<p>I was sorry to learn recently that the famous story about Winston Churchill and dangling participles is actually apocryphal.</p>
<p>(referring to posts 31 and 72)
Let’s look at “couldn’t care less” from another perspective. If I need an A on my History exam to qualify me for the full-ride scholarship, then I must really care a lot about my grade. In fact, if taken literally, I couldn’t care less because if I did care less, I might not give my best effort, might not get the A, might miss out on the scholarship. In that example, I “can’t care less” because I have to care the maximum amount to reach my desired goal. Used in that context it means I must care a lot. But we know that isn’t the way we typically use it.</p>
<p>But I know “couldn’t care less” really isn’t used that way. As explained in post 31 it is generally taken to mean that I don’t care at all. But now, with the above example, we see that taken literally, it could have a very different meaning. The very opposite meaning! But that would be taking literally a figurative expression, and using it in a different way than is generally intended.</p>
<p>We must remember that both “could” and “couldn’t” care less are figurative expressions and though they have slightly different literal meanings, they both express the same conclusion- that the speaker is ambivalent about the topic.
Much like water over/under the dam- the expressions both indicate something has passed and now we are moving on.</p>
<p>
There’s nothing inherently wrong with splitting an infinitive. In most cases the un-split form will be stronger, so you should use it. In cases where the split form is stronger, you should use that. Trust your ear. The idea that there is some grammatical rule against splitting infinitives is one of those myths that will not die.</p>
<p>
There’s no dangling participle in that sentence (in fact there’s no participle of any kind). A dangling participle is when a participial phrase that ought to modify the subject of the following clause really applies to something else–for instance,</p>
<p>Having earned a degree at Harvard, the job market was wide open to me.</p>
<p>I’m thinking maybe your “oops” referred to the fact that your sentence ended with a preposition? This is another grammar myth along the same lines as the split infinitive. It’s not an error in English to separate a preposition from its object (known as “preposition stranding”), and the attempt to avoid doing so often results in unnecessarily stilted, weak constructions.</p>
<p>The only grammatical error I see in the sentence is the use of “who” instead of “whom”–but I think using “who” in this kind of context has become nearly universal, even in formal writing.</p>
<p>D attended a private middle school. In sixth grade, they studied grammar as part of the formal curriculum and actually had–wait for it–a grammar book! My kids’ public school experiences, however, never included serious attention to grammar, usage or punctuation. Luckily, through hearing correct speech at home, they developed good instincts for grammar and usage at any early age. The punctuation path has been rockier. S still tends to throw random commas into his writing as if he were sprinkling salt.</p>
<p>Years ago one of my secretaries had a copy of The Gregg Reference Manual (a great bible of grammar, usage, punctuation, spelling. etc., that includes the most arcane subjects, including, for example, how to properly address a monsignor, should that ever come up). I borrowed it so often that she bought me my own copy for my birthday. Years later, I still keep it at hand. Highly recommended for the obsessive!</p>
<p>There is only one way to stop a grammar nazi:
[YouTube</a> - Grammar Nazis](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4vf8N6GpdM]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4vf8N6GpdM)</p>
<p>Personally, I think ellipses are fine if one is trying to write as they would talk in real life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s a great book if you’re British. British punctuation rules are very different from American rules, however, so it’s of limited use to Americans.</p>
<p>Re infinitives: If Star Trek can split them (“to boldly go”), so can we.</p>
<p>Pet peeve: The incorrect use of “everyday” when “every day” would be appropriate. It drives me crazy. </p>
<p>My son and I used to correct the spelling, grammar, and punctuation of the notices sent home by the middle school principal, who evidently was borderline illiterate. We never had the nerve to send the corrected versions back to her, though, not even anonymously.</p>
<p>Haha, linguistic prescription is ridiculous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Languages can and should evolve, but if the goal is clear communication, there needs to be some consensus on how things should be expressed, especially in writing.</p>
<p>As lawyers will tell you, including or excluding a comma can profoundly change the meaning of a sentence, leading to entirely different conclusions.</p>
<p>Similarly, using the wrong word can distort meaning. To “effect” a change means to carry it out. To “affect” a change means to influence it. It’s a one-letter difference, but it’s an important one.</p>
<p>And then, of course, there are typographical errors. Try getting someone to take you seriously if you have left out the L in the word “public” in an important document.</p>
<p>Sorry, I should have been more specific – rules in written language are extremely necessary. Rules for spoken language, such as not ending a sentence with a preposition, are pedantic and unnecessary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is perfectly acceptable to end a sentence with a preposition.</p>
<p>^And with neologisms like “lier.” :)</p>
<p>I wish CC had a longer edit time. :)</p>
<p>I agree with you, silverturtle, but many do not.</p>
<p>^I was always under the impression that ending sentences with prepositions was incorrect, though that did not prevent me from committing the error. :o</p>
<p>Can I really end sentences with prepositions with a clear conscience now?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I haven’t read any grammar books published recently that continue to hold that as the rule.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>Then I shall use another rule as an example – many of us are chastised for saying things like “me and my friend ___.” Silly and pedantic, I say.</p>
<p>The one that always gets me is “between you and I.” I’ve made a vow to leave other people’s grammar alone because it is obnoxious to correct them, but I cringe inwardly every time I hear that one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was under the impression it originated with Latin and Latin translation. Latin infinitives are single words and therefore cannot be split, so to do so in English would be to lose the Latin intention.</p>
<p>(Not that Latin’s intentions are ever very clear, mind.)</p>
<p>undecided, you are correct. That is actually the reason some consider it wrong to end a clause with a preposition – because that rule exists and Latin, and obviously every language should have the same rules as Latin does.</p>