next »

[aandsdean]

"The Elements of Style does not deserve the enormous esteem in which it is held by American college graduates. Its advice ranges from limp platitudes to inconsistent nonsense. Its enormous influence has not improved American students' grasp of English grammar; it has significantly degraded it."

Pullum needs some grammar practice. This (his third) paragraph has five straight "it"s: the first four refer back to "The Elements of Style"; the last, to the entire phrase "American students' grasp of English grammar." By the last phrase ("it has significantly degraded it"), the reader has to wade back through the paragraph for the first "it"; and the last functions more as a "prophrase" than a "pronoun".

"Strunk had very little analytical understanding of syntax, White even less." In this (elliptical) construction, a semi-colon after "Syntax, and a comma after "White" are needed.

After these solecisms, an insightful essay.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. 

Second point first:  If you put a semicolon after "syntax," you turn the second clause (the one beginning with "White") into a fragment.  Semi-colons separate independent clauses.

First point second:  First of all, the issue you point out isn't one of grammar at all, but of usage.  Second, there's absolutely nothing unclear about the series of clauses.  Third, there's no way to reword it the way you want without violating one of the key concepts of good writing for S&W and a number of other grammarian/usagarians:  excise needless words when they contribute nothing to clarity, meaning, or elegance.

[daurousseau]

From the OP: . 

I can say that, as an American student, I received my first formal instruction in English grammar in the 7th grade, when I was 12 years of age.  Under the tutelage of Miss Kelshner, a veritable old maid then close to retirement, I learned grammatical terms and how these parts of speech were used to construct proper sentences.  In those days we spent hours diagramming sentences, breaking them down into elemental parts of speech.  The training was strict and rigorous; I never forgot it.

Apparently Miss Kelshner retired and reappeared as Miss Eicher to teach our high school senior year Advanced Grammar and Composition. The training was strict and rigorous; I never forgot it.

[ideagirl]

FWIW:  The title of S & W is The Elements of Style, not The Elements of Grammar.

Jan Freeman disparaged the book in the Boston Globe back in 2005, but her appraisal didn't get nearly the play Pulliam's has.

Here's a link:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/10/23/frankenstrunk/

Ooh, I like it even better than the one we've been discussing!

[fizmath]

Some grammar expert was on NPR a few months ago and claimed many of the rules we are taught were created artificially for no good reason.    Examples are split infinitives and ending a sentence with a preposition.  Some 19th century Anglican cleric thought that since you can't do something in Latin then we shouldn't do it in English.  I forgot the name of the modern grammar expert that was interviewed.

[temporaryname]

Some grammar expert was on NPR a few months ago and claimed many of the rules we are taught were created artificially for no good reason.    Examples are split infinitives and ending a sentence with a preposition.  Some 19th century Anglican cleric thought that since you can't do something in Latin then we shouldn't do it in English.  I forgot the name of the modern grammar expert that was interviewed.

I don't know who the interviewee was, but the Anglican cleric referred to was probably Robert Lowth, whose 1762 A Short Introduction to English Grammar IMO did more to set back the study of English grammar than any other book ever written.

[magistra]

Some grammar expert was on NPR a few months ago and claimed many of the rules we are taught were created artificially for no good reason.    Examples are split infinitives and ending a sentence with a preposition.  Some 19th century Anglican cleric thought that since you can't do something in Latin then we shouldn't do it in English.  I forgot the name of the modern grammar expert that was interviewed.

Pretty much true, too.

[shrek]

Some grammar expert was on NPR a few months ago and claimed many of the rules we are taught were created artificially for no good reason.    Examples are split infinitives and ending a sentence with a preposition.  Some 19th century Anglican cleric thought that since you can't do something in Latin then we shouldn't do it in English.  I forgot the name of the modern grammar expert that was interviewed.

Right, that would be Geoffrey Pullum.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103171738