4 ms·

So if breaking grammar provides certain effects, wouldn't the standardization of such constructs into canon grammar diminish the effect?

devindotcom 14y ago
In other words, can exceptions to rules be rules themselves?
tmoertel 14y ago
I came, I saw, I conquered. Those words are powerful, but not because they form a comma splice. That is, their power does not derive from failing the model's rules. Rather, the model's rules fail to capture that those words are powerful. (Or even allowed.) Again, grammar is a model. A model that people don't actually use to communicate with one another. Nobody hears words and constructs a parse tree to figure out what they mean. So what's encoded in the model (or not) has little effect on the effect that the words actually have. Change the model all you want. Nobody will hear any differently. EDIT: P.S. When I wrote that rhetoric was "breaking grammar for effect," I didn't mean to imply that the effect of rhetoric came from breaking grammar. Rather, I meant that the focus in rhetoric is on the effect and, because grammar fails to admit many effective phrasings, rhetoric necessarily "breaks grammar" from the outset.
- devindotcom 14y ago
  But would "Came I saw, conquered I I" have made as much of an impression? Deviating from a ruleset is different from failing to adhere to it at all.
  - tmoertel 14y ago
    My claim wasn't that there was no rhyme or reason to human communication but rather that grammar does not capture that rhyme and reason, just a small part of it. That is, there is no "rule set" in reality. Nevertheless, you can create a rule set that describes some of reality. Just don't start thinking it's the real thing.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- tgrass 14y ago
  ?veni, vidi, vici failed the model?
- FreakLegion 14y ago
  Not the best illustration, as there's no such thing as a comma splice in Latin (or most other languages, actually, including English a century or two ago). There is however a rhetorical term for the construction: asyndeton.
  - tmoertel 14y ago
    Can you help me understand why you believe that my example was a poor choice? I offered a sentence in English and made the claims that (1) it was powerful and (2) not admitted by the grammars that govern such constructions. I thought that these were necessary and sufficient to make my point. Do you believe that either of these claims is false (or somehow depends on what's true or false for Latin)? Thanks for your help!
    - FreakLegion 14y ago
      "Not the best illustration" isn't equivalent to "poor choice." Caesar isn't a bad example, per se, just not the best one. I'm simply saying (re: "A large part of rhetoric, for example, is breaking grammar for effect") that an example from a language where no grammatical rule has been broken isn't the most apropos. You may have given the sentence in English, but everyone knows its provenance. Here's one from English, in honor of the upcoming holiday: Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. As far as your claims, (2) is contentious. Some grammars rail against the evils of the comma splice, others acknowledge its place and provide more nuanced guidelines for proper use. It's never been a cut-and-dried issue. I personally disagree with (1) for English while agreeing with it for Latin, but that is neither here nor there.
      - tmoertel 14y ago
        Thanks for your feedback. I think I now understand your argument and, while I have a hard time believing the claims upon which it rests, I believe that reasonable people could believe them.

devindotcom 14y ago

In other words, can exceptions to rules be rules themselves?

tmoertel 14y ago

I came, I saw, I conquered. Those words are powerful, but not because they form a comma splice. That is, their power does not derive from failing the model's rules. Rather, the model's rules fail to capture that those words are powerful. (Or even allowed.) Again, grammar is a model. A model that people don't actually use to communicate with one another. Nobody hears words and constructs a parse tree to figure out what they mean. So what's encoded in the model (or not) has little effect on the effect that the words actually have. Change the model all you want. Nobody will hear any differently. EDIT: P.S. When I wrote that rhetoric was "breaking grammar for effect," I didn't mean to imply that the effect of rhetoric came from breaking grammar. Rather, I meant that the focus in rhetoric is on the effect and, because grammar fails to admit many effective phrasings, rhetoric necessarily "breaks grammar" from the outset.

devindotcom 14y ago
But would "Came I saw, conquered I I" have made as much of an impression? Deviating from a ruleset is different from failing to adhere to it at all.
- tmoertel 14y ago
  My claim wasn't that there was no rhyme or reason to human communication but rather that grammar does not capture that rhyme and reason, just a small part of it. That is, there is no "rule set" in reality. Nevertheless, you can create a rule set that describes some of reality. Just don't start thinking it's the real thing.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
tgrass 14y ago
?veni, vidi, vici failed the model?
FreakLegion 14y ago
Not the best illustration, as there's no such thing as a comma splice in Latin (or most other languages, actually, including English a century or two ago). There is however a rhetorical term for the construction: asyndeton.
- tmoertel 14y ago
  Can you help me understand why you believe that my example was a poor choice? I offered a sentence in English and made the claims that (1) it was powerful and (2) not admitted by the grammars that govern such constructions. I thought that these were necessary and sufficient to make my point. Do you believe that either of these claims is false (or somehow depends on what's true or false for Latin)? Thanks for your help!
  - FreakLegion 14y ago
    "Not the best illustration" isn't equivalent to "poor choice." Caesar isn't a bad example, per se, just not the best one. I'm simply saying (re: "A large part of rhetoric, for example, is breaking grammar for effect") that an example from a language where no grammatical rule has been broken isn't the most apropos. You may have given the sentence in English, but everyone knows its provenance. Here's one from English, in honor of the upcoming holiday: Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. As far as your claims, (2) is contentious. Some grammars rail against the evils of the comma splice, others acknowledge its place and provide more nuanced guidelines for proper use. It's never been a cut-and-dried issue. I personally disagree with (1) for English while agreeing with it for Latin, but that is neither here nor there.
    - tmoertel 14y ago
      Thanks for your feedback. I think I now understand your argument and, while I have a hard time believing the claims upon which it rests, I believe that reasonable people could believe them.