Your points are well taken and I agree that some people are too uptight when it comes to grammar. Many of your examples are taken from dialogue. Normal speech is much more casual than the written word. I would not complain too loudly if someone ended a spoken sentence with a preposition, however I may judge him or her more severely if he or she had written it.

I think this is technically accurate, but falls short of a real discussion. Beginning sentences with a conjunction has a definite stylistic feel that doesn't match the writing that students are tasked with doing in school...or most formal writing. So, yes, of course there are situations when it's fine to begin a sentence with a conjunction, but it isn't the whole story to convey it as attractive secret knowledge that the concept has no constructive purpose at all.

An article that makes one think, draws on emotions and brings on intelligent debate. 87 well thought out comments and 14,ooo likes on Facebook. Well done! Not too mention, I feel better now about my grammar skills than I have a right to.

This completely misses the point. Of course infinitives can be split, sentences begun with conjunctions and ended with prepositions. Many Latin writers started sentences with conjunctions, though they could not end them with prepositions nor split infinitives, so it is as preposterous to make that comparison as it is to pray German sentence construction in aid. The point is that, as professional communicators, we should be aiming to convey our message accurately and instantly. For as long as some readers believe these 'rules of grammar' exist and are offended by their fracture, their attention is distracted and the message potentially lost. That is why, however erroneous they may be, we should comply with the conventions. I know how distracting it can be: for example, if I hear something using the words 'data' or 'media' with singular verbs, I do not hear the rest of the sentence - so I am not communicated with.

Love this. I remember that "rule" about splitting infinites all the time, and violate it regularly. Now I can sleep at night! ca

An interesting article with some truth and yet... You say that Shakespeare ignored the "rule" about splitting the infinitive, for example. Try saying this: "To be or to not be, that is the question..." or "To sleep, to, perchance, dream." In fact, in Hamlet's most famous soliloquy in Act III Scene II, there are twelve infinitives and not one is split. It is usually better not to split the infinitive.

This article is sour grapes from those who either just get grammar, or who can't abide being told they're wrong--- about anything. Get over it, you insecure people, and find another target for your indignation.

I consider myself reasonably well versed in the rules of grammar, and am generally a traditionalist where grammar's concerned. But some rules (such as the rule against starting a sentence with a conjunction) make little or no sense, and should be consigned to the dustbin of grammatical history. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be any rules; it means that we should take a critical eye toward some so-called rules, and, if they lack any logical or practical foundation, we should abandon them.

A Smithsonian reader emailed us to challenge our assertion that "to" isn't part of the infinitive. We ran a posting on The Grammarphobia Blog yesterday with the supporting evidence: http://bit.ly/15JIZwN.

"Et tu Brute" is Shakespearean, not Latin, and appears nowhere in the historical record. Suetonius reports the words that Caesar might have said to Brutus as "Tu quoque, Brute, fili mi," a Latin translation of the Greek (which is what educated Romans would speak colloquially) "kai su teknon" - "you too, my son." Of course, that doesn't affect your point in the least - it's just that I believe the Smithsonian mag should check its sources, especially when it comes to such a widely misrecognized quotation.

I'm always amused when purists get ruffled about every little infraction. The real keepers of the rules of any given language are the common users not some self-declared owner of the rules. If rules were effective at keeping the status quo, the entire planet would speak the same language, dialect, and accent. It's useless to fight against tide of change.

The fewer the rules, the lower the standards: the fewer the drop-outs, the larger the pool of qualified teachers, the greater the equality achieved, the fewer the number challenged, the greater the diversity, the greater the check from the government, the happier the teachers' union. California has just dropped eighth grade algebra. Now they seem to be dropping reading for videos. Long ago, US schools stopped distinguishing between objective and subjective pronouns. See Wikipedia on "Dumbing down". Colleges used to be at least remedial high school. They're now converting to student loan mills.

There's a difference between knowing these rules but sometimes disregarding them for the sake of elegance, and unconsciously breaking them all the time through ignorance. Arguably, 'to' is part of the English infinitive, since on its own, the other word ('go') would not have the meaning of an infinitive, but of an imperative, or of a first person singular present. 'To go' is two words making up one unit of meaning. It can be worth splitting this infinitive for stylistic reasons. But knowing the rules is still important for anyone who wants to knowingly break them.

