This is an article that I read on MSN. I was one of those people in high school and college that actually enjoyed taking English. I would rather have had a full day of English and Lit rather than take any math and science classes. As I read this article I was reminded of some of the red marks and comments on my papers through out my schooling. I know that most of my posts do not follow all the grammar rules, but I do know them. I hope you ennoy this article. Those of you who read this blog who are grammar freaks, please dont shoot the messanger. ENJOY!
Errors That Aren't: 12 Grammar Rules You Can Toss Out the Window
by Martha Brockenbrough
In an uncertain world, it's nice to be sure of a few things:• Socks go on before shoes, and underwear, before pants; • An apple, when dropped, will fall toward the earth; and• It's a crime to start a sentence with a conjunction, or end one with a preposition. There's a bit of a problem, though, at least when it comes to the so-called certainties of grammar.Despite the insistence of teachers, starchy bosses, and more than a few well-meaning nuns, certain rules of grammar aren’t actually rules at all. They're myths, the Loch Ness Monster of language foisted upon us, many times for reasons unknown.The declarations against starting sentences with conjunctions and ending sentences with prepositions are two fine examples. And of course, there are quite a few more.It can be upsetting to realize these solemn rules of writing don't exist, sort of like figuring out Santa and your mother have the same handwriting. I still remember the time my high-school English teacher put a disapproving check mark beside a split infinitive, and the time a college-writing instructor told me not to use "like" as a conjunction. Those corrections are among my most vivid school memories, and in the years that followed, I took care not to make the same mistakes in my writing.And now, I must accept that those instructional gems were fake. At best, many commonly passed-down "rules" might politely be called convention. But even that’s shaky, because crafty dictionary users can always dig up examples where respected writers have departed with said convention for literally hundreds of years. That, alone, isn't a reason to discard a rule, of course. After all, people have been killing each other for millennia, and it’s still not OK. Or, to use a less extreme example: Just because your grandfather did something one way doesn't mean he did it the right way simply because he was born before you
The truth is that writers--even great, dead ones--sometimes make grammatical errors. In Pride and Prejudice, for example, Jane Austen's narrator says, "Every body declared that he [Wickham] was the wickedest young man in the world; and every body began to find out that they had always distrusted the appearance of his goodness."To be correct, she should have written "and people began to find out that they had always distrusted the appearance of his goodness."This doesn't mean Jane Austen was anything less than a brilliant writer. Grammar is important, but it's not the hallmark of great writing. Rather, it's a tool to help us express ourselves and understand others. It's what separates "Let's eat children!" from "Let's eat, children!" (If you can't see the difference there, please do not invite me to your house for dinner.)Where rules help us say what we mean, they're worth learning and obeying. Where they get in the way and twist our syntax--or worse, change the meaning of a sentence--they should be rejected. Here are 12 grammatical "errors" that aren't actually wrong, according to my own judgment, and that of a variety of experts, including: • Patricia T. O'Conner (Woe is I), • Paul Brians (Common Errors in English Usage, and his Washington State University Web site),• Ronald Wardhaugh (Proper English: Myths and Misunderstandings about Language), and • Mark Liberman and Geoffrey K Pullum (Far from the Madding Gerund).
It Ain't So No. 1: It's wrong to end a sentence with a preposition.The suffix pre means "before." This is perhaps where people got the idea that a "pre-position" couldn't be positioned last in the sentence. It's just not true, though. Even Shakespeare did it. There are certain times, though, when it's ugly to do this. "Where's he at?" is one of those times. "Where is he?" is better form.
It Ain't So No. 2: You are not to split your infinitives.The Roman Empire is long gone, but Latin's luster remains to a surprising degree. The ban on split infinitives--those "to-plus-a-verb phrases"--owes its existence to the idea that Latin grammar is superior to English. Balderdash. In Latin, you can't split infinitives because they're one word. In English, infinitives are two words, and it's not only fine to split them, it's sometimes necessary for the sake of clarity. As Patricia T. O'Conner puts it in her book, Woe is I, there really is no other way to say "To more than double" your rent without splitting the infinitive. The landlord "expects more than to double your rent" just doesn't fly.It
Ain't So No. 3: Use "that" with restrictive clauses, "which" with nonrestrictive clauses.I fed the dog that barked.I fed the dog, which barked.These two sentences have almost identical words, but their meanings are slightly different. The first one is restrictive--the only dog I fed is the one that barked. In the second sentence, the barking is incidental. It's not essential to the meaning of the sentence. Some people, including many publications, insist that writers use "that" with restrictive phrases (those not set off by commas), and "which" with nonrestrictive ones. It's not wrong to do this, and there is a certain amount of elegance to making that distinction. But, you can say "I fed the dog which barked" and still be correct. It sounds a bit more pompous, but it's not wrong, not if we're to go by the example of many accomplished writers. That said, it's not correct to write, "I fed the dog, that barked." "Which" can go both ways, but "that" can't.
