TAKE PITY ON ENGLISH

I’ve been sitting (read: stewing) on this subject for months now, and it’s time to let off some steam.

Rant Mode ON:

Whatever happened to proper, grammatical English?

Some grammarians attribute the near-universal collapse of proper English usage to social media such as emails and texting, but I don’t buy it.  The collapse of our beloved tongue began long before electrons started replacing ink.  I am not concerned with internet shorthand such as LOL, IIRC, or even BFF.  I am talking about basic, essential English as taught by Mrs. Woodroofe way back in the 1960s.  She was not only my English teacher in grade and high school but my aunt, and she went to considerable length to avoid giving me the benefit of the doubt at grading time. 

Fortunately, I missed a lot of school as a youngster due to illness, and unknowingly I used the time well by reading literate texts.  I absorbed proper usage almost by osmosis, which was a Good Thing because I was never-ever going to diagram sentences coherently, let alone remember all those rules and exceptions (“I before E except after C, or sounded as A as in neighbor and weigh.”)

The reasons for near-universal English abuse are varied, but I blame the twin evils of indifference and political correctness.  I believe that feel-good classroom philosophies permitting approximate spelling or usage will be found at the core of the educational self-esteem movement.  It’s related to the huggy-feely notion that we’re all Special, and it’s hurtful to correct the little darlings when they’re wrong.  (Related issue: the current crop of “parents” consider any public venue a playground, hence children running around shouting in restaurants.  It’s happened to me twice lately.  A subject for a future Rant.) 

Several years ago I saw a news report about a black lady trying to teach English at an inner-city school, either in Chicago or Detroit.  She insisted on proper grammar but was resisted by many students who wanted to indulge in street talk/jive/whatever.  Naturally, the Education Professionals in the front office failed to support her, even though she was unquestionably right: once out of school, the bro’s and sisters speakin’ da way dey want were going to have problems getting hired for most positions dealing with da public.  She cared more about the kids’ future than they, their parents/guardians, or the administrators.  God bless her.  At least she tried; her halo awaits.

However, the point of this Rant is not minority/ethnic argot but common usage in personal communication and in the media.  Here’s a random list of errors that make me cranky because they’re so damnably common.  A tip of the hat to my friend and colleague Colonel Walt Boyne, USAF (Ret) for inciting this month’s topic.  In fact, I’ll let him lead off:

“A surprising example is the use of ‘ordinance’ vice ordnance by people who should know better.  I just reviewed an Air Force colonel's PhD thesis that needed a global search to root out the error.”

Walt has a solid point.  I wonder if that O-6 knew that the use of ordnance is governed by ordinances and laws and stuff.  Evidently not.

“This and These.”  Boy, does THIS abuse get me going, harking back to Mrs. W and two other competent teachers who stressed the need for specifics and clarity (oddly enough, or not, only one of them was a journalism instructor.)  Definite articles such as This and These have become universal crutches, used so often in the same paragraph or even sentences that the original intent becomes blurred.  One short passage from an otherwise fine book:

“The British also carried out a significant number of precision attacks during this period, though we tend to forget this, which lent themselves to detailed interpretation of specific facilities, as did American precision raids beginning in August 1942.  This skill proved vital once the bombing effort moved away from city attacks…”

More examples of common usage abuse:

"The exact same situation/whatever."  If it’s the same, why is it more the same with Exact?

Gender vs Sex.  Forget English grammar; there are now dictionary definitions stressing Gender Issues without mentioning grammar, but in usage there are obvious differences between the masculine and feminine genders.  Or there were once upon a time.

Which vs That.  Relative pronouns introducing adjectival (descriptive) clauses frequently are folded, spun and mangled.  To quote a professor, “That which is, is.  That which is not, is not.”

That vs Who.  Misuse of the relative pronouns is increasingly common: "People that do thus and such" (Sean Hannity probably is the Main Offender).  The way I learned it, “who” refers to people (including deities) while “that” refers to nonhumans, including animals, buildings, policies, etc., etc., etc. 

