Three Grammar Rules You Can (And Should) Break


Recommended Posts

I found this to be an interesting salvo against the grammar Nazis.

Obviously, if you are writing a masterpiece of literature or more formal writing, you will probably want to observe the rules a bit more. But for normal everyday writing like on a forum, this post is great advice. The idea is to write in the same manner you speak. This especially holds for the pre-sell writing you need in Internet marketing.

Three Grammar Rules You Can (And Should) Break

by Michelle Pierce

Copyblogger

April 13, 2009

Grammar rules exist so that we don’t sound like complete idiots when we write. Most of them have a good reason for being around; after all, clarity in communication is a good thing. A virtue, even.

However, that’s not to say that all grammar rules are written in stone. In fact, some of them seem to be the work of rabid grammarians, who gleefully enforce confusing syntax and awkward construction in the name of “proper English.”

To heck with that, I say. Here are three grammar rules that were made to be broken.

1. Ending a sentence with a preposition

I have no idea where this rule came from. What I do know is that many people, in an effort to keep from ticking off the Grammar Police, start twisting their sentences around so as not to end them with prepositions.

Unfortunately, more often than not, the new syntax is terribly awkward and painful to read. Take the first sentence of this section, for example. “From where this rule came” sounds like something Yoda would say, not me. A big part of blogging is showing your personality through words. How can you do that when you’re twisting your phrases to suit some archaic rule?

In the interest of clarity and readability, it’s quite all right to end a sentence with a preposition.

2. Beginning a sentence with “and” or “but”

Somebody, somewhere, once decided that you shouldn’t begin sentences with conjunctions. Maybe it was an overzealous teacher who thought her students were doing it too much. My guess is that it was frustrated mothers who got sick and tired of hearing their children start every single sentence with “But Mo-om!”

The rule even got screen time in the movie Finding Forrester, when Sean Connery and Rob Brown have an entire conversation about it (and deliberately start their sentences with the offending words in order to make their points).

Regardless of how it began, you don’t have to stick with it. It’s perfectly all right to start your sentences with “and” or “but.” It’s a great way to grab attention and emphasize a point. But, as in all things, take it in moderation.

3. Splitting infinitives

How often have you heard that you’re not allowed to let another word come between “to” and its verb? Some people hold that construction with the same reverence as is typically given to marriage: that which the writer hath wrought together, let no man tear asunder.

Except that it’s really not that big of a deal. Come on: “to go boldly where no man has gone before” just doesn’t have the same ring to it as “to boldly go.” If it sounds better to split the infinitive, then take an axe to it!

Don’t cling to the ancient rules just because your high school English teacher told you to. Be a rebel and break free of these nonsensical shackles!

I highly recommend visiting Copyblogger (where this blog post is presented) for some excellent writing advice.

(There. That's two different backlinks for them to two different places on their blog in the same post. Actually there are 3 if you count the one in Pierce's text. :) )

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I agree that the first two rules can and often should be broken; I'm a bit dubious about the third. A split infinitive sometimes -- depending on the context -- has for me the same feel as if "aint" were suddenly inserted into an otherwise grammatical sentence. A good rule of thumb is to remember most rules of grammar and to break them only when one has a reason for so doing.

Winston Churchill said the last word on the claim that one must never end a sentence with a preposition. He said: "That is the kind of pedantic nonsense up with which I will not put."

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the first two rules can and often should be broken; I'm a bit dubious about the third. A split infinitive sometimes -- depending on the context -- has for me the same feel as if "aint" were suddenly inserted into an otherwise grammatical sentence. A good rule of thumb is to remember most rules of grammar and to break them only when one has a reason for so doing.

Winston Churchill said the last word on the claim that one must never end a sentence with a preposition. He said: "That is the kind of pedantic nonsense up with which I will not put."

Barbara

I'm often "guity" of ending a proposition with a preposition. Avoiding doing so sometimes seems so awkward. And starting a sentence with "and" or "but" sometimes seems to yield a better flow. But sometimes not.

