A musing on the programme 'The View'.

The View should be renamed A View, because that's all it is - a view (or a series of views presented by women). If it were an actual view, I doubt it would be very clear - it'd be cloudy out and all the scenic beauty would be obscured by dense fog.

Also, the English version of the programme - Loose Women - is so called because each of the presenters has had too many children for their own good.

A few new jokes.

Do you wonder whether self-conscious homosexual men ever meet up, get drunk, and then go out and beat up heterosexual men?

Cancer-prevention is a growth industry.

A new abortion clinic recently opened up in Brighton. Unfortunately - due to high demand - there's a waiting list of nine months.

Most homosexual men are still in the closet because they have a penchant for fashion.

I was at a very formal dinner party the other night with several people with high-pitched voices when a man with a baritone voice entered the room and told a very crude joke. That certainly lowered the tone of the evening.

After unsuccessfully looking around for some tea-flavoured fruit, I eventually settled on Twining's tea.

A run-down on a few of today's events.

Seeing as I'm feeling quite alert as of now, I'm gonna comment on a few things I've seen and heard today.

First, due to the immediacy of the thing, I'm gonna mention Derren Brown's lottery stunt (which aired at 10.35pm on channel four). I have one word to say on the subject: Wow! (If I were five years younger, I might say: Wtf?)

Second of all, I'd like to give a few words on something I heard today which is, frankly, one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. Someone told me the streets of Brighton were quite empty today because of fears of terrorism (regardless of the overcast weather). But why? Well, what's the date today? The 9th of September 2009: 09/09/09. What does that mean? Nothing, I hear you say - and quite rightly. But what if you turn those numbers upside-down? Yes: you get 06/06/06. A terrorist threat? Today? I'm not sure if the idiots circulating this shit are aware of the following fact, but surely one would have to be a Satanist - and only a Satanist - to want to commit such a terrorist act. Oh yeah! There are no Satanist terrorist groups! (Also, the number of The Beast is actually 616.)

Lastly, I heard from someone that a recent census revealed that Mohammed is the second most popular name in the UK - the first is Oliver. You may have been accosted by an idiotic, reactionary, Sun- or Daily Mail-reading friend today who told you about said 'story' and then paused for several seconds, only to finish off your little encounter with: Yeah, it's scary, innit? Okay, first of all, Mohammed is a popular name because it's the name of the prophet: a lot of Muslim men are called Mohammed. Mohammed is as integral a part of the Muslim family as mum and dad - and perhaps even more so. Why does the fact that some people choose to name their male children after the prophet rather than a famous orphan bother non-Muslim people? The fact that it's a popular name in no way reflects on the size of Britain's Muslim population. All it shows is that Mohammed is a common name amongst Muslims.

Keep your minds open, folks. I'm just trying to hold my lights up to the great void and inculcate a little rationalism into your day-to-day. Keep on reading!

Jimi Hendrix - Hear My Train Coming.

Hear My Train A Comin Acoustic - Jimi Hendrix

Quit whilst you're ahead!

Why would one quit whilst one is ahead? Surely, quitting whilst one is behind is more preferable. Don't quit entirely, though, because quitting's for losers!

Surf's up, dude!

The surf is not up; the waves are up. The surf is down!

Let the good times roll....

The phrase let the good times roll seems to me to exist only because the good times have their ups and downs - their peaks and troughs. Why not let the good times flow...? That sounds like a much better metaphor to me.

Revelry.

When hearts as free as wolves released
Are out on high to roam as beasts
They plumb the depths and scale the heights,
Like anchors tethered to willful kites.

The nights are long and people are free
To sing what songs grant them fecundity.
And as beer-sozzled minds trail off in haste
Our actions oft leave a bitter taste.

Such closeness is shared and feelings are expressed
In such rapid succession that we love and detest
In the same moment, 'til our minds stop and say:
You could have it any other way.

I stand in the corner like some ignominious crow -
Like some field in waiting for seeds to sow -
And I laugh heartily and let my fears pass the latch,
Even though I fear and feel detached.

The girls all dance and sing their songs
Whilst men drone on in irksome throngs.
Yet what brilliant couples couples make
When they're coupled in love for coupling's sake.

A drunken ramble at 1am
Will seem inscrutable in the morning.
And like the Sun in rising to greet us,
Renewed feelings will start dawning.

