 |
|
     |
|
|
Me and John don't agree As a professional writer, I was surprised by linguist John McWhorter's analysis of incorrect usage in the sentence "Billy and me went to the store" ("Q&A," February). He complains about rules governing this particular deployment of "me," saying that "you and I labor under those myths." In fact, the key to proper usage is consistency. If Billy and me are going to the store, then you and me labor. Of course, he did not say that. McWhorter, when he slips into "correct" speech, reveals something more interesting than his thesis. "Correct" forms confer intellectual authority-even when it's not earned-on invalid or incomplete logic. Surely some linguists already study this idea. I would have expected a Berkeley professor inquiring into "incorrect" forms to know their use, role, and value in language. When McWhorter touts them because they "feel good," he is being no less arbitrary than the pedantic men whose rules he argues against. Craig Kellogg '93 New York City I can't help liking Professor McWhorter's enthusiasm and independence of mind, even though he flouts linguistic convention to the point of iconoclasm. There is a middle ground between rigid pedantry on the one hand and license or indiscipline on the other: to be open and sensitive to one's ever-changing vernacular without discarding that modicum of linguistic convention that helps in effective communication. McWhorter underestimates how one's spoken and written languages tend to reinforce each other. During my years in the Foreign Service and later as a teacher of several languages, I usually found effective writers in other countries practiced the conventional rules of language and grammar of their culture and that they spoke pretty much as they wrote. William Paul '50 Belmont, Massachusetts It's been over 50 years since I have had to parse a sentence. At that time, I felt the rules were arbitrary, so I'm glad that there is a champion to change the archaic rules. I won't miss "whom," or rules against split infinitives and prepositions at the end of a sentence. However, I must admit I completely turn a speaker off mentally when they use objective case pronouns as subjects in a sentence. "Me and my friend went..." is bad enough. But "Me and him went" sends shivers down my spine. Chuck Hunter '57 Pleasant Hill Society's rules, like the rules of English, are subject to continual review and updating. We may raise the speed limit to 70 mph and eliminate the awkward "whom." But we don't raise the speed limit to an unsafe 120 mph and we shouldn't sink to the level of "Billy and me went to the store." When we do so, the beauty of our language is diminished. And because language is the glue of any society, our culture suffers when the language is reduced to a lowest common denominator. As for Professor McWhorter, I guess me and him will never agree. But that's where I'm at. Arthur Rubin '64 Overland Park, Kansas Two views of Novartis Many of the points raised by faculty members Bob Buchanan and Ignacio Chapela ("Novartis revisited," February) were good ones. But reading between the lines of Chapela's submission, I found some surprising elements. He blames the Novartis agreement for challenging "freedom of intellectual pursuit." He also criticizes "the rights allowed to the funding company's employees to influence the direction of research on campus." But if his concerns about freedom and undue influence on the direction of research are to carry any weight, then one would assume he would be equally concerned about similar challenges from other sources. Yet he blames the Novartis agreement for "crop trashings," having apparently concluded that such actions were justified. It seems to me that the people who trashed those crops, and who knows what else, represent a far greater threat to freedom of intellectual pursuit and the direction of research on campus than does the Novartis agreement. Cary Petzel '83, MBA '85 Indio I admit to a bias that is quite skeptical of the alleged net benefits to Cal from the Novartis/Syngenta contract. What confirms my bias in this case-the virtues of the deal described by Professor Buchanan notwithstanding-is his statement: "Interactions with Berkeley have also resulted in the recruitment of Berkeley postdoctoral scholars to staff positions at TMRI." While not a surprising result given the relationship, this seems to me to turn Cal's research resources into a "farm club" for Novartis. A culture of values, founded and developed by public financing, has been fundamentally tainted, perhaps even dominated, by the values of a single tech company. Richard Morris '57, Boalt '60 San Juan Bautista Thanks for the memories Harvey Helfand's entrancing campus tour through time and space ("Building on a vision," February) is one of the best articles the magazine has done in recent years. Aside from offering a fine presentation of leading architectural features on an ever-changing landscape, Helfand also evokes great memories for anyone who has walked the grounds. I still remember the place with even more greenery than cement, and more tennis courts than parking lots. Charles Holloway '46 Williamsburg, Virginia Bearing up Andre Tolpegin ("No more unBearable seasons!" February) apparently believes that UC "suffers" from its average football teams. Let's be very clear about something: If high school football players want to come to Berkeley primarily (or only) to play football, let them choose another school. And if the new football coach recruits athletes of questionable academic talents, then let us choose another football coach. Winning football games is wonderful; and I feel crushed when we lose to Stanford. But such defeats cannot mask the real reason students come to Berkeley: academic study. Let's support the athletes and coaches at Berkeley, but keep in mind the real reason students and faculty come to the University. John Barthelme, M.A. '77, Ph.D. '81 Canton, New York Appalling letters! I was dismayed by the content of the letters in the February issue under the heading "Berkeley USA." The authors mistakenly blame the University for teaching them to "be ashamed to be an American" and driving them to fight society's "radical elements." They leave the impression that patriotism is as simple as waving the flag and cheering the military-actions Americans have found abhorrent when displayed in the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. In fact, it was at Cal that I learned about patriotism's true foundation: dissent. James Devitt '99 New York City The letters under "Berkeley USA" were appalling! But I wholeheartedly agree with the final letter to the editor, which states, "The strength of the United States lies in the diversity of opinion that is openly expressed and in free access to information." E.D. Christenson '47 Santa Barbara When I was a student at Berkeley in the 1950s, the main thing we learned was to think for ourselves and not take everything said by anyone as the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Too bad letter-writer Hugh Thomson '67 ("the origin of my lack of patriotism was Berkeley") did not learn such lessons. Jim Ceragioli '60 Redding I'm definitely a political moderate, but while many scoff at Berkeley and the liberal activities so widely reported, I am proud of the tradition of telling the emperor and his followers when they are buck naked. Go Bears! Brian Tucker '82 Kirkland, Washington The Secretary answers back Thank you for the gracious article about my career, "Mr. Mineta Goes to Washington" (December). In the February issue ("Letters"), Professor Seymour Chatman asked how I might respond to a Frank Rich allegation in the New York Times that as Secretary of Transportation I had announced "new standards for airport security screeners" which would not require them to hold high school diplomas. My response: Frank Rich and the New York Times are dead wrong on this issue-which probably explains why the New York Times ran a lengthy correction the day after breathlessly "announcing" the "new standards" on its front page. On November 19, 2001, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act became law. The new law directed the DOT to take over aviation security, and set out a series of detailed milestones and standards. Under the heading "Screener Requirements," the law says candidates for the security screener job "...shall possess a high school diploma, a general equivalency diploma, or experience that the Under Secretary has determined to be sufficient for the individual to perform the duties of the position." Congress wrote that language into the original act, and those have been the standards from day one. The DOT adopted the congressional standards virtually verbatim. More than six weeks after the law was enacted, Mr. Rich and his newspaper inexplicably described the standards as "new" or a "change of policy." Norman Y. Mineta '53 U.S. Secretary of Transportation Washington, D.C. |
| |||||||||||
| About
CAA Contact
Us
Update
your Address CAA Career Opportunities Privacy Policy |
©2008 California Alumni
Association. All Rights Reserved For questions about CAA: info@alumni.berkeley.edu Technical inquiries: web@alumni.berkeley.edu
|
Alumni House Berkeley, CA 94720-7520 Toll-Free: (888) CAL-ALUM Phone: (510) 642-7026 Fax: (510) 642-6252
|
