True and corect rules?

The Grammar Doctor
Oops!

June 11, 2007

Yahoo News quotes President Bush speaking of Democrats' plan to take a vote of no-confidence on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in the Senate:
"This process has been drug out a long time..."

Oops! It should have been "dragged out."

Nov 21, 2006

New York Times Nov21, 2006

A Times editorial about Congressman Charles Rangel's plan to reintroduce the draft contains this sentence:
"Even if the draft was a good idea, it would be politcally impossible to achieve."

Oops! An clause stating a condition that is doubtful or contrary to fact, should be in the subjunctive mood:
It should be: "Even if the draft were a good idea..."

Nov 14, 2006

Palm Beach Post Nov 14, 2006

The Grammar Doctor admires the Palm Beach Post, but today's issue had two errors on the editorial page, both who/whom errors.

The lead editorial, about the Iraq Study Group, contains this sentence:
The well-known risks are that sectarian violence would get even worse and/or terrorists--whom weren't even operating in Iraq when Mr. Bush invaded--would have free rein in a failed state.

Oops! Whom weren't even operating??? "Whom" is the subject of "were." It should be:
Who weren't even operating in Iraq...

The second who/whom error is in an article written by Post editorial writer Joel Engelhardt.
The article asks this question: Who do you believe?

It should be: Whom do you believe? "Whom" is the direct object in this sentence.

Nov 1, 2006

Palm Beach Post Nov 1, 2006

An editorial about the debate between gubernatorial candidates Charlie Crist and Jim Davis stated:
"Like Mr. Crist, his [Davis's] proposal for property-tax releif has serious flaws."

Oops! The sentence compares a person to a proposal.
It should have been: "Like Mr. Crist's, his proposal for property-tax relief has serious flaws."

Sept 11, 2006

Palm Beach Post Sept 8, 2006

Paris Hilton explaining her DUI arrest, said she might have been "speeding a little" on her way to get a burger. She said she was "starving because I had not ate all day."

Oops! Ms Hilton should not have been speeding or driving under the influence, but we can forgive these little lapses. After all, no one is perfect.
However, to say "I had not ate all day" is unforgivable. It should have been "I have not eaten all day."

Sept 8, 2006

New York TimesSept 7, 2006

Richard Armitage, former Assistant Secretary of State, admitted that he was the one who had revealed the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame.
“It was a terrible error on my part,” Mr. Armitage said in an interview, discussing his conversations with reporters. He added: “There wasn’t a day when I didn’t feel like I had let down the president, the secretary of state, my colleagues, my family and the Wilsons. I value my ability to keep state secrets. This was bad, and I really felt badly about this.”

Oops! It should have been: "I really felt bad about this." The word after a linking verb should be an adjective, not an adverb. It modifies the subject, not the verb.

May 22, 2006

Palm Beach Post May 22, 2006

Vandals broke into the Lone Star Music Store in Gruene, Texas, and broke the arm off a wooden stature of country music star Bob Wills.
The store owner said, "We came in Wednesday morning and he was laying on his back with his arm broken."

Oops! It should have been: "lying on his back."

May 20, 2006

Photo caption in the New York Times on-line, May 19, 2006

"Amulet laying on top of a rocket propelled grenade"

Oops! We're surprised that no one at the Times caught this one.

It should be: "lying on top of the rocket propelled grenade."

May 18, 2006

from Fall on You Knees by Ann-Marie MacDonald

on page 282
"Lily is not repelled by the veterans. She feels badly for them..."

Oops! It should have been: She feels bad for them.

"Bad" describes "she," not "feels."

March 4, 2006

from the Palm Beach Post, March 4, 2006

"Zaccai's mother called the police whe she woke up and say the body laying in the grass."

Oops! It should have been: lying in the grass.

Jan 30, 2006

"I've asked why nobody saw it coming. It does say something about us not having a good enough pulse. "
Conoleezza Rice

Oops! It should have been: It does say something aboutour not having a good enough pulse.
A noun or pronoun before a gerund (-ing word) should be in the possessive form.

Oct 1. 2005

from the September 12 issue of Time magazine:

"While Southern Governors facing fuel shortages in the coming days have called on drivers to scale back use of their cars, Bush did so only as an afterthought."

Oops! It should have been Southern governors. Titles are capitalized only when they precede a name.

Sept 8, 2005
The August 15 issue of Time magazine quoted an American involved in the negotiotations over the Iraqi constitution:
"The more it looks like the U.S. is gonna leave, the harder it is to get a deal that will enable them to leave."

Oops! The unnamed American may have pronounced it that way, but it is still spelled

"going to leave."

June 14, 2005
Today's issue of the Palm Beach Post printed the following by AP writer David Royse:
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Suspended Florida State quarterback Wyatt Sexton was taken to a hospital by police after they say (sic) observed him behaving strangely, laying in the street, and telling them that he was God.

Oops! It should have been, "lying in the street."

Apr 14, 2005
Haverhills Spring Catalog 2005 offers a universal remote. The write-up asks, "Do you have a replacement ready when you loose your car alarm key...?"

