Yeah, that Shakespeare guy couldn’t write his way out of a paper bag. :rolleyes:
What an incredibly silly comment.
Almost any discussion we might have about the rules and habits of spelling, grammar, and usage are really quite specific to the modern era. Despite your silly comment, you’re probably well aware that the English language had yet to be regularized, in the modern sense, during the age of Shakespeare.
On the one hand, the fact that Shakespeare did not conform to our modern notions of regularized English does not make him a bad writer. And, conversely, the fact that we have regularized the language over the last couple of centuries is not a slur on his good name. In fact, i would go so far as to say that regularization is a good thing precisely because most people will never be able to write with the brilliance and communicative ability of William Shakespeare. Having some basic rules of spelling, grammar, and usage helps to make writing clearer, and facilitates understanding.
I’m no hidebound prescriptivist. I recognize that, even when people don’t follow the rules, we can often work out what they mean. And i also recognize that some people break the rules intentionally for dramatic effect, for emphasis, or for some other specific reason. I also think some rules are more useful than others; while a split infinitive very rarely reduces the clarity of a sentence (indeed, going out of one’s way to avoid a split infinitive can make some sentences sounds awkward), maintaining the restrictive/non-restrictive distinction for that/which is useful because it does help to avoid confusion, in my opinion.
When i teach my college-level history classes, one of the first things i tell my students is that i expect good spelling and grammar, and appropriate usage (for formal writing) from all of them. I even tell them about Shakespeare, and about how things like regular spelling and rules of grammar were less important in the 16th century than they are now. But i also tell them pretty much what i’ve said here: that modern rules are useful, and that while there can be very good reasons for breaking them, you should know what they are and how they work before you do that.
But I cannot think of an example where adhering closely to the rule, as Gardner advocates, actually enhances clarity. Are there any clear examples? The previous examples of cars purchased before 1995 aren’t, as to me “all the cars, that were purchased before 1995, need to have their brakes replaced” and “all the cars, which were purchased before 1995, need to have their brakes replaced” have exactly the same meaning, the same as “all the cars that were purchased before 1995 need to have their brakes replaced” and “all the cars which were purchased before 1995 need to have their brakes replaced” do.
To me, Jamaika a jamaikaiaké’s examples also have exactly the same meaning, so it’s unclear why one would prefer the other in this case.
Clearly, everyone can agree that the following justification from Gardner is particularly stupid:
Did it not occur to you that that might be part of my point? Maybe Shakespeare was able to be as good as he was for precisely that reason.
However, if you want to insist that any reference to writing outside the modern era is “silly,” maybe you will like it better put this way:
Silly enough for ya!
The main difference between the usage of “that” and “which” in the US vs. the UK is not to be found in the fine details of grammar prescriptivists, but the vulgar (ungrammatical) use of “what” in the same place. In either country few would bat an eye at someone saying either of the following sentences:
All the cars that were purchased before 1995 need to have their airbags replaced.
All the cars which were purchased before 1995 need to have their airbags replaced.
But I have the feeling only someone from the eastern side of the Atlantic seaboard could ever utter, All the cars what were bought before '95…
Of course I should add that my appreciation of casual British speech is mainly from TV and movies. (My colleagues from London and Edinburgh speak perfectly well, if sometimes with an unintelligible accent :))
To me, this statement is ambiguous. It’s not clear whether this describes all the cars or refers to a pre-1995 subset of them.
Why are there commas in that sentence (“all the cars, that were purchased before 1995, need to have their brakes replaced”)? Leaving them out, the sentence is clear to me. It’s meant to limit the reference to those cars that were purchased before 1995 out of the larger selection of cars.