In 1762, Bishop Robert Lowth did a grave disservice to the
English language when he published his Short Introduction to English
Grammar. Rather than basing his grammatical rules in the usage of the
best educated speakers and writers of English, he arbitrarily chose to
base them on the Latin grammatical system. The result is that many
modern usages in English, particularly an alarming number of rules of
normative usage and Standard Written English, are based upon those false
origins.
These very rules continue to plague us to this day as they are still
used as the foundation of many modern school English curriculums. And
so, with this list, I hope to finally put an end to many of these
foolish rules. [Did you see what I did?]
10 Between is for two only
The “tween” portion of “between” is a reference to the number 2, but
the Oxford English Dictionary says this: “In all senses, between has,
from its earliest appearance, been extended to more than two.” Many
pedants try to enforce the use of “among” when speaking of groups larger
than two. Even the pickiest speaker does not naturally say, “A treaty
has been negotiated among England, France, and Germany.”
9 Till versus ’til
Because ’til looks like an abbreviation for “until”, some people
believe that this word should always be spelt ’til (some don’t object to
leaving off the apostrophe). However, “till” has been in regular use
in English for over 800 years, longer than ’til. It is completely
correct English to say “till”.
8 Persuade versus convince
Some people have the strange belief that you must “persuade” someone
to “convince” them, but you cannot “convince” a person. In fact,
persuade is a synonym (means the same thing) for convince – and this
usage goes back to the 16th century. It can mean both to attempt to
convince, and to succeed in convincing. It is not common anymore to say
things like “I am persuaded that you are an idiot” – though this is
also correct English.
7 Healthy versus healthful
While it is admittedly logical and traditional to make the
distinction between these two words, but phrases such as “part of a
healthy breakfast” have become so common nowadays that they can not be
considered wrong (except by pedants). It is also interesting to note
that in English, adjectives connected to a sensation in the viewer (such
as happy) are often transferred to the object or event they are
viewing, for example: “a happy coincidence” or “a gloomy landscape”.
6 Off of
For most Americans, the natural thing to say is “Climb down off of
[pronounced "offa"] that horse, Tex, with your hands in the air”; but
many U.K. authorities urge that the “of” should be omitted as redundant.
Where British English reigns you may want to omit the “of” as
superfluous, but common usage in the U.S. has rendered “off of” so
standard as to generally pass unnoticed, though some American
authorities also discourage it in formal writing. But if “onto” makes
sense, so does “off of.” However, “off of” meaning “from” in phrases
like “borrow five dollars off of Clarice” is definitely nonstandard.
It is also quite common in New Zealand to use “off of” as well –
presumably as a result of the English being spoken in the Empire at the
time of New Zealand’s founding.
Some people insist that since “none” is derived from “no one” it
should always be singular: “none of us is having dessert.” However, in
standard usage, the word is most often treated as a plural. “None of us
are having dessert” is perfectly fine. I spent many days debating this
point with my Ancient Greek tutor via email quotations of its use as a
plural (my tutor believed it to be singular only). Neither of us could
convince the other but I firmly stand by my belief that it can be used
as both plural and singular. ????!
5 None: singular or plural?
Some people insist that since “none” is derived from “no one” it
should always be singular: “none of us is having dessert.” However, in
standard usage, the word is most often treated as a plural. “None of us
are having dessert” is perfectly fine. I spent many days debating this
point with my Ancient Greek tutor via email quotations of its use as a
plural (my tutor believed it to be singular only). Neither of us could
convince the other but I firmly stand by my belief that it can be used
as both plural and singular. ????!
4 Who and That
There are actually many instances in which the conservative usage is
to refer to a person using “that” rather than “who”: “All the
politicians that were at the party later denied even knowing the host”.
This phrase is actually more traditional than “politicians who”.
It
appears that this issue has sprung mostly from the politically correct
idea that it is demeaning to refer to a person as “that” rather than
“who”. In some sentences it is clearly better to use “that”: “She is the
only person I know of that prefers whipped cream on her cereal.” And
in the following case, it would be ridiculous to use “that” for “who”:
“Who was it that said, ‘A woman without a man is like a fish without a
bicycle’?”
3 Sentence Starting with a Conjunction
It offends those who wish to confine English usage in a logical
straitjacket that writers often begin sentences with “and” or “but.”
True, one should be aware that many such sentences would be improved by
becoming clauses in compound sentences; but there are many effective and
traditional uses for beginning sentences in this way. One example is
the reply to a previous assertion in a dialogue:
“But, my dear Watson,
the criminal obviously wore expensive boots or he would not have taken
such pains to scrape them clean.” It would be wise to make it a rule to
consider whether your conjunction would sound more natural in the
previous sentence or whether it would lose its emphasis by being demoted
from its place at the start of a new sentence.
2 Sentence Ending in a Preposition
If you want to keep the crusty old-timers happy, try to avoid ending
written sentences (and clauses) with prepositions, such as to, with,
from, at, and in. Instead of writing “The topics we want to write on,”
where the preposition on ends the clause, consider “The topics on which
we want to write.” Prepositions should usually go before (pre-position)
the words they modify.
On the other hand, if a sentence is more graceful with a final
preposition, leave it that way. For instance, “He gave the public what
it longed for” is clear and idiomatic, even though it ends with a
preposition; “He gave the public that for which it longed” avoids the
problem but doesn’t look like English. A sentence becomes unnecessarily
obscure when it is filled with “from whoms” and “with whiches”.
The famous witticism usually attributed to Winston Churchill makes
the point well: “This is the sort of English up with which I will not
put.”
1 Split Infinitives
For the hyper-critical, “to boldly go where no man has gone before”
should be “to go boldly…” It is good to be aware that inserting one or
more words between “to” and a verb is not strictly speaking an error,
and is often more expressive and graceful than moving the intervening
words elsewhere; but so many people are offended by split infinitives
that it is probably better to avoid them except when the alternatives
sound strained and awkward.
Jamie Frater
Jamie is the founder of Listverse. He spends his time
working on the site, doing research for new lists, and cooking. He is
fascinated with all things morbid and bizarre.
Read More:
Twitter Facebook
There are some very obvious times that the split infinitive is far superior:
Murders are expected to more than double next year. (split infinitive)
Murders are expected more than to double next year. (intact infinitive)
However, you could say: “Murders are expected to increase by more
than double next year” – but there is absolutely nothing wrong with the
split infinitive example above.
No comments :
Post a Comment