Posted on 08/20/2010 9:51:07 AM PDT by Daffynition
When I think about the rules of grammar I sometimes recall the story—and it’s a true one—about a lecture given in the 1950s by an eminent British philosopher of language. He remarked that in some languages two negatives make a positive, but in no language do two positives make a negative. A voice from the back of the room piped up, “Yeah, yeah.”
Don’t we all sometimes feel like that voice from the back of the room? When some grammatical purist insists, for example, that the subject has to go before the verb, aren’t we tempted to reply, “Sez you!”?
English is not so much a human invention as it is a force of nature, one that endures and flourishes despite our best attempts to ruin it. And believe it or not, the real principles of English grammar—the ones that promote clarity and sense—weren’t invented by despots but have emerged from the nature of the language itself. And they actually make sense!
So when you think about the rules of grammar, try to think like that guy in the back of the room, and never be afraid to challenge what seems silly or useless. Because what seems silly or useless probably isn’t a real rule at all. It’s probably a misconception that grammarians have tried for years to correct. There are dozens of ersatz “rules” of English grammar. Let’s start with Public Enemy Number 1. Myth #1: Don’t Split an Infinitive.
“Split” all you want, because this old superstition has never been legit. Writers of English have been doing it since the 1300s.
Where did the notion come from? We can blame Henry Alford, a 19th-century Latinist and Dean of Canterbury, for trying to criminalize the split infinitive. (Latin, by the way, is a recurring theme in the mythology of English grammar.) In 1864, Alford published a very popular grammar book, A Plea for the Queen’s English, in which he declared that to was part of the infinitive and that the parts were inseparable. (False on both counts.) He was probably influenced by the fact that the infinitive, the simplest form of a verb, is one word in Latin and thus can’t be split. So, for example, you shouldn’t put an adverb, like boldly, in the middle of the infinitive phrase to go—as in to boldly go. (Tell that to Gene Roddenberry!)
Grammarians began challenging Alford almost immediately. By the early 20th century, the most respected authorities on English (the linguist Otto Jespersen, the lexicographer Henry Fowler, the grammarian George O. Curme, and others) were vigorously debunking the split-infinitive myth, and explaining that “splitting” is not only acceptable but often preferable. Besides, you can’t really split an infinitive, since to is just a prepositional marker and not part of the infinitive itself. In fact, sometimes it’s not needed at all. In sentences like “She helped him to write,” or “Jack helped me to move,” the to could easily be dropped.
But against all reason, this notorious myth of English grammar lives on—in the public imagination if nowhere else.
This wasn’t the first time that the forces of Latinism had tried to graft Latin models of sentence structure onto English, a Germanic language. Read on.
MORE: Myth #2: Don’t End a Sentence With a Preposition.
Did that one spring a leak?
But there are some rules which we need not put up with.
Does not need to be written:
But there are some rules up with which we need not put.
A better structure would be:
We need not put up with some rules.
Chop w/cleaver and serve w/soy sauce.
years ago when I looked, someone had digitized old reel-to-reel they or someone else had recorded from broadcasts; I’d never thought to check YouTube for those. LJN had at least two books, I can’t recall the title, and don’t feel like walking the sixteen feet into the not-so-great library of not-Alexandria to find out. :’) They are both entertaining as you would imagine, and not least because of the description of some call-ins by one of their regular listeners who was a purported psychic — and blew the ridiculous and reprehensible James Randi (a frequent panelist on the show) right out of the water.
I could not find that street and consulted various map programs with no success.
I called him and asked for directions from point A to his location. Relating back to a map, his directions concluded to a point on Massachusetts Avenue.
I got after him for abbreviating the name of a street due to being lazy and thinking that for some reason the whole world would know what the slang 'mass' means.
Democratic is the correct term when it’s used as an adjective, so the examples you cite are actually correct. The term Democrat is correctly used as a noun to describe a member of the party.
Republicans have been using the term Democrat as an adjective to purposely get their goat for more than 50 years. Apparently Democrats don’t like it.
It is always the "Republican platform" or "Republican Governor." I never hear anyway forcing an adjectival usage such as "Republicanic platform" or "Republicanic Governor." Is there some reasonable (i.e., non-political) reasoning behind this? Seems very confusing to me to force an adjectival form on one party's name and not the other, especially when coupled with the left's constant yammering about things being "democratic."
It actually is a grammatical thing having to do with the endings of the words Republican and Democrat. The best way to hear it is to substitute another word with a similar ending. Bureaucracy, bureaucrat, and bureaucratic can all be used in similar ways as democracy, democrat, and democratic. Aristocracy is another one. A bureaucrat is always a person, but bureaucratic reflects the idea of a bureaucracy.
The -an ending on Republican, like the word Puritan, has much more varied usage as both a noun and a verb. So Puritan refers both to a person and to an idea.
Bottom line, Democrats prefer people use Democratic when an adjective is needed, and Republicans like to use the word Democrat instead to mess with them a little.
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.