1812-Now a US Patriotic Piece

[Rick Denney]

"whom"?!?

The standard tactic in winning a grammar argument is to throw in a well-placed "whom" from time to time. As an academic, you should know that.

Rick "plausibility is more important than truth" Denney

[Michael Bush]

there are only two rules of language: Being understood clearly and...I forgot the other one.

I hadn't figured you for a sentimentalist of that particular sort.

There is a *great deal* more to it than that. There is actually a logic to much grammar and syntax, so that they serve as outward indicators of the speaker's ability to think clearly.

Knowing and using them well also serves as a marker of social location, and some people are even rich enough or hopeless enough to say they don't care about this.

[Rick Denney]

there are only two rules of language: Being understood clearly and...I forgot the other one.

I hadn't figured you for a sentimentalist of that particular sort.

That's not being sentimental.

No amount of logic in the language has any meaning if it cannot communicate to those who need to understand it. The language is always seeking more efficient ways of expressing logical constructs, and in so doing often abandons previous rules. Language is not like mathematics. Its use by the unskilled inevitably changes it, which is to be expected, given that the unskilled vastly outnumber the skilled. And that is true on both sides of the pond.

There are a number of grammatical tools from several hundred years ago that are just plainly not matched by modern usage, so that in those particular ways the language is not as precise as it once was. (It is more precise in other ways, however.) Some of those tools live on in legal jargon, attracting excoriation from those who believe legal documents should be plainer. But outside circles where precision is more important than accuracy, using those tools while being aware that they will fail to communicate the desired message is an act of hostility towards the reader.

But everyone has their ox and gets ruffled when it is gored. Language has been such since Babel.

The authors I've read who have started sentences with conjunctions include, for example, a couple of famous (British) language professors who were also famous authors. And they didn't just do it in poetry. I, for one, would think it impertinent to challenge, say, Tolkein's use of that device, or Lewis's, even posthumously. (Tolkein was, of course, a professor of Anglo-Saxon in his "day job", and Lewis was a don at Oxford and ultimately a professor at Cambridge where his specialty was English literature.)

They ended a lot of sentences with prepositions, too.

In no way, however, am I arguing against the aphorism:

Do Not Break The Rules Before Learning Them

Rick "who learned language by reading its best practitioners, not by technical study of grammar" Denney

[Michael Bush]

Well, certainly I'm not hung up at all on final prepositions or initial conjunctions. But (!) the most dependable way to be understood is to stay close to the general consensus of native speakers about what makes sense. This logic is what rules of grammar and syntax embody.

[Trumgottist]

Two posts on Language Log for those interested in the grammar discussion: This and
this.

[Donn]

Thus, those grammar rules we learned in grade school just turned out to be how grammarians summarized those authors whom they believed wrote more clearly.

Sadly, that may be giving these rules too much credit. Some of them are utterly artificial in the context of the English language - having been imported from Latin. That might seem preposterous now, but may have seemed more reasonable in days of yore when folks had more use for Latin, and apparently less use for common sense. One of those rules is indeed the sentence shall not end with a preposition - something John Dryden came up with in 1672. The prohibition on split infinitives is another.

[sloan]

Thus, those grammar rules we learned in grade school just turned out to be how grammarians summarized those authors whom they believed wrote more clearly.

Sadly, that may be giving these rules too much credit. Some of them are utterly artificial in the context of the English language - having been imported from Latin. That might seem preposterous now, but may have seemed more reasonable in days of yore when folks had more use for Latin, and apparently less use for common sense. One of those rules is indeed the sentence shall not end with a preposition - something John Dryden came up with in 1672. The prohibition on split infinitives is another.

The rules made more sense when more people studied Latin and Greek, and followed the same rules in English.

[Donn]

The rules made more sense when more people studied Latin and Greek, and followed the same rules in English.

Excuse me, that may be an explanation in some fashion, but there are no circumstances where it makes sense for English to conform to the grammar of Latin or any other language. And indeed it has never done so, despite the rules.

I think it's the rare native speaker who benefits from any formal study of the rules. We learn by hearing, and reading, and it's hardly a surprise if the rules we become aware of as such, turn out to be the ones that no one observes.