"Between you and I" should of course be “Between you and me.”

“He was taller than me.”  Shouldn’t be hard to get right.  “He was taller than me am tall” or “He was taller than I am tall”?  Sheesh.

Lie vs lay.  Past participles are tough—I never did get my nascent brain around them, at least not reliably on English tests.  Sorry, but “A transitive verb requires a direct object” just addles me.  Other than “Now I lay me down to sleep,” I wordsmith my way around the whole grammatical sandpit.  “I put the damn thing wherever I wanted.”  Sothere…

Hopefully.  It’s an adverb, which is a modifier: “We waited hopefully for the ninth inning.”  But proper use has been overwhelmed by convention: “Hopefully our team will rebound in the ninth” when the intent is “We hope that our team will rebound.”  This year the Associated Press permits the misuse due to general acceptance.

Irregardless.  It’s not a real word.

Among aviation people: hanger vs hangar.

Among many Christians, Cavalry vs Calvary!

Amurrica typically overdoes apostrophes.  I have seen a sign at an Arizona trailer park: "Tonight's movie, My Hero's Have Alway's Been Cowboy's."  Honest.

And as a onetime broadcaster, I get REAL cranky when a straight news story says, "The guy was last seen heading thataway."  Ever hear "the gal was wearing..."?

Me neither.

Just thought I’d mention it.

Rand Mode to STANDBY

STATE OF THE NAVY

This month we’re treated to another guest blog, addressing a naval subject.  The Rant is from “Sanford Hughes,” a defense analyst who wishes to remain employed until he reaches retirement age.  Here's his assessment of the State of the Navy in 2012.

Bad news for squids and jarheads (our beloved sailors and Marines).  The Navy Department has figured a way to cut back on the  expense of running a Navy and all those desert wastelands they call Marine bases.

Basically, stop all drinking, smoking and eating rich foods, test everyone all the time and eventually, there won't be anyone left to collect pay and pension benefits.

Of course they didn't say that exactly. What they did say is, the Navy will implement fleet-wide breathalyzer tests for sailors and Marines, crack down on smoking and drinking, and phase in many other major personnel policy changes, such as giving females three years off to birth babies instead of standing duty they signed up for.  The broad collection of new policies has been dubbed "21st Century Sailor and Marine," and reflected many "longstanding issues or goals" for the department by social engineers now seemingly in charge of the U.S. military.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert, and Marine Corps Commandant General Jim Amos unveiled the coming disaster but it isn't clear if the White House forced them into it or they went along willingly.

Juan Garcia (a civilian), Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, said that "21st Century" has five "pillars" - readiness, safety, physical fitness, inclusion and "continuum of service."

The Navy Department's basic goal is to get the most possible good out of every servicemember and keep them in the force for as long as possible before they come to their senses or just head for Canada.  Officials said they hope anti-drinking, anti-smoking and physical fitness campaigns will make troops healthier, reduce accidents such as drunk driving, and result in fewer missed work days over a sailor or Marine's career.

Contrast this with the British Navy which not only allows smoking but still issues a cupful of grog every day.  (Not to mention the French Navy which serves wine—according to exchange officers, not limited to dinner.)

 EVERYONE GETS SCREENED

The highest profile new policy will be the fleetwide use of breathalyzers, which until now have only been tried sporadically in various parts of the Navy. Within the coming year, Garcia said, virtually all ships and many Marine units will begin fielding breathalyzers and a novel approach for using them.  "What we're stressing is this is not a punitive tool, not a legal tool, but instead it's an inspection and prevention tool," said Garcia, who's obviously never been in the Navy, "leading chiefs to prevent career-ending or service-ending incidents." Of course, just the opposite will be true.

For example, all sailors coming aboard a ship for a duty shift after liberty will be screened with the breathalyzer, and the whole crew will be subject to random inspections. In addition to being deeply unpopular with sailors, the Navy's past breathalyzer experiments also have drawn skepticism from its own leaders: former Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy Joe Campa once observed that a breathalyzer on the brow could cause as many problems as it solved.  A sailor or Marine who shows up for duty with a blood alcohol level above .08 will be sent to Medical; his leaders and shipmates will be notified, and his case will rest in the hands of his commanding officer and noted in his record. That should do a lot for reenlistment figures.

