BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Grammar Reform

 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
sleazenation
14:13 / 07.05.02
These days, as haus and nick obliquely suggest, spliting infinitives is consider more of a style decision than on based purely on grammar. The Irony is while some American publishers such as Marshall Cavendish still rail against the split infinitive it is American popular culture (most notably Star trek) that have popularised it.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:19 / 07.05.02
Get rid of the 'u' which follows almost every 'q'. It conveys absolutely no information and therefore is just a waste of a letter.

Nah. "qu" is a "kw" sound, whereas "q" is a "k" sound - like Qatar, qiana, qaballah...and in some cases q+u = "ku", like Quran, but that is just a bit silly. Far better to get rid of "q" and "qu" altogether, and replace with "k" and "kw".

On split infinitives - Gower's Fowler says that the split infinitive, although not desirable in itself, is more desirable either than blatant artificiality in language or ambiguity in sense. "How appropriately to use an apostrophe" in the example above would be ambiguous, as "how appropriately to use" could mean "how to use appropriately" or "with how much appropriateness to use". "How to use appropriately an apostrophe" is artificial, so there is a case for the split infinitive, although better would be the recasting "how to use an apostrophe appropriately", or even better the assumption that knowing how to use an apostrophe has implicit within it knowing how to use it appropriately, and thus the adverb can be dispensed with altogether.

He adds:

"Those who neither know nor care (what a split infinitive is) are the vast majority, and are a happy folk, to be envied by most of the minority classes."

I love Fowler.
 
 
sleazenation
14:24 / 07.05.02
Oh and on the Q-U thing, all the examples that have thus far been listed are either non-english words or non-english forms of words. Scrabble dictionaries might list them as being valid words, but they are not English/American English

(addendum Just a quick glance at Websters 10th edition confirms it- the 3 words that have entered the language are qintar, a type of currency-, quiviut an inuit word for the wool undercoat of a musk ox and qoph, 19th letter of the hebrew alphabet - it also lists qwerty as a nown refering to the qwerty keyboard)
 
 
grant
15:01 / 07.05.02
I want to be able to end my sentences with a preposition. I mean, what's that rule for?

It's just a hangover from Latin, a language that couldn't adapt when English could. Bah! I say, Bah!

Oh, and profoundly seconding the admission of "y'all" into the house of propriety. "Ustedes," baby. You all.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:06 / 07.05.02
It's just a hangover from Latin, a language that couldn't adapt when English could. Bah! I say, Bah!

"Bah" being Urdu for "I have no idea how Latin sentences are constructed"?
 
 
Ethan Hawke
16:54 / 07.05.02
There's sentence construction in Latin? I kind of thought they just threw all the endings on and let the words fight it out.

You Learn sumptin' new every day.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:01 / 07.05.02
This is my prayer as I go to sleep each night.

To criticise Latin for not putting prepositions at the end is equivalent to criticisng Russian for having funny letters.
 
 
Cat Chant
17:16 / 07.05.02
Haus, I thought the not-ending-a-sentence-with-prepositions thing was, like not splitting infinitives, an attempt to make English conform to the rules of, um, Latin? Which is frankly preposterous, and while maybe it's mean to blame Latin, it seems appropriate to blame Latin-besotted grammarians...

Ahem. Anyway.

I want to get rid of the rules which differentiate "that" from "which" and "while" from "whilst", because I can't remember what they are.

I'm torn on whether the accusative forms of pronouns should be retained. On the one hand, as slash writers will know, the only point of heterosexuality is that it makes sex scenes easier to write without constantly having to resort to circumlocutions like "the burly rebel tore the trousers off the leather-clad former bank employee", and if there was (were? Fuck it, let's get rid of the subjunctive as well) only one form of "he", the problem would be exacerbated ("he fucked he comprehensively while he cried he joy aloud", "he thought he might love he").

On the other hand, if we only had one form of all pronouns, I wouldn't have to (a) be tortured by people saying "He told Blake and I that..." or, indeed, "that's between he and I", or (b) hate myself for being pedantic enough to care.

Oddly, I don't care at all about the reverse ("Blake and me were just shagging"). Go figure.
 
