Why English sucks

[Enoch Root]

Pop quiz: which of the following sentences contains a grammatical error?

This sentence is well written.
This is a well written sentence.

Now, most people would be hard-pressed to find a fault in either of them. But the latter is incorrect because of this rule:

Hyphenate the elements of a compound modifier only if that modifier precedes the noun.

"Well written" is a compound modifier, and since in the second sentence it precedes the noun it needs to be hyphenated.  Alright, we get that part. "This is a well-written sentence." I can handle that. Now, which of the following sentences contains a grammatical error?

This is a beautifully-written sentence.
This is a beautifully written sentence.

Compound modifier! Before the noun! Clearly, by our previous rule the first is correct. Ha. No.

Don’t place a hyphen after a word that ends in “ly” â€" even if the word is part of a compound modifier that precedes the noun it modifies.

So the second sentence was correct.  Alright, question 3. Which is correct?

His was a family run business.
His was a family-run business.

Compound modifier, before the noun, but ends in "ly". So, no hyphen. First sentence is correct, yes?

Nope.

The exception is if the “ly” that ends the word is part of the core word itself.

Since the "ly" in family is not a suffix, you need to use a hyphen.  

I will give $100 to the first person to give a logical justification for these rules. I'll start it for you: "These rules make perfect sense and should be rigorously enforced because _________ ".

[curiosityandthecat]

I will give $100 to the first person to give a logical justification for these rules. I'll start it for you: "These rules make perfect sense and should be rigorously enforced because _________ ".

These rules make perfect sense. They should not be rigorously enforced because language is fluid and evolves through usage, not democratic consensus.

Damn. I just lost, didn't I?

(Regarding the hyphenation rule, I always told my students to look at it like this: if you can remove one of the words and the sentence still makes sense, you don't need a hyphen. "A student run newspaper" vs "A student-run newspaper." A student newspaper. A run newspaper. Thus, "A student-run newspaper" is correct.)

[Ihateyoumike]

I will give $100 to the first person to give a logical justification for these rules. I'll start it for you: "These rules make perfect sense and should be rigorously enforced because _________ ".

These rules make perfect sense and should be rigorously enforced because that's how god wants it, and his ways are higher than ours, so stop trying to figure it out.

I'll be sending you a PM with the mailing address where you can send me my $100.

[G.ENIGMA]

I will give $100 to the first person to give a logical justification for these rules. I'll start it for you: "These rules make perfect sense and should be rigorously enforced because _________ ".

These rules make perfect sense and should be rigorously enforced because "if al the peeple oot their cud speek english proper like, no one wud be able te tell the upper class from the riff raff  

[Mister Joy]

Rules of grammar are primarily descriptive. Language is an independent thing that, as curiosityandthecat pointed out, naturally evolves and changes over time. People put full stops at the end of their sentances, this tendency 'evolves' without provocation, so we set it as a convention. These laws are only prescriptive in so far as they are intended to slow down that process, making it easier for distant, future generations to make sense of present day text without having to spend too much time studying the changes. That's the reasoning behind them, essentially, and it worked. Just look at how rapidy language changed before rules of spelling and grammar started to really come into play in the 18th century. Compare our language to Jonathan Swift's (writing at the beginning of the 18th century), then compare Swift's to Chaucer's (late 14th). Swift's English is more or less the same as ours with a few subtle differences in some word meanings, eg. "Bill largely produces cabbages" is now synonymous with "Bill mostly produces cabbages. It's pretty much what Bill does. That's Bill for you: cabbage producer extraordinaire." However, way back when, it simply meant "Bill produces large quantities of cabbages" without necessarily implying that it's what he spends most of his time doing. It would have made sense, with that meaning, to say "Bill is a Harvard professor in quantum physics who largely produces cabbages." You can still read Gulliver's Travels and make perfect sense of it even without knowing most of these though, in all honesty. They're fairly insignificant shifts. Swift, then, would probably have had just as much trouble deciphering Chaucer as we do.

Still, even with that function in mind, this hyphen business is a bit silly. No one pays any attention to it so it's redundant. It actually sounds like it's been made up by a particularly feeble grammarian rather than arrived upon through any genuine study of the language and how it really works.

[Will]

These rules make perfect sense and should be rigorously enforced until they are eaten or in some way replaced by stronger, better adapted rules as a part of the process of natural selection.