 NO SMOKING ANYTIME, ANYWHERE

Tobacco and the synthetic marijuana-like drug known as "spice" are also on the hit list. The Navy Department will stop discounting tobacco products at exchanges and begin new rounds of tests to catch spice smokers.  Recent congressional action also means that, for the first time in decades, Navy warships may not go to sea with tobacco in

their ships' stores. Navy officials want to duplicate what they say has been the success of the submarine force, which outlawed smoking at the beginning of 2011.

 So much for having an after dinner cigar in the goat locker (chief's quarters).

WOMEN CAN GET THREE YEARS OFF

The policy also will offer women new options to take time away from service to have children, then return to duty to pick up their careers. Women will be able to move into the inactive ready reserve for as long as three years, receive a stipend for not working, keep commissary and other benefits, and use one permanent change of station to relocate.

They'll incur a "two for one" obligation - meaning a woman who took the maximum three years off would owe the Navy or Marine  Corps six additional years. Let's see how long that lasts.

BAD NEWS FOR RECRUITING OFFICES

Worse, for chief petty officers and gunnery sergeants, the Navy and Marines will also step up a "year-round culture of fitness" to lean on servicemembers to keep fit. With all these sailors and Marines in better shape, drinking less and not smoking, the Navy Department wants to keep them in service for as long as possible, or, at least, until their enlistment is up.

Of course, it may be impossible to get anyone to re-up since the men are unable to smoke or drink. And as all the women will be off having babies, who's going to run the ships, planes and shore bases in about four years?

Hopefully, by that time, all the social experimenters in Washington, D.C. and in the Pentagon will have been replaced by realists who understand military enlisted men and what it takes to be a warrior.

But probably not. Meanwhile, please don't let China, North Korea, or Iran hear about this.

CORAL SEA ANNIVERSARY

Rant Mode ON:

The United States Navy owns a glorious history and a rich heritage.  But this month the service paid scant attention to one of the most significant naval events of all time.

May 7-8 marked the 70th anniversary of the Battle of the Coral Sea, the arrival of the naval millennium when two fleets fought each other beyond visual range.  The entire battle was conducted “below the horizon” as two American aircraft carriers dueled with three Japanese flattops for two days.   Previously naval battles were fought hull to hull in the age of oars; often within pistol shot in the age of sail; and within several miles from the 1890s through 1944.  There have been no naval battles since Leyte Gulf, which makes the carrier air strikes of 1942 even more remarkable.

This month Naval History and Heritage Command, which after years of neglect recently received a new director, placed Coral Sea third in precedence on its web site (www.history.navy.mil) behind the War of 1812 and WW II in the Pacific. 

A brief word about the 200th anniversary of the 1812 thing: though oft cast as a U.S. victory, the fact remains that the Brits captured Washington, D.C.; burned the White House; and ate Dolley Madison’s lunch.  The early ship-to-ship victories by America’s storied frigates eventually wilted amid the vastly superior forces of His Majesty’s Nivey.  Yet the chief of naval operations lauded the 19th century sailors in the May issue of the prestigious Naval Institute Proceedings, with nary a peep about Coral Sea.  In fact, in addressing the annual Midway Night observance of the epic June 1942 victory, the current naval chief and his predecessor have been reluctant to mention “the J word,” presumably lest the Japanese take offense.  A peculiar attitude, since Tokyo sent a sizeable delegation to Coral Sea and Midway.

Perhaps the most public nod to Coral Sea occurred at the Navy Memorial in Washington, D.C., with Australian participation, but again, the announcement omitted any reference to The Empire of the Sun.

The official Navy web site, www.navy.mil, had one brief mention of Coral Sea, describing an observance in Australia.  The battle means something Down Under, as a glance at the map will show.  Australia’s northeast coast borders the Coral Sea, with all the geostrategic implications one may infer from that fact.  “Ozzies” were severely interested in the outcome of any Japanese thrust in their direction.