Oops! It should have been "lose your car alarm key..."

Mar 17, 2005
Today's issue of Yahoo News reported that hundreds of New York City firefighters were boycotting the St. Patrick's Day parade to protest a ban on them wearing green berets for the occasion. The Fire Department was banning the berets because they were not part of the official uniform.

Oops!It should have been, "to protest a ban on their wearing green berets.
A noun or pronoun before a gerund (an "-ing" word) should be in the possessive form.

Oct 25, 2004
In today's issue of the New York Times, David M. Halbfinger and David E.Sanger reported that in a speech in Florida, Senator John Kerry did not mention President Bush by name "except to ask for prayers for whomever won the election."

Oops! It should have been "whoever." The object of the preposition is the entire clause "whoever won the election." "Whoever" is the subject of that clause.

Oct 6, 2004
On the ABC Evening News yesterday (October 5), a reporter was talking about the St. Bernard dogs of the Swiss Alps. He said if you were stranded in the snow, the dog would find you and lay on you to keep you warm until help came.

Oops! It should be lie on you. People who report the news on network television should know the difference between "lie" and "lay."

Sept 23, 2004
Here's the subtitle of an article by Andrew Sullivan in the Sept 27, 2004 issue of Time magazine:

A member of the blogging class tells why they deserve your thanks.

Oops! What is the antecedent of they? The antecedent could be member, or it could be class. Both of these words are singular, so the plural pronoun is incorrect. The sentence is also unclear because the antecedent of they is not clear.

We can't correct this sentence because the writer's intention is not clear.

Sept 22, 2004
In speaking to Time magazine, new president of the Motion Picture Association of America, Dan Glickman say, "My kids are interested in me sprucing up the wardrobe a bit..."

Oops! It should have been, "in my sprucing up the wardrobe."

A noun or pronoun before a gerund (like "sprucing") should be in the possessive case.

Sept 18, 2004
from the New York Times
Here is the title of an article from today's issue of the Times:
"After Being Bounced Around Florida is Bouncing Back"
What's being bounced around?

Oops! It should have been, "After Being Bounced Around, Florida is Bouncing Back"

August 9, 2004
Gregg A. Lowe, the senior vice president who oversees most of Texas Instruments' analog business said, "On average, there's probably 15 analog chips needed for every digital processor you use."

Oops! It should have been, "there are probably 15 analog chips..."

July 30, 2004
from EZPassNJ web site
IT LET'S YOU PAY ELECTRONICALLY AND KEEPS YOU MOVING!

Oops! It should have been, "Lets you pay..."

June 14, 2004
from the Washington Post
Jeffrey K. Taylor of the NPS legislative and congressional affairs office here. "As you may or may not know, the Highway Re-Authorization Bill (SAFETEA) will be coming up in conference, possibly within the next week," Taylor wrote. "I ask you to call your Congressman and have he or she urge" House members from "your state to strip the section, marked on the attachment, from the bill." (The section involves a formula for allocating the money.)

Oops! It should have been, "have him or her urge House members..."

Pronouns that come before an infinitive should be in the objective form. "Urge" is an infinitive. "To" is understood.

June 5, 2004
From the April 19, 2004 issue of Time magazine

Time reports that as a boy Pulitzer Prize-winning author Edward Jones used to go to the library in Washington to get warm.

"We would go into the boys' room. We would take off our shoes and lay on the floor and put our feet up on the radiators to get warm."

Oops! It should have been, "lie on the floor..."

May 30, 2004
From the New York Times online

"They had independent research, and they were trying to put me on the spot," said Mr. Moore, an Ohio State alumnus who has been recruiting here for almost a decade. "This is a level of inquiry that I didn't use to see from a bachelor of business administration."

Oops! It should have been "that I didn't used to see..."

May 17, 2004
From a Reuters report on outsourcing jobs overseas, written by Eric Auchard-

Forrester is careful to say that it's statistics focus on specific types of jobs that lend themselves to being transferred overseas and does not suggest some wholesale export of jobs.

Oops! It should have been "its statistics."

Oops! The subject of "does not suggest" is "statistics," a plural.
It should have been "do not suggest."

Reported in the April 12, 2004 issue of Time magazine

William F. Buckley
Referring to Professor John Kenneth Galbraith, William F. Buckley said, "[Galbraith] pointed to a curious and continuing division in thought between faculties in the elite colleges and humble folk like you and I."

Oops! It should have been "humble folk like you and me."


http://www.geocities.com/grammardoc5/oops.html

<Guest Thu Aug 09, 2007 8:50 pm GMT
The Grammar Doctor
Oops! >

Thanks for such an effort, Guest, but what has it got to do with the thread question?

<< Oops! An clause stating a condition that is doubtful or contrary to fact, should be in the subjunctive mood >>

"An clause"?

<< It should be: Whom do you believe? "Whom" is the direct object in this sentence. >>

Nobody is that pedantic anymore except in the most formal of contexts. I NEVER hear anybody say "Whom do you believe?", even though I understand that it is the "correct" form.

