Re: [escepticos] La importancia de la gramática en el hogar

[Inés G.A.T.]

2013/9/12 Carlos Ungil <carlos.ungil en bluewin.ch>

> Our Own Modern English Usage
> James Thurber
> The New Yorker
> (August 17, 1929)
>
> The importance of correct grammar in the home can not be over-estimated.
> Two young people should make sure that each is rhetorically sound before
> they get married, because grammatical precision, particularly in mood, is
> just as important as anything else. Rhetoric and sex, in fact, are so
> closely related that when one becomes confused they both become confused.


(Inés)
Me ha gustado mucho, Carlos, me ha hecho reir y hasta me ha aclarado algún
asunto gramatical, gracias por citar este artículo.
Si alguna vez mi marido se presentara en casa sospechando que hay algún
Mr.Spangrell en el armario, ya sé que hay que prestar atención al modo.


> Take the subjunctive. Fowler, in his book on modern English usage, says
> the subjunctive is dying, but adds that there are still a few truly living
> uses, which he groups under "Alives, Revivals, Survivals, and Arrivals."
> Curiously enough, he leaves out Departures, which it seems to me are just
> as important as Arrivals. Let us examine the all too common domestic
> situation where the husband arrives just after another gentleman has
> departed -- or just after he thinks another gentleman has departed
> (Suppositional Departures lead to just as much bitterness, and even more
> subjunctives, than Actual Departures).
>
> The wife, in either case, is almost sure to go into the subjunctive --
> very likely before any accusation is made. Among the most common
> subjunctives which she will be inclined to use are those of indignation and
> hauteur, such as "Be that as it may," "Far be it from me," etc. For the
> moment, she is safe enough in the subjunctive, because her husband has
> probably gone into it, too, using "Would God I were," "If there be
> justice," and so on. Wives select the subjunctive usually because it is the
> best mood in which to spar for time, husbands because it lends itself most
> easily to ranting and posturing. As long as they both stay in it they are
> safe. Misunderstandings are almost certain to arise, however, when the
> husband goes into the indicative, as he is pretty sure to do. He usually
> does this preparatory to dismissing his suspicions, a step toward which
> every husband is impelled by his natural egotism. First he will begin with
> a plain past-tense indicative if-clause -- just to show that he knows who
> the man is -- prior to dismissing him.
>
> "If George Spangrell was here," the husband will begin, lighting a
> cigarette, "I . . . ."
>
> "Well, what would you do if he were?" demands the wife.
>
> The confusion, which begins at this point, is pretty intricate. The
> husband has gone into the indicative, but his wife has stayed in the
> subjunctive and, furthermore, she thinks that he is still there, too. Thus
> she thinks he intended to say: "If George Spangrell was here [that is, now]
> I would tell him what I think of him, the low scoundrel." There is no
> excuse for a wife prematurely imputing such a suspicion or such a
> rhetorical monstrosity to her husband. What he probably intended to say was
> merely something like this: "If George Spangrell was here, I wouldn't like
> it, but of course I know he wasn't, dear." However, misunderstandings now
> begin to pile up. The husband is instantly made suspicious by her "What
> would you do if he were?" He considers her "were" tantamount to "is." (This
> quick-tempered construction, of course, makes the "would" in his wife's
> sentence ridiculous, for, had she meant "is" instead of "were," she would
> have substituted "will" for "would.") The situation is much too involved
> now, however, for the husband to make an effort to parse anything. He
> instantly abandons all grammatical analysis, and begins to look about,
> peering into the wardrobe, swishing under beds with a cane or umbrella.
>
> His wife now has the advantage of him, not only in mood, but in posture. A
> woman must naturally view with disdain and contempt any man who is down on
> all fours unless he has taken that position for the purpose of playing
> horse with some children -- an extenuation which we need not discuss here.
> To meet her on even terms, the husband should walk, not crawl, from
> wardrobe to chaise longue, using the mandatory subjunctive in a firm voice,
> as follows: "If anyone be in (or under) there, let him come out!" ["Come
> out" is better here than "emerge" because stronger, but a husband should
> not fall into the colloquial "Come on out of that!" He may, however, if he
> so wishes, address the gentleman, whether he be present or not, as
> "Spangrell" but never "Mr. Spangrell" (Hypocritical Dignification) and
> certainly never as "George" -- the use of the given name being in extreme
> bad taste where no endearment is intended.]
>
> The wife of course will resent all these goings-on, and the quarrel that
> results will probably last late into the night.
>
> There are several ways to prevent a situation like this. In the first
> place, when a husband says "was" a wife should instantly respond with
> "wasn't" at its face value, because it preserves their egotism and
> self-respect. On the other hand, "if . . . were" is always dangerous.
> Husbands have come to know that a wife's "if . . . were" usually means that
> what she is presenting as purely hypothetical is, in reality, a matter of
> fact. Thus, if a wife begins, one evening after an excellent dinner, "Dear,
> what would you do, if I were the sort of woman who had, etc.," her husband
> knows full well that it is going to turn out that she is the sort of woman
> who has. Husbands are suspicious of all subjunctives. Wives should avoid
> them. Once a woman has "if . . . were'd" a Mr. Spangrell, her husband is,
> nine times out of ten, going to swish under the chaise longue. Even if he
> finds no one, the situation becomes extremely awkward, and there is of
> course always the plaguey hundredth chance that he may discover a strange
> cane or pair of gloves.
>
> The best of all ways out is for the husband to go instantly into the
> future indicative and say, with great dignity, "I shall go down to the
> drugstore." Ordinarily, his wife would reply, "Oh, no you won't," but with
> all the doubt and suspicion in the air, she will be inclined to humor him
> and let him have his way. She is certain to, if Spangrell is in the clothes
> hamper.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Escepticos mailing list
> Escepticos en dis.ulpgc.es
> http://correo.dis.ulpgc.es/mailman/listinfo/escepticos
>
>


-- 
Inés G.A.T.