The law is a grammar Nazi

[pendell]

Dissenting from a statute law, Ohio Chief Justice Pfeiffer writes a dissent which starts out as follows ..



I join Justice Lanzinger’s well-reasoned dissent, but write separately to highlight the General Assembly’s failure in legislative drafting exemplified by former R.C. 2929.14(D)(3), which the majority opinion relegates to a footnote to fully accommodate its 24 lines of unrelenting abstruseness consisting, remarkably, of the sum total of 307 words and a mere one period, a punctuation mark set out as a lone sentinel facing odds similar to that of the Spartans at the Battle of Thermopylae ...


Lengthy, but perhaps worth it (http://www.volokh.com/2013/06/12/now-there-are-some-sentences-for-you/)

[Flickerdart]

"...a statutory circumstance up with which we should not put." Nice.

[Barsoom]

It's good to know that people who are in charge of sending other people to jail for life are capable of maintaining a good sense of humor about it.

[noparlpf]

This is great, thanks.

[BWR]

I hate the term "Grammar Nazi". We prefer "Grammarians for Freedom".
An amusing read, except for its adherence to the annoying 'no ending sentences with prepositions' misconception.

[noparlpf]

I hate the term "Grammar Nazi". We prefer "Grammarians for Freedom".
An amusing read, except for its adherence to the annoying 'no ending sentences with prepositions' misconception.

It's not technically incorrect to end a sentence with a preposition. As I understand it, that was just something people did to sound fancy and/or snobby. I think this guy is going for snobby.

[BWR]

I know, which is why I said it was annoying that the guy did it. It just doesn't scan well.

[Jay R]

It's not technically incorrect to end a sentence with a preposition. As I understand it, that was just something people did to sound fancy and/or snobby. I think this guy is going for snobby.

All 18th and 19th century grammarians were Latin scholars. In Latin it makes no sense to end a sentence with a preposition. They imported Latin grammar into English (including the nonsense about not splitting an infinitive, which isn't done in Latin only because an infinitive is a single word) simply out of a belief that if it's a grammar rule, then it's, well, a grammar rule.

[Ravens_cry]

Technically, there is no officially wrong way to do English, and even commonly accepted 'rules' have enough exceptions to make the whole thing a little silly.

[MoonCat]

Which reminds me of something I was wondering about two days ago. In the Romance language,s but specifically French, is there the proposition rule?

[TuggyNE]

I know, which is why I said it was annoying that the guy did it. It just doesn't scan well.

So, am I the only one who realized that was specifically a reference to Winston Churchill's remarks about prescriptivist grammar (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002670.html)? :smallconfused:

[nedz]

All power to the punctuation marks.

[McStabbington]

All 18th and 19th century grammarians were Latin scholars. In Latin it makes no sense to end a sentence with a preposition. They imported Latin grammar into English (including the nonsense about not splitting an infinitive, which isn't done in Latin only because an infinitive is a single word) simply out of a belief that if it's a grammar rule, then it's, well, a grammar rule.

Well, it was more that they were trying to mold English syntax into something closer to Latin, but otherwise that's spot on. The problem, however, is that English is a Germanic language, which has an entirely different structure than languages of the Romance families. The result was a bunch of rules that were counterintuitive precisely because one could make a sentence that flagrantly violated them, and yet was still felt right to a native speaker when spoken or written (syntax) and conveyed the meaning the sentence was supposed to convey (semantics). The net effect was really that three generations of English speakers were graded on their ability to convert their native English into a bastardized English-with-Romance-language-syntactic-rules.

That being said, the real problem the judge was remarking on was how terribly badly the legislature did when they drafted the statute. I'll let you in on something interesting about the legal community: their hate isn't so much directed at rules that go against their political preferences so much as laws that do not allow for clear, easy implementation. And if there's one thing that mucks up easy implementation faster than anything else, its a piece of legislation that's so badly written that the judges that have the job of implementing it in real-life cases can't understand what the legislature wanted it to do. That's really what the judge is knocking here: he's taking a potshot at the legislature, needling them in the hopes that next time, they'll write more clearly and make his job easier.

[Heliomance]

I hate the term "Grammar Nazi". We prefer "Grammarians for Freedom".
An amusing read, except for its adherence to the annoying 'no ending sentences with prepositions' misconception.

Actually, that's a direct reference to Winston Chu-


So, am I the only one who realized that was specifically a reference to Winston Churchill's remarks about prescriptivist grammar (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002670.html)? :smallconfused:

Ah, someone else knows it. Good.

[Anarion]

Actually, that's a direct reference to Winston Chu-



Ah, someone else knows it. Good.

Beat me to it double time. Ah well.

Amusingly, I don't actually find the statute itself that bad. It basically says that if you've already violated a bunch of other things, you get 10 years in jail and the judge can't reduce that number.

The length is simply because there's something like 5 or 6 different things you can do to get that 10 year minimum having to do with a bunch of other sections, which presumably list drug crimes and other notable felonies.

[pendell]

All 18th and 19th century grammarians were Latin scholars. In Latin it makes no sense to end a sentence with a preposition. They imported Latin grammar into English (including the nonsense about not splitting an infinitive, which isn't done in Latin only because an infinitive is a single word) simply out of a belief that if it's a grammar rule, then it's, well, a grammar rule.

I'm intrigued. Where can I learn more about the fact that grammarians attempted to impose latin grammar rules on a language singularly unsuited for them? I never thought the history of grammar would be interesting, but I confess I am now curious.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Sylthia]

What level spell is Wall of Text? I think I failed my Will Save.

[SaintRidley]

I'm intrigued. Where can I learn more about the fact that grammarians attempted to impose latin grammar rules on a language singularly unsuited for them? I never thought the history of grammar would be interesting, but I confess I am now curious.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I'd recommened The Language Wars by Henry Hitchings. It's pretty much a history of "proper" grammar in English.

[Jay R]

I'm intrigued. Where can I learn more about the fact that grammarians attempted to impose latin grammar rules on a language singularly unsuited for them? I never thought the history of grammar would be interesting, but I confess I am now curious.


I don't have a good book to recommend, but I do recommend a paradigm shift in your thinking.

The history of any human endeavor that people actually care about is fascinating. How we argue, how we change, how we resist change - this is the stuff of life.