Md. Teacher Finds Botched PSAT Question

If that's the rule, then the rule is an ass.

Ex:

1. Woe is I.

2. Woe is me.

Pick one. The grammatically correct one is #1, but really. Would anyone say or write that? See what I mean. This rule is an ass, too.

In the case at hand, genius doesn't DO anything. Genius may allow someone to DO something, but genius itself doesn't do ANYTHING. If grammar rules force a person to compose a sentence that says that genius, rather than the person, is doing something, the rule is an ass.

Common sense overrules grammaticians any day of the week.

This is making my head hurt. :-D

Including the word 'genius' renders the entire sentence false.

Well said!

What a bunch of dog doo-doo this diversity sh** is.

Actually, TM is a phenomenal writer. I just don't like her views.

How about: "Her genius enables Toni Morrison to ..."
That's perfect-- sounds right, carries the right meaning.

"If that's the rule, then the rule is an ass."

You are right "Woe is I" is indeed gramatically correct. What offends is the sound of the statement rather than the grammer.

"Woe is me" is really a phrase derived originally from the Bible. "Alas, woe is me". It has been around, repeated for thousands of years and has become so entrenched in the language the gramatically correct version is offensive to our sensibilities.

The sentence, "[W]oe is me" can't, technically, use an object form because the verb "is" won't take an object; it can be linked to a predicate nominative, which would be "I." On the other hand (take a deep breath), no one talks like that. The phrase "Woe is I" is actually the title of a popular book — Woe Is I: The Grammarphobe's Guide to Better English in Plain English — by Patricia T. O'Conner. I don't own the book, so I don't know what O'Conner says about this titular phrase, but I suspect it's like the detective who discovers, at long last, the murder victim's body: "My God, it's her!" he's going to shout, not "My God, it's she!" (which would be grammatically correct). Perhaps O'Conner makes an argument for why "me" would, in fact, be correct.

In short, because of the history of this phrase and others, it has become an exception to the rule but does not negate the rule.

Many, many years ago I was either told in school or read in a book that common usage incorporates certain words or phrases into our English books; e.g., "It's me." "Drive Slow." "John and myself." "Between you and I." Etc., etc.

Rules are for grammatarians--the speaking rules are for the many, many millions of other Americans.

That's between you and I.

I have that book, but it's been a long time since I read it. I think she makes the point that it's better to speak and write in ways that communicate with your audience than to always be grammatically correct. I'm probably overstating the point, but that's what I recall.

As you are aware this post resulted from an article about the PSAT, a competitive exam used to gain admission to an institution of higher learning.

We often bemoan the educational system in this country and the resultant "dumbing down" of our nation's youth. How on one hand can we be critical of our schools, then in the same breath, not attempt to incorporate of our own education into our day to day life. If we do not use and demonstrate those thing that we were fortunate enough to be taught, where do we have the right to condemn those that were not so fortunate?

Do we now through out the grammatical rules for the ease of expediency? I would hope not.

I have experienced receiving letters from young college graduates seeking employment. Many of these letters weren't written on a junior high school level. Perhaps these graduates were short changed by their teachers and professors or thought that grammar was simply a waste of their time. Young men and women with the benefit and privilege of receiving a college education and they are still unable to communicate using the written word. Pathetic.

I believe that if civilization and culture is to endure, it will only do so by way of pen and paper. To rely on verbal communication is grossly inefficient and haphazard.

I am not a grammatarian, only someone who recognizes the benefit that proper grammer lends to the ability to communicate accurately.

Perhaps O'Conner makes an argument for why "me" would, in fact, be correct.

"Me" is correct because "Woe is I" sounds dorky.

In short, because of the history of this phrase and others, it has become an exception to the rule but does not negate the rule.

Suppose that scientists are studying a certain group of animals. They observe that the behavior of these animals seems to follow certain rules. For example, they may note that the alpha male always has the brightest plumage, and that if a male with brighter plumage enters the flock, it will be attacked until its plumage is no longer the brightest.

Suppose further that a scientist is watching a flock in which a male with brighter plumage than the alpha male enters but is not attacked; the flock continues to recognize the existing alpha male and pays no special attention to the new member. Would it be accurate to accuse the flock of acting improperly?

The rules of grammar as we know them were an attempt by 18th-century scholars to formulate rules to describe how learned people spoke. Although the rules are very useful as a guide for how to speak like a learned person, it is important to note that the rules are, strictly speaking, descriptive rather than prescriptive.

For myself, I rely on two rules: (1) Be clear and reasonably consise; (2) Convey the proper attitude (and don't look stupid except on purpose). The "rules" of grammar are a good guide for people trying to obey these two primary rules; 99% of the time, if there are two ways of saying something and one obeys the rules and the other doesn't, the one which obeys the rules is better. There are, however, some major exceptions to some of the codified rules.

We often bemoan the educational system in this country and the resultant "dumbing down" of our nation's youth. How on one hand can we be critical of our schools, then in the same breath, not attempt to incorporate of our own education into our day to day life. If we do not use and demonstrate those thing that we were fortunate enough to be taught, where do we have the right to condemn those that were not so fortunate?

I attempt to speak and write in intelligently and intelligibly, as do most people here. I don't think that's the issue.

The issue is whether certain linguistic constructs which disobey the "rules" of grammar should necessarily be looked down upon if such constructs are neither unclear, nor awkward, nor excessively verbose.

It is useful to understand the rules of grammar. It is important, however, both to recognize the exceptions and to recognize which "rules" constitute a level of formality which was never really a part of English usage.

Do we now through out the grammatical rules for the ease of expediency? I would hope not.