[Rick Denney]

Two posts on Language Log for those interested in the grammar discussion: This and
this.

Thank you for that.

Rick "most entertained, in addition to being vindicated" Denney

[sloan]

... there are no circumstances where it makes sense for English to conform to the grammar of Latin or any other language. And indeed it has never done so, despite the rules.

"English" borrows from many languages. It borrows vocabulary, usage, and yes, grammar.

"English" is many languages. As with all natural languages, there is "High English", and "Low English", courtroom and street, literary and country. What is required in one context will get you punched in the face (or shown the door) in other contexts. There are always rules to the game - you just need to check to see if you are playing baseball or cricket, football or futbol.

Written "English" differs from spoken "English". Sometimes the written version is written to reflect spoken usage (e.g., Mark Twain). Sometimes the spoken version emulates the written (e.g., Shakespeare). Samuel Clemens did not talk like Huck. The citizens of Padua did not talk like Shakespeare's characters.

I think it's fair to say that written language is more concerned with rules and grammar. That's probably because written versions of the language were often established and codified by people interested in that sort of thing. Shakespeare and the King James Version of the Bible had a great effect on the rules in English. Martin Luther's Bible had a profound effect on written (and formal spoken) German. Dante contributed greatly to unifying and codifying Italian. I think it's fair to say that Latin (and Greek) were highly influential.

On the other hand, oral language has it's own rules, which are often just as hidebound, and just as important. Think of all the comedies you've seen that turn on the inability of the suburban kids, or their parents, to successfully "speak the language".

More than German and Italian, English has shed quite a bit of the trappings of Latin. Often, it's hard to see the influence. We get one version of the rules from 3rd grade teachers (who often have no idea what they are "teaching" - their primary skills are in child management, not literary or grammatical history). Most speakers of English get their first real inklings of these nuances of language when they study "foreign" languages in high school and college. Also, "English" borrows from so MANY languages that there is such a mishmash of rules (and vocabulary, and spelling, and...) that no one set of rules is ironclad. There are so many exceptions to the rules that the exceptions have become the rule.

But, to my mind, that's no excuse for burying your head in the sand and denying the facts of the rules, and where they came from. It's one thing to speak and write informally - it's quite another to intentionally flout the rules. It's a bit like those writers who have trouble spelling SOME words - so they react by intentionally misspelling all words, just to flaunt their contempt for authority. Mark Twain wrote crude dialog for his characters - he didn't (over)use such constructions in his personal communication.

You need to know the rules before breaking them - and there are even rules to follow when breaking the rules.

And that's the way it is.

Ken "thinking it's like this in music, too" Sloan

[Michael Bush]

Two posts on Language Log for those interested in the grammar discussion: This and
this.

Thank you for that.

Rick "most entertained, in addition to being vindicated" Denney

You haven't yet explained how you managed the acts of translation you were describing without resorting to some kind of rule-governed system of grammar and syntax. You despise rules, but then describe yourself doing something that can only have been done using them.

[Donn]

"English" borrows from many languages. It borrows vocabulary, usage, and yes, grammar.

I'd be interested to hear about any specific cases where English has borrowed grammar from another language, but in this context it's important to consider the process.

The radical changes between Old English and Middle English corresponded in time to the Norman invasion, which of course meant a significant influence from Norman French. Its contribution to vocabulary is clear. Without any further research I'm going to propose that it ... had something to do with the change in grammar, from the old highly inflected language to one more like today's English -- but that nothing there was really borrowed. More likely, 1) the substitution of French as an administrative language removed the stabilizing influence of literary/educated Old English, and 2) all that new vocabulary didn't come the inflection endings. And anyway all the European languages were ditching that stuff to some extent.

But while it would be interesting to hear how I'm wrong and English really did clearly borrow any grammatical element from Norman French, that wouldn't be relevant to to John Dryden's absurd notion to make Latin the standard for the use of prepositions in English. That's just a textbook example of `foolish consistency' that has nothing to do with how languages change, and its continued appearance in grammar rule books shows that to use these texts to study the actual grammar of the language is somewhat like using religious texts to study astronomy.

