LEND ME YOUR EAR: WE CONTINUE TO LEARN, PRESERVE, DISCARD

Although I thought I was shock-proof when it comes to the misuse of language, a TV reporter all but traumatized me some weeks ago when she announced that a new employer "forbidded" his secretary to disclose he had raped her. I couldn't have heard wrong because "forbidden", used as a verb, requires an auxiliary such as have, has, or had.

When I was in high school, the past tense of "forbid" was "forbade", pronounced "forbad" in those days. "Forbid" was not listed as a past tense, though dictionaries have always done so. But our current interest lies in "forbidden", as in "Mother has forbidden us to play with our neighbor's dog." "Forbidden" is also used as an adjective. We may indulge in "forbidden pleasures" as long as our church doesn't know. But "forbidded" as a past tense or an adjective is forbidden by the whole English-speaking world.

On a recent CNN commercial flaunting this channel's superiority to all others, we heard that "there's more than one ways to watch TV." Thank God. I can watch black-and-white and skip cable altogether if so inclined. I have yet to encounter "one ways" other than on CNN, though I often hear "a long ways" over the air and even find it in print. However, we have covered this misuse more than once in earlier columns, so readers are spared another rundown.

Also on CNN, a reporter attempting to describe what happened in the Waco compound announced that "these kind" of actions are not understood by anyone "irregardless" of background or education. (Never mind the universal ban on "irregardless", which no literate speaker or writer is likely to use.") Anyone out there ever had a half-competent teacher who failed to explain that "these" is plural and "kind" is singular, and any deviation from "this kind" and "these kinds" is unacceptable? What makes this cable company think it can educate the whole world through "moom pitchers"? Where does basic grammar fit in?

In our local and area schools, where else? As evidenced by the accomplishments of their students, Cape Girardeau, Jackson, and other nearby districts may have more excellent teachers per pupil than can be found anywhere else in the state. For the benefit of readers who may have misunderstood a facetious remark of mine in a recent column, I was referring to peer pressure, not to the quality of teaching. An example of this appeared in a much earlier column. Perhaps Richard Renfrow could fill readers in.

To continue, I was not alone in suffering a shock when a widely-known TV personality announced that an accused criminal had been "exempted" from all blame. None of us knew "exempted" existed. "Exempt" had served us well all our lives. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate defines "exempt" as an adjective dating from 1512, meaning "one who is exempted", or freed from duty or blame. The verb is listed as transitive only, but principal parts are not given. American Heritage lists principal parts, transitive only, as "exempt, exempted, exempting, exempts." We of the old school find it difficult to accept even the transitive usage, but we can no longer question the use by others. What offends our ear and sense of what is right is not necessarily offensive to others.

We also continue to find disagreement in the use of "good" versus "well", especially in the sense of feeling. A Ph.D dissertation or a new textbook could be written on the confusing help we receive from dictionaries and books on usage. However, we still maintain that we "feel well" if we are healthy", "feel good" if speaking informally, and "look good" if referring to personal appearance. Lest readers wonder, "we" is a collective pronoun herein used in a general sense.

American Heritage reminds us that "good" is used as an adjective in linking verbs; that we "feel bad" (or lousy) if ill or have hurt someone without meaning to; that the dress "looks good" on a model, but "fits well" even on us, granted we are daring enough to try it on. And though today's weather may be "fair", the car you are driving (I don't drive) "runs well." Just don't tempt it beyond its limit.

Finally, if anyone out there can split more hairs than I've felt compelled to do, he should write a new dictionary of usage, or take over Lend Me Your Ear. It could be the rudest awakening any reader has ever experienced in the realm of language.