Bill P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been guilty of ending sentences with prepositions, but have been working more on making sure it does not happen. It irritates me a lot lately, so I have been making a concerted effort to not do this. I am not always successful of course. I think the reason is because I am going over prepositions with my 9 year old at home in her home schooling. The book hasn't stated NOT to end a sentence with a preposition, but all of a sudden I have flash backs of my English teachers in school telling me not to do this.

Perhaps I suffer from some sort of preposition appropriateness disorder. Or maybe unearned preposition displacement guilt? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this to be an interesting salvo against the grammar Nazis.

Obviously, if you are writing a masterpiece of literature or more formal writing, you will probably want to observe the rules a bit more. But for normal everyday writing like on a forum, this post is great advice. The idea is to write in the same manner you speak. This especially holds for the pre-sell writing you need in Internet marketing.

I disagree. I learned from an Objectivist lecturer that the rules of grammar exist to help us keep our thinking clear. I also learned from a different Objectivist that the primary purpose of speech is to enable thought. (Communicating with others is a secondary goal.)

The split infinitive is powerful. So is starting a sentence with a conjunction. In the movie Finding Forrester, you can find a cute scene where the professor and the homeboy banter on that point. But, to via blank-out and in disregard for consequences split an infinitive is sloppy thinking. If it is thinking at all.

MSK's point about the creation of advertising is a consequence of dropping the context.

New! Improved! Advertising copy!

It motates! People love it! You will, too!!

(Some restrictions apply. Void where prohibited by law. Offer not available to employees, heirs, assigns, principles or agents. Taxes are the responsbility of the recipient. Free on Board at point of origin. Destination charges may apply separately. Consult an attorney and a physician before following any advice. This message provided as a public service and contains no warranties of fitness of use or merchantability.)

It's keen! When you have it, people like you... a lot!

I grant that MSK's first error might have been intentional: "... if you are writing a masterpiece of literature or more formal writing ..." Surely, the irony was not lost on the attentive reader.

I agree in advance that nit-picking the grammar of an argument is a poor substitute for discussing its ideas, even when the subject is grammar.

Nonetheless, grammar is not the work of "nazis." It is not imposed on us by force, except as reality forces us all to think clearly. While it is true that different languages have different grammars (thus validating some subjectivity of experience), I also compelling the theory of Noam Chomsky that all creoles share a common grammar by necessity. I also learned, but have not rigorously tested, the theory that so-called "primitive" languages have more complex grammars than "civilized" languages. One argument for that is that civilizations bring together disparate peoples who must find common expression.

Edited by Michael E. Marotta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

I don't know how you can promote the idea of a free market and despise advertising copy so much. Without advertising in a highly competitive field, a person does not sell anything. His competitors who advertise do sell. In short, the purpose of ad copy is not to be a parody of itself. It is a free market tool. It is actually a very hard job, which I suppose makes it easy to parody. Good ad copy does the following:

1. Gets attention.

2. Communicates information.

3. Persuades.

And it has to do that in the middle of all the other information people are bombarded with.

That's a tall order on anyone's plate. I wonder how well you would do at it for, say, selling a TAS conference or a brand of orange juice or even the free market idea.

You mentioned a mistake I made, but for the life of me, I cannot figure out what it is. I imagine it has something to do with rules.

In fact, I understand how many people feel threatened when the rules start changing, but that's the way language is. What was once an error 3 or 4 centuries ago (hell, even a decade ago) is now grammatically correct. I have encountered people who resist this fact, but that does not change the fact.

Since I spent over 30 years outside the country, I became aware of this on a practical level when I returned. There are things that sound very strange to my ear, but everybody says them. For example:

"That is the way it is... Not!"

That word "not" is a real clunker to my ear. I would say that phrase as follows:

"That is the way it is... Not really!"

In other instances of using "not," I simply use the word "no." This strange (to me) usage grew in the language while I was gone and there is nothing I can do about it.

