Subject:
|
Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Wed, 29 Dec 1999 22:30:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1773 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
>
>
> 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
Next thing you know, we'll be arguing over what the definition of "is" is.
-Duane
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
