Page C2

More Work Next Season

            Winter Near Preston

They came out from Preston where they had read
Leaves full of color went to woodland bed
And while they squinted at the graying sky
Hopes that the winter would be sweet were fed

And when through the clouds the warm sun came calling
Glistening off of the leaves still falling
They were assured their dreams would come true
Increasing frost counted not appalling

Though less through the beautiful snow they roam
And in cabin's warmth over books they comb
A picture perfected by nature's brush
There under infinite sky, peaceful home

If you have an American Heritage Dictionary or one of several other books with commentary on English grammar and usage you perhaps noticed the discouragement of the use of the combination, "off of."     To say "the ball bounced 'off of' the car" means the same as "the ball bounced 'off' the car."  Unnecessary words are considered bad form.     Unnecessary words are not "wrong" or "incorrect grammar" just bad form since they can indicate an inattention to detail.  There may be special circumstances where they provide necessary emphasis or fill the meter of a line of poetry.  It is the mindless use of them that should be avoided.     I agree that unnecesary words should be avoided where possible, however in the context of the above poem the combination is necessary.  "Glistening off the leaves still falling" is not clear.  It could mean the "glistening" discontinued as the leaves fell, perhaps into some shadow.     Standing my ground on the usage I was told that double prepositions must be bad form.  That isn't true, not in any authoritative reference of which I know, and there are examples in good grammar.  "For" is often combined with other prepositions; "up for" re-election, "down for" the count.  Technically when paired you can call the second one the "preposition" which must be adverbial in that case, and the first as either a "separate" adverb or adjective, depending on the use, itself - not a preposition.  But whatever one might choose to call it, the usage is acceptable.     I, along with most authorities, discourage of the use of other unnecessary words, or at least certainly the mindless use of them.  "In between" usually means exactly the same thing as "between" and the extra word should be avoided.  "At" is often used where unnecessary.  "Where it is at" means the same as "where it is."     I heard many say "these ones" at a temporary job I had recently.  It is only necessary to say "these"; it does not require "ones" in that context.     The word "both" is usually not required on first mention especially in journalism where emphasis is ordinarily avoided.  "Mary and Bill were there.  ...  Both wore casual clothes," not "both Mary and Bill," unless some sort of emphasis is required.     In impromptu speech it is often inexpedient to strive for so much polish and words that would seem unnecessary are perhaps more excusable.  Habitual correct usage can improve impromptu speech though.     While on the topic of English usage I would add notes on pronunciation and spelling.     The first person plural possessive pronoun "our" does not rhyme with "bar," "car" or "far."  It most nearly rhymes with such words as "flower" and "tower."     The contraction for "you are" is "you're" and not spelled the same as the second person singular and plural possessive pronoun "your."     The word "there" is an adverb of place, and "their" is the third person plural possessive adjective.     The contraction for "it is" has, as most contractions do, an apostrophe, "it's."  The third person singular possessive pronoun "its" has no apostrophe just like other possessive pronouns "hers," "yours," "ours" and "theirs."     To say "It's I, it's he or it's she" rather than "It's me, it's him or it's her" has long been considered correct on the grounds that there is a profound difference between verbs of action and verbs of being.  With verbs of action there is usually a doer and a receiver of the action.  With verbs of being there is no receiver, no "object," no action.  In the sentence, "It is I," The word "I" is the predicate nominative.  It is in the nominative case because "It" is in the nominative case and is identical with "I," It=I.     Indeed with verbs of action the doer and receiver can also be the same entity, but in that situation a reflexive pronoun is used.  "She cut herself" is correct not "She cut her" it being necessary to recognize that doer and receiver are one with such verbs since they usually are not.  There does seem to remain an understanding of that much.  Widespread misuse of the objective case with verbs of being appears to be the result of mistaking mere position for case.  I was disappointed to see the Oxford dictionary's pronouncement on the use of "I or me" dodged, avoided the issue of verbs of being.     With computer use removing spaces from quite many words and expressions to suit their recognition of delimiters a review of the meaning of critical spaces becomes helpful.     There is a significant difference in meaning between "any one" and "anyone." "Any one can join" means only one can join, though it doesn't matter which. "Anyone can join" means one or more can join, again no matter which.     Such a difference in meaning is not always obtained. There is no consensus on a difference in meaning between "everyday" and "every day." Some would like a word that means "ordinary" but not also "every day." That would unfortunately require a unified effort by the word police and there are none. So long as "daily" is an accepted meaning for "everyday" as in Oxford, there appears no point in having different parts of speech or special spellings where no difference in meaning appears. Interchangeability seems inevitable.

© MCMXC by Arlon Ryan Staywell

The Town Voice Home | Poetry Index C1 | C2 | C3