But since you are up in arms, let's get away from anecdotes and opinions and go to a standard industry text for copywriting—one that is used nowadays in universities and major corporations throughout America: The Copywriter's Handbook by Robert W. Bly. It was written in 1990. The partial quote below is on pp 51-52:

A FEW TRICK OF THE TRADE

Copywriters use a number of stylistic techniques to pack a lot of information in a few short paragraphs of smooth-flowing copy. Here are a few tricks of the trade:

End with a Proposition

Ending a sentence with a proposition adds to the conversational tone of the copy. And it's a perfectly acceptable technique endorsed by Zinsser, Flesch, Fowler, and most other authorities on modern writing. Some examples:

He's the kind of fellow with whom you love to have a chat. | He's the kind of fellow you love to have a chat with.

Air pollution is something of which we want to get rid. | Air pollution is something we want to get rid of.

For what are we fighting? | What are we fighting for?

. . .

Begin Sentences with Conjunctions

Beginning a sentence with and, or, but, or for makes for a smooth, easy transition between thoughts.

Use these simple words instead of more complex connectives. But is a shorter, better way of saying nevertheless, notwithstanding, and conversely. And don't use such antiquated phrases as equally important, moreover, and furthermore when and will do just as well.

The first lesson is free But I can't call you.
You
have to take the first step.

The choice is simple. Be a pencil pusher. Or get the Messenger. And move ahead with the speed of sound.

ECS phones the first two numbers you've selected until someone answers. It announces the emergency. Gives your address. And repeats it.

That is what professional writers are being taught in universities. They are not taught to break the rules. They are taught that these so-called broken rules are the new rules. I could probably dig up something authoritative on split infinitives, but I am out of time.

In short, it's your language. Use it your way for what you find valuable. I will use my language my way.

But puhleeze, don't pretend you are superior for being in love with antiquated rules...

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSK, let me take these in some order of importance. Again, I stress that the purpose of grammar is to help us think clearly and deftly. That is the standard for me.

I don't know how you can promote the idea of a free market and despise advertising copy so much.

I regard advertising as protected by Freedom of Speech under the First Amendment. All communication is advertising, if you want to thinkg of it that way, else why bother to tell anyone anything? When I worked for a newspaper, we kept a bright line between Advertising and Editorial so as to avoid conflicts of interest. The USPS rules specify how much of a 2nd class newspaper can be advertising and how much "content." One of our editors read nothing but ads and he quipped: "well for me advertising is content." I got it and I adhere to it. That said, adveritising copy (New!! Improved!!) is as grossly deficient in thought as fast food is in nutriition and for the same reason: Lowest Common Denominator. Still, every medium carries ads and you get the ads you deserve based on the media you expose yourself to.

Without advertising in a highly competitive field, a person does not sell anything. ... ... Good ad copy does the following...

I understand that. Not to telegraph the punch here, but one of the ways that I sell my services as a writer is by creating feature stories that sell the product or service of the subject much better than any "advertiising" could. I get to tell the whole story, complete with pictures while the competition is stuck with "New! Improved!" because they do not know what else to say in one page. I do.

I wonder how well you would do at it for, say, selling a TAS conference or a brand of orange juice or even the free market idea.

How much are you willing to pay? I took four checks to the bank last week.

You mentioned a mistake I made, but for the life of me, I cannot figure out what it is. I imagine it has something to do with rules.

"... if you are writing a masterpiece of literature or more formal writing..."

What is more formal than a masterpiece of literature? (I don't know what the rhetorical error is called. "... if any of them is dead or more seriously wounded...")

In fact, I understand how many people feel threatened when the rules start changing, but that's the way language is. What was once an error 3 or 4 centuries ago (hell, even a decade ago) is now grammatically correct. I have encountered people who resist this fact, but that does not change the fact.