The minimal tribute paid to Coral Sea reminds us that in 1998 not only the navy but apparently the entire U.S. Government acted as if the Spanish-American War had never occurred.  However misbegotten its origin (the battleship Maine almost certainly blew up from internal causes rather than Spanish treachery), the war placed America in the front rank of world navies.  Yet that was the centennial that wasn’t.

Since the Navy and the Nation pay so little heed to Coral Sea’s 70th anniversary, I’ll perform a public service by providing a summary:

In 1942 Tokyo’s southern strategy was aimed at Australia and the stops on the supply lanes from Hawaii.  An invasion force set sail toward Port Morseby, New Guinea, which in Japanese hands could lead to a reduction or even elimination of American sea communications with Australia.  Further advances from there would have threatened Samoa and the Fijis.

American code breakers learned of Japan’s “Operation MO,” permitting Admiral Chester Nimitz to deploy the carriers Lexington (CV-2) under Rear Admiral Aubrey Fitch and Yorktown (CV-5) under Rear Admiral Frank Jack Fletcher with support including two Australian cruisers.  Nimitz had to oppose MO: Australia was vulnerable, since most of its land forces were committed to North Africa.

On May 7 American reconnaissance aircraft sighted multiple Japanese naval forces, and despite initial confusion, both U.S. carrier air groups found the enemy advance force: the light carrier Shoho and four cruisers.  The result was severe overkill as 93 “Lex” and “Yorky” planes swarmed over the small flattop, sending her to the bottom in less than 30 minutes at a cost of three U.S. aircraft.  Debriefing showed that half of the attackers would have been better used against some of the cruisers, but remember: nobody had ever fought a carrier battle before.  To an extent, the tailhookers were writing the manual as they went.

Later that day a Japanese air strike from the large carriers Shokaku and Zuikaku, seeking the U.S. carriers, came across the oiler Neosho and an escorting destroyer.  The latter was sunk while the oiler sustained fatal damage.  Then that evening another Japanese formation returning to its roosts stumbled across Fitch and Fletcher.  In a confused twilight shootout, nine Japanese planes and three Americans were downed.  Clearly the next day would bring more combat.

On the morning of May 8 both sides traded blows.  Many of the 75 American planes never found the enemy in thick weather but Yorktown dive bombers hit Shokaku, temporarily putting her out of action.   The Yanks lost five aircraft, including Lexington’s air group commander, William B. Ault, and Yorktown’s Lieutenant Joseph J. Powers, who received a posthumous Medal of Honor for his Shokaku attack.

Next 69 Japanese planes targeted Fletcher and Fitch, and hit both carriers.  Lexington eventually succumbed to a combination of bomb and torpedo damage while Yorktown took a bomb hit and numerous near misses.  In the churning, multi-faceted air battle, American and Japanese squadrons took heavy losses, including Dauntless scout-bombers pressed into service as low-level interceptors.  Two Medals of Honor were awarded for that day: Lexington pilot William E. Hall and Yorktown damage control officer Milton Rickets (posthumously).

Battles inevitably are reduced to score cards, with the U.S. losing 656 fliers and sailors, three ships and 69 aircraft while Japan wrote off a light carrier, 966 men and 92 aircraft.  On the larger scale, Japan abandoned Operation MO and the Pacific War moved into its next phase.  Because Shokaku was damaged and Zuikaku’s air group was thinned, neither was available four weeks later.  On the other hand, hasty repairs on Yorktown sent her to Midway where she met her fate, sharing in the epic victory over four enemy carriers.

I’ve been privileged to know some Yorktown Coral Sea veterans including fighter pilot William N. Leonard; scout-bomber pilot Stanley W. Vejtasa; and aviation mechanic William F. Surgi.  Bill and Bill are gone now but Swede remains with us to tell the tale.   Perhaps this small tribute to them will serve as an appreciation to all.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy might pay a bit more attention to its own history.

Rant Mode to STANDBY.