If the meaning of a particular sentence is clear to anyone in the author's target audience, and if the sentence is not overly verbose or awkward, and if the wording of the sentence will not cause the target audience to question the author's intelligence, then the sentence is fine as it is--all other grammatical rules notwithstanding.

That having been said, grammatical rules provide a useful guide for authors who are trying to make their meaning clear, to avoid needlessly verbose or awkward constructions, and to avoid looking stupid.

The original sentence cited in the PSAT was an example of a sentence which passes all of the tests for good writing (the content of the sentence may make me question the author's judgement, but the wording does not).

I'll have to look through the works of Shakespeare to see if there are sentences where a person's name used in possessive form becomes the referrent of a pronoun. I suspect there probably are.

I have experienced receiving letters from young college graduates seeking employment. Many of these letters weren't written on a junior high school level. Perhaps these graduates were short changed by their teachers and professors or thought that grammar was simply a waste of their time. Young men and women with the benefit and privilege of receiving a college education and they are still unable to communicate using the written word. Pathetic.

I am reminded of some things I've been taught in various arts: one has to know the rules to know when to break them. The "rules" of English are not meant to be obeyed 100% of the time, but aspiring writers should know the rules so they can recognize the occasions when they are not appropriate.

BTW, although I've not generally seen things treated this way, I might like to see a book on grammatical interpretation which includes some of the conflicting rules which are often not listed in grammar texts. For example, the phrase "I and" is awkward, and should generally be avoided even if the only effective way to do so is to use "me" as part of a verb's subject. I've never seen that rule in any textbook, but to my mind it supercedes most others. To be sure, in most occasions where "I and X" would be appropriate, "X and I" would be better. In cases where the latter construct cannot work, however, "Me and X" is better than "I and X".

I believe that if civilization and culture is to endure, it will only do so by way of pen and paper. To rely on verbal communication is grossly inefficient and haphazard.

True enough.

I am not a grammatarian, only someone who recognizes the benefit that proper grammer lends to the ability to communicate accurately.

Accurate communication is the goal. Proper grammar should be a means to that end, not an end in and of itself. It is better to write clearly and [by pedantic standards] non-grammatically than it is to write obscurely, even if such obscure writing is 100% grammatically correct.

Including the word 'genius' renders the entire sentence false.

Amen. I wonder how many whites were acknowledged as geniuses on this PSAT.

That's between you and I.

Not only does that sentence violate the grammarian's rule of using the object pronoun form after a preposition, but it also violates my general rule against ending a sentence with "I". To be sure, I'm somewhat flexible on that rule, but only to the extent that its violation is compelled by other rules.

BTW, one point I think 18th-century grammarians may have missed is that linguistic usage is often governed by prosody. Written language is derived from spoken language, and in spoken language constructs which are difficult to say are generally inferior to those which are easier.

BTW, here's a repost of a piece I posted on another thread.

By the way, would you care to offer an opinion on Auntie Mame's query (post #55)? You seem extremely well-versed in this field. Savage Beast believes that my interpretation is incorrect.

Supercat's rule #1: Unsolicited grammar pedantry is annoying.

Of course, if you really want to know what usage I'd prefer, I would posit the following rule (which I've not seen anywhere else):

Supercat's rule for first-person pronoun selection in compound objects: use what works prosodically. "Me" is generally acceptable anywhere before "and", even in the subject. Occasionally "myself" may be used non-reflexively in cases where prosody doesn't work for "me". "I" is generally preferable after "and" in anything resembling a subject or predicate nominative.

Some examples: (note that some of these go against grammatical rules)

Bob and I are going to the movie. [normal usage]
Me and Bob are North-South, against Dave and Steve, East-West. [in a two-item compound subject where order matters, as in the bridge pairing above, use "me" rather than "I" if the first-person pronoun comes first; if the order of subject nominatives didn't matter "Bob and I" would be preferable]
Bob, me, and two other people are going to the movie. ["two other people" is defined in terms of "Bob and me", and so cannot precede "me" or "I"].
Bob, my wife, myself, and the kids are going to the movie. ["myself" is grammatically nonsensical, but makes the sentence read more rhythmically]
It's him you want. [simple demonstration: "him" is the object of "want", even though it looks like a predicate nominative]
It's me you want. [likewise]
It's Bob and I you want. ["Bob and I" looks like a predicate nominative].
You'll need me to paint the ceiling. [I'll be doing the painting, but "me" is the object of "need", not the subject of "paint"]
You'll need me and Bob to paint the ceiling. [straightforward]
You'll need Bob and I to paint the ceiling. [Bob and I will be doing the painting, so "Bob and I" looks vaguely like a subject; since it also looks like an object, "Bob and me" would also work].
He stiffed Bob and me. [straightforward; note that "Bob and me" doesn't even remotely resemble a subject or predicate nominative].

Note, btw, that some of the above usages I would try to avoid with alternate sentence wording, e.g. "My wife and I are going to the movie with Bob and the kids." If a first-person pronoun is placed at the end of a list when it's a subject or predicate nominative, and at the beginning of a list when it's an object, my rule will coincide with the "rules" of grammar. In cases where such an ordering is not possible (e.g. the bridge pairing in the second example, where I play North), prosody should [per my rule] often trump formal grammar.

BTW, two related notes: -1- compound nominatives and objects involving first-person plural ("we"/"us") would seem to pose the same issues as first-person singular, but such usages are rare and can often be avoided via sentence reconstruction; -2- In cases where a third-person pronoun is used without a first-person pronoun, normal rules apply; in cases where first-person and third-person pronouns appear in the same compound object or nominative, the third-person pronoun should be generally be made to match the first-person one (e.g. "It's he and I you want", or "Me, her, and Bob are going to the movie.") Note that rewording sentences to avoid such constructs is often desirable, especially in the case of subject nominatives which would end with an objective pronoun.