|
 |
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> One might argue that most rules of grammar are completely artificial.
I wouldn't agree with that argument.
Most rules of grammar describe the actual language, as it's used by people.
Of course many people use the language in different ways (often you just
have to go to the next city to hear slight differences), and an "official"
grammar is usually an agreement on one that's most understandable by
everybody and conforms best to the normal, natural use of the language.
If you say this is "artificial", then I'm not using the word in the same
meaning as you.
When I say "artificial" I mean a made-up rule (in this case a rule invented
by one person, even!) that does not correspond to actual usage of the
language, and doesn't actually address any problem with it. A rule that's
more prescriptive than descriptive.
Rules of grammar should be more descriptive in nature: They describe how
the language works. Prescriptive rules, especially those that do not
correspond well to the actual usage of the language, are more artificial.
One could try to alleviate this "rule" and say that it's more like just
a style guide. In other words, "in general you should not put prepositions
at the end of sentences if you don't have to, but you don't have to avoid
it at all costs either." However, that's not how many people see it. They
interpret it has a hard, prescriptive rule. "It's bad grammar to put
prepositions at the end of sentences!"
> "The apple was beside." - that's a sentence fragment that ends in a
> preposition. It's completely unclear what the apple was beside.
But the reason for it being unclear was not that it ends in the
preposition. It's because it lacks something.
You could move the preposition somewhere else in the sentence and it
wouldn't become any clearer. That the sentence happens to end in a
preposition is irrelevant. Therefore the rule (even if we interpret it
just as a style guide) doesn't apply at all.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