You cite the phrase "Et tu, Brute" as an example of starting a sentence with a conjunction. But "et" in this case does not mean "and", it means "even": "Even you, Brutus?". This usage is common in Latin, and I don't think "even" is a conjunction. For what it's worth.

I understand the author's well-meaning assumption that the "clueless guy who’s never heard of a preposition or a conjunction or an infinitive is more likely to be right [about how English should be written]" but I would also like to suggest that the author has likely never read the writing of "clueless" American teenagers who speak perfectly coherent English but have never spent any appreciable amount of studying grammar. Most of their writing is, to put it bluntly, a disaster. I'm not talking about violating pesky little "rules" like the ones discussed in the article, but rather about losing track of subjects and clauses halfway through and producing something that's completely ungrammatical and barely comprehensible. Writing is not speaking, and knowing how to speak does not in any way automatically translate into knowing how to write. Grammar has its uses beyond pure pedantry.

Regrettably that's not much good. 'To' _is_ part of the infinitive: that's the whole point of the supposed rule. That rule - along with not starting with conjunctions or ending with prepositions - is about elegance more than anything else; and would you rather those "well-meaning English teachers" didn't teach elegant use of English? Consider your reply to that one carefully. Think of these 'prohibitions' as an attempt by the rising bourgeoisie to expunge working-class language patterns from their own world and you won't go far wrong.. but clumsiness is easier avoided if you follow the 'rules' :)

Between for two and among for more is one of the ones that everyone gets wrong. An orbit is BETWEEN three bodies and competition is BETWEEN financial centers yet most newspapers will put AMONG instead. As for split infinitives: "to boldly go" is not the same thing as "to go boldly". Split away there fore.

These are not "grammar myths"; these are usage and style decisions. They have nothing to do with grammar.

Some points: The "et" in "Et tu, Brute?" traces back to Plutarch's Greek phrase, "Kai su, teknon?" where "kai" is equivalent to "et." The author of this article is right to assert that the Latin language does not abhor starting sentences with conjunctions. The author is wrong that Latin infinitives are only one word. Three of the six infinitive forms (perfect passive, future active, and the usually untaught future passive) require two separate forms which could be "split" by other words. (It is true that one of the forms often disappears in practice, but not always.)

But to immediately and cravenly "fix the headline"? Aren't these positions, both deciding that "is" is a normal "verb", and demanding that all verbs must be capitalized in headlines, fine examples of precisely the kind of insistance on arbitrary rules that this article is taking a stand against?

British poet John Dryden spoke out against putting prepositions at the end of a sentence 100 years before Lowth.

Anyone who wants to read this same thesis in the long form, with many more examples and explanations from a linguist should check out a chapter called "The Language Mavens" in Stephen Pinker's book "The Language Instinct". Brian Lantz especially should read it.

Thanks for pointing that out, Josh. We've fixed the headline.

This is a fascinating article. However, while we're on the subject of grammar, I'm compelled to point out that the word "Is" in the title should be capitalized, as it is a verb. All verbs are capitalized in titles.

As a a working writer, I believe in a living language with rules subject to change as our needs change. Anyone can initiate change, the validation of which is whether or not new ideas are broadly adopted by others. We are currently in a time of foment: technology and texting is bringing rapid changes that evidence laziness in part, but also represent innovation. What is clear is that more people are actually writing now than at any time in history--that alone is cause for joy. A recent article (citation sadly forgotten) also pointed out that without strict grammar rules, you'd never have a Ulysses. There had to be something to rebel against in order for the avant garde to emerge and be recognized. I for one have an old favorite saying, however: Show you can follow the rules before you show you can break them.

If English is not static, an assertion so often held up as justification for its de-evolution, can't adoption of new rules be just as correct as the abandonment of old ones?

