Cato's Grammar Grumble

[Cato]

Okay, so, here we go: last night we were at the "Bad" Wal-Mart (we live in between two of them, and the other is the "Good" Wal-Mart, i.e. the personnel and the clientele do not in general come from Planet On Niarb     .

In the parking lot sits a long white and only slightly decrepit van with a sign on the door.

The sign says:

"Lest Thy BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS, Thy Will Be SAVED!"       

I did not write down the Gospel passage cited, but there was one cited!   0:)

Needless, to say Cato will not be switching to such a church, mainly because I cannot quite understand what I should do to be saved!   0:)

"Thy" of course is an adjective, and I am not sure how you "believe on" somebody, and the "lest" is just very odd!

[Karl Henning]

That believe on may be an artifact from the KJV.  Or not . . . .

[Cato]

That believe on may be an artifact from the KJV.  Or not . . . .

No time now, but I will look into that!

[chasmaniac]

That believe on may be an artifact from the KJV.  Or not . . . .

It's archaic. This from the Online Etymology Dictionary (a great site for those of us who can't afford access to the OED):

O.E. belyfan "to believe," earlier geleafa (Mercian), gelefa (Northumbrian), gelyfan (W.Saxon) "believe," from P.Gmc. *ga-laubjan "to believe," perhaps lit. "hold dear, love" (cf. O.S. gilobian "believe," Du. geloven, O.H.G. gilouben, Ger. glauben), ultimately a compound based on PIE *leubh- "to care, desire, love" (see belief). Spelling beleeve is common till 17c.; then altered, perhaps by influence of relieve, etc. To believe on instead of in was more common in 16c. but now is a peculiarity of theology; believe of also sometimes was used in 17c. Related: Believed (formerly occasionally beleft); believing. Expression believe it or not attested by 1874; Robert Ripley's newspaper cartoon of the same name is from 1918. Emphatic you better believe attested from 1854.

[Cato]

It's archaic. This from the Online Etymology Dictionary (a great site for those of us who can't afford access to the OED): ...To believe on instead of in was more common in 16c. but now is a peculiarity of theology;

Many thanks for finding that information!

As a Catholic I grew up with the Douay-Rheims translation, and have only occasionally looked into the King James Version.

So our itinerant preacher is not really wrong about that!   

[eyeresist]

"Lest Thy BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS, Thy Will Be SAVED!"

This seems to be saying that I will be saved UNLESS I believe in Jebus....

[Cato]

This seems to be saying that I will be saved UNLESS I believe in Jebus....

Right, which is why I found the quote (along with the other curiosities) very odd!

Correcting my students' translations: a large minority of 7th Graders insist on writing - and this is after I have drawn and quartered a few as examples and given them a mnemonic device to avoid the error - "Soliders" or "Soilders" for "Soldiers" !!!   

I have told them unless the word "die" is in their version of the word, they are wrong, since a "soldier" could "Die."

[DavidW]

I'm surprised to find myself on this thread.  Would you believe it?  I read an article on grammar!  It literally made my head explode.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-commonly-corrected-grammar-errors-that-arent-mistakes/

[Cato]

I'm surprised to find myself on this thread.  Would you believe it?  I read an article on grammar!  It literally made my head explode.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-commonly-corrected-grammar-errors-that-arent-mistakes/

Well, that site is blocked here at school, so I will need to wait until this evening to find out!

[Karl Henning]

Blocked here, too.

Sorry to be slow to enjoy your début, Davey! : )

[Kontrapunctus]

Why did my post that showed the "autocowrecks [sic]" about "your/you're" get deleted? Does this thread forbid humor?

[Karl Henning]

Why did my post that showed the "autocowrecks [sic]" about "your/you're" get deleted? Does this thread forbid humor?

Forbid it? Why, here we encourage it to run indecently clad.

Davey, I fergot that I could get there via the Droid! Like not a little Cracked, it winds up a bit heavy-handed for my taste ; )

That said, quite funny in places, really. I'll never believe that somewhat more than 99% of the population struggles with distinguishing nouns from verbs.

And if they do: WE GRUMBLE!!

[Opus106]

Why did my post that showed the "autocowrecks [sic]" about "your/you're" get deleted? Does this thread forbid humor?

No, it doesn't, as you can see by reading a plethora of humorous exchanges in the previous pages. In fact, if you go to the page just before the current one, you will come across the post you're referring to.

[Cato]

Why did my post that showed the "autocowrecks [sic]" about "your/you're" get deleted? Does this thread forbid humor?

Impoceros!

[Ten thumbs]

I certainly agree about the passive voice. To over use it becomes boring. to never use it becomes equally dull. It is a variation and variety is the spice of writing. Besides which if you examine the suggested alternatives supplied by Microsoft Word, some of them a ridiculously stilted.

[Kontrapunctus]

No, it doesn't, as you can see by reading a plethora of humorous exchanges in the previous pages. In fact, if you go to the page just before the current one, you will come across the post you're referring to.

That's weird--it was there for a day or two, but when I looked to see if anyone had replied to it, it was gone! And yes, I was looking at the right page. All's well now.

[Cato]

Well, that site is blocked here at school, so I will need to wait until this evening to find out!

Okay, given the obscenities in the essay, I can understand why the Diocese of Columbus blocked it at my Catholic school!  I found the writer's use of obscene language unnecessary: there are ways of being humorous and emphatic without being low-class.  Obscene language in one sense these days is its own cliche'.

Anyway...

A few comments: "To boldly go where no man has gone before:"  Star Trek splits not only infinity, but also the infinitive!

The blame for this being somehow cast upon Latin is odd: infinitives in Latin are one word!  They cannot be split! 

One must admit that rhythmically a split infinitive in English sometimes flows better: "Boldly to go where..."   "To go boldly..."  Not the best meter.

"They" as a generic pronoun does not upset me either.

I would like to preserve "less" vs. "fewer."

The Passive Voice can be used (!) now and then without reproach, and there are times when it must be used!   

"Literally" forces this comment:

http://www.youtube.com/v/TvlWZ3mODJA

[Karl Henning]

Okay, given the obscenities in the essay, I can understand why the Diocese of Columbus blocked it at my Catholic school!

And why it was blocked by the nannies by us, though we are no religious institution.

It's a legitimate (if not grammatical) grumble that some comedians think that gratuitous obscenity is amusing.

[Cato]

And why it was blocked by the nannies by us, though we are no religious institution.

It's a legitimate (if not grammatical) grumble that some comedians think that gratuitous obscenity is amusing.

Johnny Carson once commented that weak comedians have no trouble in bringing out the smut when they start bombing.

[Karl Henning]

Watching The Dick van Dyke Show. How's this guy imagine he's funny?-- all his material is family-friendly.