Principles of grammar peikoff leonard

Copyright © 2020 The Ayn Rand Institute All rights reserved First Printing 2020 ISBN: 978-0-9794661-5-1 AynRand.org CONTENTS Editor’s Preface From Leonard Peikoff LECTURE ONE Basic Grammatical Concepts Sentences, Fragments and Run-ons Subject and Predicate Phrase Clause Subject/Noun (Pronoun, Infinitive, Noun Phrase, Noun Clause) Predicate/Verb Verbal (Gerund, Participle, Infinitive) Simple Subject and Simple Predicate Modifiers (Adjectives and Adverbs) Complement and Object Exercises for Lecture One LECTURE TWO Subordination and Coordination Fragments Direct and Indirect Object Appositives Subordination and Coordination Simple Sentences Compound Sentences Conjunctions Coordinating Conjunctions and Subordinating Conjunctions Overlapping Subordination Misplaced Modifiers Squinting Construction Clause Usage and the Use of “That” “Like” and “As” Exercises for Lecture Two LECTURE THREE LECTURE FOUR Subordination and Coordination Italics and Underlining Emphasis Using Word Order Periodic Sentence Climax Emphasis Using Repetition Overuse of Negation Parallelism Correlatives Economy Wordiness and Reduction Excessive Predication Reduction of Predication Over-economizing Incomplete Thoughts and Confluence Exercises for Lecture Three Verbs Tense Pluperfect Present Perfect Future Perfect Progressive Tense Emphatic Tense Sequence of Tenses Mood: Basic Distinctions Subjunctive Mood Emotive Subjunctive Mood Conditional Subjunctive Mood Imperative Mood Sequence of Moods Voice Verbals Participles Gerunds Voice and Tense of Gerunds Exercises for Lecture Four LECTURE FIVE LECTURE SIX Verbs and Pronouns Infinitives Infinitive Tenses Split Infinitives Dangling Verbals Pronouns Types of Pronouns Case Fearful Subjective Fearful Objective Determination of Case Number Pronouns with More Than One Possible Antecedent Broad Reference Pronouns and Antecedents “Which,” “That” and “Who” Restrictive vs Nonrestrictive Clauses: “That” vs “Which” Exercises for Lecture Five Punctuation Comma Comma Separating Main Clauses Semicolon with Conjunctive Adverb Comma Separating Parenthetical Elements Dashes and Parentheses Comma to Set Off Nonrestrictive Modifiers Comma with Other Nonrestrictive Elements Serial Comma Comma Separating Adjectives Comma to Prevent Misreading Needless Commas Indirect-Direct Discourse Switch and Invalid Question Mark Exercises for Lecture Six LECTURE SEVEN Choosing the Right Word Denotation and Connotation Formal English Colloquial English Slang Synonyms Level of Abstraction in Word Choice Avoiding Trite Words Metaphors Idioms Euphony Exercises for Lecture Seven LECTURE EIGHT Choosing the Right Word Theory of Linguistic Change How to Analyze Change A Final Test EDITOR’S PREFACE I’d like you to be able to see not only the principles of grammar, but why those principles are as they are—what the roots of those principles are in the nature of the human mind and of human knowledge Ideally, at the end, you should be able to see every grammatical rule, directly or indirectly, as a consequence or expression of some essential requirement of the human mind —Leonard Peikoff, Principles of Grammar B eginning October 13, 1981, and ending December 15, 1981, Leonard Peikoff offered a nineteen-hour eight-lecture course on the principles of grammar The course was presented at his apartment in New York City and subsequently distributed on tape at various venues throughout the United States and Canada Dr Peikoff’s goal was to provide an understanding of the principles of grammar, an understanding of proper grammar, of the whats and whys, the what-nots and why-nots Most of us remember the study of grammar (assuming that it was even taught in school) as a series of unrelated rules and mandates rather than as a guide to clear writing Principles of Grammar is such a guide: an understanding of the rules and their bases, demonstrated by a multitude of examples As stated in a 1981 course announcement, a wide range of topics is covered, from grammar as a precondition of mental clarity to economy of expression and choosing among synonyms Because the course was offered orally and in an informal setting, I have edited it to make it more amenable to the reader I did not rewrite the lectures, but I retained much of the more casual language inherent in an oral presentation As to reorganization, I combined all lectures and the exercise booklet into one comprehensive document All punctuation is mine, because I had access only to the tape recording, not to any original material Any grammatical errors that, ironically, appear in this book about grammar, are my own A wordfor-word transcript of the original tape recording of the course resides in the Ayn Rand Archives —Michael S Berliner they can’t say what it is that’s on their minds, so they say “You know, you know.” Let me give you a different type example of linguistic change We used to use