In drunken revelry we share
The nights, like fireflies that elude;
We drink, though we know we might crumble,
And wait for passion's food.

I try to numb this numbness with alcohol
And yet a frozen shroud creeps over my skin.
I don't know what my life means,
But at least when I'm hungover I'll feel something.

A funny and insightful video on the 'N' word.

http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/59858/detail/

The word nigger is not offensive in and of itself - it depends on the context in which it's being used. However, the historial context of the word does rouse some intense emotion from black people. Like Richard Pyror said: "People use the word nigger to describe their own wretchedness."

The word nigger - when placed inside a historical context - means a lazy, no good, untrustworthy black person - and it often encompasses criminal acts, aswell. Nowadays, though, young people throw it around colloquially.

My point is this: shouldn't ignorant, stupid people be allowed to use the word? If it's banned, how will we be able to identify these racist morons and subject them to intense ridicule?

Stopping someone who wants to use the word from using the word will only allow them to savour their ignorance and hatred for other occasions (it could in fact allow them to intensify their feelings for more personal occasions and cause them to commit violent acts against black people).

No word should be banned. People should be educated on the usages of certain words and why certain words shouldn't be uttered; they should not be prevented from being allowed to say them. Let ignorant people be ignorant - that way, we can have more fun laughing at them for the insensitive pricks they are.

Belief.

Belief can exist only in the absence of logic and knowledge. Belief is only compatible with ignorance: ignorance of science; ignorance or morality; ignorance of logic.

Several weeks ago, I would've called myself an atheist. Whilst I do not believe that atheism is a form of religion - atheism deals with the rejection of religion, after all - I recognise that atheists make an unknowable claim about the universe: that there is no God.

An agnostic must live by the credo: knowledge is only knowledge if it can be demonstrated to be true - if it can be demonstrated to reflect something factual about the universe. (This popular definition of agnosticism as being something along the lines of wishy-washy and on-the-fence is false - after all, the word agnostic comes from the Greek gnosis, meaning to know.)

If you believe in sin, or Hell, or that the human body is dirty, or that people who follow different religions are heathen being tempted by Satan and must be saved, all I can say to you is this: the fault lies with the creator. This kind of work does not belong on the résumé of an all-powerful being; this is the kind of work expected from an office temp with a bad attitude. Sure there is beauty in the world, and the duality of good and evil exists, but those concepts do not exist because of God; they exist because people have free will.

Before the Big Bang, there was no universe; there was no matter, time or space (space-time). So, before the universe came into being, there was nothing. To create something, something must exist in time and space. Therefore, there can be no God. Also, if God dwells in the universe he can't be creator: he would be part of the creation, after all.

The image of God as a bearded, old, fearful, vengeful man was adopted from Greek and Roman statues of Zeus and Jupiter, and the story of Jesus has elements taken from it from stories which go back as far as 2,000 or 3,000 years before his birth - just google Isis and Horus/Osiris (Osiris was an Egyptian man who lived and died as Christ did, and was born to a virgin - Isis - on the 25th of December*). God is a patriarchal creation because men seek to control; and male gods are always depicted as being vengeful and dealing in destruction.

*December 25th plays a big role in world religions because it co-incides with the winter solstice - the point at which the Sun sinks to its lowest point and appears to be stationary for several days. The rising of the Sun after this period has been made symbolic within religions as the point at which prophets (i.e. the Sun) are born. December 25th has always been an important date in astrology.

An interesting and brilliant video on ontology.

Supernova.

The cigarette-puffing hipster Hicks
Died at thirty-two years of age.
He was the voice of a silenced America.
He personified the stage.

Lenny Bruce killed himself
At fourty years of age.
He served four months for obscenity.
He was too young to meet the grave.

Jimi Hendrix died
At just twenty-seven.
We stood all along the watchtower
To watch him ascend to Heaven.

Jim Morrison was young
When he kicked the bucket.
When faced with the dick of corporate bullshit
He swore to never suck it.

Like stars of searing brilliance
They didn't last too long.
Their bulks were too big to sustain
So they burst in fiery song.

Some stars burn brightly
With controlled fusion.
Thank God Carlin and Pryor
Didn't succumb to illusion.

