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.
Shoe-pacabra! Shoe-pacabra!
Funny, unless I misread it, they state the rule of not using the semi colon before a conjunction, such as but,and,or, not, but in one of the last examples with the guy eating the mayo, that's exactly where they used it.....right before the "and"! No wonder it's confusing.
Do you prefer to use a wedge or an axe; or, do you just maul them?
Do you have a separate pile for Clauses missing their right hand; or do all defective ones go into a single bin?
Gracia per il saluto e anche il fumetto.
Very funny. But the man forgot to complain about "esso". It's spelled wrong.
Huh?!? Are you sure that means 'Quarterback"? I just thought they had changed the rules, and were now hiking the ball to the cornerback. No wonder I couldn't follow the plays!
Long John Nebel wrote? I know he was written about.
I only got to listen to his broadcasts once in a while.
>>Do you have a separate pile for Clauses missing their right hand; or do all defective ones go into a single bin?<<
I would check for for dingoes. They eat babies.
My all time hated aberration is: The word "comfortable" pronounced "comfterble".
As in "button" pronounced "bu en" or "kitten" pronounced "ki en". It's almost impossible to describe. I abhor it.
Or “horsh radish”
Or:
“I, like, puke when I see it.”
vs.
“I like puke when I see it.”
I was working in Boston once and had ordered a "part" from my company to make a repair. It was a pc board. I asked the guy at the place if my "part" came in and he said, "No, your paht's not here yet."
I said I didn't order a pot (there is such a thing which is short for potentiometer).
He said, "Yes, you did. Your paht will be here tomorrow".
We went round and round for a couple of sentences till he caught on.
Smart people make less grammar mistakes.
True story: When my mom turned 40, Dad decided to go in a bakery and order her a cake. He asked them to write “Happy Birthday, My Love. Life begins at 40.” Imagine his and our family’s shock when the cake was presented to Mom and it said, “Happy Birthday. My love life begins at 40.”
I may not know much in life, but I know the difference between “everyday” and “every day.” I think this “rule” is dying out. I seldom see “every day” anymore. People have given up and gone to “everyday” for both adjective and noun.
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.