Humor permeates “Write and Wrong” from the 2013 February issue of Smithsonian; however, many educators probably feel a tug of exasperation to find that most of us have spent careers teaching what O’Connor and Kellerman have classified as “phony rules” and “grammar myths.” I’d like to remind these former New York Times editors that many years ago, writers of their ilk, television anchors (i.e. Walter Cronkite), the literary canon, and a sampling of politicians (remember Barbara Jordan?) were revered as exemplary role models employing the rules of effective communication. During today’s decline in the adherence to academic guidelines of rhetoric, to the application of more trendy electronic language shortcuts of texting, blogging, tweeting, etc., the implementation of formal speaking and writing is frequently viewed as an archaic venture. Having exposure to a rule-oriented grammatical foundation can result in flexible, creative thinkers who know how to abstain from using cacophonous speech and how to steer clear of writing imbued with “stilted” expressions. Impeccable English should be encouraged as an achievable and realistic value. In the broader realm of oral and written communication, consider E.B. White’s aphorism: “English usage is sometimes more than mere taste, judgment and education—sometimes it’s sheer luck, like getting across the street.” As far as rigid rules referencing openings and endings of sentences, Nobel Prize winner Toni Morrison illustrates that creative leap once basic language mastery has been attained: “We die. That may be the meaning of life. But we do language. That may be the measure of our lives.”

Agree. However, this article is really focusing more on style. As a 7th grade teacher, teaching the basic structures of a sentence, which, unfortunately, many of my students are coming to me not knowing still, they need to start with the basics. From there, the opportunities to explore their writing is endless and thus, they become more sophisticated writers. Ones who get to take more risks with their writing because they understand why certain "rules" don't really matter anymore. They get to play because they are intentional. This has to come with practice (or good genes).

Ron, you used the expression "Just between you and I.." and followed that with several examples confusing case in pronouns. I have found the easiest way to tell which pronoun form to use is to change it to the plural form. Do you say "Just between us", or do you say "just between we"? I presume most native English speakers would choose the first one, which would indicate that "Between you and me" is more natural. In the example with the kids, you have "Him and me are going..". The plural is we (we are going), which is nominative (subject case), so the more natural construction would be "he and I are going". However, in the next phrase, the child says "they gave them to he and I". Plural: "they gave them to us". Us= dative (using traditional grammar nomenclature) so you would use the dative pronouns - "they gave them to me and him". Very simple.

Yes, and it would be just as well to remember that grammar rules are meant to help learners, teachers, and everyone else write and speak and otherwise use the language well. By 'well' I do not mean just the value of a language as a tool for communication. I mean 'well' for every reason Man has thought of for employing language. Shakespeare broke not one but several rules of the language of his day. But it will be wise to note that he did it in an informed way. He did it so his words were better. But he also did it with an excellent understanding of the rules that he broke and the reasons for why he chose to do so. Grammar rules aren't meant for breaking. They are for using. Even when you break them, you are using them in a way.

1. Brian Lantz' comment is funny in that he says the thesis about these perceived rules being phony is "drivel" and later in the comment begins a sentence with "But." This is a hilarious example of inadvertently vindicating the argument you're attacking. 2. One thing that I regret is the death of the subjunctive and related use of false subjunctives in English because I think that the subjunctive rules (unlike the allegedly phony rules discussed here) actually relate to precisely of expression and thought. I hear newscasters and other educated folks say things like, "If I was advising the President on what to say..." (instead of "If I were") or "He requested that he gets fully briefed in the morning" (instead of "that he get"). These problems are often linked to related tense issues like, "If he went himself, he would have seen everything" (instead of "If he had gone"). I'd be very interested in the thoughts of this informed group of commenters on the whole subjunctive thing.

I agree with the attack on pedantry, but split infinitives are UGLY. And so are terminal prepositions.

I agree with Gustav: the 'to' that is generally considered to be part of the infinitive has no prepositional effect at all, so considering it to a prepositional marker is a misnomer. It is a particle, used simply to mark the verb as infinitive, rather than a conjugated form.

My very detailed response on the Huffington Post: "Why Only Some Grammar Rules Are Breakable." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-joel-hoffman/why-only-some-grammar-rul_b_2649062.html