In 1994, I was the technical writer on an engineering software project, something I have a lot of experience at. I had the team all give me write-ups for me to edit and one guy turned in a mess. I went to him. "Jeff you write in C..." C-plus-plus, he corrected me. "It has a grammar, syntax, vocabulary. English is the same way. What's the problem?" He said that he did not perceive programming to be writing. For him, it was looping ties over axles, gearing connectors, etc. He thought in images. Later, he came to my office. He asked me who makes the rules. I said, as you just did, MSK, that languages change and when they do, we reformulate the rules. He said --- and I made a poster of this; I have it in front me me now --

"English is constantly evolving.

Therefore, anyone who sticks to the rules

is not using the current revision."

-- Jeff Millington, November 4, 1994.

MSK, I am not threatened by languages. I know quite a few of them. We were bilingual Hungarian in my home. I started German at 12 in the 7th grade by going to a university summer school and two years later, I won first place in a speech contest entered as "Of German Origin." Since then, I have had classes in Japanese (worked for Kawasaki and Honda), Italian, and Arabic. I taught myself Tibetan and published an article using it. I taught myself Classical Greek and have published with it several times. English changes. Even Latin changes.

Copywriters use a number of stylistic techniques to pack a lot of information in a few short paragraphs of smooth-flowing copy. Here are a few tricks of the trade ...

That is what professional writers are being taught in universities. ...

You are not professional until you are paid for your work. People in school are still learning to do it. I would like to meet the professor who writes for a living. Some do. I have one now, Gregg Barak. For a Marxist, he's quite an entrepreneur when it comes to publishing. But I write circles around most of the profs. I write an article or two every month and have for over 20 years, 25 now. I get paid for it.

I just finished a term of office (plus a half extra) on a political appointment for my local community corrections advisory board. I served as a representative of communications media. The chair is a hard-core Democrat liberal and at one point, when I offered a story to the local paper about her ineptitude, she tried to have the county attorney nullify my appointment on the grounds that I am not "really" a writer. I submitted a 17-page curriculum vitae of my works, mostly by accessing online indexes.

But puhleeze, don't pretend you are superior for being in love with antiquated rules...

No, I pretend that I am superior because I have achievements. :D

There's nothing special about me. I read Anthem when I was 16... My girl friend and I lived Atlas Shrugged. It left me compulsive and driven to achieve, to do well at everything I try. I went to college and had to translate Faust. (All that German. I SATed into 3rd year.) Most people think it's about a man who sells his soul. It's about a man who seeks experience. Peak experience. I never do anything halfway.

I needed a part-time job. I got one as a security guard. Last year, I graduated summa cum laude with a bachelor of science in criminology.

I wanted to write about aviation. None of the pilots would talk to me. I took some lessons... then some more... You can find my work on www.studentpiloit.com. I've flown all kinds of single engine stuff, in Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Texas, often cadging the ride by writing about the flight school.

When I worked at Kawasaki Robotics, teaching robot operations and programming, I suggested that the company make its own $1 tokens as a tradeshow advertisement. That got me into numismatics. The ANA granted me two literary awards. I write a monthly column and have for five years. Being an Objectivist makes it fun to write about money.

I even helped to design a Community Currency, Bay Bucks of Traverse City. Read here.

And you know what? I am next to nobody here, down at the bottom of the list of achievements.

You fail to perceive the talent here on OL. You blast people, insult them, put them down, and basically bully your way around and that's fine because we all have big egos here. We all live for ego, right? But apparently you have no idea just who among us have achieved what. For all I wrote, I know others here who could bury me in their own bragging, but the true mettle of an egoist is that we don't brag because we don't give a flip about what other people think.

"In order to get things done, you must love the doing." -- Howard Roark.

Edited by Michael E. Marotta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSK, let me take these in some order of importance. Again, I stress that the purpose of grammar is to help us think clearly and deftly. That is the standard for me.
I don't know how you can promote the idea of a free market and despise advertising copy so much.

