Feb 26, 2009
Beware of the oversimplification of grammar school grammar.
Like this post?
Adverbs modify verbs, right?
Nope, they modify verb phrases.
The difference is a matter of 2 years in jail for Ignacio Flores-Figueroa.
* * * * *
© 2012 Abuyo. All rights reserved.
The article was really funny – especially since I just taught Oedipus in my High School literature class. Thanks for today’s laugh and it is still before 8 AM!
Adverbs also modify adjectives and other adverbs.
The fact that such a phrase is being parsed and re-parsed illustrates we are losing the language (which loss is often advanced by folks with less than shiny motives).
And I’m so glad for those, like the writer of the article linked, who are willing to take it on, parse the parsing, and drag the heart of the thing into the light.
hey! i just stumbled into (quite literally, there was physical contact) jason merchant in the department lounge. sweet.
i don’t see how this case means we’re “losing the language”, though. it seems more like defense lawyers trying to play, in the popular sense, the “semantics” game.
but native speakers know: nobody who heard a sentence like “Oedipus knowingly married a woman who was his mother” would then ask, “Did he know the woman was his mother?”
Carissa, maybe my choice of phrase was not the best. By “losing the language” I simply mean that something that should be commonly understood no longer is. Parsing wouldn’t be necessary if there was general agreement about what was being said.
I agree completely with your second paragraph. I think the semantics game illustrates what I mean when I say we are “losing the language” . Otherwise, there would be no need to claim the “semantics” perspective and start with the detailed clarifications.
However, having said that, I will acknowledge again that my choice of phrase may not be the best.
I’m just glad to know the Supreme Court is tackling such important cases in times like these.
Please excuse me if I seemingly go down a short rabbit trail! My trail hopefully leads back curvingly to adverbs, or at least grammar in the courts, and our judicial system.
I’ve been honored and privileged (they tell me) to serve as a juror on two occasions. Being a juror has been eye-opening, mind-expanding and mostly a beautiful reminder of the undeserved grace and mercy of God because in court the depravity and prattle of mankind seems magnified!
Lawyers arguing over words (a word!), trying to masterfully lie, shift blame and get anywhere but to the point shamefully clogs the courts.
Also,
If jurors had to be elite grammarians as a prerequisite to serving on the jury, it would make jury selection all the more difficult and time consuming!
If strict grammarians were selected, it would probably take even longer (and it already takes a long time) for a ruling since grammarians could argue and discuss grammar/words/rules ,,, all day, thus muddling communication!
In conclusion, I humbly admit that If being a grammarian were a prerequisite for being a juror, I’d surely be disqualified!
I love the flock of comments to this post! Many of us are already grammar bewarers.
So if Ignacio understood English grammar better he wouldn’t have broken the law?
Actually, it’s the courts who are interpreting the sentence in a way no normal English speaker would. If it was interpreted naturally, Ignacio would have an excuse.
I wish someone would steal my identity to pay Social Security taxes in my name.
Seriously, identity theft laws were designed to protect people from having their credit ruined by thieves. The accused in this case was attempting to use a fake ID in order to secure a job, which would then require him to pay taxes that would directly benefit the person whose identity he stole.