What I found particularly interesting in the Blooming English this week was that double negatives were actually an accepted part of English grammar up until the late 1700s. We are often quick to condemn those who use double negatives in their speech or their writing, calling them unintelligent or uneducated. It is interesting to realize that what is considered uneducated now, was once perfectly normal. This creates the feeling that perhaps we should all be more accepting of differences in accents, dialects, uses of grammar, and just uses of language in general. Language is a piece of clay which we are fortunate enough to have the opportunity to play with every day. We can change its shape, structure, bases, etc over time and thus create something new. We can use the building blocks we are given to create the commonplace and art. The ability to use language in so many ways is what makes it so much fun, so I suggest we open our minds to the possibilities (even if they may be grammatically incorrect).
Are there any other uses of language which are considered grammatically incorrect that cause you to cringe? (I have my fair share).
My biggest "grammar rule pet peeve" is the idea that you can't end a sentence with a preposition. Some phrases are almost impossible to say without doing so. I hated teachers who made you work harder and twist a sentence to avoid this entirely. To me, it made things more complicated and less straightforward, and then the teachers would lecture me for being wordy or flowery. I think it's impossible to honor all of the little intricacies and rules of the English Language.
ReplyDeleteA lot of the reading and talking we've been doing in class has suggested that "correct grammar" may be a lot more ambiguous than we've been taught to believe. Personally, I hate having to avoid the passive voice at all costs, since it sometimes can just be a neater, clearer way to structure a sentence. Something that really does make my grammar sense go on alert is when people use "less" instead of "fewer", or "between" instead of "among". Even these, though, are kind of arbitrary rules. Certainly grammar itself is necessary so that people can understand the relationships among words in a sentence. Conveying meaning really is the whole point of language, though, so I feel like a more realistic standard of "good grammar" is whether the speaker's intent is understood.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Taylor in that it's difficult to avoid using the passive voice all the time. Is it really so much better to say, for example, "The cat chased him" instead of "He was chased by the cat''? I know there are many reasons for why it is important to avoid using passive language, but sometimes it just sounds better to me. I get sick of writing in Microsoft word and seeing all those green lines telling me I need a grammar lesson. Of course there are the other grammar mistakes that send me on edge - such as using there, their, and they're incorrectly. When I see the wrong use of there/their/they're I cringe and write in the correct form while secretly loathing the person who wrote it.
ReplyDeleteThe rule for splitting infinitives, or not doing so, was a rule that was introduced after seeing that Latin did not split its infinitive (because it was the same word). They viewed Latin as more proper and thus deemed that English is not allowed to split its infinitives. So I like to occasionally split my infinite to see if anyone notices, and most people don't. I also that that in a literary sense that if you put an adverb in between the split infinitive that it makes the adverb stand out more and be stronger.
ReplyDeleteJacob: split infinitive in your third sentence. Please correct... :>)
DeleteWhen I think of double negatives, my first thought always goes to rednecks sitting in a trailer park in the middle of Georgia, drinking some beers and randomly firing their rifles into the air while wearing a confederate flag as a cape. And of course, with the exception of the laws against improper use of firearms (and even then, Georgia could be pretty liberal with those), there ain't nothin' wrong with that. It's cool to think about how things like that become acceptable or unacceptable. Not the image of the trailer park being okay, but the idea that double negatives were once acceptable. What caused that change? And even though the use of double negatives is not acceptable, why do some people still use them?
ReplyDeleteA lot of times I use a double negative like "ain't nothin" on purpose to try to be funny or just to amuse myself.
DeleteI definitely agree with you! What makes me particularly uninterested in language reform is the cultural and historical aspects of language and their significance. I don't understand why it is assumed that simplifying language is the best solution. I believe what gives language its beauty and value is the differences in pronunciations and the influence of history on the evolution of words. I think it is definitely important to view language not as much from a utilitarian point of view but from anthropological point of view and value language for what it is and how it has become that.
ReplyDeleteA little off topic, but pertaining to grammar rules: I've always had a hard time with 'that vs. which'. I understand how to use the two in theory but sometimes when I'm writing a paper I have to think really hard about which one is correct. It seems pretty arbitrary, but "that" is used to introduced a restrictive clause, which is necessary for the meaning of the sentence. (I'm already starting to confuse myself, did I use "which" correctly?) So a sentence like, "Food that has too much sodium is bad for you" requires "that" rather than "which". I think. Because if you remove the "that has too much sodium" part, the sentence just says, "Food is bad for you." Now a sentence like, "French fries, which has a lot of sodium, are bad for you" requires "which".
ReplyDeleteYou're not the only one who has great difficulty with this. And the only reason I worry about it is because a) the reader of what I write may happen to be retentive on this issue and b) I feel a little guilty (and possibly a bit stupid) that I can't quite retain the rule well enough to always use the right one properly. All in all, a good example of usage--though the intentions here are good, because they can help the reader understand whether the clause constitutes an essential or incidental part of what's being discussed.
DeleteWhen a person makes a grammatical error in a sentence, or when speaking it never really bugs me. But when I am with my friend, he always has to correct people when they do make mistakes. He is not an English major, nor does he speak with proper grammar, but it still bugs him to no end.
ReplyDeleteI think it's natural and OK for us to be bugged by "inappropriate" ( the term I prefer over "incorrect") usages. There are contexts where in appropriate usage stands out and distracts from the meaning. But as our readings have been suggesting--considering it out-of-place doesn't necessarily mean it's incorrect.
ReplyDeleteGoing along with what John mentioned, there are a number of things that bother me to hear, but I find myself questioning whether or not they really are incorrect in the end. Our readings have pointed out that a lot of things are actually okay, or things that would be fine have become uncommon. For the most part I find myself wondering if I'm really correct or not after all these years of being told what is okay and what isn't be it public speaking class or english courses. Perhaps we have seen a lot of change under the premise of what sounds "formal" with the creation of MLA and other formats, and the rules for writers in general. Things that originally were common and fine becoming incorrect under what has been declared the right way to write and speak.
ReplyDeleteI've always been one to prefer grammatical "correctness," to the point that I nearly always use complete, grammatically correct sentences even in texts or Facebook messages, so it's been really interesting for me read about things like double negatives that were once acceptable but which we're now told not to use, and to think about just how important grammatical rules really are if we're able to communicate effectively without unfailingly abiding by them. Also, since ending sentences with prepositions was mentioned, I feel obligated to bring up the famous saying attributed to Churchill about the rule against prepositions at the end of sentences: "This is the kind of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put." (I actually just learned that the saying appears many different ways; I've always heard it the other way around: "Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.").
ReplyDelete