Not that Wikipedia is the final arbiter of all problems grammatical, but the definition it gives is actually quite good: "Infinitive is a grammatical term used to refer to certain verb forms that exist in many languages. As with many linguistic concepts, there is not a single definition applicable to all languages. In traditional descriptions of English, the infinitive is the basic dictionary form of a verb when used non-finitely, with or without the particle to." The simple fact that English infinitives are not marked by a specific ending, as in French "manger", where the "-er" ending is the infinitive marker, and also that English infinitive forms share their written and spoken form with several inflected forms whose ending is a zero-ending (I eat, you eat, we eat, they eat vs. he/she eats) does definitely not mean that "to" is a necessary part of an infinitive - it's just often used by grammarians to indicate unambiguously that the following verb form is indeed an infinitive. In the phrase "I walk" the word "walk" is not an infinitive, although there is no (visible/audible) marker present for "1st person singular, present simple tense". In the phrase "Did she walk?" the word "walk" clearly IS an infinitive, even without the "to". BTW, in the "Cambridge International Dictionary of English", lying on my desk next to my keyboard, one of the definitions of "to" is "prep, used before a verb to indicate to show that it is in the infinitive". So, contrary to what some here seem to believe, of course it is a preposition, and not part of the indivisible infinitive. The infinitive itself can, of course, never be split: none who speak English have been so audacious or reckless as to boldly split the word "walk" in a sentence.

I think it's more complicated and more interesting than that: "To Blindly Lead The Blind: Why Only Some Grammar Rules Are Breakable" http://blog.joelmhoffman.com/2013/02/08/to-blindly-lead-the-blind-why-only-some-grammar-rules-are-breakable/

YAY! Someone is granting people freedom of expression! heheh

Benito, I feel that grammar has changed and developed over many hundreds of years (much like the meanings and semantics of words, and their signs and signifiers, have developed and changed over the course of human history). As such i do not believe there is such a things as Grammatical Law in so far as 'grammatical law' is only what is considered the accepted norm at the time of writing. Grammar (like our law system) is a man made construction and is as fallible, flexible and changeable as the humans who engendered it.

Muphry's Law is in prime form in this comment section.

It makes sense to distinguish between style and grammar rules. Just because something is grammatically possible does not make it good style.

@Benito "The 'to' of infinitive (as in 'to run') is very much a part of the infinitive. The 'to' is in fact what makes an infinitive an infinitive. Otherwise the terms 'run' and 'to run' would mean the same thing grammatically." This isn't true. Infinitive is the root form of a word. After a modal, we use the infinitive without "to". "I would like", "he can run"... you wouldn't say, "he can runs" because the verb has to be infinitive. The same goes for when a verb follows an auxiliary: "The cat doesn't like water," not, "The cat doesn't likes water." There are several other situations in which one must use the infinitive, but not "to". "To" is often attached to the infinitive, but it is not part of it.

How, exactly, do three minor rules that are largely ignored comprise "most" of grammar, given how many grammar rules there are for the English language?

I am concerned that Patricia T. O’Conner does not seem to understand what my developmental English students do quickly--that (1) words are not a particular part of speech, that parts of speech are functions in sentence structure filled by words, and that (2) a preposition is a preposition because it is connecting a noun to a sentence and in doing so creates a descriptive phrase. The "to" in "to go" is not a preposition. "Go" is not an infinitive. It is the base or stem principle part of the verb. In English it takes two words to form an infinitive (unlike most other languages that have a one word form). Because the two words work together as a single unit, it is best not to split the infinitive. However, it is allowed in modern English if not doing so would create awkward phrasing.

"Et tu, Brute" is most certainly Latin. However, it is not a valid example of Latin beginning a sentence with a conjunction. These words are Shakespeare's, not Julius Caesar's. There is absolutely no evidence that Caesar ever uttered them!

I must correct my previous comment, wherein I was thinking "nominative" but wrote "objective."... Just between you and I, I think what the authors write here is fairly commonplace but still worth repeating. The solecism that grates most on my ear, however, is exemplified in the first phrase of my first sentence. Presumably educated people have got in in their heads that pronouns when combined with other pronouns or with nouns must always employ the NOMINATIVE case (except that they probably aren't familiar with the concept of grammatical case and just repeat what they commonly hear). People who would laugh at "they told she about I" think it's correct grammar to say "they told she and he about he and I." What's the cause? Bad teaching? Imagine this little dialogue: MOM: "What are you and Justin doing today?" SONNY: "Him and me are going to the mall." MOM: "He and I. He and I are going to the mall." LATER THAT SAME DAY. MOM: "Where did you and Justin get those new baseballs?" SONNY: At the sports shop they gave them to he and I as a prize for being first in the store." MOM: "Well, isn't that nice for you and he!" And so it goes... Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/Most-of-What-You-Think-You-Know-About-Grammar-is-Wrong-187940351.html#ixzz2JV9HYuvR Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

Michael Horton, your last sentence should read "I hope it will stop me from making the same mistakes". You murdered "hopefully" in the modern style there.

