POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.off-topic : Today's mirth : Re: Today's mirth Server Time
29 Jul 2024 06:20:46 EDT (-0400)
  Re: Today's mirth  
From: Jim Henderson
Date: 8 Jun 2013 13:41:09
Message: <51b36cb5$1@news.povray.org>
On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 04:22:51 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> One might argue that most rules of grammar are completely artificial.
> 
> I wouldn't agree with that argument.

Why am I not surprised? ;)

> Most rules of grammar describe the actual language, as it's used by
> people.

And the way that the English language is used by people is that they 
don't generally end sentences with prepositions, because doing so often 
makes things unclear.

Here's the thing about rules that I was taught by a music theory 
teacher:  It's OK to break them, but you have to learn them first.

> 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.

Citation, please, for this "invented by one person" statement.

>> "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.

Yes, it lacks the object that is referenced.  Now you tell me how to 
construct that sentence with the missing object *without* putting the 
missing object ahead of the preposition.  Oh, and it has to make sense, 
too. ;)

> 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.

Sure it does.  It's just not a hard and fast rule.  It's a rule of thumb, 
and usually includes the condition "unless rewriting the sentence so the 
preposition at the end makes the sentence more convoluted and less clear."

Jim


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.