LAS LENGUAS INGLESA Y ESPAÑOLA de Delfín Carbonell

I regularly receive the Modern Language Association newsletter The Source from the MLA Style Center, which I peruse diligently. In the issue of 29 January 2026, an article titled “A Common Mistake: Should of in Place of Should Have” caught my attention. It opens with the statement: “You may have seen people write should of , but that is grammatically incorrect.” I do not generally encounter such usage, nor do I associate with people who write in that manner. Indeed, contrary to the claim, I cannot recall ever hearing anyone say should of in place of should have . I may be living on the fringes of present-day English, but I find the assertion surprising nonetheless. The author, Laura Kiernan, suggests that “the mistake probably comes from the fact that should’ve sounds similar to should of when spoken.” Try as I might, however, I cannot hear should’ve as resembling should of . While the explanation is plausible, pointing out this “mistake” strikes me as somewhat unnecessary for ...

  I grant you that it is often hard, but I try to listen to what people say, and I even go further: I try to listen to how they say what they say. Sometimes, what people say does not jibe with what they mean or what we intuit they mean or try to express. Lately, I have noticed how some speakers say "allusion" when they mean "illusion". The phonetics of both words are similar and may be open to misinterpretation. Luckily, today, online English dictionaries gift us with sound, and we can hear the phonetic difference between "illusion", something that deceives or misleads intellectually (among other definitions), and "allusion", a passing or casual reference. Dr. Wayne Dyer interchanged -or mispronounced- both words often. To avoid this, we should practice pronouncing the two words out loud or in a whisper. 

The Elements of Style by Strunk and White , is a little book I recommend, not only to would-be writers but also to would-be learners of English. In 100 pages, the authors condense all there is to know about writing and speaking. We are exposed to simple facts that most students are not aware of. For example: "The colloquial have got  for have   should not be used in writing." He has not got any sense should be He has no sense . You have got a problem should be you have a problem.  We are told about the usage of people and person : "If of six people, five went away, how many people would be left? Answer: one people." (one person, of course.) Many Spàniards begin by saying: "La verdad es que..." and Strunk and White tell us: " The truth is ..., a bad beginning for a sentence. If you feel you are possessed of the truth, simply state it. Do not give it advance billing." And ditto for the fact is el caso es . 

Muddy prose is the result of muddy thinking. Clear, easy-to-understand writing is a joy forever. I mention this because, of late, I have been reading and rereading prose that made no sense, even after going over sentences several times. Why this? I take it personally and think that poorly written prose is an insult to the reader. The writer does not give a hoot whether his muddy writing makes sense or not and puts the effort to decipher the hastily written piece squarely upon our shoulders. Most people who put their fingertips to the keyboard do not know their craft and scoff at grammar. "Grammar is not just a pain in the ass; -says Stephen King-  it is the pole you grab to get your thoughts up on their feet and walking." Further: "Simple sentences provide the path you can follow when you fear getting lost in the tangles of rhetoric." And how about vocabulary? "One of the really bad things you can do to your writing is to dress up the vocabulary, looking for lo...

Of late, I have fallen into the habit of listening to the radio, late in the day, in bed, in the dark of my room. And I have become addicted to the CBS Mystery Radio Programs of old. Most of them are hosted by the actor E.G. Marshall (look him up) and mostly written by Sam Dan (1918-2004), a scriptwriter and novelist, and professor at Tisch School of the Arts , New York University. I listen attentively to the plot, the dialog, the presentation... and every time I close my eyes in awe at these small gems of art, of writing at its best. I urge all those trying to master the English language, to listen to these radio cameos. You will be instructed, entertained, and will hear good educated English at the same time. This is a small tribute to Sam Dan , a true writer and master of the technique of short writing.          

  Reincido en este tema porque parece que no me he explicado bien. ¿Cuál es el mejor inglés? ¿El norteamericano, o el irlandés o el neozelandés? Saquen papel y lapicero y apunten: El mejor inglés es el que se entiende a la primera . Algo falla cuando hay que decir please, repeat , o what ? o come again ? Más simple, imposible. Apliquémonos el cuento cuando hablemos inglés (y ya de paso, cuando hablemos castellano.)

  By courtesy of Lorraine Ladish ( Vivafifty ), I have access to NETFLIX.  On and off, I watch  SUITS , about a classy law firm. The attorneys there are all Harvard graduates; graduates of other universities need not apply. La crème de la crème. These attorneys-at-law look down on other law schools in the country, and they say so constantly. All fine and dandy but, for the life of me, I cannot understand how these uppity, snobbish, high-and-mighty lawyers can say, again and again: "Like I was saying...", "Like I said..." as if they belonged to an intellectual low class. "One another" is not in their vocabulary, but "each other" is used constantly. "The three of us must help each other" which means they love to cross legal and linguistic lines, to show the riffraff who they are. "Can I come in?" is standard in SUITS , instead of the old-world "May I come in?"  Some may (can?) argue that those "errors" are ...