| |
John Neal wrote:
> Mr L F Braun wrote:
>
> > Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> >
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.fun, John Neal writes:
> > > > James Brown wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You don't know that I'm mortal, you only have precedent to work with.
> > > >
> > > > I wonder....would an immortal end a sentence with a preposition?
> > >
> > > Quite. That, quoting Churchill, is something "up with which I will not put"...
> >
> > The "rule" about prepositions ending sentences is an archaic Victorianism, an
> > effort to "Latinize" English. Since English is a Germanic language, and German has
> > prepositions at the end of sentences all of the time (separable prefixes and all
> > that), as does Dutch, there's no reason why we can't do it too. The rule about "no
> > split infinitives" is from the same stupid era of haughty stylistics, not to
> > mention just dumb, because once you "split" an infinitive, it's not an infinitive
> > anymore--"to" becomes a different part of speech.
>
> It basically boils down to this: if you give in on prepositions, then before you know
> it, we will be saying "ain't", "chilrun", and "me and her went". It's about
> preserving the language from the illiterates, who are legion. Don't get me started on
> Ebonics...
"We" (who?) already are saying those things, statistically. We just shouldn't write them.
What do you mean, "giving in?" This isn't even an issue of grammatical correctness--it's
an issue of style. There is no rule in English that prohibits these things, and it's
sheer Oxbridge academic Mandarinity (trust me, I know about this phenomenon) that created
the rule in the first place. While tossing around prepositions and supposedly "split
infinitives" may be stylistically grating, it's not *wrong*. How many times have you
started a sentence that would just be awkward unless you violate one of those two maxims?
We've just been taught that something is prohibited when it in fact isn't, and it's not
even bad style, Will Strunk and Kate Turabian notwithstanding. A lot of "Ebonicisms"
violate rules of English grammar and therefore aren't even in the same category.
Incidentally, contractions were once considered extremely bad form (and still are in
expository writing--in fact, so are parenthetical statements, but I'm a rebel <wink>).
Would you suggest that we eschew "it's," "you're," and "don't" from the language,
especially considering that so few supposedly-literate speakers of English can't figure
out how to use those terms (your/you're and its/it's being prime examples)?
The vernacular will eventually wag the "tail" of the literati. It always has, with only
minor episodes of reactionary backlashes. The majority of speakers determines what is
acceptable in the language--those "illiterates" of whom you speak are a lot more likely to
change the language, as a whole, than you or I are likely to alter the vernacular.
best,
Lindsay
PS: Followups to .debate - Get started on that Ebonics thing! ;)
---
Lindsay Frederick Braun
Department of History
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
86 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
