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.
For later.
Diagramming. Flashbacks. PTSD.
Hubby’s pet peeve is when tv commentators say “Corderback” instead of “Quarterback.”
You also forgot the comma after ‘language’ before ‘at all’.
Thanks for the correction. LOL
Thanks! I knew that using the “Oxford comma” helped eliminate confusion, but couldn’t think of a good example. You’ve also given me a new phrase to throw around... lol
When I was in ‘Grammar School’, the phrase, ‘Let’s eat, Jim’ juxtaposed with Let’s eat Jim’ seemed to get the comma point across. In writing humorous pieces, it is a fun technique to relate a long series of things without a comma, going to the extreme as it were to make it really silly. I use the semi-colon in my novel writing, where the word ‘because’ is left out. Readers pick up on it within the first pages and never notice it thereafter.
Bump
If folk’s would just learn the rule’s regarding the use of apostrophe’s, I’d be happy. I drive home and see roadside signs advertising “Tomato’s, Pepper’s and Apricot’s.” Drives me nuts.
I teach college English. I like to illustrate the importance of punctuation by looking at how it changes a sentence’s meaning:
Woman without her man is nothing.
Woman! Without her, man is nothing.
Ooo, I like that one!
Say it drives you nut’s? LOL
I learned the style that dictates using that last comma before the “and.” Although I see it omitted quite often lately. I’m not sure if there has been a formal change.
While we're at it, my personal peeve is hearing 999 out of 1,000 times people saying the "Democratic party," the "Democratic Governor," and " the Democratic position." It is my understanding that the correct name of that political party is "Democrat," hence none of the above should contain the trailing "ic."
I sometimes wonder if it is a "mistake" at all, since the left has consistently been pushing democratic ideals (in contrast to the ideals of a Constitutional Republic); the language has been distorted to the point that "democratic" now means "good, fair, equal" in many people's minds.
As Long John Nebel once wrote, I know I’m not supposed to end sentences with a preposition — but I will continue to.
OK, I love grammar.
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.