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.
HAHAHA! A thing of beauty! ;)
I love the link; the person writing the material contradicts hisself/herself regarding ‘never use a semi-colon if a conjuntion is used’ ... see the dinosaur portion.
LOL, good point - though I have to admit, as a native-born Midwesterner, I end every other sentence a preposition with.
This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put.
~Attributed to Winston Churchill, rejecting the rule against ending a sentence with a preposition, c.1948, may instead have been said by an anonymous official, see notes at www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/churchill.html
I think the split infinitive is a little lower.
What I’ve noticed is people don’t pronounce the proper “T” sound an the end of words. It’s morphed into “D”
thirty = thirdy
pretty = pridy
Say the number 90 out loud or have someone else say it and I bet it sounds like “ninedy”
True....but the fact that she can come up with some absurd-sounding sample sentences doesn't negate the general utility of the rules.
Some of her points are valid (especially about points 2 and 3 - I don't see a thing wrong with ending sentences in prepositions, nor do I have a problem with beginning sentences with a conjunction - in fact, it's often necessary to do so to make a point clearly).
However, one example of a quibble I'd have would be in the section about split infinitives, she states,
"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.)"
Actually, Alford is correct. To have an infinitive in English requires the "to," otherwise you have no way of indicating that it is an infinitive, or something else, such as an imperative command.
That is a characteristic of the English language, as opposed to a language like Italian where every vowel is clearly pronounced with its characteristic sound. In English, usually only the vowel in the syllable with the main accent is clearly pronounced. The other vowels are slurred to a schwa or 'uh' sound. Hence the saying, "In English take care of the consonants, and the vowels will take care of themselves."
One of the consequences of this practice is that English spelling does not match the pronunciation. But the spelling does reflect the history of the word. And I think that history is important.
LOL i love grammar but what i really hate is capitalization. it wastes time.
Yeah actually it does. In order to work any of those rules you wind up with idiot sentences nine times out of ten.
You missed the point though, it really doesn’t matter if “to” is part of the infinitive or not because trying to avoid splitting “to” from the infinitive makes stupid sounding sentences. You can either say, as she does, that it’s not part of the infinitive so there’s nothing to split, or you can declare it part of the infinitive and realize there’s nothing wrong with splitting it. Either way, doesn’t matter, the split infinitive rule, when followed, makes awkward sentences.
Every time I hear the Usurper in the Oval Office use *ta* instead of *to* ...I could SCREAM!
That would be the plus perfect (some call it the past perfect tense).
LOL
(!)
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.