Health matters

By Zhang Xin

Yan writes:

Once I failed in working out my questions, I turned to you. This time, no exception.

Please tell me why the link verb “be” is used in its root form in the following sentence � “After all, all living creatures live by feeding on something, whether it BE plant or animal, dead or alive, and it is only by chance that such a fate is avoided.”

And in another sentence � “Happiness: All work, even cotton-spinning, is noble; work is alone noble: BE that here said and asserted once more. And in the like manner, too, all dignity is painful.”

It seems that you do not answer grammatical questions, as I found, the ones you do mostly are those that have a deep cultural background, and very difficult for normal people. But, today is my birthday; can you answer my questions as a gift for me? Thanks a lot! Hope it is my turn to get your answers this time. And I think many people also have the same questions. I’ve asked a few people for help, including the English teacher who is from Ireland teaching my daughter at Kid Castle, but he had no idea either.

Looking forward to your reply, hopefully soon.

My comments:

Happy birthday.

So you see I have nothing against birthdays. You’re not the first one to take the “blackmail” route, though, tossing up birthday celebrations to dare me: “Dare you put a damper on my good mood by not answering my question!”

Laughs apart, let it also be said here that I don’t want to leave the impression that I cave in to “blackmails” (do you see my legs shaking?) because if I leave such an impression, I’ll be inundated with letters with “today’s our second wedding anniversary” and such like. In other words, I do not want this to lead to a competition, in which case someone soon will claim to celebrate a birthday twice (or thrice) in the same calendar year (I’ve seen it happen actually) if their first (or second) birthday-letter fails to gather a reply.

Joking aside, let’s get to the question, which is a good one. It is a good question, but you’ve perhaps asked it in the wrong manner. Instead of asking why “be” is left in its original stark form, you should’ve asked: “why can’t I just accept it as the way it is and let it be?”

That way, you see, I can turn the whole problem back to you. (~_~)

You see, I myself have long stopped questioning why the English speak the way they do. The English are not normal, to borrow your word (I know you meant ordinary). The English are a very peculiar people. And I’m sure our friend, your kid’s Irish teacher, will agree with me on this one. I understand, by the way, why our Irish friend has no time for English grammar � The Irish have a grudge to settle with the English for all the terrible things the English had done to them throughout history (ask our Irish friend for details). That’s not to say the Irish can’t master the English language if they care for it. James Joyce is Irish, as are Oscar Wilde, George Bernard Shaw, Frank McCourt, naming but a few authors that I’ve actually read.

The point?

Do not question English grammar. Accept it. Don’t force making sense of it. Uses come first. Grammar comes later. Only after a certain number of people say such and such for a certain number of years does it get recorded by grammarians, who can do nothing but record it, be it something that makes sense to them or not. It’s a pity, therefore, that years later, people like the Chinese learners study the language backwards, that is, grammar first (and therefore find the whole thing nonsensical to the point of apocryphal).

Now let’s be fair to the English people and their lovely language. We Chinese are a very peculiar people (and I’m sure our Irish friend will agree with me on this one), too. Our language doesn’t always make sense either. Take the word “brokeback”, for instance. According to the Global Language Monitor (Will the Beijing Olympics Finally Eradicate Chinglish? July 31, 2008):

Recently, the Ministry of Education (MOE) accepted some 171 neologisms into the Chinese language. Words were considered only after they passed the scrutiny of a dozen scholars associated with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) Institute of Linguistics. These included a new ideogram for ‘brokeback,’ a word popularized from the banned movie Brokeback Mountain to indicate ‘gay’.

You will find brokeback in few English-language dictionaries, but it already has been accepted into the Chinese.

Ah well, so much for talking sense. Let’s get back to the real question why “be” is left in its root form in some cases and if so, can we see some more examples?

To my limited knowledge, “be” is let be out of custom, convenience, economy rather than conspiracy � Certainly English grammar is not the way it is to bewilder the Chinese (and I’m sure your Irish friend will agree with me one more time). In the first example, “whether it BE plant or animal” is more commonly put as “be it plant or animal”, saving one more word (whether) and meaning “no matter if it is a plant or an animal”. In the second example, “BE that here said” is the same as “let that be said here”.

Other examples, again to my limited knowledge, are “be that as it may” and “far be it from me”. Both expressions are usually used to open a new sentence while addressing something said earlier in a conversation.

“Be that as it may” means “That as it may be”, “That may be so, but”, or in other words, even though your accept something as true, it does not change a situation. Example (Longman Dictionary):

“James has been under a lot of pressure at work recently.”

“Be that as it may, he ought to spend time with his family.”

“Far be it from me”, on the other hand, dates all the way back to the Bible (King James Version):

Samuel 20:20:

And Joab answered and said, Far be it, far be it from me, that I should swallow up or destroy.

Followed by “to say” or “to do something”, “Far be if from me” means “It’s certainly not for me to say this or do that, but (I say this or do that anyway)”. You say it to disassociate yourself from something, expressing reluctance when, say, you’re going to give someone advice. Here’s my example:

Far be it from me to tell you this, Yan, as I’m no grammarian, but I really think you should just accept English grammar as it is.

And let it BE.

Happy birthday and many happy returns.

By Brendan

The other week I received a question from a reader who was interested in becoming a qualified English Teacher. The problem for this college student was whether “learning English on the internet and on TV” was enough � and if not “what else should / could” be done?

It’s true. Real opportunities for mixing with native English language speakers are few and far between. This is the situation for most English students in China yet many make it to an intermediate or above level � enabling them to be good and effective English language teachers � so what is the key?

