ENGLISH AND POLITICS

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 77, Issue 6998, 3 December 1948, Page 5

ENGLISH AND POLITICS

GRAMMAR IN PARLIAMENT

INFERENCE AND IMPLICATION

We all come across words from time to time in our reading which we are seldom called upon to pronounce aloud, comments Clyde Carr, M.P. in an article published in an issue of tne “Listener.” If the occasion to do so does arise we may be caught napping—“It is not Homer nods but we that dream.” I have heard a V.i.F. qjty “We are living in momentious times,” and another, “Some fortuitious circumstance might arise.” Ministers of the Crown are such busy people that they may be excused for dotting an imaginary “i.” » I have even heard a GovernorGeneral use a wrong word. Lesemajesty, what! He said in praise of something or othei- that it was “quite unexceptional” which would mean, in Yankee parlance, just plumb ornery. What His Excellency meant to say was, “quite unexceptionable” or above criticism.

But rank-and-file politicians are no better. There are certain irritating habits abroad. These appear like epidemics. I don’t know who in the House first gave the indefinite article, “a,” the long sound as in “Kate.” One member actually did that the other day in using the word “another.” Some use the same “long a” sound, and just as wrongly in “says” and “Ute,” which should, of course, be “sez” and “et.”

The same long vowel in “again” and “against” may be allowed to pass, but not in the noun “estimates.” The verb, of course, has its “a” long. One must have some basis of knowledge even to be a pedant. What shall we say of those who sound the “t” in “often” and “soften ? ” Another prevailing error is one of accent. Frequently a member willoffer a few comments, with the emphasis on the second syllable, here again confusing noun with verb. When a man says “high-faluting” for “high-falutin,” would you put it down to pedantry, ignorance or both ? The same question might be addressed to lawyers who use the Latin pronounciation of such terms as “sub judice,” "prima facie,” and the French for “puisine.” Both Ministers and “ordinary” members confuse “eligible” with “illegible.” Here it is not only a matter of accent but of noticing the relative positions of the “e” and the “i.” Incredible is it in these days of reports of Royal Commissions to hear- so many leaving the “s” out of the word “licensing.” Such is not the only respect, I suggest, in which bad habits are so readily followed in Parliament.

Those who might be expected to exercise greater care will be heard to say “partic’ly” and “temporary” when they mean “temporarily.” We may forgive those who stumble over “veterinary” or “veterinarian” (and “statistics” or “statistician.” “Spoliation” is not often used. When so it will frequently be “spoliation.” Less frequently nowadays do we hear “maintainance” for “maintenance.” A member who should know better spoke the other day of “illogigality.” Just a slip, no doubt. Another, a “learned” gentleman, spoke of “somewhat unconscionable delay.” I doubt if unconscionable is capable of qualification.

It might seem unfair to mention the sex of the member who asked the appropriate minister recently “Whether the rural housing difficulties cyild be facilitated.” This reminds me that the form of Notice of Question required in the House is in itself incorrect. “Whether” should only be used where an alternative is offered. The correct introductory word should be “if.”

Where an error prevails outside, it is hardly fair to expect legislators to be without fault, for they are a crosssection of the community. How common it is to say, “1 cannot help but wonder.” That is a sort of double negative. One should rather say. “I cannot but wonder,” or “I cannot help wondering.” Another popular mistake is the use of a plural verb with a singular noun just because a plural comes in between. Here is an example, “A long list of exceptions are available,” instead of “is available.”

An almost endless list of mispronunciations could be given—“recess” and “research” with the accent on the first syllable, instead of on the second; “industry,” “controversy,” “amicable” and many more, with the accent on the second instead of the first; “antithesis” with the accent on the third instead of the second. Shall we conclude for the present with a little argument about the words “infer” and “imply?” A member often charges another with inferring so-and-so, when I should say he implied it. An inference is a purely mental process and not many people lav claim to thought-reading. On the other hand I cannot but admit that when p thing is implied, it is fairly safe to claim that it was inferred. So where are we ? As you were, which so often happens.