English I Don’t Follow
Wednesday, January 16th, 2008Here are some English rules I willfully ignore. There are more, but here are ones that come to mind. English is full of rules that were invented by Latin-obsessed pedants that don’t make the language clearer or do any of the other things rules were meant for (except annoy the lazy):
- Dangling participle. Sure, it sounds stupid to say “where are you at?”, but the reason is because the “at” is redundant, not because it’s at the end! Combine subordinate clause, passive voice and this stupid rule and you get the hilarious classic erroneously attributed to Churchill, “This errant pedantry is something that will not with up be put!” Indeed.
- “They” should work as his/her. Consider the alternative! Wouldn’t you rather just be wrong than unforgivably awkward? This rule achieved a new demonic power to horrify when combined with political correctness since once upon a time, you could at least choose one gender and run with it. Now we have all sorts of strange solutions like randomly varying the genders or just using she, but the masculinists frown upon the latter.
- Pronoun order. Consider this sentence: “I wanted to go to the store to get some food for me and my girlfriend.” Wrong. Even though “my girlfriend and me” sounds very bad for some reason. This grammar is an artifact from when English was an HONORIFIC language, like other Indo-European languages. German has du resp. Sie, French tu resp. vous, and so on. It wasn’t even that long ago, but we finally dropped the less polite thou/þu. The problem is the logic behind this rule no longer applies. The system has been abolished and we’re stuck with this anachronism. So, English, I’ll strike a deal with you - if you bring back you/thou, I’ll put myself last in lists of people.
- I don’t always include all the connecting words when drawing analogies and making comparisons. It doesn’t sound incorrect, though it probably is. Example: “The Pet Shop boys are as well-loved in Russia as Jerry Lewis, France”.