Content deleted Content added
→Usage: neutralize 3-sentence claim |
No edit summary Tag: Reverted |
||
Line 10:
==Grammar==
'''Misconception:''' ''A sentence must not end in a [[preposition]].''<ref name="Cutts 2009. p. 109">[[#Cut09|Cutts 2009]]. p. 109.</ref><ref name="ReferenceA">[[#CK09|O'Conner and Kellerman 2009]]. p. 21.</ref><ref name="ReferenceB">[[#Fog10|Fogarty 2010]]. "Top Ten Grammar Myths."</ref> [[Mignon Fogarty]] ("Grammar Girl") says, "nearly all grammarians agree that it's fine to end sentences with prepositions, at least in some cases."<ref>[[#Fog10|Fogarty 2011]]. pp. 45–46.</ref> ''[[Fowler's|Fowler's Modern English Usage]]'' says, "One of the most persistent myths about prepositions in English is that they properly belong before the word or words they govern and should not be placed at the end of a clause or sentence."<ref>[[#Bur96|Burchfield 1996]]. p. 617.</ref> [[Preposition stranding]] was in use long before any English speakers [[disputes in English grammar#Examples|considered it incorrect]]. This idea probably began in the 17th century, owing to an essay by the poet [[John Dryden]], and it is still taught in schools at the beginning of the 21st century.<ref name="Cutts 2009. p. 109"/> However, "every major grammarian for more than a century has tried to debunk" this idea; "it's perfectly natural to put a preposition at the end of a sentence, and it has been since Anglo-Saxon times."<ref>[[#CK09|O'Conner and Kellerman 2009]]. p. 22.</ref> "Great literature from Chaucer to Milton to Shakespeare to the King James version of the Bible was full of so called terminal prepositions."<ref name="ReferenceA"/> Other grammarians have supported the practice by analogy with Latin, such as [[Robert Lowth]] in his 1762 textbook ''A Short Introduction to English Grammar''. The saying "This is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put", apocryphally attributed to [[Winston Churchill]],<ref>{{cite web |url= http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001715.html |title= A misattribution no longer to be put up with |date= 12 December 2004 |work= Language Log |access-date=29 May 2013}}</ref><ref name="ReferenceA"/>{{Ref label|B|b|none}} satirizes the awkwardness that can result from prohibiting sentence-ending prepositions (in this case, however, "put up" is an idiomatic phrase, meaning that "up" is <i>not</i> a preposition in the sentence being so satirized).
'''Misconception:''' ''[[Infinitives]] must not be [[Split infinitive|split]].'' "There is no such rule" against splitting an infinitive, according to ''The Oxford Guide to Plain English'',<ref name="Cutts 2009. p. 111">[[#Cut09|Cutts 2009]]. p. 111.</ref> and it has "never been wrong to 'split' an infinitive".<ref>[[#CK09|O'Conner and Kellerman 2009]]. p. 17.</ref> In some cases it may be preferable to split an infinitive.<ref name="Cutts 2009. p. 111" /><ref>[[#CK09|O'Conner and Kellerman 2009]]. pp. 18–20.</ref> According to Phillip Howard, the "grammatical 'rule' that most people retain from their schooldays is the one about not splitting infinitives", and it is a "great [[Shibboleth]] of English syntax".<ref>[[#How84|Howard 1984]]. p. 130.</ref> According to the [[University of Chicago]] Writing Program, "Professional linguists have been snickering at it for decades, yet children are still taught this false 'rule'."<ref>[[#Uni00|University of Chicago Writing Program]].</ref> In his grammar book ''A Plea for the Queen's English'' (1864), [[Henry Alford]] claimed that because "to" was part of the infinitive, the parts were inseparable.<ref>[[#CK09|O'Conner and Kellerman 2009]]. p. 19.</ref> This was in line with a 19th-century movement among grammarians to transfer Latin rules to the English language. In Latin, infinitives are single words (e.g., "''amare, cantare, audire''"), making split infinitives impossible.<ref name="Cutts 2009. p. 111"/>
| |||