Wonderful !

This isn't correct: "The “to” is merely a prepositional marker. " "to" which functions as a preposition must be followed by a noun phrase. "to" as in "I want to go" is usually referred to as a particle. It has a linguistic purpose which is very different from that of a preposition. "Up" in "I ate everything up" is also not a preposition.

I'm sorry but I expected more from the Smithsonian. Though this article has some valid points, the part about split infinitives is way off base. The 'to' of infinitive (as in 'to run') is very much a part of the infinitive. The 'to' is in fact what makes an infinitive an infinitive. Otherwise the terms 'run' and 'to run' would mean the same thing grammatically. The reason that you cannot split infinitives is that they are actually closer to nouns than verbs. Verbs are not, as elementary teachers often preach, simply "actions." I might say, "Eating is living" and yet I'd be using 'eating' as a gerund (a verbal noun). Verbs are rather words that can take tense, while nouns cannot take tense. Infinitives cannot take tense either, and the reason for this is in the name: they are not finite like the verbs they resemble. Hence to split an infinitive is a bit like splitting a phrasal noun, e.g. "the bus angry driver" instead of the "the angry bus driver." The saddest part of all is that so many curious yet uninformed people will read this article and mistake its contents for gospel. A lot of what the author(s) have written here has to do with style, i.e. prepositions at the ends of sentences, and conjunctions at the beginning. That's not grammar; that's style. The one has to do with linguistic law, the other personal taste.

We can’t blame Latinists, however, for the false prohibition against beginning a sentence with a conjunction, since the Romans did it too (Et tu, Brute?) "Et tu, Brute?" does not end a sentence with a conjunction; it starts a sentence with one ("et", Latin for "and").

"And in English, an infinitive is also one word. The “to” is merely a prepositional marker." I like your analysis, but the word "prepositional" is inaccurate there. In a "to-infinitival" clause, "to" is indeed a marker, but it functions as a subordinator of the Verb Phrase within the clause, not a preposition. The Cambridge Grammar of The English Language discusses the role of "to" in the "to-infinitival" beginning on page 1183.

people at work would sometimes ask if a particular sentence was 'correctly arranged.' i would ask them what they were trying to say. they would tell me in a basic, susinct sentence. i would tell them that is how their particular sentence should read. K.I.S.S.

Fine by me. No problem. Just as long as nobody argues its, it's, there is no difference. YES THERE IS!

Suggested reading : plain words by Ernest Gowers

Just between you and I, I think what the authors write here is fairly commonplace but still worth repeating. The solecism that grates most on my ear, however, is exemplified in the first phrase of my first sentence. Presumably educated people have got in in their heads that a combination of pronouns, or nouns and pronouns, must always employ the objective case for the pronouns (except that they probably aren't familiar with the concept of grammatical case and just repeat what they commonly hear). People who would laugh at "they told she about I" think it's correct grammar to say "they told she and he about he and I." What's the cause? Bad teaching? Imagine this little dialogue: MON: what are you and Justin doing today? SONNY: Him and me are going to the mall. MOM: He and I. He and I are going to the mall. LATER THAT SAME DAY MOM: Where did you and Justin get those new baseballs? SONNY: At the sports shop they gave them to he and I as a prize for being first in the store. MOM: Well, isn't that nice! And so it goes...

Am I the only one giggling over all the grammatical atrocities in the replies villainizing the author for being insufficiently rigorous in his grammatical fundamentalism?

This is a great article about grammar.

Ain't nothin wrong with my grammar anywho. I've done been trying a tell y'uns that fur a a while now. Now where's that beer at?

