By Salisu Yusuf

As against the traditional definition of grammar, English grammar is a mixture of arbitrary and non-arbitrary, logical and illogical rules that are fused to form a language that was hitherto made up of some feuding tribal groups (Angles, Jutes and Saxons). It was around the 14th century, when the Renaissance started, that many linguistic and literary forms and areas were borrowed from Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, French, Spanish, etc, to swiftly form a language that would be used to conquer the world.

English grammar is full of arbitrary and illogicalities that are used as rules governing language use.

The inconsistency of English grammar is vivid in tense formations. For example, the three broad English tenses are further subclassed into 12. Each one delineates a form of the verb that allows you to express a specific time. But the English language has bizarrely many different ways of forming future references. While, for example, “he has…” and “he had…” express two incongruous tenses, the following 5 sentences express one thing, one idea and one tense:

1. The man will take off in 2 minutes.

2. The man will be taking off in 2 minutes.

3. The man is going to take off in 2 minutes.

4. The man is taking off in 2 minutes.

5. The man takes off in 2 minutes.

Has your language such bizarre ways of expressing the same idea from different tenses fused in one tense?

While the auxiliary verbs such as have, has, had, etc attract past form of a verb, the past modal auxiliaries such as could, would, should and might ironically attract the present forms of a verb:

 He had arrived before you came.

 He could arrive before you.

What an incongruity!

There’s no grammatical environment where the rules of agreements are flouted as in the use of idiomatic expressions. For example, the rule of specification in the use of definite and indefinite articles is sometimes dropped in favour of the arbitrary. For instance, nouns and adjectives take articles depending on the environment. But many idiomatic expressions do not leave rooms for articles:

 He is second to last.✔️

 He is second to the last.❌

 Moreover, idioms such as “it is high time..” and “it is time..” bizarrely take past forms of a verb whenever they are used though they express the present context:

 It is high time we spent the night there.✔️

 It is time he was jailed.✔️

 Sometimes, two similar idioms can be at variance with a slight change in an article. For example, the following sentences express two opposite meanings:

 1. Musa had been the shadow on Abdu’s shoulders during their undergraduate days.

 2. Musa is a shadow of his former self.

While the first means that Musa was so intelligent that he was Abdu’s rival at the university, the second one expresses that Musa is no longer as formidable as he was.

English grammar becomes arbitrary under the notional concord. Notional Concord refers to the agreement of verbs with their subjects on the basis of meaning rather than grammatical form. For example, each of the following quantifiers takes a different rule when it’s used: while “a number of..” takes a plural verb, “the number of..” arbitrarily takes a singular verb: 

 A number of students are missing.✔️

 The number of students is missing.✔️

Similarly, in the use of a “catenative verb”(denoting a verb that governs a series of verbs in a sentence), two or more verbs can appear in different forms. Another can follow a verb in past form in continuous or even base form:

 I saw her complain.✔️

 I saw her complaining.✔️

 I saw her complained.❌

 What a grammatical anomaly!

Conditional tenses clearly expose the incongruity of English grammar. For example, the first conditional tense looks more futuristic than present in their expressions, yet the “if ..” clause uses habitual tense(if you come..), and third person singular marker (if he comes..). But why should a future reference be used with elements of “s” inflexion exhibiting presentness?

The second conditional tense(which expresses unrealistic situations) daringly expresses the grammatical incongruity: “If you, we, he, she, they were..” is used in all the categories of pronouns and nouns. Here, classifications such as first, second and third-person singular and plural are immaterial! 

Under subject/verb concord, he, she, it, Musa, Binta is used in expressing habitual tense aspects using “s” or “es” inflection but I is not used in this pattern. He/she is used with “has” but I is used with “have”. He, she, it is used with “is” but I is used with “am”. You(second person plural), we, they are used with “are” yet “you”(second person singular) is also used with “are”. But you, we, they, he, she, it is used with “might have..”. Why not he, she, it ” might has..”? English grammar is so funny and complex! 

In plural/singular formations, the rule is sometimes arbitrary. For example, boy, girl, friend form their plural with an “s” inflection. Yet, ox(oxen), child (children), etc, are oddly different.

Why, then, is English so complex in its grammar, phonetics and phonology?

First, English is the child of partible paternity (many fathers)as Jute, Norman, Angle, and Saxon have all contributed their semen in the bearing and formation of what would later become English.

Secondly, English is the most subjugated language, with huge borrowing from Danish, Scandinavia, Latin, Greek, German, French, Arabic, Hindi, etc. No language enjoys huge borrowing as English does.

 Even the so-called 8 English Parts of Speech belonged to the Greek, not English grammar. This is why there are lots of incongruous rules. This is why “boy” is a noun but “beautiful” is not a noun but an adjective. Yet “beautiful” has all the qualifications of a noun. A table with a flat top and 4 legs is not called an adjective, but beautiful, an abstract quality is called an adjective.  This is why you have rules such as “he, she is..” but not “I is..” but “am”. These parts of speech are adopted from Greek grammar.

 The above and many more reasons are what make the English language have the hardest spelling system, pretty difficult pronunciation, a high number of sounds and sound shifts, etc.

The logic is that he is he, she is she, but I is not I, you is not you, but I am.. and you are… While she HAS the book, I ought also HAS the book. But it says I have… While we are we, they are they, but why you is not you, they say you are you not you is you.

 This grammar is illogical!

 Salisu Yusuf wrote from Katsina via salisuyusuf111@gmail.com.

ByAdmin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

WordPress › Error

There has been a critical error on this website.

Learn more about troubleshooting WordPress.