Happy Independence Day to all Americans! I had thought I would say a few words about the joy we feel having taken our independence from the reign of George, the Tyrant . . . but maybe I don't need to? <snicker>
******* "Happiness is not something ready made. It comes from your own actions. ~Dalai Lama
John Adams, credited by Thomas Jefferson as the unofficial, tireless whip of the independence-minded, wrote his wife Abigail on July 3:
quote:
The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.
If you'll recall White's preface to the work, he noted that Strunk recommended that if one misused a construction, one should not mutter it under his breath, but should shout it out, thereby not compounding impropriety with inaudibility.
Of course, Strunk and White disliked the passive voice; I have frequently voiced my opinion as to why the passive voice, when used appropriately, is to be highly commended.
Richard English
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
Originally posted by arnie: I think most of us here agree with those over at Language Log that Elements of Style is, at best, nonsense, at worst, dangerous nonsense.
Amen! If one actually tried to write according to Strunk & White, one would sound like very BAD 18th century prose. Good 18th century prose never followed its rules either!
How about faux 18th century prose? Barth's The Sot-Weed Factor or Pynchon's Mason & Dixon. Cf. the opening of Smollett's The Adventures of Roderick Random:
quote:
I was born in the northern part of this united kingdom, in the house of my grandfather, a gentleman of considerable fortune and influence, who had on many occasions signalised himself in behalf of his country; and was remarkable for his abilities in the law, which he exercised with great success in the station of a judge, particularly against beggars, for whom he had a singular aversion.
With Sterne's The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman:
quote:
I wish either my father or my mother, or indeed both of them, as they were in duty both equally bound to it, had minded what they were about when they begot me; had they duly consider'd how much depended upon what they were then doing;—that not only the production of a rational Being was concerned in it, but that possibly the happy formation and temperature of his body, perhaps his genius and the very cast of his mind;—and, for aught they knew to the contrary, even the fortunes of his whole house might take their turn from the humours and dispositions which were then uppermost;—Had they duly weighed and considered all this, and proceeded accordingly,—I am verily persuaded I should have made a quite different figure in the world, from that in which the reader is likely to see me.—Believe me, good folks, this is not so inconsiderable a thing as many of you may think it;—you have all, I dare say, heard of the animal spirits, as how they are transfused from father to son, &c. &c.—and a great deal to that purpose:—Well, you may take my word, that nine parts in ten of a man's sense or his nonsense, his successes and miscarriages in this world depend upon their motions and activity, and the different tracks and trains you put them into, so that when they are once set a-going, whether right or wrong, 'tis not a half-penny matter,—away they go cluttering like hey-go mad; and by treading the same steps over and over again, they presently make a road of it, as plain and as smooth as a garden-walk, which, when they are once used to, the Devil himself sometimes shall not be able to drive them off it.
If one actually tried to write according to Strunk & White, one would sound like very BAD 18th century prose. Good 18th century prose never followed its rules either!
Consider, however, that a decent writer knows, whether by training or by intuition, the structure of a language, and ignores the structure and/or rules from a strong position of understanding rather than from weak ignorance thereof.
I must admit that I always felt guilty for not following Strunk and White more closely. We were required to own and follow it in our writing in High School.
******* "Happiness is not something ready made. It comes from your own actions. ~Dalai Lama
I must admit that I always felt guilty for not following Strunk and White more closely. We were required to own and follow it in our writing in High School.
I am pleased to say that it was quite unknown in my (English) grammar school. My English master, Mr Walters, eschewed such artificial devices as style guides, preferring to teach us from his own (considerable) knowledge of the English language.
It is my belief that he did a fine job.
Richard English
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
I am embarrassed to say that I used to recommend Strunk and White to some of my college students who couldn't write a complete sentence. On the other hand, that may not have been a bad thing.
Reviving a grammar thread Rather than start yet another thread about grammar propaganda, I decided to revive one where we discussed the horrors of the passive voice. I thought this entry on Language Log was precious:
quote:
An anonymous informant deep within corporate America ("I work at a large financial institution", he says guardedly) has seen the corporation's style guide for communications with customers, and its advice includes (guess what) this gem of cluelessness:
Use active voice rather than passive voice. Active voice is easier to read. Instead of "we have decided," write "we decided." Instead of "we will be implementing a program," write "we are implementing."
They think these are passives! And people disagree with me when I point out such things (over and over again, like a CD that has gotten stuc- stuc- stuc- stuc- stuc- stuc- stuc- stuc- stuck), and ask rhetorically where on God's green earth knowledge of elementary English grammar terminology disappeared to in the late 20th century. People — writing advisers, in fact — are scoring zero on identifying a grammatical construction they feel a need to warn other people not to use. I know I have already pointed this out a time or two, but really, this is an utterly insane situation.
I'm puzzled by the use of the preposition, "to" in your sentence, Kalleh. I don't feel that it's needed. "...where it disappeared" makes the point adequately, IMHO. Am I not thinking right?
I know I'm off topic, but it struck me as awkward, so I spouted off. (Gosh, I've never done THAT before!)
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. -J. Krishnamurti
"...where it disappeared" makes the point adequately, IMHO. Am I not thinking right?
It's necessary IMNSFHO.
1. I found the spot where the car disappeared.
2. I found the spot where the car disappeared to.
Are not equivalent. One you've found the location where a car disappeared. Perhaps aliens towed it away for being double parked. In the other you found where the aliens stored it to collect the fines imposed.
This leads me to a place in my thinking. Rhetorical figures like oxymoron and tautology are not grammatical solecisms. They are devices to use when necessary that help one make one's point. The sentence (not written by Kalleh but by somebody over on Language Log) flows perfectly and is not ambiguous or clunky. Sure you would have written it different. Maybe I would've, too.