But seriously, because of the way languages developed, the rules often have vastly different sources and reasons (if there are reasons), which means that the language inevitably becomes difficult. If one with a great linguistic ability were to set out to create a language which observed consistent, logical, and intuitive rules, we'd all probably be better off, but that's not happened to my knowledge. Should we switch? It might make sense in the long term, but it would represent substantial difficulties in the short term.

[Tanker]

If you think that's bad check this out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_while_John_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_a_better_effect_on_the_teacher

Basicly you can write had 11 times in a row and still write a proper sentence

[Recusant]

If you think that's bad check this out:

The link you gave led eventually to this page, but I had to do some clicking first.

This sentence seems sort of dry and tedious to me compared to the later "Buffalo" sentence, which at least has an element of humor, and only uses one word.  Of course, they were constructed for different reasons, but both point out how confusing language can be. The article I link to  points out that by using journalistic conventions, the sentence can be extended to 21 buffalo.  

[Tanker]

If you think that's bad check this out:

The link you gave led eventually to this page, but I had to do some clicking first.

This sentence seems sort of dry and tedious to me compared to the later "Buffalo" sentence, which at least has an element of humor, and only uses one word.  Of course, they were constructed for different reasons, but both point out how confusing language can be.

Sorry about that it's fixed now. For some reason I can't get the link up any way but the new ridonkulously long one there now

[Bediddle]

lolz

[rlrose328]

I'll see your hyphen/grammar issues and raise you COMMA problems.  :banna:

[Nulono]

We'll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes;

but the plural of ox became oxen not oxes.

One fowl is a goose, but two are called geese,

yet the plural of moose should never be meese.

You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice;

yet the plural of house is houses, not hice.

If the plural of man is always called men,

why shouldn't the plural of pan be called pen?

If I spoke of my foot and show you my feet,

and I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?

If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth,

why shouldn't the plural of booth be called beeth?

Then one may be that, and three would be those,

yet hat in the plural would never be hose,

and the plural of cat is cats, not cose.

We speak of a brother and also of brethren,

but though we say mother we never say methren.

Then the masculine pronouns are he, his and him,

but imagine the feminine, she, shis and shim.

------------------------

Did you know that "verb" is a noun?

How can you look up words in a dictionary if you can't spell them?

If a word is misspelled in a dictionary, how would we ever know?

If two mouses are mice and two louses are lice, why aren't two houses hice?

If Webster wrote the first dictionary, where did he find the words?

Why do 'i did nothing' and "i didn't do nothing' mean the same?

If you've read a book, you can reread it. But wouldn't this also mean that you would have to
"member" somebody in order to remember them?

In Chinese, why are the words for crisis and opportunity the same?

Is there another word for a synonym?

Why can't you make another word using all the letters in "anagram"?

Why do some people type "cool" as "kewl?"

Why do we say something is out of whack? What is a whack?

Why do we say something's out of order when its broken but we never say in of order when it
works?

Why does the Chinese ideogram for trouble symbolize two women living under one roof?

Why does X stand for a kiss and O stand for a hug?

Why don't we say "why" instead of "how come"?

Why is "crazy man" an insult, while to insert a comma and say "Crazy, man!" is a compliment?

Why is abbreviation such a long word?

Why are a wise man and wise guy opposites?

Why is it that no word in the English language rhymes with month, orange, silver, or purple?

Why is it that the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary?

Why is the alphabet in that order? Is it because of that song?

Why isn't "palindrome" spelled the same way backwards? (spelled the same backwards "kayak")

Why isn't phonetic spelled the way it sounds? (spelled like it sounds like, man)

[SallyMutant]

Nulono --cool pome.
Fascinating language, init?
ghoti to all.

[SSY]

The best thing about all the crazy grammar laws is the fact that any sentance, written by anyone, ever, can be found to have something wrong with it. No matter what argument is being fired at you, no matter how perfect it is, and how inadequate your position is, you can reply;

"Well actually, I think you will find that you only hyphenate compound modifiers if the word ends in ly AND it is part of the core word, newb."
Thus winning the argument.

[Bediddle]

The best thing about all the crazy grammar laws is the fact that any sentance, written by anyone, ever, can be found to have something wrong with it. No matter what argument is being fired at you, no matter how perfect it is, and how inadequate your position is, you can reply;

"Well actually, I think you will find that you only hyphenate compound modifiers if the word ends in ly AND it is part of the core word, newb."
Thus winning the argument.

Something not quite right about your use of "Thus winning the argument" there.

But don't worry - all of this is car crash grammar, so I can't speak.