I regard advertising as protected by Freedom of Speech under the First Amendment. All communication is advertising, if you want to thinkg of it that way, else why bother to tell anyone anything? When I worked for a newspaper, we kept a bright line between Advertising and Editorial so as to avoid conflicts of interest. The USPS rules specify how much of a 2nd class newspaper can be advertising and how much "content." One of our editors read nothing but ads and he quipped: "well for me advertising is content." I got it and I adhere to it. That said, adveritising copy (New!! Improved!!) is as grossly deficient in thought as fast food is in nutriition and for the same reason: Lowest Common Denominator. Still, every medium carries ads and you get the ads you deserve based on the media you expose yourself to.

Without advertising in a highly competitive field, a person does not sell anything. ... ... Good ad copy does the following...

I understand that. Not to telegraph the punch here, but one of the ways that I sell my services as a writer is by creating feature stories that sell the product or service of the subject much better than any "advertiising" could. I get to tell the whole story, complete with pictures while the competition is stuck with "New! Improved!" because they do not know what else to say in one page. I do.

I wonder how well you would do at it for, say, selling a TAS conference or a brand of orange juice or even the free market idea.

How much are you willing to pay? I took four checks to the bank last week.

You mentioned a mistake I made, but for the life of me, I cannot figure out what it is. I imagine it has something to do with rules.

"... if you are writing a masterpiece of literature or more formal writing..."

What is more formal than a masterpiece of literature? (I don't know what the rhetorical error is called. "... if any of them is dead or more seriously wounded...")

In fact, I understand how many people feel threatened when the rules start changing, but that's the way language is. What was once an error 3 or 4 centuries ago (hell, even a decade ago) is now grammatically correct. I have encountered people who resist this fact, but that does not change the fact.

In 1994, I was the technical writer on an engineering software project, something I have a lot of experience at. I had the team all give me write-ups for me to edit and one guy turned in a mess. I went to him. "Jeff you write in C..." C-plus-plus, he corrected me. "It has a grammar, syntax, vocabulary. English is the same way. What's the problem?" He said that he did not perceive programming to be writing. For him, it was looping ties over axles, gearing connectors, etc. He thought in images. Later, he came to my office. He asked me who makes the rules. I said, as you just did, MSK, that languages change and when they do, we reformulate the rules. He said --- and I made a poster of this; I have it in front me me now --

"English is constantly evolving.

Therefore, anyone who sticks to the rules

is not using the current revision."

-- Jeff Millington, November 4, 1994.

MSK, I am not threatened by languages. I know quite a few of them. We were bilingual Hungarian in my home. I started German at 12 in the 7th grade by going to a university summer school and two years later, I won first place in a speech contest entered as "Of German Origin." Since then, I have had classes in Japanese (worked for Kawasaki and Honda), Italian, and Arabic. I taught myself Tibetan and published an article using it. I taught myself Classical Greek and have published with it several times. English changes. Even Latin changes.

Copywriters use a number of stylistic techniques to pack a lot of information in a few short paragraphs of smooth-flowing copy. Here are a few tricks of the trade ...

That is what professional writers are being taught in universities. ...

You are not professional until you are paid for your work. People in school are still learning to do it. I would like to meet the professor who writes for a living. Some do. I have one now, Gregg Barak. For a Marxist, he's quite an entrepreneur when it comes to publishing. But I write circles around most of the profs. I write an article or two every month and have for over 20 years, 25 now. I get paid for it.

I just finished a term of office (plus a half extra) on a political appointment for my local community corrections advisory board. I served as a representative of communications media. The chair is a hard-core Democrat liberal and at one point, when I offered a story to the local paper about her ineptitude, she tried to have the county attorney nullify my appointment on the grounds that I am not "really" a writer. I submitted a 17-page curriculum vitae of my works, mostly by accessing online indexes.

But puhleeze, don't pretend you are superior for being in love with antiquated rules...

No, I pretend that I am superior because I have achievements. :D

There's nothing special about me. I read Anthem when I was 16... My girl friend and I lived Atlas Shrugged. It left me compulsive and driven to achieve, to do well at everything I try. I went to college and had to translate Faust. (All that German. I SATed into 3rd year.) Most people think it's about a man who sells his soul. It's about a man who seeks experience. Peak experience. I never do anything halfway.

