Timeline for Non-standard "because" usage - is it valid?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 17, 2011 at 19:08 | comment | added | Jay | @Colin: Well, I don't want to get into a debate, so unless you go off on a different tangent here's my last comment: If it is not a complete sentence, than it is not grammatically correct. Period. If by "wrong" you mean "you shouldn't do it", then no, being grammatically incorrect is not necessarily "wrong". I often write things that are grammatically incorrect for effect. Like just above I wrote "Period.", which is clearly not a complete sentence. It's okay to break the general rules when you have a good reason. It's not okay to break the rules because you don't know any better. | |
| Oct 14, 2011 at 17:20 | vote | accept | Chad Birch | ||
| Oct 11, 2011 at 17:18 | comment | added | Colin Fine | @Jay: Agreed, it is not a complete sentence: it is an elliptic one. That doesn't mean that it is "wrong" or "ungrammatical" - it's just not a full sentence. In some kinds of writing it would not be acceptable as a sentence, but that is a matter of style, not grammar. | |
| Oct 11, 2011 at 15:48 | comment | added | Jay | @Colin: We're off on a tangent, but: If everyone agrees that a word means a certain thing, then that's what it means. It's pointless to say that it "really" means something else because some authority said so or whatever. But grammar rules -- at least some grammar rules -- carry some logic and consistency. "Behind the wall" is not a complete sentence, not because of any convention, but because it does not have a subject. It may be effective in context. But it doesn't matter how often people say it, it's still not a complete sentence. | |
| Oct 10, 2011 at 10:37 | comment | added | Colin Fine | @Jay. We're talking language here, not logic. Often they coincide, sometimes they don't. If a structure is commonly used by native speakers of a language, then it is grammatical (at least in some dialect or register). Neither logic nor authority has anything to do with the question. (I accept that there can be evidential question of what constitutes "commonly") | |
| Oct 7, 2011 at 18:31 | comment | added | Jason Orendorff | @Jay I don't see that as a clause with no subject. I see silent for a while, and alert as an coordination of adjective phrases, joined by and, functioning as predicate nominative. The comma is only there to help the reader parse it. | |
| Oct 7, 2011 at 18:24 | comment | added | Jason Orendorff | @Jay That’s surprising to me. What did you think about silent for a while, but alert? And what do you think about these examples? 1. I sleep only with difficulty; it is cold at night, and damp. 2. I am angry at men, and mistrustful. Both come from COCA. They strike me as impeccable. | |
| Oct 7, 2011 at 16:27 | comment | added | Jay | @Jason: Hmm, I don't think "Jack was silent for a while, and alert" is grammatically correct. "Jack was silent and alert for a while" would certainly be correct. But you can't just rearrange words in a sentence without changing meaning. | |
| Oct 7, 2011 at 16:26 | comment | added | Jay | @Colin: To say "people do this frequently" and "this is correct" are not the same thing. Some rules are arbitrary and can only be defined by common usage -- like the definition of a word. But other rules are based on logical consistency. Having no subject in a clause is a logical inconsistency. | |
| Oct 7, 2011 at 9:46 | comment | added | Colin Fine | Of course it's grammatically correct. As Barrie says, we use ellipsis a great deal in conversation. I agree that this example is awkward, but it is certainly not ungrammatical. | |
| Oct 6, 2011 at 23:52 | comment | added | Jason Orendorff | It’s funny. You can say Jack was silent for a while, and alert or Jack was horizontal for a while, but alert or even Jack was silent for a while, and thus alert. I’m not sure what it is about because that makes it so powerfully wrong here (and it definitely offends my ears too). | |
| Oct 6, 2011 at 21:36 | history | answered | Jay | CC BY-SA 3.0 |