Showing posts with label Inauthentic Grammar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Inauthentic Grammar. Show all posts

Friday, November 18, 2011

Exercises In Inauthentic Grammar, Number Two: The Reflex Clause


Yes, it's time for another installment of Exercises In Inauthentic Grammar, in which we veer from the educationese term "authentic grammar" and delve into the alternative, yet equally credible (since it too is spoken and written with regularity among some people), world of inauthentic grammar. Today's lesson concerns the reflex clause. I'm sure we're all familiar with the so-called authentic entities known as the reflexive pronoun and the relative clause; well, the reflex clause is a modifying clause (loosely; it's more of an involuntary, culturally ingrained editorial comment) that, like a hammered kneecap or an onioned nose, is difficult to control, as it too, when triggered, quickly asserts its own mind and body with spasmodic emanations. Reflex clauses have long been in existence (read, a bane) but with the advent of computers, word processing software, and continuing generations of so-called smart keyboards, the inauthentic grammar that is the reflex clause is now universal. We've all been there: You start to type something and before you finish the word your screen lights up with what it perceives you intend to write. One quick wham on the return button and the whole thing appears, saving you precious time and energy. The reflex clause is similar--when writing certain words or phrases, an entire clause presents itself to modify the word or phrase you have written. Blame computers who are too familiar with your thought and composition patterns, but even in manual writing (wikipedia that one, kids, if you're clueless) reflex phrases are known to afflict the seasoned scribbler too. Among the governing board of inauthentic grammarians (of which I'm an ex officio emeritus, thank you very much) the standard example of a reflex clause is this dated, but still worth a chuckle or two bon mot: The AMC Pacer, which is built so wide so as to contain the owner's stupidity ... Get the point? If not, here are more examples, both pretty much acknowledged ubiquitous ones and ones more personal to my own partcular writing habits. Study them well so as to beware of them and save yourself time erasing, scratching out, deleting; or, if you're not much a proofreader, to spare yourself future public embarrassment.
  • Pittsburgh, ooohhhh, yuck ...
  • Metal detector aficionados, really folks, get a life already ...
  • Lindsay Lohan, the troubled hoyden ...
  • Clevelanders, my sympathies ...
  • Sarah Palin, just go away ...
  • Mushrooms, look out, I'm gonna heave ...
  • Bob Dylan, god ...
  • LeBron James, #$@&*! ...
  • Bacon, right here, garcon, schnell! ...
  • The upcoming Presidential election, Oh god, not again ...
  • Exacerbate, stop laughing class; it simply means to aggravate, to increase the severity of ...
  • As Al Gore said, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ...
  • Dancing With The Stars, nope, never seen it ...
  • Guinness, you had me at G- ...
  • Stuffing, I'm staying! ...
  • Regular readers of spitoutyourgum, I love you I love you I love you ...

Friday, October 28, 2011

Exercises In Inauthentic Grammar, Number One: The Co-Dependent Clause


I hear that in education these days there is something called "authentic grammar assessment." Ah, I love educationalese, love any -ese, really. Being a contrarian and a Gemini, naturally, I like to consider the yang to any yin and vice versa or whatever. So, here is the first in a series of exercises in inauthentic grammar.

Although I know it's past four in the morning and you're not in the best mood and I promise this won't be like last time (yes, I looked up the word harangue and I'm sorry if I came off that way but I promise this won't be anything like that) and you know I don't like to meddle--would rather be known as a haranguer than a meddler any old day--and this may not seem to make much sense and I know me making sense isn't a regular enough occurrence, at least the way you see it, and by that I'm not saying that you need some kind of communication bi-focals or something, I only mean we're two different people, right, and sometimes it can be difficult (no, I promised myself I wouldn't use that word, sorry), it can be a challenge, not that you're not up for a challenge and that you don't meet them head on, but, where was I, oh, it can be daunting, how's that, daunting, to not only walk in someone else's shoes but just putting them on, feeling comfortable and all (and anyway I hope and pray and trust that what I am saying, or am about to say, really, I hope that it in no way changes anything between us, beyond, of course, recognizing--both of us, recognizing--that what I say could be something that maybe changes us, for the better of course, not that I'm saying we, you, us, need to change, just entertaining the possibility that, you know, as they say, change is good, I mean not for change's sake, naturally, but you know, if the prospect of change is available and all and seems like maybe it might be kind of a good idea, from your perspective, of course, we're talking what you want, obviously, right, you understand that, right, and really after all is said and done, any change in, well, anything, would be, could be, a pretty small one, relatively speaking meaning of course you would have to assess it and measure it according to your scale of small, medium, or large, two people, you know, two different perspectives and all not that I'm like some auditor or something doubting the accuracy of your, you know, measuring instruments, or anything, I'm just saying, you know, and really all of this, well not all of this, but all of this I'm about to say, is only meant as a suggestion, okay, you understand that, right) and I apologize for rambling on a bit, please note that, that I started this all with an apology, I just want to say ...