That, which, who

The use of the correct relative pronoun is one that used to be extremely important – if you wanted to speak and write correct English – but it has tended to excite less wrath from the pedants, if used incorrectly, in recent years. 

We are talking here about “that”, “which” and “who/whom”. In general terms, “that” should be used to refer to persons, animals and things, “which” to animals and things, and “who/whom” to persons. 

The basic rule is that “that” should be used to define the meaning or intention of the preceding word or phrase, as in “the book that I put on the shelf was a novel by Dickens”, whereas “which” would be used when the identifying information has already been supplied, as in “The novel by Dickens, which I put on the shelf, was far too long for me.” 

The use of “which” implies that you are referring to a specific item as opposed to another one, but this is not universal – “that” is often used in such a context. 

You can use “that” for persons when any member of a defined group is being referred to, and “who” when it is a particular person. Examples here might be: “People that live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones” and “Bert, who lives in a glass house, threw a stone.” In British English, it is common to use “who” in preference to “that” when there is uncertainty, but Americans tend to prefer “that”. 

It has to be said that the use of these relative pronouns is dying out in some quarters, and if omitting one does not change the meaning of a sentence, then there is nothing wrong in doing so. However, there are occasions when confusion can be avoided by including one. 

Consider this example: “Mr Jones said yesterday some shares fell rapidly”. This could mean either that he said this yesterday or that the shares fell yesterday. The ambiguity can be avoided very easily by placing “that” either before or after “yesterday”. 

In the interest of not using more words than necessary to make one’s meaning clear, omitting that/which/who should be encouraged – but only when the meaning really is clear. 

As to using “that” or “which”, it depends on how precise you want to be. A general principle of modern grammar should be that a difference that makes no difference is not a difference worth too much bother!

© John Welford

Trial by combat

Back in 2002 a man in Suffolk (England) named Leon Humphreys came up with an interesting idea for settling his dispute with the DVLA (Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency), who accused him of not notifying them when he took his 125cc motorcycle off the road and did not re-licence it.

This is an offence, and the DVLA took him to court so that his local magistrates could levy the appropriate fine. However, Mr Humphreys objected that this was a flagrant breach of his human rights and that he would settle the matter as his ancestors would have done, namely according to the medieval rules of Trial by Combat.

Back in Norman times it was believed that the victor in a judicial combat had God on his side and must therefore be in the right.

Mr Humphreys suggested that the DVLA should put up a candidate to fight him, and he offered that the weapons in question could be samurai swords, Gurkha knives or blacksmiths’ hammers. However, he did also point out that the fight would be to the death.

Not surprisingly, Mr Humphreys did not get his way. The magistrates suggested that, if he was correct in his claim that trial by combat was still on the statute book, he would need to produce the statute in question. Unless or until he did so, he would be required to pay a fine of £200 plus £100 costs.

© John Welford

Evolution is not "only a theory"

People who try to discredit the theory of evolution, preferring instead to rely on the Book of Genesis, will often say: “But it’s only a theory”. The implication is that it is unreliable and unproven and thus no more worthy of trust than the creationist view that they espouse.

However, what they are doing is misunderstanding what the word “theory” means. To them, something that is a theory is, by definition, “theoretical”. It is a back of the envelope idea, something thought up as an explanation that is no more than a thought and without any firm evidence to back it up. Another word meaning the same thing would be “hypothesis”.

That is indeed one meaning of “theory” but it is not the only meaning. To a scientist, a theory is a set of ideas that constitutes an explanation of how something works. It is the next stage beyond the hypothesis because it incorporates the evidence that any reasonable person would accept. It is the generally accepted account of the phenomenon in question, incorporating the laws and principles that govern what is known and observed.

There are many theories of the latter kind. The theory of gravity is one such, in that it is an explanation of how large masses exert attractive forces on smaller masses. Another is the heliocentric theory that describes how the sun sits at the centre of the solar system and the planets move round it in their orbits.