I needed a part-time job. I got one as a security guard. Last year, I graduated summa cum laude with a bachelor of science in criminology.

I wanted to write about aviation. None of the pilots would talk to me. I took some lessons... then some more... You can find my work on www.studentpiloit.com. I've flown all kinds of single engine stuff, in Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Texas, often cadging the ride by writing about the flight school.

When I worked at Kawasaki Robotics, teaching robot operations and programming, I suggested that the company make its own $1 tokens as a tradeshow advertisement. That got me into numismatics. The ANA granted me two literary awards. I write a monthly column and have for five years. Being an Objectivist makes it fun to write about money.

I even helped to design a Community Currency, Bay Bucks of Traverse City. Read here.

And you know what? I am next to nobody here, down at the bottom of the list of achievements.

You fail to perceive the talent here on OL. You blast people, insult them, put them down, and basically bully your way around and that's fine because we all have big egos here. We all live for ego, right? But apparently you have no idea just who among us have achieved what. For all I wrote, I know others here who could bury me in their own bragging, but the true mettle of an egoist is that we don't brag because we don't give a flip about what other people think.

"In order to get things done, you must love the doing." -- Howard Roark.

Congrats on your Hungarian. I understand it's one of the most difficult languages to master for a non-native speaker--on a par with English.

I only speak and write English. The only two languages I imagine I could master--speak and write coherently in--are Spanish and Japanese. A tonal Chinese language--no thanks. Aside from Spanish, I don't care for the other Indo-European but for English.

I don't know whom MSK has tried to "bully" here aside from myself. I just attributed it to too much on his plate and let it go after stopping it.

I'm afraid you've let too much build up before objecting to it making the aggregate a negative on yourself rather than the other. On yourself because you let it go while storing it up. Never let it go, for finally you will have to anyway or over-object; the pressure becomes too much. Deal with it at the time. How else would you expect him to know he went too far with something or what that something was unless he already knew it? To claim THAT last is a step too far, IMHO. So you've waited and turned him into a bad person. Not right. Always give feedback right away or it's on you. I'm sorry, but it's true. Life is about power relationships. Honor your power: use it and use it honorably. But not to use it is to abuse it, and yourself. You've finally maintained your space, I guess, but not fair to the other, MSK.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Who's bullying? I stated a truth. You said, "I disagree," with a weird know it all ramble.

I gave you a source and said (and still say) you are dead wrong. If I have to learn copywriting off of anyone, it will be Robert Bly (look him up, he's one of the best in the country), not Michael Marotta, whose copywriting I have yet to see, but who claims to know it all.

Even so, we disagree. Big deal.

Disagreeing isn't bullying. But there is another matter.

I just watched you say some very obnoxious things about me because you disagree with me.

That, in my book, is an attempt to bully. I won't let you, though.

That, in my book, is standing up to a bully.

If thine eye offend thee, stop looking in the mirror...

Now since this section is devoted to learning and techniques, not vanity issues, can we please get back to point?

Michael

EDIT: btw - I am aware of some of your writing and I am proud of you for it. (I really am—I was even saying good things about you back on SoloHQ when you were constantly trashed—and that was on line and off.) My advice is to let your achievements speak for themselves instead of trying to attack others so you have a pretext to talk about them. Just a thought...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

There is another issue that needs addressing, since this is a thread about learning and technique.

MSK, let me take these in some order of importance. Again, I stress that the purpose of grammar is to help us think clearly and deftly. That is the standard for me.

The standard is wrong if it is standalone. (I should say there goes that Objectivist scope issue again.) You would have been correct if you had said, "the primary purpose of grammar is to help us think clearly and deftly."

Thinking is not the only purpose of language (including grammar). I know where you got that from, though. Here is a quote from Rand (ITOE, P. 69):

Concepts and, therefore, language are primarily a tool of cognition—not of communication, as is usually assumed. Communication is merely the consequence, not the cause nor the primary purpose of concept-formation—a crucial consequence, of invaluable importance to men, but still only a consequence. Cognition precedes communication; the necessary precondition of communication is that one have something to communicate.

Notice that Rand said, "Cognition precedes communication." She did not say, "Cognition obliterates communication" or "Cognition replaces communication" or anything like that. In fact, she called communication "a crucial consequence, of invaluable importance to men."

"Crucial" means you can't delete it from language.

First and second do not mean one and zero. Treating them as the same is the most common error in thinking I see with Objectivists (not all, but far too many to ignore the pattern). In other words, in handling concepts:

cognition --> first

communication --> second

not

cognition --> one

communication --> zero

"Primarily" as used by Rand is ordinal, not cardinal. Too often the black-and-white thinking adopted after reading Rand blurs this distinction and what should be hierarchy becomes a mistaken either-or, usually accompanied by belligerence since so many people tell the person he's wrong.

There is a special issue involved with communication. Instead of one mind, there are two (at least). So communication is not a one way street from a thinking person to a blank vessel. It goes from one thinking person to another.

Persuasion (including advertising and preselling), far from being a usage of communication, is actually a usage of language to think with. One of the first rules of persuasion is "to enter the conversation already going on in the mind of the prospect." The attempt is not to communicate with the prospect, but to make him imagine you are part of his thinking. But that is for another discussion. This one has veered sharply from the current widespread colloquial use of "grammar errors."

Now for a silly thing since you mentioned it twice. The hullabaloo you made of my statement: "... if you are writing a masterpiece of literature or more formal writing...," is silly, especially taken out of context like you did. But since you seem not to understand my meaning and seem to be chomping at the bit to point out an error at all costs, I will explain it. "More formal writing" is not being contrasted with "masterpiece of literature," but instead being grouped with it. That's why the conjunction "or" was used, to group them and offer one as an alternative. I could have used "and" also to group them, but offering an alternative would be excluded. The idea was to contrast erudite writing (using the two examples) against common everyday writing that is exploding all over the Internet.

"More formal writing" in concrete terms means things like contracts, legal briefs, term papers, technical books, and so on. (I translated about 35,000 pages of such "more formal writing" from Portuguese into English.)

Is there any doubt left about my meaning, or are you still hot and heavy to point a finger at some imagined error?

:)

(btw - The "error" you are seeking is called a dangling participle.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got no problem with breaking rule #2 in colloquial speech or writing. Rules 1 and 3, however, sound so ugly when broken, and are so easy to avoid breaking, that there's really no excuse for breaking them even in oral communication. When broken, they just sound WRONG and grate on the ear.

Judith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are workarounds. But, of all the foul rules you mention, ending sentences with preps is the worst; this was hammered in hard to anyone that studied.

Now, there are some things that are just bad writing. You have to be careful of leaving a sentence with "of," for instance.

But, if you consider the rule, it is crappy and inefficient, and goes to old-school grammar. You get one you're writing where it feels like the ender is "of," say, then, if you self-edit, consider the alternative, which is clunky as shit and basically just a given. "From whom it was..."

I fought that for years. My theory is based around what I call "flow;" If your rhythm is good, you can still pay respect to grammar (at least some), but get it done more better.

You gotta swing!

rde

Destroying grammar since inception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Addendum, out of a weird sense of responsibility...

The thing is with writing is basically like anything else--Charlie Parker said it a simple way, I will extrapolate, being a blowbag.

If, just if, you put in the time to learn all the "rules," and survive that or maybe even flourish and feel some wind under you, then you can break them.

This is a very simple thing, it extends through all art. It does not mean that you won't come up with something on your own if you ignore those before you, but it's really kind of dumb to not be informed as to the doings of those who came before you--this is considerable!

William Burroughs created the "cutup method," for instance. He got a great, controversial book called "Naked Lunch" out of that. But, if you think for a hot second he hadn't read what came before him, well...

