PDA

View Full Version : Debunking Grammar Myths



Gingersnap
08-20-2010, 01:41 PM
Debunking Grammar Myths
by Patricia T. O'Conner - May 5, 2008 - 9:16 AM This week we’re joined by a special guest blogger. Patricia T. O’Conner, a former editor at The New York Times Book Review, is the author of the national best-seller Woe Is I: The Grammarphobe’s Guide to Better English in Plain English, as well as other books about language. She is a regular monthly guest on public radio station WNYC in New York. Learn more at her website, grammarphobia.com. Make her feel welcome!

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.

Myth #2: Don’t End a Sentence With a Preposition.

An 18th-century Anglican bishop named Robert Lowth wrote the first popular grammar book to claim that a preposition didn’t belong at the end of a sentence (as in, What was this guy up to?). Others before him had made the same claim, notably the poet John Dryden.

This affectation, like the one about not “splitting” infinitives, proved popular with Latin-educated schoolmasters, probably because Latin sentences don’t end in prepositions. But the pedants were forgetting one small detail: English isn’t a Latinate language, it’s Germanic. And in Germanic languages, sentences routinely end in prepositions. Great English literature from Chaucer to Milton to Shakespeare to the King James version of the Bible is stuffed with these “terminal prepositions.”

Probably the word “preposition,” from the Latin for “position before,” suggested to pedagogues that a preposition must never come last. Be that as it may, Curme and Jespersen recognized the final preposition as natural and instinctive, and Fowler went further: “The legitimacy of the prepositional ending in literary English must be uncompromisingly maintained,” he wrote. Amen!

More grammar gossip at the link. :D

Mental Floss (http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/14636)

hampshirebrit
08-20-2010, 03:39 PM
An excellent find.

Articulate_Ape
08-20-2010, 03:51 PM
An excellent find.

And I wholeheartedly agree, hamp. So now we can all accurately write the way we're supposed to. :D

Rockntractor
08-20-2010, 03:55 PM
An excellent find.

Like oink man!:D

hampshirebrit
08-20-2010, 03:58 PM
Like oink man!:D

As a moderator, I'm minded to delete your posts in this particular thread.

But because I am such a wonderful :):):) person, I will not.

FlaGator
08-20-2010, 04:13 PM
And I wholeheartedly agree, hamp. So now we can all accurately write the way we're supposed to. :D

just what I was thinking of.