Neither of these theories can be described as unproven hypotheses, although this might well have been the case some centuries ago. When Galileo advanced the heliocentric theory of Copernicus he was thought to be a dangerous radical whose thinking was disputed because it challenged the teaching of the Church.

The theory of evolution has also been challenged because it is thought in some circles to be contrary to religious teaching. The “only a theory” jibe is therefore thrown at it just as it was at Galileo’s theory.

However, just as the heliocentric theory has moved from the “hypothesis” meaning of the word to that of “accepted explanation”, so has the theory of evolution. The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that it has long moved beyond being a hypothesis, although this was not the case when Charles Darwin first proposed it. It is now a theory that is accepted as fact in the same way that the heliocentric theory or the theory of gravity is accepted as fact.

To say “only a theory” implies that there is something better than a theory, and that if evolution was worth its salt it would be this something else. However, outside the world of mathematics there is nothing better. Absolute proof of anything is impossible unless the terms are defined so rigorously as to be make proof inevitable, as happens with mathematical statements and formulae. In the real world there are plenty of accepted facts, but they are encased in what are conventionally called theories. They are proven for all practical purposes and are therefore completely reliable. There is nothing more factual and reliable that a well-formulated theory, in the non-hypothesis sense, and evolution is one such.

© John Welford

Lie, lay

How often have you heard someone say “I’m going to lay down for a rest”, when they should really have said “lie down”?

The confusion arises because lay can mean either the past tense of lie, or be the transitive verb equivalent of the intransitive verb lie.

Thus: “I will lie here until dinner time”, but “I lay on the bed for an hour after lunch”.

A transitive verb always takes an object, whereas an intransitive verb does not, so that you have to lay something – you can lay the table, or a hen can lay an egg!

An easy way to remember this is: “Lay down the law and lie on the floor”!

 © John Welford

led, lead

A lot of people seem to be getting this wrong these days, usually by writing “lead” when it should be “led” – as in “the path lead me in the wrong direction”.

The confusion comes because “lead” can be pronounced either as “ledd” or “leed”, depending on its meaning. The “ledd” sound is only used when “lead” refers to the grey metal of that name. The “leed” sound is the present tense of “led”.

So correct usages would be:

The lead on the church roof has been stolen.

Does this road lead to Leicester?

He led me astray.

© John Welford

Remembering Benny Diceymus

5^th November is celebrated in the United Kingdom as Bonfire or Guy Fawkes Night, this being the date in 1605 when King James I and Parliament were saved from the dastardly Gunpowder Plot. Guy Fawkes was the plotter who was discovered in charge of the barrels of gunpowder underneath the House of Lords and who subsequently suffered the punishment of being hanged and quartered. 

Despite this grisly form of execution, the custom has been ever since to burn a “guy” on a bonfire, and to let off plenty of fireworks.

When I was a student in the early 1970s at what later became Bangor University in North Wales, there was a much more involved form of celebration, which was known as Benny Diceymus. This went back some years before I arrived, and continued for some time afterwards, but has now been abandoned – probably for health and safety reasons.

During my first and second years at Bangor I had a room at Neuadd Reichel, the oldest of the three men’s halls of residence. This was where Benny Diceymus originated. 

The story began with an error on the part of the Hall Warden, who presided over the formal evening dinners in Hall, at which staff and students were required to wear gowns. Grace was always said before dinner was served, and – this being North Wales – there had been much discussion over whether this should be said in English or Welsh. A compromise was reached and a Latin grace was agreed upon. This included the word “benedicimus”, which means “we commend”. The warden, not being a classical scholar, had no idea how to pronounce this word and so said “Benny Diceymus”.

The students – most of whom would not have not any more idea about this than the warden – promptly declared that Benny had been murdered, or diced, by the warden and so should receive a proper send-off.

This developed over the years into a formal procedure that was presided over by a high priest, a higher priest, who had to be taller than the high priest, and an even higher priest who had to be taller than both of them. Once the obsequies had been observed in the Junior Common Room, Benny’s cardboard coffin was then conveyed to its funeral pyre. 