It Ain't So No. 4: It's wrong to start a sentence with "and" or "but." Writers have been doing this for more than 1,000 years, despite the hand-waving of frantic English teachers. And they're going to keep on doing it. I could have used a comma between the "teachers" and the "and," but the period gives a longer pause and more emphasis on the second sentence. The conjunction still links the two ideas together; they just happen to be two sentences instead of one. It's fine to do with good reason, but your writing will be choppy if you do it too much.
It Ain't So No. 5: Don't say "hopefully." Say "I'm hopeful" or "It is hoped."While many people still avoid the technical misuse of "hopefully," it's misused often enough that it sounds a bit stilted to say "I'm hopeful," and even worse to say, "It is hoped." Language does evolve, and this is one of those cases where the incorrect use has won out. It doesn't mean you have to say "hopefully" yourself, but holding out the hope and expectation that people will stop doing this is the equivalent of being outraged that people are no longer holding up their socks with garters.
It Ain't So, No. 6: Thou shalt not say healthy food.Extreme language purists still insist that we describe nutritious food as "healthful." But if you don't want to sound as though you've just snapped on a fresh pair of sock-garters, you don't have to. It's fine to describe food as being "healthy." That said, the two words are not interchangeable. As Bill Walsh points out in Elephants of Style, a "healthy" appetite is not always "healthful."
It Ain't So No. 7: None comes from "not one" or "no one," and is therefore always singular.Actually, it just might have come from "not any of them," which is plural. "None" is very often plural. None of the sorority girls have hair, for example. If you're talking about something that can't be divided into units, then make it singular. None of their hair is real. Another way to remember: If "of it" could be swapped in for whatever follows "none," use the singular. If "of them" could be swapped in, use the plural.
It Ain't So No. 8: "Since" must always refer to time.Many people are under the impression they cannot correctly use "since" as a synonym for "because." That's crazy-talk, because it's been used this way since at least 1450. While it's nice to keep distinctions of meaning between words, it's not a crime against language to use "since" for "because," even if you can't use "because" for "since." Like healthful and healthy, and which and that, they can be synonyms even if they’re not interchangeable.
It Ain't So, No. 9: Don't use "like" as a conjunction.Is it wrong to say, "I feel like a million bucks"? Or is it better to say, "I feel as though I am worth a million bucks"? If you were to say the latter, anyone in earshot would be perfectly justified in making fun of you. It's been used as a conjunction since at least 1200, according to the Oxford English Dictionary [OED]. That said, many people--such as my college writing teacher--bristle at this usage. In formal contexts, this is a rule worth obeying, just so people don't think you're a rube.
It Ain’t So, No. 10: When answering the phone, you must say, "This is I" or "This is she." "It is I," and "This is she" are two phrases that reek of eau de pomposity. At least 400 years before Shakespeare wrote "O, Woe is me," we've used that particular expression in English. That's ample precedent.Where you do want to be careful, though, is with sentences such as this: "He likes chocolate more than me." Do you mean he likes chocolate more than you do? Or he likes chocolate more than he likes you? If he prefers you to chocolate, then you're better off saying, "He likes chocolate more than I do." If you're second in his heart, well, here: Have some chocolate. It'll make you feel better.
It Ain't So No. 11: You must always use "whom" when it's the object of a sentence.Remember that Noah Webster guy? The one who wrote the first dictionary of American English? Even way back when, he had the sense to advocate "Who did you speak to?" over "Whom did you speak to?" Sometimes, "whom" is just a bit too stuffy. This doesn’t mean it's not nice to know the rule--use "who" as the subject of the sentence, and "whom" as an object--but you can break this rule on occasion with Mr. Webster's blessing.
It Ain't So No. 12: Ain't isn't a word.It is. Right here, see? And it isn’t just a lower-class expression; once upon a time it was an upper-class colloquialism the OED reports--the cousin of won't, don't, can't and shan't. Keep it to music lyrics, musical titles, and appropriate rhetorical sprees. Even with its centuries-long pedigree, it just ain't a word to bring with you to fancy places.
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/Features/Columns/?article=ErrorsThatArent>1=10289
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Sunday, August 5, 2007
My Heart for Two Rivers Baptist
As I sit here starting this blog, I have debated about posting my thoughts and feelings about the goings on at our church. For those of you who are not members of TRBC, I ask that you pray for our church. For those of you reading this who are TRBC members, please only read this knowing that I am sharing my heart. If you are reading this for something to gossip about, please stop reading now.
My heart has broken over what is going on in our church. There is a spirit of division. I do not feel that this is what the Lord has intended for any church within His larger Church. In a warped way I feel very blessed that this is happening. I firmly feel that satan will not attack a church body unless the Lord is moving. While none of us would openly welcome this, we have to acknowledge that the Lord is indeed moving. When I look at VBS, Super Summer and the number of baptisms I can not and will NOT deny that fact.
I want to share my feelings on somethings that have I heard being said over the past several weeks...
1) That this situation was not prayed over: If any person in our church honestly knew our pastor and our staff even a little, they would know that many, many, many hours of prayer have gone into praying over this whole mess. They would also know that all of our pastors are men of prayer and they seek the Lord with their whole heart as far as their lives and especially the life of our church is concerned.
2) It has been said that Pastor has caused this dissention in the church. I have to say that this frustrates me very much. Pastor has not brought this on the church. Church members have brought this on the church. No where in scripture has the Lord endorsed a coup against a godly church leader. The fact that we have a pastor has been the pastor of our church for 21 years says a great deal about his character and the man of God he really is. I personally do not believe that the Lord would have a pastor spend his entire ministry jumping from church to church. I believe that He would have pastor be in a church to baptize, marry and bury several generations. I believe that if we will pray for, encourage and lift up our pastor, we can if it is the Lord's will, see that happen.
3) I will not believe that I am a member of a church where I am strong armed, railroaded or bullied from the pulpit. One thing that I LOVE about our pastor and pastoral staff is that we are highly encouraged to be in the Word and study for ourselves what the Lord has to say about certain subjects. I love that we are not told that they are the final authority on anything. I love that we are encouraged to get to know that Lord on a personal level and that we have the freedom in our church to ask questions and seek answers. I believe that only a pastor who is truly seeking the Lord and is secure in his position as pastor would encourage the congregation to dig into the Word and pray.
4) I know that there is some dissention about the 11:01 service. I know that I am among a rare few in my age range that actually prefers the 9:30 service. I do have to say that even though I prefer the earlier service it does NOT mean that I am against the 11:01 service. I believe that as long as the Gospel is not being watered down and people are coming to know the Lord and that people are growing in their walk there is absolutely nothing wrong with the 11:01 service. Since the pastor and pastoral staff are firm in doing both of these things, I support the 11:01 service even though I do not attend. (On a side note I do like the fact that in the early service we do get to sing the great hymns of our faith. I believe that we can learn a great deal of theology from these great hymns. I also like the praise songs in that most of these are lifted straight from Scripture. How great is it that in our music we get both theology and Scripture)!
5) I think that we need to focus on what the Lord has for our church instead of tearing each other down and back biting. I believe that the Lord has much instore for our church. I believe that we need to whole heartedly search the Lord and seek His will for our church. I believe that it is very appropriate that we are taking the entire month of August to study prayer and spend it as a church praying. I believe that only when ALL of us become broken that our church will completely heal and move forward.
6) Last but not least I want to share a personal story. The summer after I graduated from college I served a semester missionary through NAMB as a youth minister in a church out west. When I came to the church there was tension in the church. The longer I was there, the more I learned. While I cannot say that I know what our staff is going through with all of this I can somewhat relate.....
In the mid 70's the pastor of the church was asked to leave the church. In that case, the pastor had actually done something to which he should have been removed. In the years that followed the church went through some major turmoil. Since that time this church has run off several pastors. These men were not bad men, they had not even done things for which Scripture would allow them to be removed. Fastforward almost 25 years and the church is still batteling what happened in the 70's. I started in this church in May of 2000 and NAMB pulled me out in May of 01. Not long after I left the pastor was voted out.
I share this story not for gossip sake but to illustrate a point. We need to be careful the legacy that we are leaving for the children of our church. 25 or 30 years down the road do we want our children and grandchildren to still be fighting this battle? Do we want them to not truly understand what they are fighting, but that this is the way it has always been, and so that is what they must continue to do? What is it that we want our children and grandchildren to know about what happened when they look back on the history of our church? Do we want them to see dissention or a godly legacy?
I pray that anyone who has taken the time to read this entry will stop and pray for Two Rivers. I pray that the Lord will bless the pastor, pastoral staff and the rest of the church staff as well as their families. I pray that all them would find and encouragement. I pray that the Lord will carry our church through this time. I pray that when we get to the other side that we will be able to look back and see what HE was doing. I pray that we can continue to seek His will do the ministry that HE has called us to.
Thank you for "listening" to my ramblings. I pray that the Lord will bless you and that you will continue to seek the Lord in all that you do!!!
