Grammar in the News
A reader of the Oklahoman newspaper recently wrote:
"I have always believed that proper grammar has been set in stone, so to speak, and that it does not change in any society, nor in any decade."
I always want to sit these people down and say, "Okay. Sure. But can you tell me something? Who set these rules in stone and, while we're at it, can you show me the stone (so to speak) of which you speak?"
I think it would take about five minutes to demonstrate to one of these people that they don't know what grammar is. As I've written before, it's not a list of rules someone once "legislated." It's analysis of how the language is used. People like this Oklahoman reader bought -- hook, line and sinker -- a long-dead teacher's long-ago spiel about absolute rights and wrongs without ever asking, "What's your source on that?"
* * *
A commenter at Tennessean.com wrote:
"OK, I confess. I am somewhat of a grammatical snob. After all, I am a writer. ... The truth is, I have no problem with "casual" grammar. It would be a rather pretentious world if we all went around sounding like college term papers. I have even been known to occasionally split an infinitive myself. "
D'oh. Why is it that the people most willing to embrace the label of grammar snob don't even know some of the most basic facts, like there's no rule against splitting infinitives?
Plus, the idea that writers have an extraordinary grasp of grammar is silly. Perhaps the average writer is more grammar-savvy than the average stock broker, plumber, or president. But I know a lot of writers and none of them considers herself to have a good enough knowledge of grammar.
* * *
A reader of the Amarillo Globe News recently wrote to complain that Arne Duncan, President-Elect Obama's pick for education secretary, gave thanks to those " ... who gave my sister and I ..."
Commenters on the site said this was nitpicking -- especially when you consider all the assaults on the English language committed by our current commander-in-chief. Others argued Duncan was speaking colloquially/idiomatically.
As someone who can't help but be peeved by certain objective uses of "I," I'm going to side with the letter-writer. Knowing when to use "my sister and I" versus "my sister and me" is basic stuff. It's not a nitpicky thing like whether you can use "have got" in place of plain old "have." The concept of subject and object pronouns is grammar 101 -- important stuff. I suspect Duncan's words arose out of ignorance and not conscious choice. And it seems to me that an education secretary nominee should demonstrate mastery of basic grammatical concepts.
Keywords:
About June
June Casagrande was born in March and lives in a small house. She wrote a grammar/humor book called "Mortal Syntax" and, before that, one called "Grammar Snobs Are Great Big Meanies." She sincerely hopes you buy a million copies of each.
Connections
Causes June Casagrande Supports
Planned Parenthood, ClimateCrisis.net, the Richard Dawkins Foundation, Pet Orphans of Southern California, KIVA
Did Arne Duncan say it or write it?
If he spoke the error, cut him some slack. I "hear" that error from time to time from educated biggies. Me do that myself sometimes. Once it's out of the mouth its irretrievable. But to make that error in writing where one edits the text...well, that's down right plebeian.
Sorry
I don't know whether that was spoken or written. But, either way, it's not okay.
I cut lots of slack on lots of issues. I'm often accussed of being a language anarchist. But Duncan's mistake is not okay in my book.
The reason: The error he made is usually a form of overcorrection. It emerges not from causal situations in which the speaker just isn't worried about grammar. It happens precisely because the speaker is trying to use correct English and doesn't know how (or because the speaker has developed a habit based on this misguided attempt at correctness).
I make lots of mistakes when I speak (and write, for that matter). Not two days ago I used one of my own biggest peeves: "there's" before a plural. But I never make the mistake Duncan made. Just as I never accidentally say "Me want to talk to you" instead of "I want to talk to you."
I've made a career out of cutting people grammar slack. But on this one, he'll get no slack from me.
Tell Delma!
June, I went to the article quoting the woman who thinks grammar rules are set in stone, and there was only one comment. I was hoping to read on that site what you wrote here about wondering who set the rules in stone and where that pesky stone lives. That way, maybe Delma could read it and think about it, her life would change, the sun would shine, birds would sing, and...
...whoa. I'm devoting too much time to Delma Denton, aren't I?
Huntington Sharp, Red Room
P.S. Have you addressed "aren't I" vs. "am I not" yet?
I'm glad ...
I'm glad you brought that up, Huntington. I thought about posting there, but I always feel funny about commenting on sites like that. I don't know why, but I worry it's unprofessional somehow.
It's probably related to my newspaper experience. When you write for a newspaper, you don't write letters to the editor for publication -- in your paper or any other. And it's not because you're told not to. It's because, subconsciously, you sort of sense that it's taboo. You're a provider, not a consumer. So it's somehow unprofessional to put on the consumer hat.
Red Room, obviously, is different. We're all peers. So it's okay not to be acting in an "official" capacity. I also post on a few writers' message boards, which also seems okay to me.
Anyway, I'm sure it's perfectly appropriate for me to post on such sites, but I just can't quite get past that feeling. If you have any thoughts on this, I'd love to hear them. I've never articulated this hesitation before and would love to hear whether others feel the same.
Re "aren't I" vs. "am I not" -- that's actually in my most recent book. A couple of people had actually told me it's wrong to say "aren't I." So I addressed that. (What's "wrong," I concluded, is assuming stuff is wrong without checking first.)
I'd look it up, but...
...I could've sworn I saw a copy of Mortal Syntax on Red Room's massive library shelves, but darned if I can find one. I'd better order onetoday, and so should anyone else reading this!
Huntington Sharp, Red Room
P.S. That wasn't snark, or not much. I really will find it useful for my job.
That's nice of you
I didn't mean to withhold info! I basically say in the book that, though "aren't I" defies the standard method of forming negatives and inverting stuff into question form, it's still correct.
The standard method of forming negatives being, as you know, adding "not."
"He is" ----- "He is not" / "I am" ---- "I am not"
The standard method of forming questions being simple inversion of subject and verb.
"He is" --- "Is he?" / "I am" -- "Am I"?
Thus, the standard way of doing both is to just do both: Invert and add "not."
"He is" -- "Is he not?" / "We are" --- "Are we not?"
To make 'em contractions, we change the word order a bit:
"Is he not?" --- "Isn't he?" / "Are we not?" -- "Aren't we?"
How did the plural form "are" end up with singular "I" in "Aren't I"? I don't know. But even though it defies this formula, it's still standard and grammatical.
(More than you wanted to know, probably, but actually more than I say in the book! How's that for value?)
: )