Is “learning English on the internet and on TV enough?”

Personally I would have to say it isn’t. Ideally, when it comes to language practice comprehensive exposure to reading, writing, listening and speaking occurs. Within this ‘learning English on the internet and on tv’ can cover most bases but one needs to be proactive rather than passive.

With the addition of new technologies such as Skype that allows for voice chatting, and popular programs like QQ, there are opportunities now, which don’t have to cost money, that enable Chinese English language learners to practice with native speakers from all over the world.

With the growing popularity of Chinese as a Foreign Language many foreigners are interested in starting up language exchanges online. Once you find a partner and you are able to start practice chatting away, perhaps for 30 minutes first in English and then 30 minutes in Chinese, you are getting good ‘one to one’ conversation practice.

There are private companies that facilitate this service, such as Idapted, based near Wudaokou, who in addition provide qualified language instructors to chat with over the net, backed up with particular courses be they IELTS or TOEFL based. Of course this comes with a fee though it does provide a more focused exchange.

I knew one Chinese fellow who in his early 20’s was a self study student. He had excellent English and he told me the way he progressed came about by watching movies with the English subtitles turned on. With a pen and pad he would write down any of the language he was unfamiliar with, particularly slang, which makes up a large part of modern spoken English. Later he would go on to practice and learn it. Through this he also adopted a fairly strong Hollywood accent in his speaking and of course his listening was very good too.

Now according to the British Council where Chinese English students are falling down is in their writing composition. Can this be addressed by focusing solely on the internet? Personally I don’t think so unless you have a very patient and considerate ally who gives you writing assignments and corrects your work and constantly goes over your errors.

One thing I have noticed is that over time too much chatting on qq or msn can lead to excessive spelling mistakes and an over emphasis on lazy grammar. Once asked to produce well crafted academic reports or essays then such errors quickly become obvious. So in this case, it will take more than just chatting online to improve your writing skills.

Finally, to the student who wrote me the letter - I’d like to offer encouragement. I believe language is for life and there is no quick short cut. If you are to go onto a career as a Chinese English language teacher then take comfort that through daily work practice your English will be improving steadily over time. Ideally it won’t be too long before you too are then given an opportunity to work, study or travel abroad.

PS China Daily’s Language Tips also provide a forum for language learners at http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/forumsub.php?gid=4

By Liu Shinan

There is a group of people in this country who regard themselves as the “elites of society”. They take themselves to be the most advanced part of society in China’s progress toward modernity. They always try to distinguish themselves from the public by saying something special. Their most favorite tactic is to publish an opinion that challenges the masses’ common sense. They are best at exaggerating a situation to produce a sensational effect.

A recent event gave them such a chance.

Fan Meizhong, a middle school teacher in Sichuan, ran away from a soon-to-collapse classroom when the earthquake struck, leaving his students behind. His act provoked widespread criticism on the Internet and in the media. Most critics remarked that he had violated the professional ethics of a teacher though his involuntary dodging of danger was understandable as a human being.

Meanwhile, quite a number of people expressed their sympathy for Fan. They placed more emphasis on the need to forgive the weaker side of human nature. They surely have reasons to hold this opinion. And it is reassuring to hear a different voice in the unanimous criticism against Fan, for it represents an effort to create a democratic atmosphere in the circle of critics.

Some people, however, went too far in defying the public sentiment. They challenged the mainstream opinion by accusing it of “moral autocracy”. One of them published a commentary titled “Can we become more noble by defaming Fan”?

The commentator, who gave his surname as Cao, said the critical remarks on the Internet forums “generally demonstrated an excessively excited sentiment of moral trial”. He debunked the online criticism as a “moral campaign the pseudo moralists and young radicals have waged in order to erect a chastity arch (to honor themselves)”.

These words show that Cao was targeting at the whole community of Fan’s critics.

He based his argument on the assumption that everybody has the same “weakness” in his/her innermost soul as Fan displayed. Therefore, he said, people should not blame Fan but should instead regard him as an excusable pal and “reflect on the human weakness together with Fan”. He urged Fan’s critics to “approach him rather than abandon him; understand him rather than wantonly vilify him”.

Cao was wrong in his argument at least on three points. First, not everybody will behave the same way Fan did, as suggested by Cao. This has been proved by thousands of people who bravely saved others in the quake risking their own lives.

Second, the fact that most people have the same human weakness does not mean that they are not eligible to criticize Fan. People condemned him out of their understanding of what is morally right and wrong. Do they need to do something heroic before they start criticizing Fan?

Third, Fan’s critics did not blame him for being afraid of death but for ignoring his students’ safety and claiming that he would even abandon his mother in the same situation.

An ugly behavior was made known to the public and the public expressed their disapproval, or even anger, at the behavior. This is only too natural. What traces of “autocracy” can one find in the critical remarks? It is true that some of the critics used harsh words in denouncing Fan. But such unwanted expressions are understandable, given Fan’s shameless showing off of his behavior. They are far from “brandishing a moral club” to “kill” Fan, as Cao alleged them to be in his commentary.

Like other “social elites”, Cao “imagines himself as a safeguard of justice” - to quote Cao’s own words in his criticism of Fan’s critics - and tries to teach the public a lesson about democracy and human rights. Regrettably, the public do not want to hear their garrulous preaching; they have seen through the hypocrites.

E-mail: liushinan@chinadaily.com.cn

(China Daily 06/18/2008 page8)