Learn everything, then forget it. That's what Parker said. Emphasis on the first part.

In writing, assuming you do that, it's a big playground with choices. If you confine yourself to rulebooks, well, you will sound like the people that wrote rulebooks, and with few exceptions, that doesn't amount to much. I prefer to think in terms of "principles," more than "rules."

It's not like you go to the big editor in the sky and he kicks your ass for a semicolon or something.

But you have to have experience: reading, and writing, off-rip. Life experiences are what illuminate you after that.

rde

Just my .05

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rule 1 is nonsense, as Churchill so eloquently demonstrated. Pierce gives another good example: "I have no idea where this rule came from" sounds definitely better than " I have no idea from where this rule came". You shouldn't avoid such constructions just because some pedant told you they are wrong. Now you may object that English isn't my native language, so who the hell am I to tell you what is correct English? Well, you don't have to believe me, just check with the real experts (does the name Fowler ring a bell?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Winston Churchill said the last word on the claim that one must never end a sentence with a preposition. He said: "That is the kind of pedantic nonsense up with which I will not put."

And then there's this old joke:

A Texan is visiting a friend at Harvard. They had agreed to meet at the library, but the Texan is lost, so he stops a passing student.

He asks, "Could you tell me where the library's at?"

The student replies, "Around here, we don't end our sentences with prepositions."

The Texan responds, "All right, then, could you tell me where the library's at, asshole?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always enjoyed reading usage manuals.

Mainly, these were written by people whose prose had the consistency of a ham and feet sandwich.

But, there are exceptions. Strunk Jr. and EB White is a nice little read, and it actually delineates things real writers want to know. Mostly, from what I got from it anyway, was that there are choices, options: it is more a matter of making the choice so as to express your meaning as you meant it.

Often, I strip naked and do air conducting while reciting Milton, and synch it all to disco music. Then, I invite friends over to watch me do it, I drink, I pass out.

Sometimes, they leave nice notes on me.

rde

Oh Hell Why Not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:thumbsup: :cheer:

And can I get an AMEN! lol

Always liked that joke, haven't heard it in a while.

Thanks.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, if you consider the rule, it is crappy and inefficient, and goes to old-school grammar. You get one you're writing where it feels like the ender is "of," say, then, if you self-edit, consider the alternative, which is clunky as shit and basically just a given. "From whom it was..."

??? "From whom it was" sounds perfectly normal and colloquial to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Winston Churchill said the last word on the claim that one must never end a sentence with a preposition. He said: "That is the kind of pedantic nonsense up with which I will not put."

And then there's this old joke:

A Texan is visiting a friend at Harvard. They had agreed to meet at the library, but the Texan is lost, so he stops a passing student.

He asks, "Could you tell me where the library's at?"

The student replies, "Around here, we don't end our sentences with prepositions."

The Texan responds, "All right, then, could you tell me where the library's at, asshole?"

As I heard it, a tourist was touring Boston and asked a local, "Can you recommend somewhere we might stop at?"

The local replied, "I would recommend, sir, stopping before the 'at'."

The whole problem often arises, as in the case with Churchill's example, with colloquial expressions, such as "put up with", ending with prepositions. They can be avoided easily by substitution of a single word, such as "endure", etc. I don't see that one's style is seriously cramped thereby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can be avoided easily by substitution of a single word, such as "endure", etc. I don't see that one's style is seriously cramped thereby.

Judith,

It depends on who you are writing to and what you are selling. If I were selling a dog training course, I would never expect good results from:

"Are you tired of hearing neighbors complain about your dog's barking? Well, that's one thing you don't have to endure!"

:)

You could always tell the dog owner prospect:

"If you use the techniques in my course, I don't see that your dog's happiness will be seriously cramped thereby."

:)

I could always split test these things to prove lack of click-throughs (i.e., effectiveness), I suppose, but like most Internet marketers, I prefer to sell than do grammar.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now