I walked past a restaurant the other day (something that a large number of our obese population should try doing!) and noticed that it had a function room for hire, complete with its own bar, at competitive rates. What really grabbed my attention though was the final sentence of the advertisement which stated that the deal would include a “Complimentary DJ”. That’s nice, I thought, not only do you get a good deal on the room but you have the bonus of a polite and charming DJ!

Clearly, the person who drafted the advert meant nothing of the kind and was simply stating that the services of a DJ would be provided free of charge, as in complementary with an “e”. It’s a common enough mistake I suppose and typical of the poor levels of grammar and literacy we have come to expect in modern life.

There has been plenty of debate recently over government proposals to alter our education system in an attempt to improve standards in state schools. One suggestion was for the reintroduction of rote learning whereby children are taught (as my generation were) to learn tables and various formulas to assist in that learning. Some critics have scorned this idea but I think they are wrong.

To illustrate my point, I’ll provide a couple of examples. Firstly, the words “principal” and “principle”. The former is a person and the latter is a thing, as my old English master taught me during my first year at grammar school over 45 years ago! He taught me that the best way to remember the meanings of these particular words is the phrase “My pal is a principal” (princey – pal). It stuck with me and if I’m ever undecided I can summon it up instantly.

The second example is “stationary” and “stationery”. One means still or motionless and the other is paper or writing material, though the use of these words  often seems to cause confusion. Once more, a simple formula will solve the problem. If in doubt think of a stationary car and stationery paper, “ar” for c-ar and station-ar-y and “er” for pap-er and station-er-y.

These aids to memory are tried and tested and certainly, in my case, have withstood the passage of time. What harm can come of teaching these and similar to today’s school children? We should give it a go, as a matter of principle!