5 ms·

There's no rulebook when it comes to syntax (grammar), unless you're a prescriptivist. There is plenty of precedent for embedding subclauses (e.g., "Here is a s

There's no rulebook when it comes to syntax (grammar), unless you're a prescriptivist. There is plenty of precedent for embedding subclauses (e.g., "Here is a sentence, that I just made up, which has an embedded subclause."), but -- beyond anecdotal data -- there is no hard cut-off point to how many times you are permitted to embed. Empirically, most people don't like more than one level, but plenty of people allow it; thus it becomes more a function of cerebral load than it does an argument of permitted structures.

morgante 11y ago
If you're arguing over technicalities, you are inherently adopting a prescriptivist approach. There are two possible approaches to your sentence and neither renders it grammatically correct. A prescriptivist would dismiss it as not being allowed by any rules while a descriptivist would point out that it defies both common usage and intelligibility.
- Natanael_L 11y ago
  I would argue there's a large grey zone. It isn't binary, I'd say it is more of a spectrum between prescriptivism and descriptivism. After all, grammar and syntax isn't fully randomized even if largely arbitary. We make certain choices (even if we aren't aware of it) prescriptively which we try to teach each other (even if we aren't aware of it), and the mixing and noise creates a set of choices in the language actively in use that simply needs to be described for what it is. There's recurring patterns of various sources. And if they allow one sentence to be understood by members of the intended audience that knows the common rules and context and usage well, then that's as valid as it gets. Even if only very few can understand it, the fact that it is possible is enough. A bit like HTML in browsers - there's the written rules and there's what browsers do anyway, and what's valid in real life is whatever gets the point across.
- Tenhundfeld 11y ago
  I disagree, and FWIW, I find your tone hostile. A prescriptivist would say it follows allowed grammar rules but is still unintelligible. A descriptivist would say it follows common usage patterns but takes it to such an extreme as to be unintelligible. You see this pattern more often with proper names: - That's the house Jack built. - That's the woman the house Jack built fell on. - That's the lawyer the woman the house Jack built fell on hired. - That's the briefcase the lawyer the woman the house Jack built fell on hired carried. At what point does it become "incorrect"? When it becomes unintelligible to most native speakers? It's also worth noting these sentences seem much stranger in writing than they do when heard. In writing, most sane people will use punctuation in the examples above. But in speaking, our tone of voice conveys enough context to use more streamlined structures.
  - morgante 11y ago
    > At what point does it become "incorrect"? When it becomes unintelligible to most native speakers? Beyond 1 level of nesting. There's no rule allowing arbitrary nesting, nor do people commonly nest beyond 1 level. I'm not sure where you saw hostility in my comment.
    - Tenhundfeld 11y ago
      Can you point me to the rule disallowing arbitrary nesting? I'm not aware of a rule existing in either direction, besides vague guidelines to write clearly. Also, which example is 1 level of nesting? I think "That's the woman the house Jack built fell on." is 2 levels nesting, and I frequently hear constructs like that – in speaking. I agree it's rarer in writing though. For example: What server is that? That's the server the consultant Jack brought in set up. I'd never write that, because it's confusing. But I will naturally say things like that, without any problem in clarity, because you have more granular control over grouping and pausing, etc. If I said a sentence like that, you might hear it more as "That's the server the-consultant-Jack-brought-in set up." Anyway, sorry if I misread your tone. It just came across very much as "I know what's right, and you're wrong." That might have been me projecting though. :)
    - kenbellows 11y ago
      By and large, the rules I learned in various English and grammar classes, beyond the initial sentence structure, were prohibitive rather than permissive; there's no rule explicitly _allowing_ arbitrary nesting, because why would need a rule to specify that, but there's also no rule that I'm aware of that _prohibits_ arbitrary nesting. In fact, the "rule" that matters here is general sentence structure. It's fine to embed a single secondary clause inside a primary clause: That's the woman [the house Jack built] fell on. The structure of the inner clause has no further restrictions on it than the structure of the outer clause. Thus, the entire above sentence is perfectly valid as an inner clause to a new outer clause: That's the lawyer [the woman <the house Jack built> fell on] hired. There's nothing in any grammar book that I'm aware of explicitly prohibiting infinite nesting of this sort; it's just silly and quickly becomes unintelligible. Though I definitely take Tenhundfeld's point that this sort of structure is a lot more common in spoken language, and in fact it's a lot more easily comprehensible with the aid of vocal cues and tones.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  > If you're arguing over technicalities, you are inherently adopting a prescriptivist approach. How so? Surely there is room for debate within descriptivism as to what constitutes evidence of something being used?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
chris_st 11y ago
> There's no rulebook when it comes to syntax (grammar), unless you're a prescriptivist. And no two prescriptivists can agree on which rulebook to use!
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

morgante 11y ago

If you're arguing over technicalities, you are inherently adopting a prescriptivist approach. There are two possible approaches to your sentence and neither renders it grammatically correct. A prescriptivist would dismiss it as not being allowed by any rules while a descriptivist would point out that it defies both common usage and intelligibility.

