Translated material
Where to put the apostrophe?
Activists of the "Green Ink brigade" (GIB) cause others more irritation among others than they really deserve. After all, they belong to the same innocent biological species as the old women who are sticking their nose into any gap. Such an intelligent elderly lady lives in complete solitude and spends all day, looking out into the street from behind the curtain. But thanks to its vigilance, the police will catch a gang of dairy carriers, or perhaps worse than someone else's cars. The other is the same curious first to see that the curtain in her window stopped fluttering, that is, the old Grymza was grabbed by Kondrat. In short, such people are usually very unpleasant, but they often first notice that something is wrong somewhere. The same can be said about our friends from GIB.
I have every reason to competently talk about these things. Anyone who works on the radio is fed up on the throat of his share of letters from GIB. And if you dare to write a book about English, then it is better to immediately change the address, otherwise you will simply wash you off the flow of waste paper. Yes, these harassment bring to madness. The green inkwell will certainly notice all the mistakes. Many other readers will not miss them either, but it is GIB that is not too lazy to sit at the table and write a letter. If one of GIB is now reading these notes, I inform you - I know that the first edition of my last book brought one outstanding academician the Nobel Prize. What is not known to me is why she slipped past me, my editor, corrector and so on. But it happened. Thank you for indicating to me, but please, stop writing letters.
I do not get tired of wondering how David Crystal manages to do so many things. He, perhaps, wrote more books about English than anyone from those living on this earth - this alone could make him a favorite target for fanatics from GIB. However, his fate excites me even more when I see what is written in these books. As he hopes to get rid of GIB, when he dares to speak, for example, with the following statement: he is supposedly sure that the apostrophs standing in place do not necessarily pose a serious threat.
When he sees the “Potato's” plate on a vegetable shop, he is in no hurry to grab the revolver - he coldly states that in the XVIII century this spelling would be absolutely acceptable. Moreover, he imprints, in the 21st century this spelling is also absolutely acceptable, since he fulfills his main task - leaves no room for ambiguity. Everyone understands that the end in this word corresponds to the multiple number for the reasonable reason for everyone that the potato is deprived of the right to possess something, and therefore cannot be put in an attractive case.
Try to imagine how this heresy will respond in GIB circles. Before us is a scientist, the academician, apparently, is the most respected expert in the English language in our English -speaking country - and now, he tells us that the famous Lynn of the tracks (and therefore all the other pedans of our state), you see, is in error. And he goes on. He compares people who are pompous about the language and take the courage to solve language problems, with those specialists who, in case of malfunctions, repair our cars, and concludes that the linguistic workshop copes with their work much worse than auto mechanics. There are such craftsmen, he says, who, without any special preparation, dare to write entire guidelines for the "repair and operation of the language", and even suggest that others will follow their recommendations in life.
Professor Crystal devotes a special place in his book that breed of experts who revere a good half of the population with "linguistic criminals." They believe in the catechism in the small set of rules that they themselves managed to learn. They condemn everyone else who did not have such opportunities for self -education and who do not follow their favorite rules. "As in the Stalinist political structure, they are supporters of the principle of absolute intolerance and seek to get out of all traces of non -standard behavior."
Well, well, calmer, professor! Suppose Lynn tracks will protect itself, without needing my support. Behind her there is a couple of millions of loyal readers, and she would only whistle, they will all come to the rescue. But, frankly, I also never considered myself a Stalinist, although sinful with harsh comments on those who violate some basic rules, too lazy to learn them at one time. The thing is what rules.
The attentive reader probably noticed that I would not disdain the proposals from the unions, but to end with pretexts. In this regard, I am completely on the side of one character from a fresh joke, which they told me when I wrote my last book. So, one young man from the southern hinterland went through a scholarship competition in Harvard. On the first day, he approaches a couple of elegant old -timers. "Hello, can you say where is the library here?" (The question is compiled in the vernacular manner and ends with the pretext of "AT".) In response, he hears the contemptuous: "In Harvard, we try not to end the proposal on the preposition." “O'Kay,” answers the unperturbed beginner, thinks for a moment, and then repeats his question exactly, but adds at the end a delicious swearing word.
This joke demonstrates a great understanding of the English language, as well as fair contempt for linguistic snobbery. Nevertheless, I see neither snobbery nor Stalinism in attempts to defend a "system protected from chaos of meaningless actions." And such a system should be based on at least a few solid rules.
Crystal began to engage in English more than half a century ago. His knowledge in this subject is not comparable with mine. However, by the time I quit school at the age of 15, they managed to teach me the basic fundamental rules of grammar there, and this was enough for me (after I gave up a little about age) to get work in a local newspaper. That was my beginning.
I wrote my book mainly because a whole generation of kids in our country was deprived of elementary knowledge in this area. Some idiots clothed with authority, based on idiotic reasons, decided that children should not be taught grammar. It seemed to someone that this discipline limits the development of their imagination. In fact, everything is quite the opposite - knowledge of grammar gives us strength and freedom.
In the light of all that has been said, I confirm that the last book of Professor Crystal is a pleasant and useful reading for everyone who is interested in their native language. The professor calmly admits that some thoughts of this book have already appeared in his early works. But here he took already familiar ideas and reformulated them with an emphasis on the question “how”, and not “what” and “why”. At least 72 chapters begin here with the word "how" - starting with how we pronounce speech sounds, and ending with how the letter differs from oral speech and how children learn to transmit "meaning".
They say that a three -year -old child has an active dictionary with a volume of at least 2000 words. I hope that in one of the future books the professor will pay attention to my own favorite theory - it is based on extensive research, including observations of my own child. According to this theory, children have an instinctive understanding of grammar. Then, over the years, a fair part of this knowledge is lost somewhere. How else can it be explained that at the age of three, my son builds phrases with an extremely correct word of words and does not even think of making any of the adult mistakes that are common among adults. Of course, maybe he is just a genius, and the next David Crystal will grow out of it, but I believe that there are more prosaic explanations.
Let's hope that we still have new books by Professor Crystal. This person is our national treasure. Only in the end, another warning - in the text I noticed several incorrectly set apostrophes. I am afraid that they will not pass unnoticed by GIB. So wait for letters, professor!