3 Whisky Happy HourThe Ricochet PodcastGLoP CultureBeyond the Polls with Henry OlsenParsing Immigration PolicyFederalist Radio HourWhat the Hell Is Going OnFreedom to LearnDaily SignalThe Erick Erickson ShowChicks on The Right3 Martini LunchThe Learning CurveThe Conservative Woman’s GuideHeritage ExplainsNot Dead YetGiving VenturesWho Funds that?The Radio Free Hillsdale HourThe Glenn ShowFirst Things PodcastCall Me Back - with Dan SenorHillsdale DialoguesLaw Talk with Epstein, Yoo & CookeThe LibertarianThe Report Card with Nat MalkusThe Kevin Roberts Show with Larry O’ConnorThe American IdeaMadison’s NotesConservative Crossroads with Henry OlsenMom WarsThe Back of the BookGray MattersMartini ShotThe Dave Carter ShowThe Powerline ShowIn DissentHeard at HeritageSmart Girl PoliticsJames Lileks’ The DinerCase in Point: The Legal Show on the Hottest Legal Cases in Politics and CultureJobMakersOne on One with Robert DoarHomeschooling Journeys with Curious MikeHubwonk

Get the Ricochet app

Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play

Become a member.

Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.

  1. Main Feed/
  2. English grammar does make sense
October 8, 2024 at 4:02 PM

English grammar does make sense

Linda Seebach
@linsee

To read this bio, please join Ricochet.

Join to bookmark23likesJoin to like35comments

Geoff Pullum’s new book, The Truth About English Grammar, is a stylish and witty introduction to English grammar as it ought to be understood. Most of what is taught to schoolchildren about grammar is nonsense, as he demonstrates, and here he offers general readers a modern description of how our language puts sentences together, freed from the straitjacket of Latin grammar wrongfully imposed on it for the last few centuries.

Did you have to learn how to conjugate verbs? I did. Six tenses, 1st/2nd/3rd person, singular/plural, 36 in all. Nope. Regular English verbs have four forms—walk, walks, walking, walked. Irregular verbs have five—take, takes, taking, took, taken. And be, all alone among English verbs, has eight—be; am, is, are, was, were; being; been.

Pullum is a named co-author, with Rodney Huddleston, of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, published in 2002. I bought myself a copy for Christmas one year, all 1,860 pages (and I actually read hundreds of them).

CamGEL describes English as it is actually spoken and written by competent speakers, using the methods developed by linguists over several decades to document unfamiliar languages. As a grad student in linguistics, I took a course in “field methods.” The TA was a native speaker of Oromo (an Afroasiatic language spoken in Ethiopia). We could ask her “How do you say…” questions, and we had to use her answers to construct a model of the Oromo language.

Though the CamGEL authors are not only familiar with English, but authoritatively knowledgeable about it, they have a similar goal: A description of the English language that is accurate, clear, and free of preconceptions about what it should be like.

Pullum aims to use modern insights about the structure of English syntax as a framework for the extensive, but commonly subconscious, knowledge fluent speakers have of their own language.

Our Oromo informant was quite surprised by some of the things we discovered about her language, which she knew and used but had never noticed.

Though grammar properly refers solely to how a language makes sentences, Pullum adds chapters on mythical grammar errors, spelling and punctuation, and style. “Far too many alleged ‘grammatical errors’ aren’t mistakes at all: they presuppose rules that don’t exist and never did.” Pullum says that one such mythical error can be accurately dated.

“The dumbest myth in the whole history of the English language is the cockamamie notion that something might be wrong with having a sentence or a phrase with a preposition stranded at the end. We actually know who perpetrated this nonsense. John Dryden—a poet, translator; playwright, essayist, and literary critic—published an essay in 1762 defending his critical views on the work of his fellow writers. Dryden observed sniffily that Ben Johnson had written a line ending in from, and commented that “putting a preposition in the end of a sentence” was “a common fault with him.”

Dryden was so influential that “his eccentric observation stuck,” Pullum observes. “To this day there are English teachers who believe students should be taught not to use perfectly acceptable sentences like No one knew what she was talking about.