 
Mourne Kransky
17:16 / 07.05.02
Latin was too hard with all that grammar going on, which is why nobody knows any now but for Haus and the Pope. All the sensible people started speaking Italian behind Caesar's back centuries ago. mutatis mutandis

What irks me on the grammar front is incongruence of nouns /pronouns and verb. Particularly when shiny, happy tv people who are paid only to speak properly say "none of us are" or "one in five are". Sheer pedantry, I know.

& I am very fond of whom but you can stuff the semicolon. Useless damn thing. Never know when to use it.
 
 
grant
17:17 / 07.05.02
Haus: This is my prayer as I go to sleep each night.

To criticise Latin for not putting prepositions at the end is equivalent to criticisng Russian for having funny letters.


Bah, humbug. St. Cyril was a delightful man of God; besides which, he had a twin brother named Method.

Which is more than you can say for Latin, whose relation to Method is far more distant.
 
 
grant
17:24 / 07.05.02
The "that" v. "which" thing is a source of constant debate here in the Sun writer's row.
The best example to clarify the difference is this: "You can borrow the green lawnmower which is on the left side of the garage." vs. "You can borrow the green lawnmower that is on the left side of the garage."

"Which" further clarifies a description of an object, while "that" distinguishes an object from other objects. "Which" carries an implied comma right in front of it.

Or so I have been told. Personally, I use them interchangeably, but that's because I was brainwashed by a now-retired Style Overseer into believing "that" was an evil word which must be expunged from tabloid copy at all costs. See? I did it right there.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:24 / 07.05.02

Which is more than you can say for Latin, whose relation to Method is far more distant.


Actually, Method Man of the Wu-Tang Clan studied Latin at my very school. As did the Crystal Method. And Jonny Metgod, subsequently of Nottingham Forest.

Meanwhile, Deva said:

Which is frankly preposterous, and while maybe it's mean to blame Latin, it seems appropriate to blame Latin-besotted grammarians...

Oh, absolutely. But this was not what Grant was doing. If he had said "damn those 19th-century dons with their insistence on compelling a Germanic language to behave as if sentences always ended with a verb or noun and infinitives were a single word and as such atomic", I would be right with him. But I don't see why Latin should take the rap for the crimes of the English.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
17:24 / 07.05.02
While were at it, can we get together and make the Germans come up with a comprehensible method of creating plurals?
 
 
Mourne Kransky
17:30 / 07.05.02
Best argument for keeping our linguistic oddities is Esperanto which must be the ugliest language ever. No Q's for one thing. Pshaw!
 
 
grant
17:30 / 07.05.02
Humbug! It's the "hangover" from Latin I blame!
I rag on Latin for its deadness, not its oblique grammar!

Bah! (to quote the proud Urdu.)

As far as German goes, what the hell is with those articles? *How* many genders you got going? Spanish is bad enough - "Spain" is feminine, but "Spanish" is masculine.
 
 
The Apple-Picker
17:31 / 07.05.02
Big sloppy kisses for anyone who loves the sweet semicolon!

"'that' from 'which'"--since I understand (I think) which instance calls for what, I love the distinction.

I forgive most people that (or who) use these words inappropriately; in an English class, however, which is where one should learn these points, I get all in a tizzy when my teachers misuse the words.

I've never been taught a difference between "while" and "whilst" though. Educate me?

I do hate and rarely follow the guideline (is it a guideline? or is it a rule?) that indicates the placement of "however" should be imbedded in the sentence. I like to tape my howevers right on the beginning, thank you.
 
 
grant
17:34 / 07.05.02
I believe Strunk & White would take a firm stand against "whilst." I'm not sure, but it seems that sad word belongs to the same family as "amongst," a word that attracts Messrs Strunk and White's grammarian ire.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
17:42 / 07.05.02
If anyone genuinely cares, the semicolon can be used to indicate a clarification; it signifies a pause to be followed by further information; it is also used in lists; finally, it can signify a pause less absolute than the 'full stop', but more significant than the more humble comma.
 
 
grant
17:43 / 07.05.02
Personally, I have a dash problem.

That's the first step to recovery - admitting you have a problem.

D'oh!
 
 
The Apple-Picker
17:51 / 07.05.02
I'll call it what it is--addiction.

I, too, have a problem with dashes. I use them often and inappropriately--I tend to use them instead of periods, not as they should be used--as replacements for commas in less-formal writing--long live the dash!
 
