|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 111 responses total. |
md
|
|
response 50 of 111:
| 
Jul 2 14:54 UTC 2003 |
Re #29: "I do not know of any grammatical rule violations that improve
clarity. Examples, please?"
"When the judge entered the courtroom, everyone stood on their feet" is
clear, and grammatically incorrect.
"When the judge entered the courtroom, everyone stood on his feet" is
grammatically correct, but unclear.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 51 of 111:
|
Jul 2 15:02 UTC 2003 |
They seem equally clear to me, though it is unfortunate that English
doesn't have a generally useful singular neuter pronoun for people.
However this is recognized in my dictionary, which has:
"their, gen. pl. of the demonstrative pron.........: often used
colloquially with a singular antecedent (as, everybody, somebody,
everyone)."
I don't think that makes the usage *incorrect*.
Better example, please.
|
jazz
|
|
response 52 of 111:
|
Jul 2 15:24 UTC 2003 |
Merriam-Webster seems to think it's valid to use either "their" or
"his". "Their" is more colloquially correct in modern American English, and
"his" sounds more like something one would say in British Parlaiment. But
several dictionaries agree that *both* are grammatically correct.
|
gregb
|
|
response 53 of 111:
|
Jul 2 16:52 UTC 2003 |
Re. #51: "They seem equally clear to me..." The first says everybody
stood up. The second implies that they stood on the Judge's feet.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 54 of 111:
|
Jul 2 17:04 UTC 2003 |
Exactly. I would go with the first sentence.
|
other
|
|
response 55 of 111:
|
Jul 2 17:41 UTC 2003 |
The lack if clarity is in the word "everyone," which is technically a
singular form, but has come to be a plural form in its usage. If you
break it into two words, then the meaning is clearly singular, which may
be why it is such a challenge for formalists to accept the combined form
as a plural.
|
gull
|
|
response 56 of 111:
|
Jul 2 18:22 UTC 2003 |
Re #45: When I was in high school, I worked at the Alma Public Access
Channel. That same typo, dropping the "l" from "Public", happened there
once. Fortunately, I wasn't the one who did it. ;>
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 57 of 111:
|
Jul 2 21:33 UTC 2003 |
The rule against splitting infinitives can lead to some pretty ugly stuff too
(and should never have been grafted onto English from Latin in the first
place).
|
flem
|
|
response 58 of 111:
|
Jul 2 21:37 UTC 2003 |
Have to disagree there. I suppose it's possible that there are situations
in which a split infinitive is the clearest way to express something, but the
vast majority of them that I see can be avoided fairly easily with a little
thought, and the resulting sentence is almost always clearer for it.
|
md
|
|
response 59 of 111:
|
Jul 2 22:26 UTC 2003 |
My favorite don't-end-with-a-preposition sentence:
Mom brings book to child's room to read bedtime story. It is child's
least favorite book. Child asks: "What did you bring that book I don't
like to be read to out of up for?"
|
dcat
|
|
response 60 of 111:
|
Jul 2 22:37 UTC 2003 |
"Ending sentences with prepositions is something up with which we shall not
put!" -- Winston Churchill
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 61 of 111:
|
Jul 3 02:33 UTC 2003 |
Re #58: Okay. So why would "To go boldly where no man has gone before"
have been superior to what they actually used on Star Trek?
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 62 of 111:
|
Jul 3 03:14 UTC 2003 |
Boldly to go where no man has gone before.
|
other
|
|
response 63 of 111:
|
Jul 3 04:54 UTC 2003 |
Spare me your restrictions on the licensure of poets.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 64 of 111:
|
Jul 3 13:27 UTC 2003 |
Re #62: That one's so strained, it's almost incomprehensible. The "no
split infinitives" rule is silly. It has no place in English.
|
flem
|
|
response 65 of 111:
|
Jul 3 14:13 UTC 2003 |
My high school calculus teacher used to call your method of argument "proof
by intimidation".
I'm all about #62. I admit taht "to go boldly" scans poorly, the rhythmic
structure is awkward. "Boldly to go" doesn't have that problem. Claiming
that it's strained smacks loudly of circularity.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 66 of 111:
|
Jul 3 14:28 UTC 2003 |
"Boldly to go" is exceptionally awkward, IMO. We sit and wait for the sentence
to have a subject...and finally discover it doesn't even have one.
|
flem
|
|
response 67 of 111:
|
Jul 3 14:37 UTC 2003 |
This is somehow different from the case for "to boldly go"?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 68 of 111:
|
Jul 3 15:12 UTC 2003 |
Not very. I suppose "To go boldly" could be the subject of a sentence ("To
go boldly is admirable"), but it turns out that isn't the subject. This
pseudo subject becomes even less clear by the inversion of the customary
word order. I agree there is "poetic license", especially when one is
writing poetry, but that does not always have a primary objective of
clarity. So, are we discussing this as poetry, or as clear expression?
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 69 of 111:
|
Jul 3 15:45 UTC 2003 |
The "sentence" doesn't have a subject. It's a sentence fragment to start
with.
|
flem
|
|
response 70 of 111:
|
Jul 3 16:53 UTC 2003 |
I think w.r.t. the canonical Star Trek example that the case can be made that
it should be evaluated as poetry, because of the context. Or, if poetry is
too strong a term, at least rhetoric.
Still, as either poetry or rhetoric, it scrapes the bottom of the "mediocre"
end of the spectrum IMO. :)
I think that part of my opposition to split infinitives comes from the idea
of considering grammar as, well, a grammar, in the computer science sense.
Without being too rigorous, I think it's a good idea not to use an adverb in
any situation where using an expanded adverb phrase would be bad. If the
canonical example in question were something like "to with clear eye and
undiminished courage go...", I think most people would agree that that is more
awkward than, say, "to go with clear eye and undiminished courage...".
Or whatever. :)
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 71 of 111:
|
Jul 3 18:23 UTC 2003 |
I agree that's more awkward... but I still don't see a good case for the
general rule against split infinitives. (I won't claim that the Star Trek
line is great writing, either, but it scans better to my ear than the
alternatives do.)
|
janc
|
|
response 72 of 111:
|
Jul 3 22:31 UTC 2003 |
I think it's a terrible example. It's too familiar. It sounds most
natural the way you most often hear it. Big surprise. Proves nothing
one way or the other.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 73 of 111:
|
Jul 4 02:35 UTC 2003 |
Most of the so-called "rules of grammar" seem to actually be guidelines for
people with a tin ear. Most people with a good sense of rhetoric and style
can get on just fine without them. But for those who wouldn't know a good
sentence if it up and bit them, following the "rules" is a way to avoid some
of the worst pitfalls.
(I think the worst example of this is the "rule" against using the passive
voice. Good writers use the passive voice from time to time. But since some
bad writers use it _constantly,_ English teachers have started telling their
students not to use it at all. The one about split infinitives doesn't bother
me as much, but it strikes me as a similarly fake rule, made to stop people
from coming up with atrocities like flem's in #70.)
|
jazz
|
|
response 74 of 111:
|
Jul 4 04:52 UTC 2003 |
Well, it's a set of informal rules. Most native English speakers (and
several non-natives, including our own beloved Mynxcat) know them
instinctually. But it's handy when you're pointing out why something doesn't
work, or editing a difficult piece, to know what the rules are and how to use
them.
|