However, on the same day Fidesz re-issued the problematic three the last time, a(n obviously 'left'-voting) linguist also asked for the approval of three referendum questions -- which happen to be re-wordings of the Fidesz questions with a different spin, but put in the negative. Those were approved too, so by September, we looked forward to nine questions... and, sadly proving the linguist's expectation about an inattentive and manipulable public true, polls showed a Yes majority for all.
That is pure genius.
A) the reforms get a go-ahead because two valid but opposed referendums cancel each other out, or
B) people get a clue, vote no on the questions of the linguist and Yes on Fidesz's questions, and then Fidesz turns the referendum victory into support for itself? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
While direct-democracy and referenda are nice ideas in theory, they're in practice usually rendered meaningless and/or manipulative, and I've seen them used to manipulate and undermine the entire electoral process. So if this approach catches on, one might hope it could discourage the manipulation of referenda....
But if the competing referenda cancel each other out, that shouldn't necessarily signal a go-ahead for the reforms. Should it?
I think DoDo means that since Fidesz is in opposition if their (opportunistic) referenda drive fails, the government goes ahead with the reforms. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
Now in Hungary, maybe the linguists' action will force people to look at these issues more closely and decide what they really want, and vote with sense (e.g. 6 yes 3 No, or 6 No 3 Yes). But it could just as well lead to yet another referendum failing on low participation. (Since 1989, there have been exactly three successful referendums, one of which forced regime change, the other two approved NATO resp. EU membership. Of hundreds of more initiatives, less than half a dozen got on the ballot paper, and none made it.)
As for the go-ahead for reforms: if a referendum result both says that they should stop and that they can go ahead, they can just reference the latter as approval, what should stop them? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
At its epicenter is young Socialist upstart János Zuschlag, of whom the party was incapable of getting rid of during an earlier scandal, when he was taped joking about Holocaust victims at a commemoration.
I'm sure this is not right grammatically, but I just couldn't figure out how this works in English. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
would be correct American English grammar.
whom the party was incapable of getting rid of
would be acceptable in my circles, where the proper use of "whom" is still an indicator of literacy, while most people have given up trying to abide by the rule about never ending a phrase with a preposition.
who the party was unable to get rid of.
would be normal American English grammar, but wrong in so many ways... "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
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.
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.
...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.
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.
The "rules" came from prescriptive grammarians with little regard for the natural or logical structure of the language.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