[sloan]

I'm told that Verdi hated the sound of English and specifically prohibited its use in his orchestras.

[gwwilk]

[Rick Denney]

You haven't yet explained how you managed the acts of translation you were describing without resorting to some kind of rule-governed system of grammar and syntax. You despise rules, but then describe yourself doing something that can only have been done using them.

Which rules were you applying when you concluded that I said anything about despising rules? And when did I say anything about translation?

My issue is that what some want to enforce as rules are not rules at all.

Most of what people call rules are really strategies for communication, and not all of them are presently relevant to that aim. It seems to me reductionist to codify strategies as rules. When they are made rules, the point of the strategy is often lost, and the rules remain as a means of playing the parent with those who don't follow them. Those reductionist rules of language have been routinely broken in the service of clarity and meaning. And all of them have been followed with care to produce language that says nothing with clarity.

I said they should be understood, but that the only really important rule is being clear and understandable. Judging from what I read, that rule is demanding enough.

Rick "who thinks rules ought to pass the test that when they are followed, quality is improved, or at least that when they are flouted (even if with care), quality suffers" Denney

[Michael Bush]

And when did I say anything about translation?

Sorry. Looking back, I see that I got that one wrong.

It does still seem to me that you are working with a rule that the word "rule" is used if and only if one intends to specify an outdated rule native speakers no longer use.

[Todd S. Malicoate]

I find it extremely amusing that this topic has gone on for three pages after stemming from my correction of a poster who:

1) Used "you're" instead of the correct "your"

2) Essentially lied and called it a "typo" (no...a "typo" is a typing error...you CHOSE to type an apostrophe)

3) Came back at me by accusing me of breaking a rule that's not really a rule.

Priceless.

[PhilGreen]

I find it extremely amusing that this topic has gone on for three pages after stemming from my correction of a poster who:

1) Used "you're" instead of the correct "your"

2) Essentially lied and called it a "typo" (no...a "typo" is a typing error...you CHOSE to type an apostrophe)

3) Came back at me by accusing me of breaking a rule that's not really a rule.

Priceless.

Wow - I'm "a poster"

I think calling me a liar is a bit much. It was your/you're/yaw/yore cheap shot at my too-fast-for-my-brain fingers started this off. And(!) it IS a widely accepted rule, whether people choose to follow it or not.

It's funny, I too was going to say how I thought it was great that one post could completely take a topic in a different direction but would hopefully not have been so spiteful to Todd. Perhaps manners, etiquette and correct grammar are an English thing........ or perhaps Todd missed two out of the three lessons because he had cheer-leading class

If I had a bat and a ball I'd be taking it home right about now.

[TubaRay]

Has anyone noticed how a popular piece of music, written by Russian composer Peter Tchaikovsky, has become a U.S. patriotic piece? It has become very common to hear it performed as part of patriotic celebrations, across the country on the Fourth of July, which is our country's celebration of its independence.

Perhaps this subject could be worthy of a thread on TubeNet. Well...maybe not.

[Rick Denney]

It does still seem to me that you are working with a rule that the word "rule" is used if and only if one intends to specify an outdated rule native speakers no longer use.

Of course, those were the examples Phil brought up, but he has offered good humor in atonement, and that counts for a lot. And we entertained Todd, so perhaps we should just declare success.

And, of course, there are "rules" that native speakers follow (they never followed the one that started this). And by "native speakers", I'm including authors of acknowledged distinction.

Dr Sloan's discussion of different rules in different settings mostly applies to styles. We don't have the Chicago Manual of Rules, or The Elements of Rules. These are style guides for language use in those settings.

Phil did acknowledge this from the start--he used the word "form".

English has no accepted rules body, so anyone can write rules. Some are commonly accepted, such as subject-verb agreement, parallelism, and so on. Generally, though, those authors of distinction follow them, too.

If we could just agree on this, understanding of the history of the various wars in 1812 would then be clear. I'm just sure of it.

Rick "suggesting that English language rules are democratically prescribed" Denney