while examining a particular sentence to be sure I understand how properly to parse same, I begin to realize that there is something more to structural grammar than meets the eye, but that is another story. I largely ignore the principles of structural grammar after achieving my desired honor grade. In fact, I do not think about it much until recently when finally my ears can no longer tolerate the "alities" of life, let alone the apparent success of the principles of structural grammar in our society, to wit, the demise of classical English grammar. The "alities" you say. What "alities"? Since I am by profession a clergyman, I submit the following paragraph written from the prospective of one interested in theology. It amply demonstrates my point.
My speciality is pondering the directionality of our commonality. The reality is that the casuality of spirituality feeds the mission criticality which drives the physicality of mentality. If performed with intentionality, the phenomenality of educationality will result in a partiality for the functionality of culturality.
Now, I am the first to admit that I am less than perfect in my speaking and writing. I am certain that my eighth grade English teacher, Miss Dibert, still shakes her head in utter disbelief when I write. Additionally, I am interested in the societal ramifications of how we use language and how best to eliminate culturally based discrimination of all kinds. Nonetheless, I am reminded of the words of the immortal Henry Higgins who sings, as I recall, “how an Englishman speaks absolutely classifies him.”
Does “specialty” have more power when described as “speciality”? Does athleticism take on more meaning when described as “physicality”? When did intentionality replace purpose? Is there something about the word, “function” which is enhanced by using “functionality” in its stead? How long have we been “dehungarizing” with Snickers? Why are critical missions now “mission critical”? What on earth is a workload optimized server? (Please do not write with an answer to that rhetorical question – I do know what is a powerful computer.)
Perhaps I am just getting too old-ality.
Although I think the course is a bit silly, it is highly recommended for English majors by my academic advisor, one Dr. Esther Birdsall, and I take my lessons seriously. I do understand the underlying cultural context of the system -- to suggest that all forms of communication are equal and that no one should fail to advance in society just because she or he has not enjoyed the benefits of a more formal, classical education. In order to get an honor grade at least one extra-class meeting is required with the instructor who is, as I recall, a very nice if not particularly profound man. When he places his hand on my leg while examining a particular sentence to be sure I understand how properly to parse same, I begin to realize that there is something more to structural grammar than meets the eye, but that is another story. I largely ignore the principles of structural grammar after achieving my desired honor grade. In fact, I do not think about it much until recently when finally my ears can no longer tolerate the "alities" of life, let alone the apparent success of the principles of structural grammar in our society, to wit, the demise of classical English grammar. The "alities" you say. What "alities"? Since I am by profession a clergyman, I submit the following paragraph written from the prospective of one interested in theology. It amply demonstrates my point.
My speciality is pondering the directionality of our commonality. The reality is that the casuality of spirituality feeds the mission criticality which drives the physicality of mentality. If performed with intentionality, the phenomenality of educationality will result in a partiality for the functionality of culturality.
Now, I am the first to admit that I am less than perfect in my speaking and writing. I am certain that my eighth grade English teacher, Miss Dibert, still shakes her head in utter disbelief when I write. Additionally, I am interested in the societal ramifications of how we use language and how best to eliminate culturally based discrimination of all kinds. Nonetheless, I am reminded of the words of the immortal Henry Higgins who sings, as I recall, “how an Englishman speaks absolutely classifies him.”
Does “specialty” have more power when described as “speciality”? Does athleticism take on more meaning when described as “physicality”? When did intentionality replace purpose? Is there something about the word, “function” which is enhanced by using “functionality” in its stead? How long have we been “dehungarizing” with Snickers? Why are critical missions now “mission critical”? What on earth is a workload optimized server? (Please do not write with an answer to that rhetorical question – I do know what is a powerful computer.)
Perhaps I am just getting too old-ality.
Comments