Complex relative sentences. I already addressed this topic in a video I posted some months ago. Still, I feel it may be necessary to remind you all of a rather necessary addition to your skill set, which can "raise your game" whenever you need to produce formal, technical or academic texts.
To speakers of Romance languages, English relative sentences pose an irresistible temptation: the sequence "preposition + relative pronoun". A subject such as the person with whom I'm going out is grammatically impeccable, but is often frowned upon in the early stages of language learning. Why? Well, because day-to-day language overwhelmingly favors a different syntax, namely the person I'm going out with. Regardless what old timey grammar books or even native speakers will have you believe, the truth is with whom sounds quite formal.
That said, it is also true that sometimes we don't really have much of a choice. So, the sequence "preposition + relative pronoun" becomes the only realistic option we have. Consider these two sentences:
Past the housing problem hung a gorgeous poster showing a cliff, along whose summit rode a man on a chesnut horse with a rifle slung over his shoulder
At once, too, he would curse heaven for having failed to endow him at birth with literary talent, without which, of course, no one could so much as dream of acquiring a massolit membership card.
I take it you have noticed the unequivocally literary vibe of those two complex sentences. I know. You may relay the same message by dispensing with the relative clause (the part that starts with the text in bold type) and simply starting a new sentence. Is that truly elegant, though? The answer is a resounding no. So, there you go. After years of trying to master those dangling prepositions you are told that your first impulse (the "Romance language" approach) is not only correct but also classy. Feel free to use sequences like these:
That's a prophecy the meaning of which is forever out of reach
The circumstances under which this phenomenon might occur
Finally, I would like to thank Michael Leigh without whose support we would not have managed to come this far
So here we are again. March 8. International Women's Day. What can we say that's remotely new and relevant to a course of English as a Foreign Language? Nothing I haven't said a hundred times before. Still, allow me to reiterate some platitudes.
When it comes to discussing languages and gender issues, I believe something must be distinctly understood. Every language is, in essence, a set of conventions. So, any given tongue is whatever its speakers want it to be and the choices made in a particular era makes tend to mirror the standards of that specific time in history. Unsurprisingly, a language that developed in a society to which horses were central may logically contain quite a few horse-related metaphors and one in which religion played a dominant role should include a lot of religious references. Just consider the realm of greetings and think of the words adieu in French and adiós in Spanish. They both mean "to god". And they are not exceptions. In English, we also refer to god whenever we bid someone farewell:
goodbye is basically a hurried version of "god be with you"
godspeed (now old-fashioned) means "may God cause you to prosper"
So, does the use of those words make you religious? I hardly think so. Many "secular" speakers still say Oh my god! even if they don't believe in any sort of deity. The word is simply part of the history of the language. For similar reasons, many non-sexist speakers may still use words which are (at least etymologically) slightly sexist. Take the adjective hysteric as an example.It obviously refers to a woman's uterus. Yes. The Greek term hysteria means exactly that: "womb", "uterus". The rationale behind that term was that only women could be overemotional and unstable. I know. It's now kind of toe-curling. Yet, we find many similar cases. The verb manhandle, which means "to treat someone roughly", assumes that only men do that, not women. The noun manslaugher, which refers to an unintentional homicide, also seems to assume that only men are capable of such an act. So these words are "etymologically sexist".
All that said, it stands to reason that an egalitarian society should reflect that particular ethos in its very language. Therefore the English which is spoken now should be less discriminatory than it used to be. So let's forget "etymological sexism" for a while and think of present day language usage.
You have an obligation to try and be sensitive to language transformation. If only because what feels "inappropriate" is usually "unacceptable". And I'm not talking about the dreaded PC culture, which started out fine but and has been known to defeat its purpose in some respects. No. I'm referring to forms of expression that simply feel out of step with the times. The sentence somebody has left his umbrella, for example, sounds dated and inaccurate to me. My reaction here is not political or ideological at all. It's simply practical. Why should I assume that the person who left the umbrella in question is a man? Likewise, the phrase the man in the street, (meaning an average person) also feels quite sexist and dated. I personally refuse to use it because it doesn't make much sense to me. Times change and so does language use. And if you're still not convinced, consider this last example.
Upon setting foot on the Moon in 1969, Neil Armstrong famously uttered the line "a small step for a man a giant leap for mankind" and while the wordplay man/mankind may have been inspired, many of us feel now that humankind, a word coined in 1560 by the way, would have aged significantly better. I know. I know. It's not fair to pass judgment on past events by using present-day criteria. The 1960s were different. Back then, a female astronaut stepping onto the surface of the Mars would have seemed preposterous. Yet, that's exactly what the Netflix series Away (2020) presents in its first season finale. Watching that scene doesn't strike me as artificial or contrived in any shape or form. Today's zeitgeist is simply quite different from that of 50 years ago and our word choices should also describe that reality.
As English learners you should all be sensitive to the times we're living in and be ready to make appropriate choices. We are in the process of establishing the expressions that will be standard in the future.
I am aware that foreign students don't exactly have a horse in this race. They are expected to listen and follow suit. Still, certain novelties should not surprise them because we know from experience that some changes can happen from top to bottom. Some... Remember the ill-fated pronoun thon? It was suggested as a gender-neutral alternative to he and she in 1858. Needless to say, it didn't catch on. Why? Well, speakers rejected it. That's why. Is it going to be embraced by those who claim to be "woke" (to use the parlance of our times)? Only time will tell. Nevertheless we should not forget that dramatic changes do occur from time to time. At the end of the 19th century, thou was still used as the preferred pronoun for the second person singular. Then you came along and English grammar was forever changed.
When it comes to gender issues, the options depens on personal preference, that is to say, style. Personally I think we ought to be logical. In a situation in which gender is irrelevant or simply unknown we should use pronouns that do not favor any gender. You may, for example say someone left his or her umbrella or someone left their umbrella orsomeone left an umbrella. There are no hard and fast rules. Speakers make changes happen. Just remember that your choices may also help shape the future.