As someone said (it wasn’t Churchill, though), “This is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I shall not put.”

I already knew from reading Pullum on the linguistics blog Language Log that he has a deliciously snarky turn of phrase.

Among Pullum’s “disrecommendations” in the section on further reading is Orwell’s essay “Politics and the English Language.” He writes, “Hordes of English teachers have been singing its praises for three-quarters of a century. It is full of sanctimonious virtue signaling, dishonestly cherry-picked examples, and dumb advice about writing that no one follows, like that you should never use any familiar phrase, and of course that you should never use the passive (when his own essay uses the passive far more than most writing in English does). My advice: Don’t even read it, but if an English teacher asks, pretend you think it’s wonderful.”

If you left school convinced that grammar lessons made no sense, well, you were right. Here you will find a version that does make sense, one you can use to improve your own writing.

And you will also be better prepared to defend yourself from grammar Nazis who really don’t know what they’re talking about.

This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet's members.

Discussion (35)

Sign in to commentSign in
  • CHARTER MEMBER

    To read this bio, please join Ricochet.

    David Carroll@DavidCarroll·2y

    Interesting post. It hit me as I am currently reading David Crystal's Making Sense: The Glamorous Story of English Grammar. Highly recommended. Well written and approaches grammar beginning with the grammatical construction of infants. Entertaining and informative. Crystal has written a number of very readable books on the English language.

  • To read this bio, please join Ricochet.

    Django@Django·2y

    Churchill was quoted as saying, "This is the kind of nonsense up with which I will not put."

  • To read this bio, please join Ricochet.

    Mark Camp@MarkCamp·2y

    A common pattern of stupid commentary is the criticism of a piece of writing based on silly, cooked-up grammar and usage rules.

    A far more common, far more stupid, and vastly more self-righteous pattern is criticism of examples of that pattern of criticism.

    The latter sort of critic sets himself up as not only more educated, but as a specimen of higher moral evolution and degree of evolution.

    Judging by the examples you give of Pullum’s attacks on common fake grammatical rules…

    - Never use any familiar phrase

    - Never end a phrase or sentence with a preposition

    - Never us the passive voice

    …he is an honest, legitimate scholar, who eschews the second, more toxic form of grammatical teaching and criticism.

    I was surprised and pleased to see that.

  • To read this bio, please join Ricochet.

    Mark Camp@MarkCamp·2y
    ReplyingtoDjango

    [EDIT: Django, I apologize for my unkind and hypocritical Comment below, and for my dishonest attempts to justify it in a subsequent Comment.

    I just read an article about a young man, Reeves Broussard, who just died. He was a man who made a difference in someone’s life every day. It cut right into me, how the only difference I’ve made today was to hurt someone for no good purpose.]

    Django (View Comment):

    Churchill was quoted as saying, “This is the kind of nonsense up with which I will not put.”

    Django, I sympathize. I make this mistake a lot: making yourself look silly by not reading an article before commenting on it.

    (If your comment was satirical, I take this back. It was brilliant. I don’t know your writing well enough to guess whether it was absurdist self-deprecation, or sincere.)

  • To read this bio, please join Ricochet.

    Django@Django·2y
    ReplyingtoMark Camp

    Django (View Comment):

    Churchill was quoted as saying, “This is the kind of nonsense up with which I will not put.”

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Django, I sympathize. I make this mistake a lot: making yourself look silly by not reading an article before commenting on it.

    (If your comment was satirical, I take this back. It was brilliant. I don’t know your writing well enough to guess whether it was absurdist self-deprecation, or sincere.)

    I quoted Churchill accurately according to the paperback book I have on Churchill because I thought his comment was relevant to the post. It goes no further than that. Feel free to ignore my comments in the future.

    Yes, I did miss the reference above while casually reading the post.

Scroll for later comments
+30 more comments
Join the conversation

You're seeing five of 35 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.

Trending

Become a member.

Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.

Join Ricochet

Get the Ricochet app

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play
  • •
  • •