Display:
Are you telling me "What are you looking at?" is wrong according to standard American grammar? Grammar is supposed to codify what the language is like, not what the grammarian wishes it would be like. And you have to be a pretty weird grammarian to prefer "At what are you looking?"

We have met the enemy, and it is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 30th, 2007 at 12:07:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No.  The don't-end-a-sentence-with-a-preposition thing is a spurious rule.  "What are you looking at" is fine.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Oct 30th, 2007 at 12:25:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... and for the record, the no-split-infinitives rule is also horseshit.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Oct 30th, 2007 at 12:31:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As you can see from my post, there are varying degrees to which people will go for perfect grammar, and that the whole "no dangling prepositions" is a bit preposterous.  There's a line you come to where you have to decide if you want to use perfect grammar or if you want to make enough sense to communicate an idea.  

I thought DoDo was asking for the correct way to write that phrase.  So I responded.  I have grammar pet peeves, yes.  The correct use of whom is one of them.  I had grammar drilled into my skull from an early age, and like many people from a lower/lower middle class background, I was really aware of class and did not want people to think I was some illiterate yahoo just because I lived in a rural area.  So I paid attention and learned the rules.  Being well-spoken and able to write well is a source of pride.  And it makes breaking all the rules much more fun.  Oh yes, this is some keen advice I've always remembered from a dear HS English teacher: learn the rules, so that you can break them for the right reasons.  Or something like that.  Great advice.  Can be applied to anything.  See, now I am writing incomplete sentences.  Because I want to convey some sassy familiarity.  But it's grammatically incorrect to do so.  

I also know that language is a living thing and grammar is pretty random, like fashion.  There are some really arbitrary fashion laws (no white after Labor Day) but some rather well-intentioned ones as well (don't wear your underwear over your pants.)  It's all a matter of good judgement.  And this being English we're talking about here, for every rule, there are endless exceptions.  Who can be expected to know them all?  

And of course, there is always a difference between textbook English and the "vulgar" incarnation of the language.  And all the variations thereof: how you write your CV, how you speak at the job interview, how you talk to your co-workers, how you IM your friends, etc...  

I respect your outrage at our random and nonsense grammar rules.  And like I said, I think the general consensus is that the rule about prepositions is just stupid and forces us to create incomprehensible sentence constructions, completely undermining the whole point of language, which is to communicate effectively.

But ...  literacy is a serious problem in my country.  I'm inclined to be strict.  Though I have never been able to grasp the "which/that" distinction.  And yes, I have been reprimanded for using them wrong.  wrongly.  whatever.


"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Tue Oct 30th, 2007 at 12:55:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But where do the "no dangling prepositions" and "no split infinitives" rules come from, and was there ever an English-speaking community where these rules were natural?

We have met the enemy, and it is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 30th, 2007 at 12:58:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The "rules" came from prescriptive grammarians with little regard for the natural or logical structure of the language.

I don't know about the prepositions, but the split-infinitives thing came from the idea that infinitives couldn't be split in Latin, so they shouldn't be split in English.  Never mind that English is not a Romance language, Latin was seen as the "proper" model.  There is no logical reason for it, and it's been discarded by anyone with any sense.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Oct 30th, 2007 at 01:05:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
it's been discarded by anyone with any sense...

...once they've passed the SAT and been admitted to the college of their choice. ;)

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Tue Oct 30th, 2007 at 01:08:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There were no grammar questions on the SAT that I can remember....
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Oct 30th, 2007 at 01:13:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I actually took the ACT and did not have to take the SAT.  Gobs of grammar on the ACT.  And gobs of grammar police in HS and college.  I had one teacher who would not give an A to anyone who made just one grammatical error in a paper...

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
by poemless on Tue Oct 30th, 2007 at 01:18:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the stormy present:
the split-infinitives thing came from the idea that infinitives couldn't be split in Latin, so they shouldn't be split in English.  Never mind that English is not a Romance language, Latin was seen as the "proper" model.
Never mind that infinitives in Latin don't split because they are single words, whereas in English they consist of two words.
The "rules" came from prescriptive grammarians with little regard for the natural or logical structure of the language.
I have a theory that they were adopted as shibboleths in order to make social class more easily determined.

I studied for the Cambridge University "English Proficiency" examination, which involved a fair amount of grammar, and I never encountered these "rules of American English".

We have met the enemy, and it is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 30th, 2007 at 02:13:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I still don't know what a split infinitive is. I should work it out some day, I suppose.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Oct 30th, 2007 at 02:22:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
To boldly go where no man has...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Oct 30th, 2007 at 02:23:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I was never a Trekkie, but this happened to be the first instance I became conscious of American/British English differences. IIRC it was in an article mentioning the storm caused by Prince Charles when he scoffed about American English.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Oct 30th, 2007 at 02:26:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We're supposed to believe that "Boldly to go where..." and "To go boldly where..." are more correct.

We have met the enemy, and it is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 30th, 2007 at 02:38:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You act like you've never seen a ridiculous or arbitrary rule before...

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
by poemless on Tue Oct 30th, 2007 at 02:49:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I was unaware that American and British grammar, punctuation, etc. differed until I took some grammar test on the BBC and found out, among other things, they put the . outside the " ...

Over there:
He said, "Put the period outside the quotation marks".

Over here:
He said, "Put the period inside the quotation marks."

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Tue Oct 30th, 2007 at 03:03:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The American version always disturbed me (because it's like in British-English in my other three languages).

One thing where I constantly change between US and British and can't memorise which is which is the s/z thing -- memorize/memorise etc.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Oct 30th, 2007 at 05:46:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Migeru:
Never mind that infinitives in Latin don't split because they are single words, whereas in English they consist of two words.

Well, precisely.  It was an absurd "rule," one that was always controversial, and one that has been rightfully discarded.  I'm not surprised you haven't run into it because I believe the "debate" over the rule had died off by the late '60s.

It is, however, not actually a matter of British or American usage.  The "rule" was on both sides of the pond.  (I will note that the wiki article indicates that the "Latin argument" that I cited above may be "folklore," which wouldn't surprise me, since it never made the slightest sense to me.....)

Migeru:

I have a theory that they were adopted as shibboleths in order to make social class more easily determined.

There is probably something to that.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Oct 30th, 2007 at 03:24:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
1.  High school textbooks.  Knowing some people who write these things, I can assure you your scepticism is well-founded.

Also, I would not be shocked if Samuel Johnson were implicated somehow.

2.  I have not been around long enough to know.  The pilgrims did talk funny, though...  :)

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Tue Oct 30th, 2007 at 01:06:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Heh.  I don't care two figs about who/whom, but the way you are about who/whom, I am about which/that.

But I am also totally uninterested in picking apart anyone's grammar or usage on blogs, which in my mind are more like oral conversation than traditional writing.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Oct 30th, 2007 at 01:12:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Like I said...  Just responding to DoDo.  I didn't bring it up.

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
by poemless on Tue Oct 30th, 2007 at 01:17:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I wasn't suggesting otherwise, just making a statement.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Oct 30th, 2007 at 01:27:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I don't know how it was for you in Arabic or a South African language, but in my experience, people learning another language are and have to be more conscious of grammar rules: if a native speaker breaks them, s/he may have a sense that it will still be understood, but if I do it, the result can be unintelligible. And as good as I am in English, that happens to me several times -- say, I have particularly bad memories of trying to shuffle sentences right in the translation in my Mood for Reforms diary...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Oct 30th, 2007 at 02:03:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series