To say that "Most of What You Think You Know About Grammar is Wrong" is yet another example of how today's society so readily assimilates what is incorrect just to accommodate those who are ignorant of, or are opposed to, what is correct and proper. Our language, call it English or American English, has a vocabulary sourced from a multitude of other languages, and those languages have their own grammatical conventions. In an attempt to enable people from other cultures to communicate in our society, our grammatical "Rules of Engagement" are being systematically rewritten. I have absolutely no ill will towards anyone who wishes to live in this country as this is how America was formed and still is to this day. However, the standards of communication must not be altered to reflect this. At the rate that our language seems to be changing, it is not inconceivable that future grandparents will quite literally not be able to understand what their grandchildren are saying. The author refers to "misguided Latinists" and accuses them of imposing their will regarding how English should be spoken. I take exception to that since it is the two years of Latin that I was required to have in high school that taught me how to speak properly. Unfortunately, my grammatical skills are not what they once were and I believe one reason is the necessity to adjust my speech to enable those grammatically-challenged to understand what I am saying. Another, more humbling reason, is my own laziness as I get older. It is somewhat hypercritical of me to correct my children when they use speech patterns that I have found myself using also. That will not stop me from correcting them. Hopefully, it will stop me from making the same mistakes.

One more thing...how about reminding people about the difference between "its" and "it's" because that's really become lost in the teaching of English apparently? Bad habit!

Completely agree with the "at" comment! The preposition information is fine because often the attempt to not end with a preposition sounds so formal and contrived. However, I get so tired of hearing people end sentences with unnecessary prepositions. "Where are you at?" is an example. People end sentences with "at" all the time. Sorry, it just sounds dumb. "Where are you?" is just fine. People have become very sloppy and lazy, in my opinion, with their English. There are plenty of other examples, too. Given a little thought, many ending prepositions are completely unnecessary.

While it is true that many of the rules of composition we have learned are based on misapplication of Latin rules to English, there remain enough people who follow these rules that there are real consequences to breaking them. Which is to say, if you want to publish your writing in an academic journal, you must know and follow certain rules of writing whether you think they're nonsense or not. Writing for this magazine may be a bit different. But a writer needs to consider the audience, regardless.

@ PJGU: Patricia O'Conner is 63. She and her husband, Stewart Kellerman, have been writing on grammar and usage since the 1970s, and are considered authorities on the subject. Of her five books, "Woe Is I: The Grammarphobe’s Guide to Better English in Plain English" now in its third edition, is probably the best known. It is often cited by other language experts.

The article does not change the fact that the sentence "Where's it at?" will cause me to shutter. "Behind the at" will continue to be my response.

I think there is a distinction between grammar and style. Classifying or using a word as a preposition is grammar, where it goes in a sentence is largely a matter of style--along with whether a sentence should begin with a conjunction, a paragraph should contain more than one sentence, or there should be one or two spaces between written sentences. Convention plays a role in both style and grammar, but taste and context play a larger role in style than in grammar. Hence, style tends to evolve with time more quickly than grammar, or even vocabulary. Evolve they all must, or we'd be expressing concepts like texting and blogging in the language of Geoffrey Chaucer. Evolution of language, though, should not be an excuse for being too lazy to learn it, or to teach it. Convention helps to maintain precision and beauty in language, and in general increase the odds that any two English speakers will be able to communicate. There needs to be a balance between evolution and convention. That being said, if a particular rule leads to ugly language and does nothing to aid its precision, it should certainly be discarded, or at least ignored depending on context.

Hey, I'm one of those "clueless guys" they mention! Blissful ignorance!

If you can end a sentence with a preposition, then why is it called a preposition?

I enjoyed the piece. However, I do not believe I have it me to end a sentence with a preposition. Ending a sentence with a preposition was something that I always fought against. That was painful.

Blasphemer. Burn the author!

I simply need to know one thing...the age of the writer of this article. That answer will determine if I find the article credible or not.

Most people use adverbs to split infinitives. And many novice writers overuse gawky and awkward adverbs. So perhaps the 'don't split an infinitive rule' is closey related to the 'don't begin a sentence with a conjunction' rule: both were ways to get writers to clean up their acts?

Drivel..... the one most ignorant of grammar is likely to be right!? This is just another example of debasing a worldwide means of communication with the infusion of confusion. English has lost it's agglutinate roots. Word order means everything to us. Indeed, splitting an infinitive doesn't mean much. But loss of that discipline contributes to confusion. To be sure, the very assertion that infinitives can't be split is completely false, as it attacks the formation of the infinitive structure itself.... uh! this shouldn't be that difficult, the sign of the infinitive is the preposition 'to'. Separate it, and you no longer have an infinitive, you have a preposition and possibly an adverb or a verb to the less sophisticated ear. Setting aside rules puts the burden upon the linguistic ear of the listener that will only grow more burdensome. Such a position should NEVER be advocated, especially by people who accept the least common denominator as the standard for language. Why should I need to explain this.... really!!!