 
The Apple-Picker
18:03 / 07.05.02
On consulting my Strunk and White, I found no reference to this "whilst" of which you write.

But here you go for "that" vs. "which":

"That is the definiing, or restrictive pronoun, which the nondefining, or nonrestrictive.

The lawn mower that is broken is in the garage. (Tells which one)
The lawn mower, which is broken, si in the garage. (Adds a fact about the only mower in question)

The use of which for that is common in written and spoken language ("Let us now go even until Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass.") Occasionally which seems preferable to that, as in the sentence from the Bible. But it would be a convenience to all if these two pronouns were used with precision. The careful writer, watchful for small conveniences, goes which-hunting, removes the defining whiches, and by so doing improves his work." --William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White, The Elements of Style, copyright 1979.

I'm sorry. It had to be done.
 
 
w1rebaby
18:05 / 07.05.02
You're doubling your dash consumption, though, with those double shots. You want to watch that.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
18:31 / 07.05.02
Actually, this – is a dash. What you folks have been using is a hyphen "-" in place of a dash. For shame.

(now let's see if my emdash shows up on anybody's browser.)
 
 
The Apple-Picker
18:47 / 07.05.02
Yes, that is a dash. But when I don't know super-special code like you do, then a double-hyphen "--" stands in for a dash just finely, thank you!

So there.
 
 
bitchiekittie
18:59 / 07.05.02
oooh, its getting ugly now. the pedantic purists are ahead by a double-hyphen...or is that a dash?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
19:09 / 07.05.02
There was a legendary fuck-up on a poster trying to persuade RAF pilots in WW2 to get plenty of sleep and not stay out drinking, the legend of which read:

Pilots, who are dull-witted, do not live long.
 
 
The Apple-Picker
19:49 / 07.05.02
P'hahahaha!

Slander! No wait, that's libel.

Libel!
 
 
sleazenation
19:51 / 07.05.02
Nonsense haus, that was not a fuck up, merely a crafty piece of propaganda by jerry to lower the moral of the British Tommy.

Honest.
 
 
Cat Chant
06:54 / 08.05.02
I *still* don't get this which/that thing, and anything I don't get after having it explained twice has to go (God, I sound like my students. Really. I'm not joking ya).

On while/whilst: I thought I heard somewhere that "while" was strictly temporal ("while I was walking down the road I was thinking about grammar"), whilst "whilst" was for contrasty things: "Whilst the Honourable Member is quite right that I take bribes, I think the real question is: what does the Honourable Member take?"

As for Latin, yes, its grammar is rather odd.

Which is why I say (all together now): No Kiss-Kiss bears for you, queer grammar!
 
 
Saveloy
07:26 / 08.05.02
Re: "while" vs "whilst"

A copywriter acquaintance of mine once told me that the objection to "whilst" is simply that it is archaic. He said that those who insisted on using it should also use "wouldst" and "shouldst" and all those other Sir Knight type words.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:40 / 08.05.02
I think Sav is right - "whilst" has pretty much exactly the same meaning as "while", but it has largely retreated from temporal usage.

And, while giving Deva a big cymbal clash, I must offer in the defence of the subject at issue that there's noone quite like grammar.
 
 
Margin Walker
04:54 / 20.08.02
*bump*

I'd make sure that all articles of clothing are referred to in the plural sense. Joking aside, why are pants and underwear referred to in the plural when there's only one article of clothing? People don't wear a pair of shirts or a pair of hats, but yet everyone wears a pair of underwear. Maybe not everyone per se, but...
 
 
aus
12:30 / 20.08.02
"Pair of underwear"? I think this is a local variation. I'd never say "pair of underwear" unless I was trying desperately to make rhymes.

I think the use of "pair" in referring to pants or trousers has to do with the fact that most of us have two legs. It delicately implies that the purpose of pants is solely to cover our legs rather than risking an implied reference to the covering of genitals and buttocks. In the same way, we use "bra" as a singular noun to avoid the implied mentioning of the (usually) two breasts that the bra supports.
 
 
aus
12:33 / 20.08.02
Please note that in the above post I used the plural noun "buttocks" to avoid referring directly to the singular anus, even though it weakened my argument. Damn!
 
 
Ganesh
12:54 / 20.08.02
No, I've neither used nor heard used the phrase "pair of underwear" either. It's pants, man.
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply