inappropriate grammar rules

"In today's encore excerpt - certain grammatical "rules" that are widely viewed as correct come from the invalid application of grammatical rules from Classical Latin and Greek to the English language by British authors writing hundreds of years ago. Two such "rules"-which have been beautifully and routinely violated by writers from Shakespeare to Hemingway-are the prohibitions against split infinitives and ending a sentence with a preposition:

"The first prohibition against the split infinitive occurs in an 1834 article by an author identified only as 'P.' After that, increasingly over the course of the nineteenth century, a 'rule' banning split infinitives began ricocheting from grammar book to grammar book, until every self-conscious English-speaker 'knew' that to put a word between 'to' and a verb in its infinitive was barbaric.

"The split-infinitive rule may represent mindless prescriptivism's greatest height. It was foreign. (It was almost certainty based on the inability to split infinitives in Latin and Greek, since they consist of one word only.) It had been routinely violated by the great writers in English; one 1931 study found split infinitives in English literature from every century, beginning with the fourteenth-century epic poem Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, through wrongdoers such as William Tyndale, Oliver Cromwell, Samuel Pepys, Daniel Defoe, John Donne, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Johnson, Edmund Burke, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, and others.

"Rewording split infinitives can introduce ambiguity: 'He failed entirely to comprehend it' can mean he failed entirely, or he comprehended, but not entirely. Only putting 'entirely' between 'to' and 'comprehend' can convey clearly 'he comprehended most, but not all.' True, sentences can be reworded to work around the problem ('He failed to comprehend everything'), but there is no reason to do so. While many prescriptive rules falsely claim to improve readability and clarity, this one is worse, introducing a problem that wasn't there in the first place. Yet as split infinitives in fact became more common in nineteenth-century writing, condemnations of it grew equally strongly. The idea that 'rules' were more important than history, elegance, or actual practice ... held writers and speakers in terror of making them. ...

"Why is it 'wrong' to end a sentence with a preposition? ... Who, upon seeing a cake in the office break room, says, 'For whom is this cake?' instead of 'Who's the cake for?' Where did this rule come from?

"The answer will surprise even most English teachers: John Dryden, the seventeenth-century poet less well known as an early, influential stickler. In a 1672 essay, he criticized his literary predecessor Ben Jonson for writing 'The bodies that these souls were frightened from.' Why the prepositional bee in Dryden's syntactical bonnet? This pseudo-rule probably springs from the same source many others do: the classical languages. Dryden said he liked to compose in Latin and translate into English, as he valued the precision and clarity he believed Latin required of writers. The preposition-final construction is impossible in Latin. Hence: it is impossible in English. Confused by his logic? Linguists remain so to this day. But once Dryden proclaimed the rule, it made its way into the first generation of English usage books roughly a century later and thence into the minds of two hundred years of English teachers and copy editors.

"The rule has no basis in clarity ('Who's that cake for?' is perfectly clear); history (it was made up from whole cloth); literary tradition (Shakespeare, Jane Austen, Samuel Johnson, Lord Byron, Henry Adams, Lewis Carroll, James Joyce, and dozens of other great writers have violated it); or purity (it isn't native to English but probably stolen from Latin; clause-final prepositions exist in English's cousin languages such as Danish and Icelandic). Many people know that the Dryden rule is nonsense. From the great usage-book writer Henry Fowler in the early twentieth century, usage experts began to caution readers to ignore it. The New York Times flouts it. The 'rule' should be put to death, but it may never be. Even those who know it is ridiculous observe it for fear of annoying others."

Author: Robert Lane Greene  
Title: You Are What You Speak
Publisher: Delacorte Press
Date: Copyright 2011 by Robert Lane Greene
Pages: 33-34, 24-25

source: delanceyplace.com

Persuasion -ikna edebildiklerimizden misiniz?

her kadin bir jane austen karakteri olduguna inanir -duzelteyim: jane austen okuyan her kadin. bu genelde elizabeth bennett olma istegiyle tezahur eden bir durum; cunku niye? cunku mr. darcy gercegi var. her kadinin hayali: mr. darcy! o bir ikon! o bir kus, o bir ucak, hayir o supermen! neyse, darcy'nin hakki darcy'e; sahiden de su gune dek yazilmis tummm roman karakterleri icinde (erkek) herhalde ilk uce rahat oynar.

 

darcy, lizzie'ye puppy dog eyes atarken

 

fakat! bir de gercekler var meine damen und herren (almancam cok iyi) hepimiz bir eliza bennett degiliz. elizabeth de az cekmedi allah icin, ama romanin buyuk bolumunu "hih pis darcy" diyerek geciriyor, wickham'la azicik gonul eglendiriyor, en buyuk uzuntusu "ay kizkardesim nikahsiz londra'da! bittik! tukendik!" tamam DONEMIN SARTLARINDA cok kotu oldugunu kabul ediyorum. tamam "darcy'e cok buyuk haksizlik yaptik" diye dertlenmesini, bir de ustune "oh bu rezaletten sonra hayyyyatta yuzume bakmaz" diye tam asik oldugunun farkina varmisken (son dakkada bir de, akilsiz) kaybinin uzuntusunu anliyorum. ama zaten (spoiler alert! ama su gune kadar pride and prejudice'i okumadiysan zaten ben sana ne diyeyim?) netice: mutlu son. darcy, hakikatli cocukmus. oyle seylere bakmiyor, "a pair of fine eyes" icin, ama daha cok o kivrak zekasi icin, lizzie'yi kapiyor. diger silik kizkardes zaten kitabin basindan kapatmisti saftirik oglani; o isi de hallettik mi gelsin pemberley, gitsin londra'da "season." net soyluyorum: oyle ciddi insan dramasi falan yok pride and prejudice'de -olmasin da zaten. belki de o yuzden hepimizin en sevdigi roman da bu.

(su noktada mansfield park'in bahsini DAHI etmeyecegim. austen'in bence en igrenc karakteri fanny. icime fenaliklar getiriyor. git fanny, senin gibi kizla isimiz olmaz. bir jane eyre degilsin.)

peki emma? emma da az salak degil. ama emma'nin hayati rerorero. son dakikada "ay bi dakka ben megersem knightley'e asik misiiiim" diye bir ruh haline girmisken, hop! knightley evlenme teklifini cakiyor. emma'da eglendirici, ogretici olan, genc bir kizin nasil biraz olgunlastigi, nasil insana benzedigi, zengin ve guzel olunca her seyi yapma hakkimizin olmadigi dersi (hepimiz zengin ve guzeliz ya, bu dersi aldigimiz iyi oldu.) emma'yi seviyorum ama; neseli bir kizcagiz.

emma: neseli bir kizcagiz. ama bir alex degil.

dashwood hemsirelere gelelim. ya bu kizlarin sikintisi? ya bunlarin derdi? marianne zaten donemin romantik roman karakterleri gibi kendini ateslerden, ince hastaliklardan, yataklara doseklere atiyor duruyor. elinor'u sallayan yok. asik oldugu adamin nisanlisi ile gecirilen uzun ve ic bayiltici dakikalar, simarik (ama gencligine veriyorum) kizkardesin kaprisleri ile ugrasmalar. sonra kiz bir de hastalar olsun, oldu mu kaldi mi, onun kosusturmasi -ki 18 yy. sonu, 19. yy. baslari bunlar. atesin cikti mi tak diye oluveriyorsun bazen, sakasi yok. bana en cok, elinor'un "mahalleden" "mrs. ferrars" haberini aldigi, sonra da mutfakta isinin basindayken mr. ferrars'in bunlarin evine ziyarete geldigi sahne koyar. "hellooo, ben asik oldugun adam, her yerde evliligimden bahsediliyor, naber?" neyse o isi bir sayfayla hallediyoruz, meger cocuk evlenmemis de, elinor'dan aflar dilemeye, elini istemeye gelmis. elinor o noktada patliyor ya, iste ben de patliyorum sevgili okuyucu. o yuzden yaninda hep selpak bulundur. (kleenex yazacaktim da, amerikan usagi dersiniz diye hemen kendimi duzelttim.)

elinor'un, edward'in arkasindan bakakaldigi nice sahneden biri. ortamda edward'in nisanlisi var. neyse ki herkes ingiliz.

peki ben bu yaziyi niye yazdim? cunku persuasion'a gelecegim. ve iste gelmistim de. persuasion: anne elliot ve captain wentworth gercegi. persuasion ve oldurucu alintilari. persuasion ve gercek hayat. kaldi ki, persuasion, jane austen'in son tamamlanmis romani. bence en oturmusu, en dingini. en siki karakter cozumlemelerini bulabildigimiz, bir de bath'in nesesini, lyme'in deniz havasini alma bonusu. ama en ice dokunani anne. seneler once wentworth ile nisanini bozmus; wentworth denizlere acilmis, anne, haberlerini navy news'dan (daily news gibi ama diil) takip etmis. kimselere varamamis, frederick'i dusune dusune gelmis tam YIRMIYEDI yasina (ki bu herhalde gunumuzde 36 yasa tekabul eder? -turk oldugum icin iyi hesap yaparim.) baron ve ayni zamanda gerizekali olan babasi ve sinir illeti ablasiyla boynu bukuk yasarken, ekonomi yapmalari, estate'i kiralamalari gerekiyor. ENTER WENTWORTH CONNECTION (ve yaylilar), hatta orhan gencebay'dan: "bana kaderimin bir oyunu mu bu?" bizim artik kaptan olmus frederick'in ablasi ve kocasi, anne'lerin konaga yerlesiyor. anne civarda oldugu icin surekli bir wentworth'la gorusmeler, wentworth'un gozunun onunde musgrove kizkardeslerle flort etmesi. anne'in o bicare olmuslugu. BILEKLERIMI KESICEM!

wentworth, kizkardeslerden biriyle flort halinde. anne'in bakisa dikiz.

simdi sevgili okuyucu, biraz alinti da yapayim da, titre ve kendine gel:

Anne: "All the privilege I claim for my own sex (it is not a very enviable one: you need not covet it), is that of loving longest, when existence or when hope is gone!" (killa)

ilerleyen (ve artik mutlu sona yaklastigimiz bolumlerde ise)

Wentworth: "You pierce my soul. I am half agony, half hope. Tell me not that I am too late, that such precious feelings are gone for ever. I offer myself to you again with a heart even more your own than when you almost broke it, eight and a half years ago. Dare not say that a man forgets sooner than woman, that his love has an earlier death. I have loved none but you. Unjust I may have been, weak and resentful I have been, but never inconstant." (mektubunda)

iste gercek hayat esasen boyle bir sey. eliza bennett'in bir cift guzel gozu degil, emma'nin copcatan nesesi de degil. biraz elinor'la marianne'in gerek sosyo-ekonomik, gerekse romantik drami. ama en cok anne'inki. en cok benimki. tabii ki, tum jane austen guzelliklerinde oldugu gibi, persuasion da, deyim yerindeyse persuasion ile bitiyor: mutlu son yahut sabreden dervis, muradina ermis. yahut amor omnia vincit. yahut neseli ol ki genc kalasin (sonuncuyu sasirtmacli koydum.)

ben mutlu sonlari severim. und du?

simdi gokten dusen uc elmanin hepsini tabagimda istiyorum.

Djulfa

Today is the commemoration of the 3rd anniversary of Djulfa's destruction. The historical Armenian cemetery of Djulfa had countless "khatchkars" (cross stones, some of which I actually saw in the Byzantium exhibition of the Royal Academy in London last week) which date back to various periods, most of them centuries old. On December 15, 2005, the remaining ones (which had escaped damage between 1998-2002) were destroyed by a group of Azerbaijani servicemen. Photos show that the cleaned up area was turned into military shooting range.

The website has more written information, photos, as well as the documentary itself. This not only a crime against Armenian culture, but against our collective cultural heritage as humankind. Don't let it go unnoticed.