Word order in writing

In these types of situations it's a matter of collocation. There is an established norm that doesn't necessarily fall under a rule and it sounds odd to use something different.

?
Was I correct as it might have sounded odd had reversed the order? (outside the norm)
Oh, Thanks!

It's only a tad odd, to give an example of what I mean by collocation (I am actually streching the meaning a bit):

In Portuguese "Kill two birds with one stone" is "to kill two rabbits with one throw".

Their version isn't wrong but due to our familiarity with our version, to us it would grate on our ears.

So it ends up being a matter of style.

I'd say it is entirely a matter of style, Boss . . .

Some word order is, some isn't (like adverb and adjective word order). But it can be argued that all grammar is a matter of style. I've always said that grammar is just what people accept and has no final authority.

Well, i was referring to this specific case. So long as what is written does not confuse, does not obscure, word order is entirely a matter of style--

Stone Walls do not a Prison make
Nor Iron bars a Cage
Mindes innocent and quiet take
That for an hermitage
If i have freedome in my love
And in my soule am free
Angels alone that soar above
Injoy such liberty.

The word order here may seem to be awfully odd--but, by god, that's got true style . . .

Modern (or really, modern modern) English grammar dictates that much of that word order is not correct.

In the past word order was more flexible so you would have to have a special talent to pull off some of the old grammar allowances. If you don't do it right it sounds wrong, if you do it right it has style.

So in short, you have to have style to make matters of modern grammar matters of style.

e.g.

"be thou familiar"

"Be you familiar" is hard to pull off these days.

Well, Boss, there is a dynamic in all languages, between the rules and usage. Abandon the rules, and communication fails due to mutually incomprehesible speech; restrict usage, and the flexibility of communication dies, and, eventually the language along with it.

In fact, i know this language of the anglo-saxon well enough, that i can address thee in the second person singular without the least difficulty. Thou mayest seek to limit my linguistic expression by a reference to thine rules, but it will signify nought to me. That what i write is incomprehensible to many signifies little to me; i would not "speak down" to thee, as i always assume that thou hast the wit to understand me.

When i answer the telephone, and get a general greeting, i will ask: "To whom did you wish to speak?" I try to use language correctly, but i also have lots of fun with it, and i love it for the beauty which may be released.

By the by, there, CdK, where gettest thou the rules thou namest?

I grew up with old modern English (KJV Bibles and such) so I have no problem with the old rules and vocabulary. I never seek to limit anyone but knowing that many of my students are reading this forum I don't want them to get the impression that they can ignore the rules.

If I told them that word order is not important they'd use adverbs and adjectives out of order like this:

"I always am tired" or "I go always to work by car"

The rule (and I have them in my head now from years of teaching them) is that the adverb generally (I don't feel like listing the myriad exceptions) goes after the to be verb and before a regular verb.

Order is also determined for object of the verb, time and place (among many other strict rules we have about order in modern day English).

This sentence should be in this order, anything else is wrong or archaic (and if they don't know archaic it is simply wrong):

I (subject) always (adverb before verb) take (verb) my son (object of verb) to school (place goes next) by car at arounf 6 AM (time goes here or at the beginning).

I am not imposing rules on you, remember that this forum was created for ESL students and they shouldn't try to emulate the archaic English you are talking about.

I get my rules from varied sources and I don't think any rules are final, they are merely guidelines. If you use something that goes against the rules but can make it sound convincing you can pull it off, rules are more important for ESL students because they aren't making these mistakes for style but because the word order in their tongue is different.

Craven, i understand your caveat about word order for students of what is to them a foreign language, what i question is the provence of your rules. Where do you get them? One of the most obvious examples of rules created by teachers, without portfolio, is the "double negative" rule. Most European languages not only have multiple negatives, they require them. Je ne veut pas manger ni pommes, ni poires, ni cherises . . . . In early modern english, multiple negatives were common. Now, however, generation of tight-assed teachers of english in the US and UK have made the multiple negative taboo, and adduce a silly rule of "logical contradiction." It's all hogwash. I make no distinction in my personal contacts between those who speak the Queen's english with mind-numbing precision, and those who, as immigrants, speak badly, but communicate to me what they wish to communicate.

So, CdK, where'd ya git yer dirty lil' book a rules?

I always, or usually, take the boy, 'bout 6 o'clock, to school, 'cause i got a long drive to work as it is . . .

You'd hear something like that in speech, and it is acceptable, because it works as communication. You're trying to put a straight-jacket on language. I concede your requirements for ESL, but it does not apply to the fluent speakers of this language.

I don't make any attempt to teach native speakers, I generally teach fluent ESL students.

I already said I can't say where my rules come from, sources contradict each other and I make my own call sometimes. I used to use reference books to teach but haven't opened any of them for over a year and keep the rules in my head now. I can honestly say that I have used more than 1000 sources of reference in the last 4+ years so it's futile for me to try to pin down rules to their respective source. I usually weigh them all against each other and make a judgement call (always based on a criteria that features logic heavily in the equation).

In regard to double negative I detest any lack of logic in language. Portuguese is another language that uses double negatives
(in some cases it sounds wrong not to) but in the evolving world of language logic should be our friend not our enemy. I can't countenance incorrect use of double negatives (there are correct uses for them).

If you prefer to call them logical contradictions instead of correct/incorrect that's fine. There is no final authority on grammar so I prefer to use logic as a rule anyway.

Speech is also different from writing, since your train of thought is on the move word order is the first rule to fall in speech. Spoken language is rarely not couched in anything that resembles a sentence.

e.g. I went, yesterday, to Fred's party.

Separating the verb and the object of the verb is wrong, but in speech it's usually an afterthought that was inserted.

Incidentally I agree with you in regard to communication, I am always trying to bend or break languages. I am, however, paid to teach fluent speakers who speak as well or better than the average American. at that level it's hard to teach without pedantry.

Since I'm paid to teach I'd better come up with something for those who already communicate fluently.

Hope yer well paid, Boss, sounds like torture to me . . .

It's great fun. I'm paid to talk to intelligent people in all walks of life and I learn a lot from them. I determine when and where I work or don't work and all I have to do is teach them a language I adore.

But it will all change soon. :-(

i don't think adoration would describe my feelings about ol' angle-ish, Boss, although i enjoy it . . . for pure beauty, give me froggy-talk any time . . .

I love language in general. They reflect on human nature in a way few disciplines do.

Discipline ? ! ? ! ?

We gotta be disciplined about talkin' . . . man, you sure know how to rain on my parade . . .

If you read my posts you'd see I exercise little discipline in my communication. Substitute "studies" for "disciplines" and we might just be able to bring closure to this before I go offline. ;-)

account closed