Aw, heck, let's just eliminate all standards. We almost have as it is. This happens to be the kind of nonsense up with which I shall put.

Oh man, why couldn't this have been published 25 years ago? High school would have been way less of a drag.

I love the one about ending a sentence with a preposition. As with many words, the words that are prepositions can be other parts of speech. "Up," for example can be a noun, verb, adjective, adverb, and predicate adjective. By definition, a preposition MUST come before. Therefore, a sentence cannot be ended with one. If a word that is often a preposition ends a sentence, it must be something else like an adverb. Before you ask for just government, be sure if it is the adjective or adverb that you want.

We humans also listen to others' use of grammar and subconsciously apply socio-economic labels to the speaker. Fascinating article.

Not to be a pedant, but the "Et" in "Et tu, Brute?" is not a conjunction. It's an adverb meaning something like "as well": "You too, Brutus?" If it were a conjunction the phrase would mean something incomplete: "And you, Brutus...?"

"Once somebody's learnt you English good once, can't nobody change you"* *Lamont Sanford

I don't actually recall learning the split infinitive "rule" while I was in school. I've never had a problem with it. The main problem I've encountered with infinitives is when a non-native speaker drops an adverb before the "to": Swiftly to run... Briskly to walk... carefully to watch... All of those are fine with the adverb either in front of or behind the verb (to briskly walk/to walk briskly) but just don't work with the adverb in front of the "to". I was taught the rule about not ending with prepositions, but I usually don't worry about it. On the other hand, I have always tried very hard NOT to start sentences with "And" or "But", in everything except my most informal writing. I'm happy to know that it's acceptable, but the fact that most other people WON'T know it's alright still gives me pause (at least if I'm writing something important), so I may continue to hold to that "rule"

Check out http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/ for why these things persist and how wrong some of them are

It's not a preposition that I end a sentence like this with. Since English is a Germanic language, it's a separable verbal prefix.

I believe he was going for the starting the sentence with a conjunction "and" joke.

Dear Marcus Antonius, (or I should say, Marce Antoni) Yes, the quote is from Shakespeare. No, it is not French. It is Latin. But perhaps you were joking and it went over my head.

"Et tu, Brute" is from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. It is French, not Latin. Erm, no it isn't. It isn't French, I mean

Et tu, Brute is most definitely not French. The vocative case on Brutus makes that quite clear. The fact that the first two words happen to exist in French is simply because of its Romance heritage. It does not make the quote French.

This is by a writer who doesn't know how or where to use a semi-colon.

Finally - a column explaining and applying common sense to expose these grammar "rules." And that Chandler quote is a gem :-)

The problems we have with grammar run a lot deeper (and wider - potentially/possibly affecting many other languages) than this - as a symptom of a much larger problem. Unfortunately, I'm having to tackle this whole problem by myself, as no-one is interested in talking to me about it - (no-one from any local university has bothered to answer any of my emails) - so I'm currently working on a blog post, (that'll probably take me another couple of months to write, still), to try and explain the problems we have, of which our lack of understanding of grammar is merely a symptom. (Though I'm personally more interested in a couple of specific symptoms related to games, which is where I began.) Trying to describe things in relation to other things we do not currently have a label for, (which is also a large symptom of the underlying problem), is pretty hard. (My blog is on gamasutra.com, but is now well out of date and not entirely consistent with my latest 'realisations'. (Not sure of the right word to describe it - discovery certainly isn't right.)) Hint: It's ALL about cause and effect.

"Et tu, Brute" is from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. It is French, not Latin.

There’s a documentary film currently in production that aims to change the way we think about grammar and the way our schools teach grammar. It argues that grammar is important, but that it’s neglected and misunderstood. The movie promises to dig deeply into the subject. It will explore why grammar is no longer taught in most schools and explain why it is an important subject that needs to be reconsidered, reconceived, and revived. It's called Grammar Revolution. Search for "Kickstarter Grammar Revolution" to watch the trailer.