THE Star included a letter written by Graham Norton to the newly-wed royal couple in its Royal Wedding Special on April 29.

The letter is very compelling and beautifully written in a high standard of English. However, there are some difficult phrases that I hope you will explain. Here is a paragraph:

“Obviously everyone hopes the day goes smoothly. Fingers crossed the King of Tonga doesn’t choke on his swan fanfare or a piper in a kilt doesn’t trip over making the Queen think they are serving undercooked haggis.”

Please tell me what the paragraph means and the meaning of the words in bold. Are they idiomatic phrases? – Kee

In the sentence, the writer actually makes some jokes concerning food, royalty and the Scots. I shall try to explain the jokes. By the way, what you read as “fanfare” is actually “tartare”. The font of Graham Norton’s letter makes it hard to decipher certain words.

1. “Fingers crossed the King of Tonga doesn’t choke on his swan tartare (NOT fanfare) ...”

The King of Tonga, as you may know, comes from a Pacific island, where the traditional food is probably pretty simple, like suckling pig roasted over an open fire. He was a guest at the Royal Wedding where one would expect British gourmet and traditional food to be served. A “tartare steak”, whatever meat one uses, is gourmet food made of chopped or minced raw meat served with spices and sometimes a raw egg. The King of Tonga, like many of us, is likely to choke on such food, gourmet though it may be. It is unlikely, though, that “swan tartare” was actually served at the recent Royal Wedding, because swan meat is seldom eaten now, although it used to be a popular royal dish in England a few hundred years ago. Graham Norton was just letting his comic imagination run wild! The swan, however, has connections with royalty, since all the swans in the UK, except for those in the Orkney Islands, belong by law to the monarch. (http://yhst-46145187252911.stores.yahoo.net/swanmeat.html)

2. “... piper in a kilt doesn’t trip over making the Queen think they are serving undercooked haggis”.

When telling jokes about the Scots, people often choose to mention the kilt, part of the Scottish national costume for men and women, as well as haggis, the Scottish national dish.

“Piper” here means a bagpiper, someone who plays a bagpipe. Bagpipes are often played on ceremonial occasions including a wedding. There may have been some bagpipers on duty during the recent Royal Wedding, but I can’t remember. A man in a kilt looks funny to non-Scots, because the kilt is essentially a skirt with a sporran (pouch) hanging in front of it. Haggis is a national dish made of heart and lungs of one lamb with a few other ingredients including spices, stuffed into a sheep’s stomach and boiled for about three hours. It is delicious to those who are used to it, but non-Scots often joke about it, as non-Kelantanese joke about budu, for example. If a bagpiper on duty at the Royal Wedding did trip over (fall down), of course Queen Elizabeth was unlikely to notice it and more unlikely to associate it with eating undercooked haggis, but Graham Norton was only making a Scots joke!

In case anybody is interested in a recipe for haggis, here’s a link: www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/haggis_66072

The imaginary conditional

I am referring to imaginary situations where the word IF is concerned. 

For example:

1. If I were you, I would get the cab instead of boarding the bus.

2. If she were there, we could discuss about the matter thoroughly.

3. If you have the chance to do something kind, do it whole-heartedly.

From what I understand, when “if” is used in a sentence or clause, the verb used must also be in the past tense. May I know the differences among the examples above? – JM

A conditional sentence using “if” has at least two clauses: the clause containing “if” is called the conditional clause, and the other clause is called the main clause. Not all conditional sentences containing “if” use the past tense in the conditional clause.

Sentences 1) and 2) are what is known as a second conditional sentence, which talks about situations that are impossible, unreal or unlikely. Such sentences use a simple past tense verb in the conditional clause and “would”, “could” or “should” in the main clause. Sentence 3), however, talks about a possible situation and is known as a first conditional sentence. In this kind of sentence, the conditional clause uses a simple present tense verb, and the main verb uses “will”, “shall” or a verb in the imperative mood.

1. This sentence talks about an impossible situation because “I” can never be “you”. That is why the past tense verb “were” is used in the conditional clause and “would” is used before the verb “get” in the main clause. “Were” is often used instead of “was” in this type of conditional sentence.

2. This sentence talks about an unreal situation. “She” is obviously not there, and that is why “were” is used in the conditional clause and “could” in the main clause. (“discuss”, by the way, should not be followed by “about”)

3. Even though “if” is used in this sentence, the situation mentioned can occur in the future, so it is a possible situation. That is why a simple present tense verb, “have” is used in the conditional clause. The main clause uses the verb “do” in the imperative mood, and here it is used to advise someone how to do something kind if the chance arises to do so in the future. (A verb in the imperative mood orders or asks or advises one to do something).

The impersonal ‘it’

Here is an excerpt from an article in The Guardian (www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/mar/14/tim-flannery-here-on-earth):

“It was hunters in the inhospitable high alpine valleys of New Guinea who led Flannery to the major event of his career in field biology: the discovery in 2004 of a new species of tree kangaroo now living above the tree line – the dingiso...”

Perhaps it’s a matter of style but “Hunters ... led Flannery ...” could have avoided the apparently awkward juxtaposition of “it” and “hunters”.

So what does “It” refer to? – sm

The sentence you quoted has a cleft structure, which allows a writer to focus on the first clause by using an impersonal “it” + “be” verb + noun phrase/noun/pronoun before a relative clause.

The “be” verb in the sentence is “was”,

the noun phrase is “hunters in the inhospitable high alpine valleys of New Guinea”, and

the relative clause is “who led Flannery to the major event of his career in field biology ...”

The sentence can be rewritten without the cleft structure if there is no intention to focus on or stress those particular hunters’ role in leading Flannery “to the major event of his career”. This is done by removing “It was” as well as the relative pronoun “who” to make:

“Hunters in the inhospitable high alpine valleys of New Guinea led Flannery to the major event of his career in field biology ...” (the sentence you suggested)

I don’t think you should worry about the “apparently awkward juxtaposition” of “it” and “hunters”, if that drew your attention to “hunters”.

Let me give you a simpler example of a cleft sentence. You and your friend A were talking to each other, but stopped when your friend B arrived and asked: “What were you two talking about?” Your answer could be either:

a. “We were talking about you.” (ordinary statement)

OR

b. “It was you (that) we were talking about.” (cleft sentence with impersonal “it” + was + you (stressed) before the relative clause “that we were talking about”)

Aren’t the tones of a. and b. different?

• Survey: Britons love tea more than coffee
• New York City relies on automation technologies to face challenges of urbanisation
• Oil palm firms team up with Sabah to protect Malua Forest Reserve
• Powering the Big Apple
• Build robust cities
• Fun with words
• Rail marvel in New York
• Fun with synonyms
• Carnegie Hall gets green facelift
• Win The Good Food Cook Book!

Latest Jobs from Star-Jobs