Poking the Bear

“If you have any young friends who aspire to become writers, the second greatest favor you can do them is to present them with copies of The Elements of Style. The first greatest, of course, is to shoot them now, while they’re happy.” ― Dorothy Parker 

"The past is always tense, the future perfect"  - Zadie Smith

"A synonym is a word you use when you can't spell the other one.” 
― Baltasar Gracián

English is screwy.  Speaking it is simple; little kids can do it. Written English is another story. Grammar, spelling and so, so many words to chose from.

As a blog author, I am of course concerned with proper grammar, mainly to avoid embarrassment. But some of you out their are overly sensitive to it’s misuse. You know whom you are (and so do I). This post’s for you, and all other grammaphobes. Your the target audience. Your head may literally explode. I expect that a some of you will require psychiatric care if you read to the end. 

Disclaimer: I will not accept any liability for personal injury.

OK, bare with me.  I think this might peak your interest.

First off, let’s get this ending a sentence with a supposition out of the way right away. No less then famed orator Winston Churchill has debunked this. “This is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put.”

And give the power of the lowly comma it’s do. A panda walks into a bar. “Eats, shoots and leaves”. (Alternatively, “Eats shoots and leaves.”)

I love words and word play. I credit this that since before school age, my mother read to me. So, in gratitude, I throw mom from the present a kiss. Furthermore, I past grammar school, so I am imminently qualified to blogify - ponderous and frivolous, he writes his prose. I pledge to boldly split infinitives, to diligently endeavor to completely annoy you. Of course, theres really no consequences for these errors. So I go, threw the glass darkly.

I recently read Louise Erdich The Master Butchers Singing Club.  I thought of launching such a business but I would need a couple of tenors for sausages and a couple sopranos for liverwurst. Everyone are against the idea, so since I always be realistic, I should of known better and nipped the idea in the butt.

After decline for the past few months, I need some new strategies with my blog. Bloggers are always trying to increase readership. Thats the straw that beds the calf pen. But what could provide the desired affect? Maybe a dramatic change. I am determined to make my future posts more inciteful. However, I could care less about numbers. I know y'all like critics more than me.

So. How many grammar or usage errors did you count? Submit your answer. I will publish a markup and the professor's grade in a later post.

There remains the most contentious grammar dispute in the nation’s history.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

“The question is whether the right to bear arms is related directly to service in a militia, or whether it’s an individual right conferred on every American. Opponents of gun control favor an individual rights reading, ignoring or minimizing the militia’s presence in the Second Amendment.”

When interpreting legal texts, including the Constitution, originalists insist on relying on original meaning at the time the law was adopted. Justice Antonin Scalia was the most well-known originalist on the Supreme Court. But Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, Justice Thomas and Justice Barrett are also associated with this view. It is certainly important to understand the Founders' intent as well as precedents through the years when deliberating a case. However,  I cannot accept that judges must defer to their understanding of those 1787 framers' intent and ignore contemporary frames of reference. Do you believe the Framers had “Citizens United” in mind when they included freedom of speech in the 1st amendment?

Nevertheless, what were the grammar rules in 1787 that the Constitution authors relied upon? (You must admit the 2nd amendment is an awkward sentence.) According to those 1787 grammar rules, the sentence structure of the 2nd amendment binds the right to bear arms to service in the militia.

Why does "A well regulated militia" introduce the amendment? Because the second part can’t happen without the first. Lindley Murray illustrates the structure in his school grammar published in 1795.  “His father dying, he succeeded to the estate.” Because the father dies, the son inherits. The 2nd amendment has the same cause and effect structure - because a well-regulated militia is necessary, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed  i.e. the right to keep and bear arms is essential for maintaining a militia. Additionally, the phrase "bear arms" was then and is today a term almost exclusively associated with the military. You do not "bear arms" against a gopher. 

For the record, I support the right to own a gun, but with some caveats.  I do not believe a private citizen should be able to purchase military style weaponry, large capacity magazines, untraceable ghost guns or be able to purchase a weapon without a background check (perhaps with a waiting period) or at unregulated gun shows. 

A recent Politico poll found that two-thirds of Americans favor common sense gun control.  83% support universal background checks. 76% support banning people on federal watch lists from owing a gun. 70% support a national database of gun sales.

Let's calm the waters and cool the inflammatory language. "They" are not coming for our guns. There are more guns (390 million) than people in the USA. Our children are being killed. Let's come together and pass reasonable laws that most people want. 

Copyright ©  2021  Dave Hoplin