Cobain and Christ and Ledger
Died before their time.
Supernovas are born every minute,
And, boy, when they go do they shine.

A quick musing.

The word zeal (noun) means a fervently held belief. A zealot (noun) is someone who believes in a particular cause vehemently. The adjectival - as well as adverbial - form of the noun zeal is zealous: a zealous person. The adverbial form of the word zeal is zealously, as in: he believes in it zealously. But we also have the adjective/adverb overzealous, which means believing in something in an excessive way. My question is, how can someone be overzealous? To be overzealous must mean to be more than zealous. Surely that's physically impossible? (In another way, overzealous could mean unnecessarily zealous - again showing the warped nature of the 21st century mind.) If you're gonna accept that word, I'm gonna start speaking of people as being megazealous. That's my word now! (God forbid kids should start saying uberzealous!)

Idioms - part 1.

An idiom is typically defined as a phrase relevant to a certain culture which can't be understood to an outsider by its component parts. Sound like a mouthful? Good. For example, the phrases sour grapes, white elephant, elephant in the room and monkey's uncle are all idiomatic phrases. (I.e. only an English person can understand them - they would have to be explained in full to non-English people.)

A few thoughts on race (courtesy of George Carlin).

After reading Brain Droppings, I've gleaned a few brilliant ideas. The first regards race - specifically being black. The politically correct phrase people of colour really means the same thing as coloured (stemming from a time when white people believed black people were coloured - as in dirty, impure and tainted).

But have you really ever met a black person? Aren't they all really just different shades of brown and tan? And what about Indians? Their skin is often as dark and yet they're considered more similar to white people and they're never called black; they're not even called brown. And often, dark-skinned white people have darker skin than light-skinned black people. And white people are really just different shades of pink and beige. So why is colour so important? The answer: it's not. It's meaningless.

Another suspect phrase is African American (or Afro-American). Why are only black people considered African American? What about Egyptians? They live on the African continent and yet they're never called African. If you met an Egyptian living in America, you'd think him middle-eastern; not African American. And what about South African white people? Afrikaans. They're African, and yet - if one moved to America - they wouldn't be called African American. Why? Because they're white. It's casual racism, folks. Just call black people black. It's harmless, it's descriptive and it's not racist.

And, whilst we're on the topic of race, I'd like to say a few words on Native Americans. First off the bat, Native Americans are not natives - people have been moving around since time immemorial; if you truly want to know what nativism is, go to the Great Rift Valley in Ethiopia - that's where humans' early ancestors originally lived. (Isn't it oddly poetic how no humans currently live in the Great Rift Valley?)

Second of all, Native Americans aren't American. Before white people - their masters and oppressors - came along, they probably had a different name for their country (if they were even aware of it being a country - there were obviously just tribal lands before white people came into the picture; there was never an America). Why would Native American be their chosen term? Why would they choose to name themselves after the people who stole their country from them, killed most of their people and put the rest of them on substandard reservation land? In fact, Native Americans find the term Native American insulting.

When Christopher Colombus* first encountered Native Americans he dubbed them una gente in dios (Indian - see?), which means a people in God. Doesn't sound so bad, huh? The word Indian has nothing to do with the fact that Columbus was looking for quicker trade roots to India and instead found a couple of huge immovable continents; nor is Indian derogatory - the word is just oddly convenient and so gets misappropriated. (Also Colombus only made it to South America after his fourth try - he originally landed on a little island which was later to be called Cuba.)

So, whilst most people think the term American Indian is politically incorrect, it is in fact the better term to Native American. But you know what an even better term is? No: not red-skin, you racist bastard. Call them by their tribal names - the names which used to represent them but which have now vanished into obscurity. Cherokee, Sioux, Apache, Blackfoot, Navaho, Blackfeet, Huron, Erie, Tomahawk.... You got it.

*The word Columbus is actually an anglicisation - the real spelling of the eponymous Italian's name is Colombus. The country is Colombia; not Columbia.

The inequities of meat production.

