dts@gitpyr.UUCP (Danny Sharpe) (01/18/85)
All this talk of grammar and what's right/wrong reminds me of something
I read in _Words_and_Ways_of_American_English_ by Thomas Pyles.
It seems that Noah Webster (father of Webster's Dictionary, that
Definitive Authority and Arbitrater of all disputes about American
English) advocated the use of the word "them" as plural demonstrative
adjective. In other words, "them horses" is proper and "those horses"
is improper. This viewpoint didn't catch on.
His reasoning was by analogy with German. He said that in German the
phrase "in dem Himmel" means "in them heavens".
I think this points out something about grammatical rules. Some of them
*are* derived from observation of the language (a point in favor of
adopting "them" instead of "those" as the official word for this usage
is that a lot of people do use it this way. They are typically branded
as "uneducated".) But some rules are entirely arbitrary, usually the
product of some armchair linguist's reasoning. They become rules if
said linguist convinces enough teachers that he's right.
-- Either Argle-Bargle IV or someone else. --
Danny Sharpe
School of ICS
Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!dtssteiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (01/20/85)
> > But some rules are entirely arbitrary, usually the > product of some armchair linguist's reasoning. They become rules if > said linguist convinces enough teachers that he's right. > I believe that you misunderstand the job of a linguist. The role of a linguist is purely discriptive. "Arbirtray rules" are rarely arbitrary (the example you gave, "them" instead of "those" was not arbrtrary, but based on different principles than we use today). The linguist is interested in discovering these rules, not inventing them. It is important to realize that a linguist does not think that there is "the grammar" of English, but that we each have "a grammar" of English. There are millions of grammars of English, each a bit different, with regional and even personal variation. Many "rules of grammar" exist for purely sociolingistic reasons. Sociolinguistics is the study of language and society. Languages or dialects of languages gain status and become more widespread for political and other reasons. Until the late part of the last century we had a basic misconception about the genetic relationships of languages. The theory is that English was really a deviant decendent of Latin instead of a totally different branch on the same tree as Latin. Because of the sacred writings in Latin, Latin was considered a "better" and more "pure" language. Thus, there are "rules of English grammar" that are "rule" simply because people believed that English "should be" more like the more holy pure language, Latin. An example of this is a "rule" of English that we use the nominitive case for the object in: It is I. It is he. and not It's me. It's him. This is a rule in Latin. The rule is that the subject and object agree in case when there is a copular verb, roughly, "to be." Few people talk this way, and it sounds funny if they do. It is not a "rule" of English as far as linguists are concerned, because linguists are primarily interested in spoken language. My syntax professor used to give several talks a year to non-majors about how counter-intuitive and plain wrong perscriptive grammar is. I think he titled his lecture "The Death of Miss MiGillicutty", or something like that. Linguistics is not an ancient subject that has had a great impact on education or anything like that. It was never considered an independent dicipline until the late 20's of this century. You can't blame "armchair linguists" for much of anything because there are very few linguists and they are mostly too busy trying to figure out how human language works to be too political. Linguistics a demanding subject to study. It will be years before linguistics has any impact on the way grammar is taught in school. It would be too much for the average teacher to learn, and it will take a long time to convert the insights into pedagogies. Don't blame us for those silly rules!! -- scc!steiny Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382 109 Torrey Pine Terr. Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 ihnp4!pesnta -\ fortune!idsvax -> scc!steiny ucbvax!twg -/
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (01/21/85)
In article <328@scc.UUCP> steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) writes: > Many "rules of grammar" exist for purely sociolingistic >reasons. Sociolinguistics is the study of language and society. >Languages or dialects of languages gain status and become more >widespread for political and other reasons. Until the late >part of the last century we had a basic misconception about the >genetic relationships of languages. The theory is that English >was really a deviant decendent of Latin instead of a totally different >branch on the same tree as Latin. Because of the sacred writings >in Latin, Latin was considered a "better" and more "pure" language. >Thus, there are "rules of English grammar" that are "rule" simply >because people believed that English "should be" more like the >more holy pure language, Latin. > > An example of this is a "rule" of English that we >use the nominitive case for the object in: > > It is I. > It is he. > >and not > > It's me. > It's him. > One of my favorite 'rules' of this sort is the one that forbids sentences such as: When are you coming up? because of a supposed "dangling preposition". From a descriptive/historical perspective this is perfectly valid English. The final word is not even a preposition, it is an adverbial particle, modifying the verb. It is the English equivalent of the German seperable prefix, and as in that language it is perfectly normal to place it at the end. Of course since Latin did not have such a construction, and the words in question may also be used as prepositions, the 'rule' was made outlawing them. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|burdvax|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (01/23/85)
> > One of my favorite 'rules' of this sort is the one that > forbids sentences such as: > When are you coming up? > because of a supposed "dangling preposition". > Once a fellow from Brookland got into Harvard. When he got there, he was looking for his freshman orientation. Finally, he went up to a person standing around and said: "Where's the orientation I'm supposed to go to?" The person replied "Here at Harvard, we never end a sentence with a preposition." The fellow from Brookland looked at him for a minute and said: Where's the orientation I'm supposed to go to, a**hole? -- scc!steiny Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382 109 Torrey Pine Terr. Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 ihnp4!pesnta -\ fortune!idsvax -> scc!steiny ucbvax!twg -/
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (01/31/85)
> > Once a fellow from Brookland got into Harvard. > ^ | err, I mean Brooklyn sorry about that my face is red. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382 109 Torrey Pine Terr. Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 ihnp4!pesnta -\ fortune!idsvax -> scc!steiny ucbvax!twg -/
black@unc.UUCP (Samuel Black) (02/04/85)
In article <scc.333> steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) writes: > > ... > > The person replied "Here at Harvard, we never end >a sentence with a preposition." > > ... > I think Winston Churchill said it best. When told that you should not end a sentence with a preposition, he replied: "This is something up with which I shall not put."
jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick) (02/08/85)
> > I think Winston Churchill said it best. When told that you should > not end a sentence with a preposition, he replied: > > "This is something up with which I shall not put." You've not only misquoted him, you've done it in such a way as to destroy the whole point of what he was saying. He actually said: "[Dangling prepositions] are something up with which I shall not put."
cs2534ai@unm-cvax.UUCP (02/09/85)
[Purina lineater chow]
According to a "reliable source" (a book I have which contains an effluvia
of useless facts and information), Winston Churchill's exact words, when
accused of ending sentences with prepositions, were
"This is the sort of pedantry up with which I will not put."
Anybody else know any misquotes?
-DT
[The Deranged Terrestrial]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
:::::::::
___________HOME___________ ::::: ::::: _____________WORK_______________
David B. Thomas ::___ ___:: Rocky Mountain Computers (Apple)
1406 Calle Del Ranchero NE ::\_*|-|_*/:: 2109 Wyoming Blvd. NE
Albuquerque, NM 87106 :: \_/ :: Albuquerque, NM 87112
(505) 266-1016 : (___) : (505) 292-2775 that's 292-APPL
:_______:
UUCP: {{purdue,cmc12,ihnp4}!lanl,ucbvax}!unmvax!unm-cvax!cs2534ai
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Remember, Anna, sometimes a banana is just a banana."msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (02/11/85)
We've had two versions of Churchill on prepositions ending sentences so far. Neither one agrees exactly with the version* I'd heard of. There must be somebody reading this who has access to a reference that gives the correct and authoritative version. Would they please find it and post it --- quickly, before we have half a dozen more postings on the topic? > > I think Winston Churchill said it best. When told that you should > > not end a sentence with a preposition, he replied: > > > > "This is something up with which I shall not put." > > You've not only misquoted him, you've done it in such a way as to destroy the > whole point of what he was saying. He actually said: > > "[Dangling prepositions] are something up with which I shall not put." *"My" version agrees in spirit with the first one, but amplifies it to "This is the kind of arrant pedantic nonsense up with which..." Since Churchill was one of the greatest English-language-users ever, and prepositions-at-the-end are grammatical English, I'm quite sure that the second person has it wrong. Was anybody bothered by the sentence ending with a preposition in this article? Was anybody bothered by the common-gender-singular "they"? I thought not. Mark Brader
jfh@browngr.UUCP (John "Spike" Hughes) (02/14/85)
I believe the full churchil quotation is "That is the kind of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put." Along these lines is another nice 'example' sentence. A small child is questioning a parent about the parent's actions in preparing for putting the child to bed: "Mommy, what di you bring that I didn't want to be read to out of up for?" -jfh
jwp@uwmacc.UUCP (jeffrey w percival) (02/20/85)
In article <scc.333> steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) writes: > ... > The person replied "Here at Harvard, we never end >a sentence with a preposition." > ... Speaking of Harvard, Two Harvard students in a dorm. A knock on the door... Student A: "Who's there?" from beyond the door: "It's me!" Student B: "It can't be anybody we know." -- Jeff Percival jwp@uwmacc.UUCP (...!{allegra,ihnp4,seismo,...}!uwvax!uwmacc!jwp) uwmacc!jwp@wisc-rsch.ARPA POST: Space Astronomy; UW-Madison; 1150 University Ave; Madison, Wi 53706; USA