He could have rephrased it in the manner you suggested, but the amusement impact would have been greatly attenuated.
In other words, it was a joke. It didn't have to be technically correct. :)
Posted on 09/29/2016 9:22:40 AM PDT by Califreak
The utter contempt that the traditional media has for the American people is PALPABLE–and second only to the comtempt the American people’s has for them.
It is the media that gave us Obama….
It is the media that covers for the Clintons…
And it’s the radical left media that is leading us off the cliff—- if we allow it.
Vote Trump, the only politician in my LIFE to ever call for the enforcement of libel against this totally corrupt media
(Excerpt) Read more at intellectualfroglegs.com ...
second only to the comtempt the American people’s has for them.
Typos can be overlooked; indefensible grammar cannot.
I stopped reading at that point.
Good, now dismount from your high-horse.
Never. I will resist the bastardization of our language until my dying breath.
This is the best GD investigative journalist on the planet (by today’s standards) !
Anyone who feels a little stressed over the election or the debate needs to watch a few minutes of this, and You Will Be Cured.
Watch it all and you will be transformed. Move over Rush Limbaugh, make way for Hillbilly Journalism. The Music! The Video! It’s all helping make America great again!
Joe Dan Gorman’s videos always cheer me up. :)
The Ministry of Propaganda must be called out to their faces for what they are.
That's funny, because "English" is the most bastardized language in existence. It's main root is German, but it has large chunks of French, Latin, Greek and whatehaveyou in it.
I have been told it is the only language in the world that has spelling bees because it is the only one that needs them.
I also have to bow to Winston Churchill's insight regarding Grammar Nazis.
“This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put.”
then u diserve too loose
I resist its’ rapid deterioration as well.
Those who denounce what they disparage as Grammar Nazis refuse to acknowledge that language is both vague and ambiguous; minimizing those two inherent qualities enhances effective communication.
Perhaps nothing has had a more destructive effect on meaningful communication than the digital shorthands of SMS and Twitter.
Both your argument and your example are mistaken.
That English is a relatively more bastardized language than most in no way lessons - if anything it strengthens - the need for standardization.
Language is inherently vague and ambiguous (which are two separate things). Minimizing those two potential errors in communication is the purpose of, among other things, proper grammar.
Winston Churchill, the vaunted grammarian who is routinely quoted on this point by the elite English manuals (such as the one published by Harvard University) just as you have done, was wrong.
He made the same mistake that you have made: He confused a part of speech with a specific word.
The word, up, is not a preposition; it merely can act at times as a preposition. A preposition is a part of speech, not a particular word from a specified list.
“This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put.”
In this celebrated quotation, to which you have so eagerly and erroneously bowed, the word, up, is acting not as a preposition but as an adverb.
Churchill - and you - were too gleefully eager to demonstrate your anti-snobbish snobbery. Ending the statement with the word, up, would not be improperly ending the sentence with a preposition, but instead would be properly ending it with an adverb modifying the antecedent verb, put.
The correct statement should therefore read:
“This is the sort of bloody nonsense with which I will not put up.”
In this sentence, put is a verb, while up is an adverb modifying put:
Put where? Put up!
I grant you that the resulting sentence is still somewhat formal, but it is not nearly as absurdly stilted as the one Old Winnie contrived.
Churchill was wrong.
You are wrong.
I do not often remark on errors online, but sometimes I do. While the majority of those errors may not significantly alter the (apparently) intended meaning by the author, a minority sometimes alter it significantly, making the message either vague or ambiguous or both (and thus making the apparent meaning less apparent).
Some of us want to preserve the full use of the English Language in all its bastardized glory. We do not do it to be petty toward others, but to be respectful toward the language of liberty and civilization.
(In case it is not obvious, I could not care less that Churchill is a celebrated master of English. He was wrong in this case. As a conservative and not an authoritarian, I conserve what is true, whether or not a supposed expert would agree.)
In case it is not obvious, “its’” was meant as a joke.
He could have rephrased it in the manner you suggested, but the amusement impact would have been greatly attenuated.
In other words, it was a joke. It didn't have to be technically correct. :)
Oh, and same thing with me. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.