It was no coincidence that this ceremony took place on 5^th November, because there was clearly a good excuse for building a suitable bonfire. That also led to the possibility of someone else’s bonfire being commandeered for the purpose of burning Benny’s coffin. That was when the true fun started.

Parading the coffin through the streets of Bangor was bound to attract attention, not to mention the gathering of extra followers. It also led to students from the other halls of residence doing what they could to stop the procession reaching its intended destination, especially if that destination was their own bonfire that they had intended to light in their own good time.

In other words, what began as a solemn scripted ceremony in Neuadd Reichel JCR often deteriorated into a grand punch-up somewhere on the streets of Bangor. It was usually a fairly good-natured confrontation, but sometimes tempers frayed and a few idiots got carried away and went too far.

The custom of Benny Diceymus as Bangor’s version of Guy Fawkes Night has therefore gone in and out of favour over the years, possibly depending on what the local Police had to say about it. Part of the event included posting an In Memoriam notice in The Times that lamented Benny’s passing, but that has not been present for a number of years. Presumably the students of Bangor now have less violent ways of enjoying themselves every 5^th November.

© John Welford

Either, neither, any

Either (the same applies to the negative form - neither) is used when two objects/situations are being covered, as in “I don’t like either blue or yellow” Any is used when the number of alternatives is greater than two, as in “I don’t like any of these colours”. 

An important thing to note is that either is always followed by or, and neither by nor, so it is “I don’t like either blue or yellow” and “I like neither blue nor yellow”.

A point that can lead to difficulties is that either and neither are singular words, not plurals, so the grammatically correct thing to say/write is “Either you or I am mistaken”, but that does not sound quite right to most people, given that “Either you or I are mistaken” might sound more natural. You can avoid this problem by phrasing it differently, such as “Either you are mistaken or I am”, which sounds perfectly OK – whereas “Either you are mistaken or I are” would clearly be wrong!

And how should you pronounce either/neither? There would seem to be a fairly even split between “eether” and “eyether” – so the choice is yours!

(I am referring in this piece to British English – conventions could be different in other parts of the English-speaking world)

© John Welford

Can, may and might

The words can, may and might all have to do with the possibility of something happening in the future, and the first two can also be used to indicate that permission is being granted for something to happen. But what determines when each of these should and should not be used?

Here are three sentences:

I can go to London
I may go to London
I might go to London

Do they mean exactly the same? Not quite!
The first could mean that it is physically possible for me to go – I have bought a train ticket, for example – whereas the second implies that, although the possibility is there, there is a chance that I won’t go – I could change my mind, for example. Can is therefore more positive than may. The third is nearly identical in meaning to the second, on the assumption that we are only talking about the possibility or probability of going, although may is a more positive word to use in this context.

However, the same words would also suffice to imply that permission has been granted for the trip – in the case of can and may, but not might. In terms of permission granting, there is no real difference between can and may.

There can therefore be confusion as to what is meant in a statement such as: You can open the box. Does this mean that you are physically capable of unlocking it and lifting the lid, or have you been given permission to do so? It could be very important to make this clear, because either interpretation is possible. 

If using the past tense, might does what may does in the present and future tenses: I may go to London tomorrow but I might have gone yesterday. 

When subtle shades of meaning are involved, it is vital to get things like this right! (It is also worth pointing out that can and might have other, completely different, meanings in English, and May is the name of a month. As if this little matter was not complicated enough as it stood!)


© John Welford

Flammable and inflammable

These two words actually mean the same thing, namely that the item being described is liable to burst into flames under certain conditions. Inflammable really means "very flammable", but the two words tend to be used interchangeably. However, it might be thought that "in" implies "non", as it does in words like "independent", which is the opposite of "dependent". Clearly it could be dangerous if the word is misunderstood, so it is safer to avoid using "inflammable" and prefer a clearer expression such as "highly flammable". For the negative, "non-flammable" is the clearest word to use.

© John Welford