1

How do people feel about grammatically incorrect sentences within literature? For example, consider the following sentence.

How sad if we pass through life and never see it with the eyes of a child.

I was doing an online search of the most beautiful sentences in literature. I've noticed that many sentences that writers deem the most beautiful are grammatically incorrect. Elements of Style suggests that this is ok as long as the "emphasis is warranted" (Rule 1.6), but there seems to be so many. How do academics/writers feel about this?

Is it ok if writing is full of incomplete sentences?

I know the ultimate purpose of writing is about communication. So even if it's grammatically wrong, does it matter if the message is clear?

On the other hand, poor grammar does lead to confusion and misinterpretation. Many times, it's born of laziness. For these reasons, it's not something we should condone.

I'm trying to figure out how I should feel about this. How do most writers feel?

What should teachers tell their students when writing academic essays?

QuietInMontana
  • 11
  • "How do most writers feel?" defines the question as opinion. But, yes, occasional exceptions make the rule. – Yosef Baskin Nov 10 '23 at 21:41
  • 1
    If the example exclamatory sentence isn't grammatical, that's grammar's fault, not the writer's. – Jack O'Flaherty Nov 10 '23 at 21:55
  • 6
    Elements of Style is not a good source. It's full of nonsense, so don't take its word on grammaticality. There's nothing wrong with the sentence. – John Lawler Nov 10 '23 at 22:59
  • There are characters in literature, you know, like Huckleberry Finn. BTW, ok is less common than OK, but neither one was okay two generations ago; but old rule makers retire and pass on…and the young ones cheer: 'Yay! That -ay ending was literally dragging me down; really tho, ugh.' And so it goes… – HippoSawrUs Nov 11 '23 at 04:14
  • See On what grounds does one determine the grammatical acceptability of a sentence fragment?. – Edwin Ashworth Nov 11 '23 at 13:03
  • @EdwinAshworth Thanks for the link, but it doesn't really address my question. I wasn't asking whether it's acceptable. I was asking where is the line. Or, where should it be. It appears that writers are pretty loose with their grammar. And, I'm wondering if this is ok. One one hand, writing is ultimately about effective communication. If the message is clear, what's the problem? On the other hand, for the majority of people, terrible grammar leads to ineffective communication. – QuietInMontana Nov 11 '23 at 16:20
  • @JohnLawler I found your comment surprising (that Elements of Style is nonsense) because I found it very helpful. I do think it's wrong that many people tend to blindly follow its directives. Which parts did you dislike/find wrong? Are there any books you would recommend to improve academic writing? How about grammar? – QuietInMontana Nov 11 '23 at 16:47
  • @JackO'Flaherty What do you mean it's grammar's fault? Are you arguing that it's ok as long as the meaning is clear and effective? Should we just ignore grammar rules? What will teachers do! Don't you think it's a bit odd that we don't have a centralized authority that promulgates grammar rules? Or, that correct grammar is what literary "experts" happen to agree upon today? Or, there isn't a centralized authority that takes control and cleans up this mess of the English language? – QuietInMontana Nov 11 '23 at 16:56
  • @HippoSawrUs Yep, English is in constant flux. It seems like an insanely inefficient method. I wonder why there isn't a government authority tasked with improving the English language and promulgating a clear set of rules. I know this sounds like hyperbole, but I think it does tremendous harm to society. For example, the fact that a word may have multiple, contradictory definitions seems absurd to me. Or, we have words that have exact synonyms. – QuietInMontana Nov 11 '23 at 17:10
  • It's a paraphrase of your question. 'Grammatical acceptability' isn't well-defined; it's not absolute. Svartvik and Quirk, in Investigating Linguistic Acceptability (1966), proposed a five-point scale for the degree of acceptability of individual grammatical constructions. In tests with usage panels, some practised (graduate, I believe) students disagreed on the grammaticality of certain sentences, and the professors judged that there was no 'right answer'. / And as for 'where should the line be?': even the French, who have their Académie to rule on such matters, won't be dictated to. – Edwin Ashworth Nov 11 '23 at 17:24
  • @QuietInMontana - Yes, lately I've been stuggling with Titular vs. Eponymous, but I guess they're just synonyms (in one sense of titular), whereas a contronym has two opposite meanings. I used to be hung up on "the rules" (as well you should be for academic writing), but usage is what determines how far we've come, together as a people…vs. groups of like-minded students, which would be fine, easier in fact, until we have to go outside and really communicate with everybody. – HippoSawrUs Nov 11 '23 at 18:32
  • @HippoSawrUs I'm a teacher in secondary education (not just English but multiple subjects), so I need to figure out what to tell my students. I like to vent how infuriating English is. – QuietInMontana Nov 12 '23 at 16:10
  • @EdwinAshworth The link discusses whether sentence fragments are grammatically acceptable and the basis of that acceptance. I was more curious about the extent we should allow because incorrect grammar appears rampant in literature. (I'm a teacher so I need to know what to tell my students.) In any case, I think I found an "answer". Use grammar as a guide towards effective communication. Follow it until it gets in the way of the message (as it frequently does). And if the message is clear, it doesn't matter. I guess it's how laws should work in our society. – QuietInMontana Nov 12 '23 at 16:33
  • @EdwinAshworth Btw, are there any books you would recommend for grammar or academic writing? – QuietInMontana Nov 12 '23 at 16:38
  • There's the resources page where there are various recommendations ... but they don't always agree (but mainly on analysis). If you're teaching with an examination syllabus in mind, the problem is that the board will have expectations that are (1) often over-prescriptive and (2) sometimes not in line with modern grammar. But you don't want the students to be penalised. I've been there, though maths was less of a problem. There was a crazy situation where the spelling 'sulphur' was required in ('UK') English but forbidden in chemistry. The acceptability of fragments ... – Edwin Ashworth Nov 12 '23 at 16:53
  • has been handled well in certain answers on ELU, but there are doubtless some who would say 'They're not (syntavtic: subject + finite verb required) sentences and therefore wrong.' Other shibboleths (splitting the to-infinitive; subjective after copular verbs; ending sentences with prepositions ... all unacceptable) are famous and hopefully on the way out. But you need to teach to the syllabus, or change it. // I'd wager that a strict grammarian would downmark the fragment you give, while a poet would add a bonus mark for style. [Decent] grammar books wouldn't help with 'correctness' here ... – Edwin Ashworth Nov 12 '23 at 16:59
  • a writing-style guide is where to look for the best advice in these debated areas (ELU doesn't really get involved with the niceties of style, preferring debates which might just have an answer most agree on). But I'm speaking as one who's left exams far behind. – Edwin Ashworth Nov 12 '23 at 17:02
  • @EdwinAshworth The book recommendation wasn't for this issue. I meant if there was a book on writing in general you like. If there was one that particularly helped you as a writer. – QuietInMontana Nov 12 '23 at 17:09
  • I wouldn't label myself 'a writer'. I've read a lot of well-written books (and quite a few others). – Edwin Ashworth Nov 12 '23 at 19:58
  • That sentence you posted as beautiful shows no particular flaw. Poor grammar is something else altogether. I wish he went with me yesterday. That is poor grammar. – Lambie Dec 06 '23 at 21:23

1 Answers1

4

This may not be a real answer. But the sentence you cited isn't grammatically incorrect; it's a verbless exclamative clause (Huddleston & Pullum (2002), p. 921). It has the same syntactic structure as a sentence like "How fantastic!" or "What a delight!", except with a conditional added. In this construction, the subject is understood, and the verb to be is omitted; we understand it as "How sad it is if we pass through life and never see it with the eyes of a child."

alphabet
  • 18,217