Here are some disturbing facts about meat production and farming in general:

• It takes around 450 gallons of water to produce a pound of red meat;
• It takes 26 kilograms of grain to produce a single kilogram of red meat (whereas it takes only 3.4 kilograms of grain to produce a kilogram of chicken);
• Cattle consume half of the world's fresh water;
• Male chicks are often automatically killed after being sorted from female chicks - the preferred way of doing this is via a grinder;
• Farming is responsible for 18 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions (especially methane, which is twenty times more efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide);
• Livestock occupy more than 30 per cent of the Earth's entire land surface;
• In Latin America, more than 70 per cent of natural rainforests have been turned over to food production - this causes topsoil erosion and is gradually causing land to dry out irreversibly (this process is known as desertification);
• Because of the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), farmers are guaranteed to be paid a certain sum - regardless of whether quotas are reached. Our taxes guarantee farmers this sum;
• If excess food is produced, it's bought by the government and sold - again, we pay for this through taxation;
• If countries like America reduced their meat intake by 10% this year, 60 million people in the third world could be prevented from starving to death;
• Artificial fertilisers such as nitrates and phosphates require huge petroleum inputs and can cause eutrophication (the process of which kills fresh water fish and other fresh water species every year in their thousands);
• A meat-based diet requires seven times as much land as a vegetable-based diet;
• In a given year, a land area of 0.2 hectares can produce 1.5 kilograms of grain, whereas, on the same plot, the yield of root vegetables would be 6.8 kilograms;
• In 1993, US farm animals were fed 192.7 million tonnes of feed concentrates - the bulk of it being corn - in order to produce 31.2 million tonnes of carcass meat – making for a ratio of 6.2 to 1;
• Because energy is lost to cattle and chickens through natural processes, such as excretion, movement, respiration and reproduction, many animals are now farmed in a battery way - i.e. they live in enclosed, small spaces with their movements restricted. Because of the extraordinary amount of weight some cattle carry, cattle regularly experience agonising pain in the form of leg troubles;
• Even though the average bull or cow will excrete 40 kilograms of manure for every kilogram of beef produced, farmers prefer to use chemical fertilisers rather than utilising manure (as a natural fertiliser);
• Farmers are responsible for the deaths of many rare and beautiful predatory species, including different types of wolf (the Red Wolf has almost been hunted to extinction in the lower American states);
• Around 80,000 coyotes are killed each year in the US;
• Organic farming saves energy, uses less land, is less wasteful, prevents erosion and is more humane;
• Unlike meat, some grains require no further treatment and don't need to be refrigerated;
• Roughly a fifth of the world's land area is used for grazing - twice the area required to grow crops;
• Grazing species displace wild species;
• Fish farming in coastal areas can spread disease, and faecal matter can pollute local water systems;
• Sea nets often trap seabirds and such things as turtles, porpoises and cetations;
• In some Pacific countries, sharks are caught, their fins are removed, and then they're thrown back into the ocean to bleed to death - shark fin soup is a delicacy in many Asian countries.

Behind the above points there lingers a deep philosophical question. It regards human nature. On one level, we are animals - the same as all other species. We need food. We are mammals and we are omnivores. We need sustenance. On another level, we are evolved, moral beings with primate brains. On which level we operate is our choice, but it's an interesting one and it says a lot about human nature. We can see what consequences our actions have and we can see the suffering our actions impose indirectly on animals and people all over the planet. What actions should we take?

What are the solutions?

Eating low on the food chain is a powerful way to reduce the amount of land needed to support your existence (your ecological footprint). Less farmland means more natural areas. It also means less soil erosion, fewer dams, less pesticide use and less energy use.

A vegetarian diet is also healthier for the body. Numerous studies show that vegetarian foods greatly help in the prevention of heart disease, cancer and many other diet-related diseases (whereas red meat consumption has been linked with such ailments as heart disease and high blood pressure - due to the high calorific content of red meat).

As the earth's human population continues to expand, two things are critical for our survival: adequate food resources and intact wilderness areas. One sure way to achieve both is a dramatic shift in food choices, away from animal products toward plant-based foods.

The transition to vegetarian and vegan lifestyles from meat-eating lifestyles is ideal, but it isn't essential: all that is necessary is a reduction in meat consumption, coupled with a change in eating habits - more pulses, chicken, salads and root vegetables. An emphasis on organic farming is also needed.

We in the west have to ask ourselves this question: can we continue to live like kings at the expense of millions of other people? It's a moral question, and it's an issue which is going to greatly affect our lives in the future whether we like it or not. Something's gotta give....

Margaret Atwood on religion.

Margaret Atwood is a renowned feminist author. Her book The Handmaid's Tale depicts a scenario in which the Old Testament is adopted as the founding stone of a new American totalitarian regime.

In this regime, women are forced to be handmaid's to men - they have to cook, clean and bear children, otherwise they will either be hung as dissenters or sent out into the irradiated world beyond to die slow and painful deaths.

In these three videos, Margaret gives her views on religion. I found them very profound. Enjoy them:

The ten worst Bible passages (courtesy of the Telegraph).

No. 1: St Paul’s advice about whether women are allowed to teach men in church:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12.)

No. 2: In this verse, Samuel, one of the early leaders of Israel, orders genocide against a neighbouring people:

“This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3.)

No. 3: A command of Moses:

“Do not allow a sorceress to live.” (Exodus 22:18.)

No. 4: The ending of Psalm 137, a psalm which was made into a disco calypso hit by Boney M, is often omitted from readings in church:

“Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9.)

No. 5: Another blood-curdling tale from the Book of Judges, where an Israelite man is trapped in a house by a hostile crowd, and sends out his concubine to placate them:

“So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, ‘Get up; let’s go.’ But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.” (Judges 19:25-28.)

No. 6: St Paul condemns homosexuality in the opening chapter of the Book of Romans:

“In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1:27.)

No. 7: In this story from the Book of Judges, an Israelite leader, Jephthah, makes a rash vow to God, which has to be carried out:

“And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, ‘If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord’s, to be offered up by me as a burnt-offering.’ Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and there was his daughter coming out to meet him with timbrels and with dancing. She was his only child; he had no son or daughter except her. When he saw her, he tore his clothes, and said, ‘Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low; you have become the cause of great trouble to me. For I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot take back my vow.’” (Judges 11:30-1, 34-5.)

No. 8: The Lord is speaking to Abraham in this story where God commands him to sacrifice his son:

‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.’ (Genesis 22:2.)

No. 9: “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22.)

No. 10: “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18.)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6120373/Top-10-worst-Bible-passages.html

An introduction to grammar.

Every language has its own grammar. A grammar is defined as how words come together to form meaning. The way in which words are arranged to form meaning is called syntax. Grammars deal with tense (how inflections can change the temporal meaning of words) and different types of words.

In the English language, there are typically defined as being eight different types of words: nouns, adjectives, verbs, pronouns, adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions and determiners. That sounds slightly mind-bending, but there's an elegant simplicity to understanding grammar that I hope to show you.

When young people think of grammar, they think of long, tedious hours spent looking at blackboards, hearing middle-aged, balding men drone on about tense and syntax. That is an entirely false impression - not only is grammar fun to learn and rewarding to know about, but it's essential. Words are the building blocks of thoughts: knowing what words are and mean will greatly improve your ability to communicate with other people simply and effectively. An uneducated man and an educated man might both be able to read the same sentence aloud, but I'm sure the former will appreciate it only on a superficial level.

Unfortunately, grammar wasn't taught properly for around 25 years between the 70s and late 90s because yuppie, baby-boomer politicians and thinkers thought the dogmatic, purist method of teaching English restricted rather than aided communication. Rather than teaching children grammar, teachers were encouraged to let them freely converse during classes and work on acquiring knowledge of language through speaking rather than reading and writing. As a result of that, a whole generation of people have been brought up with appalling levels of literacy.

Aside from that, other crimes against the English language have been perpetrated in the intervening years from groups - such as businessmen and politicians - and movements - such as the politically correct movement (which has only recently begun to come to its knees).

Language should enable thought; not restrict it. Politically correct language makes people think in a tunnelled fashion and greatly diminishes individual thought. Whilst the genesis of the movement had its roots in moral decency, it grew to encompass something that made people frown on using perfectly good language - instead making them use euphemisms and more soft, watered-down phrases. I'll give examples of such watering down in my next article. In this article, however, I'm going to give you an introduction into the basics of grammar. I hope you enjoy it and find it useful.

Nouns.

Nouns are naming words - words we give to concrete things which can tangibly be felt. However, nouns aren't just things like cats, dogs, cars, trees and people - they can encompass ideas as well. There are four types of noun:

• Concrete: these describe concrete things which you can see and feel and hear, such as cats, dogs or, even, clouds;
• Abstract: these encompass conceptual, human things such as love, happiness and anger;
• Proper: these nouns are given to people, organisations and places and always begin with capital letters - think of Paris, Lucy or Microsoft;
• Collective nouns: these apply to groups of people, animals or things, such as flocks, teams or families. (Take the word goose for example: the singular is goose, the plural is geese, but the collective is flight of geese.)
  

Nouns can be either singular or plural - singular means consisting of one thing; plural means consisting of more than one thing - such as animal/animals, pint/pints, child/children, etc.. Nouns can also be possessive - this is technically known as the genitive case. That just means that sometimes nouns can possess other nouns.

For example, in the phrase John's bicycle John - the subject - has possession over the bicycle - the object. We show possession by using an apostrophe. With singular nouns, the noun should always be qualified with an apostrophe and an s ('s) - such as Sarah's hat or the cat's dinner. With plural nouns, the same rule should be applied (unless the word already ends with an s). For example:

• Children's - the word children is a plural noun and, because it ends with an n, an apostrophe and an s ('s) qualify it;
• Kids' - with the word kids', however, no s qualifies it - because to do so would make the word unpronounceable (kids's doesn't make any sense and is extremely awkward to say).

However, with certain words ending in s certain traditions are held. For example, even though the word Jesus's (such as Jesus's Sermon on the Mount) can be pronounced quite well, the tradition is to drop the final s and instead write Jesus'. This tradition applies to other biblical figures, such as Moses, as well.

Adjectives.

Adjectives are words that describe nouns. Usually, they come before the nouns which they describe, but they can come afterwards. For example:

• A beautiful day;
• A nervous feeling;
• A kind person;
• A strange disposition.

Adjectives can also be used to show comparison. These types of adjectives come in two forms: comparatives and superlatives. Comparative adjectives typically end in -er, whilst superlatives end in -est. Comparatives highlight if something has a larger degree of a certain quality when compared with something similar, whilst superlatives highlight if something has the maximum degree of a certain quality (such as height, colour or width, for example). The following examples illustrate my point:

• Bigger, whiter, smaller, taller, fatter, wider, thinner and higher are comparatives;
• Biggest, whitest, smallest, tallest, fattest, widest, thinnest and highest are superlatives.

Rather than modifying words with -er and -est inflections, one can simply use the words more and most. For example, rather than saying taller and tallest, one can say more tall and most tall. In some examples, the words more and most must be used - such as with the word intelligent; one can't say intelligenter and intelligentest (unless you're a child), but, rather, more intelligent and most intelligent. If you ever hear someone use the word intelligentest, you'll know straight away that they're not intelligent.

Factoid: in America, the word superlative is pronounced superl-ative, whereas in the UK it's pronounced super-lative.

Verbs.

Verbs are defined as doing words - because they express actions. However, they can also express physical and mental states. For example:

• The boy jumps (simple action);
• The girl eats (simple action);
• The house stands on the hill (simple state);
• I think that will be all right (simple mental state/action).

Verbs will tell you what a subject (a thing which performs an action) is doing or being. Remember: subjects perform actions; objects have actions done to them.

All verbs begin with a base (or infinitive) form from which all other forms of the verb are derived. (To be - and all its variants - is an example of the base form of a verb - think of to run, to eat or to play, for examples.)

There are two types of verb: main and auxiliary. A main verb expresses the main meaning of a sentence. Auxiliary verbs are verbs that come before main verbs and aid them. For example, in the sentence I must have been thinking, the main verb is thinking - which is aided by three auxiliary verbs: must, have and been.

Auxiliary verbs are of two types: primary and modal. There are only three types of primary verb: be, have and do - and their variants, such as:

• Be: been, being;
• Do: did, doing, done;
• Have: had, having.

Look at the following sentences for examples of primary verbs in action:

1. He/she is running.
2. Have you spent all your money? Did you go to the doctor's surgery today?
   
3. I do want to see you. I have got what you asked for.
4. I did not go to school this morning.

The first example expresses a simple statement. In (2), the examples show how primary verbs can be used to form questions. In (3), the examples show how intent and emphasis can be shown. In (4), the example shows how negative statements can be expressed.

