LEND ME YOUR EAR: YOUR IDIOLECT IS SHOWING!

We have readers who would like to know the difference between syntax and idiom. We formalists spend most of our lives trying to master the art of writing, but we seldom think of categorizing our efforts. Often, usage defies classification, or categories overlap.

The term "syntax" is considered vague and general and puts us on the spot. American Heritage defines it as (1) the way in which words are put together to form phrases and sentences; (2) the branch of grammar dealing with the formation of phrases and sentences. Someone has opposed the use of "dealing with" in this sense, but neither Heritage nor Webster's Ninth has struck a deal with the critic.

To say that to write and speak clearly requires a knowledge of proper syntax is hardly original. To find offenses against clarity is scarcely difficult. One of the saddest examples of flawed syntax came from a lady on a recent TV special, though her topic was "understanding" among human beings, that is. Her comment: "We have to touch and communicate to another person that they care." Did she mean we have to touch the person to communicate and show that we care, or the person needs this sort of assurance to show we know he or she cares? Who is they?

Easier for us to comprehend, but still poor syntax, was a statement made on Washington Week when a guest said: "Baker had to come back because his mother died without any resolution to the problem." The speaker meant Baker had to return without completing his mission, because his mother died. A dying American woman has little concern for problems in far-off lands.

In an article coming out of Washington, D.C., we read that Defense Secretary Cheney's idea to close military bases was not approved by all our senators: "... the senators disagreed with the practicality of making cuts in a letter to Cheney this week." Making cuts in letters is often a wise pursuit, but the cuts had to do with the budget, not the letters. Nor did the senators disagree with the idea. They disagreed with Cheney with regard to or about the idea. But this is a matter of idiom: syntactic idiom, to be exact.

Experts on language keep reminding us that we are judged by the way we use words, and our idiolect reveals who we are. Time was when idiom was deeply rooted in our language, and widely employed. However, with growing numbers of non-readers and poor listeners, to say nothing of immigration and the expansion of our populations, idiom has become a problem. There are no rules or principles on which to base idiom. Idioms are "laws unto themselves," to lift a phrase from word maven Harry Shaw, without whose Dictionary of Problem Words and Expressions this column would be even less complete.

But Shaw was not the first to point out that American idiom varies greatly from region to region, and also according to occupation, social and financial status, lifestyle, even to age bracket. This is ground we have covered before. But we have not touched upon the many expressions we have that are formed with verbs conveying meanings far removed from the source. Consider the verb make, for example: to cause to happen or create. In some parts of the country, people make breakfast. In our region, we prepare or just get it. But we also "make do," "make good," "make away with," "make believe." Pity the poor immigrant in the throes of learning English!

Harry Shaw lists dozens of such examples dealing with verbs alone, and we can only graze what he covers. To my intense satisfaction, he also goes to great lengths to show the proper idiom in the use of prepositions and comparisons, listing them under IDIOMATIC AND UNIDIOMATIC: desirous of, not to; unequal to, not for; prior to, not than; according to, not with; acquaint with, not to; superior to, not than. And on and on. Too bad more speakers and writers have no inkling of such a list.

Last week, on Charles Kuralt's Sunday Morning, a guest introduced a sculptor who specializes in caricatures of the famous. The narrator explained: "This will be a much more amusing portrait as you expect." Idiom required "more amusing than you expect."

On a documentary showing thousands of Kurds on the move, the announcer told viewers that the coalition "would like to see the Kurds back to their homes." Did he mean see, or escort? To was the correct preposition if the coalition wanted to escort them back. But it was faulty idiom if they wished to see them in the literal sense of seeing at or in their homes. And this is where syntax and idiom overlap!