<< Oops! It should have been: It does say something about our not having a good enough pulse. A noun or pronoun before a gerund (-ing word) should be in the possessive form. >>

This is more debatable. In formal language, I would agree, but I would normally find "about us not having" acceptable.

<< A member of the blogging class tells why they deserve your thanks.

Oops! What is the antecedent of they? The antecedent could be member, or it could be class. Both of these words are singular, so the plural pronoun is incorrect. >>

Or it could be "singular they" if the member is anonymous. Or it could even refer to a group of people that was mentioned in the preceding sentence, as it said this was a subtitle. Without the main title, we can't see for sure that this isn't the case.

<< Oops! It should have been "that I didn't used to see..." >>

I find it funny that they actually agree with "didn't used to" and even consider "didn't use to" an error. (But, please, let's not start THAT discussion again.)

- Kef

<Nobody is that pedantic anymore except in the most formal of contexts. I NEVER hear anybody say "Whom do you believe?", even though I understand that it is the "correct" form. >

Is your post off-topic? If so, why?

You asked for clarification of my thread question. I gave it.

I'd call it tangential rather than off-topic, since at least deals with prescriptive rules, but if you want to call it off-topic, I won't argue.

Anyway, here's my response to your question:

<< Are there many prescriptive grammar rules that are not hotly contested and are taken as the truth? >>

To me, "prescriptive" and "truth" are mutually exclusive concepts. That's not to say that prescriptivism is "false", but that it is not concerned with truth. A statement such as "never end a sentence with a preposition" is neither true nor false; it is a suggestion or command.

On the other hand, descriptivism does concern itself with truth. For instance, a claim such as "people have been ending sentences with prepositions since the Middle Ages" is something that is possible to prove or disprove.

- Kef

<To me, "prescriptive" and "truth" are mutually exclusive concepts. That's not to say that prescriptivism is "false", but that it is not concerned with truth. A statement such as "never end a sentence with a preposition" is neither true nor false; it is a suggestion or command.>

Do you think that's how many traditional prescriptivists express themselves? I think it's more, "there's only one way to compose this, and it is the correct way". "Only one way" seems to imply a singular truth.

<<To me, "prescriptive" and "truth" are mutually exclusive concepts. That's not to say that prescriptivism is "false", but that it is not concerned with truth.>>

Aristotle might disagree with you there, along with many publishers of prescriptive grammars.

:-)

Kef is right there, Divvy. Orders and permissions express norms. Such norm sentences do not describe how the world is, they rather prescribe how the world should be.

Here's what Adler has to say on prescriptive and descriptive truth:

First and foremost is the definition of prescriptive truth, which sharply distinguishes it from the definition of descriptive truth. Descriptive truth consists in the agreement or conformity of the mind with reality. When we think that that which is, is, and that which is not, is not, we think truly. To be true, what we think must conform to the way things are. In sharp contrast, prescriptive truth consists in the conformity of our appetites with right desire. The practical or prescriptive judgments we make are true if they conform to right desire; or, in other words, if they prescribe what we ought to desire.

http://www.radicalacademy.com/adlermoral.htm

<< Do you think that's how many traditional prescriptivists express themselves? I think it's more, "there's only one way to compose this, and it is the correct way". "Only one way" seems to imply a singular truth. >>

But something can only be "correct" according to a standard, and such standards are inherently subjective. There's a degree to which the choice between, say, Standard English and AAVE is arbitrary. They are both dialects with their own rules of grammar, and the reason that Standard English is generally accepted and AAVE often is not has more to do with history, culture, and politics than it does with language itself.

- Kef

Reading on from that:

It is clear that prescriptive truth cannot be the same as descriptive truth; and if the only truth that human beings can know is descriptive truth--the truth of propositions concerning what is and is not--then there can be no truth in ethics. Propositions containing the word "ought" cannot conform to reality. As a result, we have the twentieth-century mistake of dismissing all ethical or value judgments as noncognitive. These must be regarded only as wishes or demands we make on others. They are personal opinions and subjective prejudices, not objective knowledge. In short, the very phrase "noncognitive ethics" declares that ethics is not a body of knowledge.

http://www.radicalacademy.com/adlermoral.htm

So, in conclusion: prescriptive grammar cannot conform to reality, it can only express wishes or make demands on us.

Ok, Kef and M56, is it then never possible to say "It is self-evident that the correct way to express XXXX sentence is this way..."?

<<<To me, "prescriptive" and "truth" are mutually exclusive concepts. That's not to say that prescriptivism is "false", but that it is not concerned with truth.>>>

Looking at the linked article, I find this.

"Now, in light of the definition of prescriptive truth as conformity with right desire, we can see that prescriptions are true only when they enjoin us to want what we need, since every need is for something that is really good for us."

So, prescriptions can be true.

Descriptivism = statements about what is or is not
Prescriptivism = statements about what ought or ought not to be sought or done