The three examples are also the only auxiliary verbs which can also be used as main verbs. For example:

1. She is unhappy/he is tall;
2. I have a new car/they have venereal diseases;
3. He did it/I did nothing.

Modal auxiliaries are only ever used in conjunction with main verbs. There are nine in total: must, should, would, could, can, will, shall, might, and may. Modal verbs can significantly alter the tone of questions, making them sound more polite or more fiery: Must I carry this, mother? They can also show emphasis or anger in statements: I shall not go! Modal verbs can also change commands into questions: see pass the salt and would you pass the salt?

Tense (verbs continued)

Whilst there are dozens of tenses, it's most simple to think of there being only three: past, present and future. The past and present tenses can be shown by adding simple inflections; whilst the future tense is usually shown by the adding of modal auxiliary verbs such as will or shall. For example, take variants of the word do:

• I do like you;
  
• I did like you;
• I will still like you.

A simpler example is to take a single word. For the sake of example, I'll choose start:

• Present: I start/I have started;
• Past: I started/I did start;
• Future: I will start/ I will be starting/I will have started.

The inflection -ed alters the tense of most present tense verbs to the past tense.

Voice (verbs continued)

There are two voices: active and passive. In the active voice, things do things; in the passive voice, things have things done to them. For example:

• Active: John has apologised/a train has run over a young person;
• Passive: an apology has been given by John/ a young person has been killed by a train.

The active voice sounds immediate and makes things sound more exciting. The passive voice sounds tame and makes things sound dull. Where most news-writers prefer to write in the active voice, politicians prefer to speak in the passive voice: rather than saying: we will issue a policy soon, a politician is more likely to say: by that time, we will have issued a policy. By using the passive voice, a person can avoid responsibility for having done - or doing - certain things. Sometimes, news-writers play it safe by using the passive voice because, in that way, assertions are less likely to be made.

Transitive and intransitive verbs

The word transitive means to transmit an action. A transitive verb transmits an action to a object; an intransitive verb doesn't. Some verbs don't require objects; some verbs can make sense both with and without objects - it all depends if the subject is doing something to something else. For example, a man can kick a dog but can also kick out:

• The man kicked the dog (subject, verb, object);
• The man kicked (subject, verb).

Sometimes, an object isn't needed - such as with the word sleep (one goes to sleep but doesn't sleep something). One verb which is popularly abused by waiters is enjoy. They say enjoy, and I think enjoy what? Enjoy the view? Enjoy my wife's trim legs? Enjoy the pathetic level of intelligence of the waiter? The waiter should say: enjoy your meal or enjoy your drinks, because one can't enjoy nothing; one has to enjoy something.

The subjunctive (verbs continued)

By 'the subjunctive', I mean the word were. Were is used to indicate both the impossible and the possible:

Impossible: If I were you...; if I were a chicken;
Possible: If I were to take up the job; if I were to have my penis enlarged by several inches....

Never confuse the words were and was when writing unless you want to be the subject of admonition (and possible intense sneering).

Adverbs

In the same way that adjectives describe nouns, adverbs describe verbs - they state how things are done. Most adverbs end in -ly, but not always. For example:

• She ran quickly;
• He feels much better;
• They left immediately. (Alternatively, one could say: they left in a hurry.)

Before I go on to pronouns, I'd like to give a quick word on sentence construction (which I'll elaborate on in my next article). Sentences are made out of clauses, and clauses are made out of phrases. Most sentences have the following construction: subject, verb, object. For example:

The boy (subject) kicked (verb) the dog (object). Subjects do actions; objects receive them. Remember? Good. Sometimes, the object can come before the subject - as in the passive voice: the dog was kicked by the boy. However, some simple sentences have the following form: subject, verb (such as she fell).

Aside from objects, sentences can also finish with complements and adverbial phrases. A complement gives more information about the subject or the object of a sentence. An adverbial provides extra information with regard to time, place or manner. For example:

Complement: the art is great, we were hungry, they like football;
Adverbial: I spoke to him last week, she smiled broadly (adverbial phrases often end in -ly).

Pronouns

Pronouns are words that take the place of nouns. For example, in the sentence Paula gave the book to George, the words Paula, book and George could be replaced with she, it and him. There are several types of pronoun: personal, possessive, reflexive, demonstrative, indefinite, relative and interrogative.

