Skip to main content

Review: Why is This a Question? - Paul Anthony Jones ****

There's something cosily appealing about looking into why we use the (mostly written) word in a particular way, which Paul Anthony Jones does in this entertainingly readable little book. It might not interest everyone, but if you are into books (and particularly if, like me, you're a writer), this should be on your wishlist.

The book is structured as a series of questions, and Jones kicks of with a brilliant one, in that it appears simple, but it really isn't: 'What is a word?' He sets up a number of possibilities, only to knock them down with counter-examples and puzzling exceptions. Is, for instance, "that's" one word or two?

Some of the questions work better for me than others. I think Jones is at his best when he's following the main thread of the book, which is on written English and its antecedents. Part of the enjoyment of the book is his frequent deviations along the way, and this will often include detours into one of the languages that has influenced English, such as French, or distinctively different languages - for example those that don't use alphabets to explore the contrasts, but sometimes when he brings other languages in, there can be rather too many examples - there is more coherence when he links other languages to the main theme.

The same reduction in enthusiasm comes from a three variant questions - 'How do we read?', 'How do we speak?' and 'How do we understand?'. Here, Jones deviates from linguistics to biology and the mechanics of these concepts. They are all certainly linked to written language, but felt rather worthy and heavy going in approach when compared with the lighter and more entertaining approach taken to the rest of the questions.

It's the kind of book where it's almost impossible to avoid commenting to someone nearby a fascinating factoid that you have picked up, whether it's concerning a book only containing poems that attempt to provide a rhyme for 'orange', or how stress in spoken English enables us to distinguish between the otherwise audibly identical phrases of which only one is true: 'A crow is a black bird' and 'A crow is a blackbird'. I learned a lot about the way English developed, going all the way back to the Proto-Indo-European language.

Works both as a gift book to someone interested in writing or language and as an enjoyable read in its own right.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here
You can buy Why is This a Question? from Amazon.co.ukAmazon.com and Bookshop.org.

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope