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.
I thought it was purdy. ;)
How we prounounce words in front of our kids really does affect their ability to write, spell and speak properly. Today’s slang and lazy speech does not help children learn the language at all.
Not so. You probably don't realise that most of the times where you, or anyone else, have the opportunity to use one these sentences, you will in fact form them correctly. That's why people have to expend so much energy coming up with these hokey little "absurd grammar" sentences to use in blog posts like hers.
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.
Oh c'mon. "To go boldly where no one has gone before," to use an example, sounds awkward? To whom? And for what reason, other than that you're simply used to hearing it the other around because of the impact the Star Trek franchise has had on our culture?
Of course the point of the article is that by using them in a way that violates the “rule: I actually am using them correctly. People don’t have to put much effort into showing those rules re wrong at all, most people violate at least one of them in every 10th or 20th sentence. You just have to pick one commonly used sentence that violates the “rules” and try to make it work within the “rules”. Really all of her examples were pretty common use stuff.
Yeah “to go boldly” does sound awkward, sticking an adverb after the verb sounds weird, it’s stilted and lacks rhythm.
Sorry, but no. While I agree with some of the points she makes, the fact remains that if followed, it would simply result in further dumbing down of the language than we have already seen. The problem is not so much that the "rules" are stilted, but that a lot of our natural discourse is slovenly. Which is fine, for natural discourse where we don't *need* to be formal. But in writing, this doesn't apply, at least not when we need the writing to reflect accurately on our intelligence and ability to use the English language correctly.
Yeah “to go boldly” does sound awkward, sticking an adverb after the verb sounds weird, it’s stilted and lacks rhythm.
I don't think so. I think it sounds fine, and don't have a problem with this rule at all. Indeed, in my paragraph above, I refused to split two infinitives, and I don't think the ability of the sentences to get my message across was hindered in any way.
That’s how I learned it as well, but newer references on grammer encourage the comma before the “and” in a list. It’s a bit more precise. However, either style is considered correct these days.
It is the rare occurrence I will hear someone pronounce hundred as hundred and not hundurd.
Sorry but no, the fact remains that most people ignore most of those “rules” most of the time anyway. The only people that follow them are grammar nazis that want to sound smart, and the fact is that when they do they actually sound dumb. You yourself admitted to failing to follow half the rules most of the time.
The problem is that they were stupid rules that never should have existed and have been ignored by the majority of the population the majority of the time. As she points out, Shakespeare breaks these rules.
And you’re wrong again. The result of avoiding the split infinitive, like all the other “rules” mentioned, is a sentence that sounds psuedo-formal and silly. What it really reflects on is ego, and it reflects poorly. People who think they look smarter by putting together sentences that follow bad rules that never should have existed actually look dumber for having a need to look smart.
My first night was spent downing beer & pizza at Classic Pizza in Mansfield.
A couple in the next booth were teaching their baby 'new' words. They held up a salt shaker and were telling the kid "shay-cu"
I'm dying laughing and want to so badly to ask them, just how do they spell that?
*I discovered that they do not have a accent, but speak in slang as a sort of ebonics. They will use all the letters of the alphabet if you have them read out loud.
“An education that does not teach clear, coherent writing cannot provide our world with thoughtful adults; it gives us instead, at the best, clever children of all ages.” ~R. Mitchell
The British are also very particular about distinctly pronouncing all the vowels.
However, in America;
Kettle = keddle
fifty = fiddy(yeah, the 't' to 'd' is well ingrained by now) negotiation = negosheashun
'gotta go' is as American as apple pie. It is nearly a formal word in itself and likely soon will be.
Throughout history all languages have shifted and morphed. American English has experienced this natural change more than most languages due to our melting pot cultural. Just watch a movie from the 40's and you can clearly see the effect only a few decades has had on the way we speak. I believe most kids today would have a hard time understanding what was being said.
So, we are just witnessing a natural change. Unfortunately, this shows our age. Younger people would never think to say any of what we have said here. To them, it is all completely natural.
My English prof once said, 'It does not matter how technically correct your grammar is. The purpose of language is to communicate. If you use perfect grammar, and nobody understands what you are saying, then what is the point of that?'
I guess we have to grit our teeth and bear it. I am sure people from the thirties or forties would be appalled with the way we speak. Time marches on. What can you do?
Google "serial comma," "Oxford comma," or "Harvard comma." Those are the preferred terms for the comma preceding the 'and' or 'or' when three or more items are named in a list.
Although you'll find some slight disagreement on American usage and English usage, I believe you'll find that dropping the serial comma is one of those abortions of grammar that journalists gave us to save ink and space on a page.
Using the serial comma adds consistency and prevents confusion. One example: "Rebecca was proud of her new muffin recipes: blueberry, peanut butter and chocolate chip and coconut."
Without the serial comma, you don't know if Rebecca's last recipe was peanut butter, chocolate chip, and coconut, or chocolate chip and coconut. Or perhaps she made peanut butter and chocolate chip muffins, and also coconut muffins.
Some writers use the serial comma only when necessary to prevent confusion.
Me? I use it all the time. Oxford commas rule!
I also like some of the constantly violated rules on apostrophes.
For example, the use of an apostrophe to pluralize abreviations is an incorrect usage. lb’s, qt’s, etcetera are all incorrect as I understand it.
“...in most of the sample sentences she give trying to follow the bad rules creates unnatural sounding sentences... .”
hahhahaahha, back to the grammar board for YOU !!
Unless she proposes that subject and verb need not agree.
Way funny.
We used to make fun of my mom for being a wacko about pronouncing words correctly in her house. We were a Navy family and lived all over the US. The major rule was -enjoy the local slangs and speech patterns - but talk like that in front of mom? Death.
Well, hey, that’s fine. You’re free to hold your opinions, and I don’t have to be judged by your writing skills, so it’s all good.
“...adhering to these rules will help keep you from sounding like an uneducated dunderhead.”
I need more help than that. :)
Every time I hear the Usurper in the Oval Office say ANYTHING I could scream.
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.