Before I continue, I should quickly state that pronouns come in three persons: the first (I, me, my, mine, we, us, and ours), second (you, yours) and third (he, she, it, him, her, they, them, his, hers, its and theirs).

Like regular nouns, pronouns come in two forms: singular and plural. Look at the following:

1st person (singular) I, me, my, mine;
1st person (plural): we, us, our, ours;
2nd person (singular): you, yours;
2nd person (plural): you, yours;
3rd person (singular): he, she, it, him, her, his, hers, theirs, its;
3rd person (plural): they, them, theirs.

Personal pronouns replace objects and subjects (usually people's names - proper nouns) in sentences. I, you, he, she and it are examples of the subject; me, him, her and it are examples of the object. For example:

• I drove him home;
• He thanked me for the lift.

Possessive pronouns show possession and replace proper nouns. Rather than saying Sarah's bag or the children's ball, you could say: her bag (or this is hers) or their ball.

Reflexive pronouns relate to the subject of a sentence and end in -self or -selves: he cut himself; they congratulated themselves on the win.

Demonstrative pronouns point at something or someone: this, these, those, that. For example:

• Do you want these?
• Read the letter. That will tell you what you want to know.

Indefinite pronouns are pronouns which do not refer to specific people or things. Examples of these are: someone, no one, anyone, something, nothing, anything, and everything.

Relative pronouns act as linking words in a sentence. The relative pronouns are: and who, whom and whose (when referring to people) and which and that (when referring to things). They refer to nouns and are always placed immediately after the noun(s) to which they refer:

• A city that has many tourist attractions; the city that never sleeps.

Who, whom and whose can also be used in a different way in interrogative pronouns - when forming questions. The following examples illustrate my point:

• Who did that?
• To whom does this belong?
• Whose is this?

A quick note on relative pronouns:

People often confuse the relative pronouns who and that when referring to people. For example, look at the following sentence:

• Did you see the man that was in the bar?

That is ungrammatical, but you probably often hear that sort of thing coming from young, moronic males. We use who when referring to people for the same reason we don't use who when referring to animals - because they're animals! You don't hear people asking questions like: Did you see the horse who kicked Maria's head off?

Conjunctions

Conjunctions join clauses together and come in two types: co-ordinating and subordinating conjunctions. The co-ordinating conjunctions are: and, but and or. They are used when clauses are of equal value and can stand on their own as complete thoughts:

• I went out today and had an ice-cream. (I went out today and had an ice-cream are both complete thoughts and could potentially both make complete sentences.)

The subordinating conjunctions are: whilst, because, when, as, after, although, unless, until and however - to name only a few. A subordinate clause lacks a verb and so is reliant on the main verb of a sentence:

• I think that, whilst Jim is fun, I prefer Sam and David. (In this sentence, whilst Jim is fun is a subordinate clause and doesn't make sense on its own - if you remove that phrase, the sentence will read: I think that I prefer Sam and David.)

Prepositions

Prepositions show how one thing relates to another (the subject to the object). Prepositions are words such as: at, behind, up, below, inside, in, into, on, opposite, above, under, along, before, during, and after - to name but a few. For example:

• I chased the squirrel up the tree.
• I spoke to the man behind the desk.
• My sister came down the stairs.

All of the above examples take the form: subject, verb, preposition, object.

Determiners

Determiners precede nouns and usually refer to them. Common ones are the indefinite and definite articles (a/an and the), possessive determiners (my, our, your, his, her, its, their), and demonstrative determiners (this, that, these, those). Other determiners refer to quantity: one, two, three....

Note the difference between possessive determiners and possessive pronouns: whilst possessive determiners show possession (that's my pen), possessive pronouns replace nouns (that's mine).

The indefinite article refers to unspecific things:

• an apple (the word an is used if it precedes a noun begins with a vowel);
• a present (the word a is used if it precedes a noun begins with a consonant).

The definite article refers to specific things:

• The pen is on the table;
• The man gave it to me...;
  
• Do you have the time?
  

Note: Some words - such as hour - start with consonants that aren't aspirated and so start with the indefinite article (an hour), whereas other words have hard sounds and begin
with a: a history - he has a history that baffles me. A lot of people do say an history, though - it's up to you to decide which one you'd like to use.