On Language 6/14: The truth about grammar

Regarding grammar, you may be correct after all
Chicago Tribune, June 14, 2005
By Nathan Bierma
temp.link/perm.preview

Many of the rules of self-appointed guardians of “good grammar,” argue Huddleston and Pullum, turn out to be arbitrary, counterintuitive and without historical precedent.

Take the example of the common decree about “which” and “that” in relative clauses. Many grammar guides insist that only “that” can be used to start a clause not enclosed by commas (“The house that I saw was old”), and only “which” can be used in clauses between commas (“The house, which was built during the Civil War, was old”).

But nobody minded when Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared the day of the Pearl Harbor attack to be “a date which will live in infamy,” the authors point out. Besides, this rule was invented less than 100 years ago, after centuries of comma-less cases of “which” in English. The 17th Century King James Bible read, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s . . . “).

Posted by Nathan Bierma on 06/14 at 08:59 AM
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Next entry: Don't Argue With This Article

Previous entry: Fun With Web Translators

<< Back to main