Natanael_L 11y ago
I would argue there's a large grey zone. It isn't binary, I'd say it is more of a spectrum between prescriptivism and descriptivism. After all, grammar and syntax isn't fully randomized even if largely arbitary. We make certain choices (even if we aren't aware of it) prescriptively which we try to teach each other (even if we aren't aware of it), and the mixing and noise creates a set of choices in the language actively in use that simply needs to be described for what it is. There's recurring patterns of various sources. And if they allow one sentence to be understood by members of the intended audience that knows the common rules and context and usage well, then that's as valid as it gets. Even if only very few can understand it, the fact that it is possible is enough. A bit like HTML in browsers - there's the written rules and there's what browsers do anyway, and what's valid in real life is whatever gets the point across.
Tenhundfeld 11y ago
I disagree, and FWIW, I find your tone hostile. A prescriptivist would say it follows allowed grammar rules but is still unintelligible. A descriptivist would say it follows common usage patterns but takes it to such an extreme as to be unintelligible. You see this pattern more often with proper names: - That's the house Jack built. - That's the woman the house Jack built fell on. - That's the lawyer the woman the house Jack built fell on hired. - That's the briefcase the lawyer the woman the house Jack built fell on hired carried. At what point does it become "incorrect"? When it becomes unintelligible to most native speakers? It's also worth noting these sentences seem much stranger in writing than they do when heard. In writing, most sane people will use punctuation in the examples above. But in speaking, our tone of voice conveys enough context to use more streamlined structures.
- morgante 11y ago
  > At what point does it become "incorrect"? When it becomes unintelligible to most native speakers? Beyond 1 level of nesting. There's no rule allowing arbitrary nesting, nor do people commonly nest beyond 1 level. I'm not sure where you saw hostility in my comment.
  - Tenhundfeld 11y ago
    Can you point me to the rule disallowing arbitrary nesting? I'm not aware of a rule existing in either direction, besides vague guidelines to write clearly. Also, which example is 1 level of nesting? I think "That's the woman the house Jack built fell on." is 2 levels nesting, and I frequently hear constructs like that – in speaking. I agree it's rarer in writing though. For example: What server is that? That's the server the consultant Jack brought in set up. I'd never write that, because it's confusing. But I will naturally say things like that, without any problem in clarity, because you have more granular control over grouping and pausing, etc. If I said a sentence like that, you might hear it more as "That's the server the-consultant-Jack-brought-in set up." Anyway, sorry if I misread your tone. It just came across very much as "I know what's right, and you're wrong." That might have been me projecting though. :)
  - kenbellows 11y ago
    By and large, the rules I learned in various English and grammar classes, beyond the initial sentence structure, were prohibitive rather than permissive; there's no rule explicitly _allowing_ arbitrary nesting, because why would need a rule to specify that, but there's also no rule that I'm aware of that _prohibits_ arbitrary nesting. In fact, the "rule" that matters here is general sentence structure. It's fine to embed a single secondary clause inside a primary clause: That's the woman [the house Jack built] fell on. The structure of the inner clause has no further restrictions on it than the structure of the outer clause. Thus, the entire above sentence is perfectly valid as an inner clause to a new outer clause: That's the lawyer [the woman <the house Jack built> fell on] hired. There's nothing in any grammar book that I'm aware of explicitly prohibiting infinite nesting of this sort; it's just silly and quickly becomes unintelligible. Though I definitely take Tenhundfeld's point that this sort of structure is a lot more common in spoken language, and in fact it's a lot more easily comprehensible with the aid of vocal cues and tones.
TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
> If you're arguing over technicalities, you are inherently adopting a prescriptivist approach. How so? Surely there is room for debate within descriptivism as to what constitutes evidence of something being used?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

chris_st 11y ago

> There's no rulebook when it comes to syntax (grammar), unless you're a prescriptivist. And no two prescriptivists can agree on which rulebook to use!

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]