Heather
Hab 3:19
My heart has broken over what is going on in our church. There is a spirit of division. I do not feel that this is what the Lord has intended for any church within His larger Church. In a warped way I feel very blessed that this is happening. I firmly feel that satan will not attack a church body unless the Lord is moving. While none of us would openly welcome this, we have to acknowledge that the Lord is indeed moving. When I look at VBS, Super Summer and the number of baptisms I can not and will NOT deny that fact.
I want to share my feelings on somethings that have I heard being said over the past several weeks...
1) That this situation was not prayed over: If any person in our church honestly knew our pastor and our staff even a little, they would know that many, many, many hours of prayer have gone into praying over this whole mess. They would also know that all of our pastors are men of prayer and they seek the Lord with their whole heart as far as their lives and especially the life of our church is concerned.
2) It has been said that Pastor has caused this dissention in the church. I have to say that this frustrates me very much. Pastor has not brought this on the church. Church members have brought this on the church. No where in scripture has the Lord endorsed a coup against a godly church leader. The fact that we have a pastor has been the pastor of our church for 21 years says a great deal about his character and the man of God he really is. I personally do not believe that the Lord would have a pastor spend his entire ministry jumping from church to church. I believe that He would have pastor be in a church to baptize, marry and bury several generations. I believe that if we will pray for, encourage and lift up our pastor, we can if it is the Lord's will, see that happen.
3) I will not believe that I am a member of a church where I am strong armed, railroaded or bullied from the pulpit. One thing that I LOVE about our pastor and pastoral staff is that we are highly encouraged to be in the Word and study for ourselves what the Lord has to say about certain subjects. I love that we are not told that they are the final authority on anything. I love that we are encouraged to get to know that Lord on a personal level and that we have the freedom in our church to ask questions and seek answers. I believe that only a pastor who is truly seeking the Lord and is secure in his position as pastor would encourage the congregation to dig into the Word and pray.
4) I know that there is some dissention about the 11:01 service. I know that I am among a rare few in my age range that actually prefers the 9:30 service. I do have to say that even though I prefer the earlier service it does NOT mean that I am against the 11:01 service. I believe that as long as the Gospel is not being watered down and people are coming to know the Lord and that people are growing in their walk there is absolutely nothing wrong with the 11:01 service. Since the pastor and pastoral staff are firm in doing both of these things, I support the 11:01 service even though I do not attend. (On a side note I do like the fact that in the early service we do get to sing the great hymns of our faith. I believe that we can learn a great deal of theology from these great hymns. I also like the praise songs in that most of these are lifted straight from Scripture. How great is it that in our music we get both theology and Scripture)!
5) I think that we need to focus on what the Lord has for our church instead of tearing each other down and back biting. I believe that the Lord has much instore for our church. I believe that we need to whole heartedly search the Lord and seek His will for our church. I believe that it is very appropriate that we are taking the entire month of August to study prayer and spend it as a church praying. I believe that only when ALL of us become broken that our church will completely heal and move forward.
6) Last but not least I want to share a personal story. The summer after I graduated from college I served a semester missionary through NAMB as a youth minister in a church out west. When I came to the church there was tension in the church. The longer I was there, the more I learned. While I cannot say that I know what our staff is going through with all of this I can somewhat relate.....
In the mid 70's the pastor of the church was asked to leave the church. In that case, the pastor had actually done something to which he should have been removed. In the years that followed the church went through some major turmoil. Since that time this church has run off several pastors. These men were not bad men, they had not even done things for which Scripture would allow them to be removed. Fastforward almost 25 years and the church is still batteling what happened in the 70's. I started in this church in May of 2000 and NAMB pulled me out in May of 01. Not long after I left the pastor was voted out.
I share this story not for gossip sake but to illustrate a point. We need to be careful the legacy that we are leaving for the children of our church. 25 or 30 years down the road do we want our children and grandchildren to still be fighting this battle? Do we want them to not truly understand what they are fighting, but that this is the way it has always been, and so that is what they must continue to do? What is it that we want our children and grandchildren to know about what happened when they look back on the history of our church? Do we want them to see dissention or a godly legacy?
I pray that anyone who has taken the time to read this entry will stop and pray for Two Rivers. I pray that the Lord will bless the pastor, pastoral staff and the rest of the church staff as well as their families. I pray that all them would find and encouragement. I pray that the Lord will carry our church through this time. I pray that when we get to the other side that we will be able to look back and see what HE was doing. I pray that we can continue to seek His will do the ministry that HE has called us to.
Thank you for "listening" to my ramblings. I pray that the Lord will bless you and that you will continue to seek the Lord in all that you do!!!
Heather
Hab 3:19
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