the word “inflammable” to mean “capable of being set fire to.” But it’s being replaced by “flammable.” The factor leading to this change was, I think, that there was a certain problem for English speakers with the word “inflammable.” And what was the problem? An “in” at the beginning is used in a great many words as a negative prefix, like “independent,” “intolerant,” “intransigent.” “Inflammable” came from the word “inflame,” which means “to catch fire to.” So “inflammable” began to sound wrong It sounded like “can’t be set fire to,” which was the exact opposite of the meaning So they thought they would drop the “in” and make it “flammable.” That’s an intelligible motive to remedy what was becoming a linguistic problem But the trouble is that now you don’t know what either of them means, because you have “flammable” and “inflammable,” and whatever you use, you’re not sure any longer, because your automatic response has been undercut by this change So now you have to puzzle over the meanings of both “inflammable” and “flammable.” It’s difficult to remember if “flammable” is supposed to be the opposite of “inflammable,” which meant it could catch fire, so it’s completely up in the air It’s an intelligible change, but we’re right in the midst of that change at this time, and therefore, my conclusion would be to never use either without some explanation, because it’s too much in flux If something is changing in a comprehensible way but the change is not yet fixed, stay away from it until other people either get burned in the using of it or establish it; or, if you use it, say what you mean in parentheses, e.g., “(‘flammable’: can catch fire).” Now let’s consider some philosophical examples Take the distinction between “disinterested” and “uninterested.” In traditional books on grammar, virtually every author bewails the fact that this distinction is dying, and they make a big fuss about the ignorance of people who use “disinterested” (i.e., impartial) to mean “uninterested” (i.e., indifferent), and dictionaries stand on their heads to try to force this distinction down your throat, and despite everything, it’s fading away What explains this disappearance? First of all, what is the philosophic implication of forming such a concept as “disinterested,” meaning “My interest is not prejudiced”? It was basically the idea that an interest, per se, corrupts, that any interest tends to make you prejudiced And therefore, they tried to enforce this concept of “disinterested.” But, actually, it’s philosophically unwarranted It comes from a Kantian or Christian approach, according to which “the good” is “to have no interest.” And as a matter of fact, we have a concept, a perfectly good concept, without any woozy philosophic connotations, to cover not being slanted, not being biased, just going by the facts, etc., and that is “objective.” I hope that you see the difference: “objective” means “focus on the object,” as against “disinterested,” which means “don’t let your interest mess things up.” That’s an entirely different philosophic approach Therefore, I’m happy to let this distinction die, because it is philosophically corrupt, plus we have a concept to name exactly what it’s supposed to I use this distinction occasionally, even though I know that it’s dying, but only where there’s some literary value For instance, somewhere I have a sentence on Kant that, according to him, you should be not only disinterested, but uninterested in something or other And by using the two together, you make it clear that you’re retaining that distinction, and you want the two words side by side That’s okay But as a basic term, I stay away from that and let it die Now, let me conclude our examples by giving you one of a different kind What about the term “selfish”? I have been told a thousand times: “Why you use that term? It has a negative connotation It conveys the image of a brute and a monster Why don’t you just drop it and use another term? Why hold onto that?” You could just give a valid definition of “selfish,” but the response would be “Yes, but it conveys this connotation in people’s minds whenever you say it.” You could use “egoist,” but it has the same connotation We have only one concept Now, that shows that we’re not dealing simply with linguistic accident that the word carried a bad connotation Why did it carry this connotation, and why all of its synonyms? Because the cultural atmosphere is set by an altruist approach, and therefore, any term designating “self-interest” is considered monstrous All the philosophic authorities are saying “This is vicious,” so this is not a linguistic issue at all; this is a purely philosophic one If you try to abandon the word or any of its synonyms that have a negative connotation, you literally could not use the concept Which means that you would be left in a situation where either you’re self-sacrificial or a zero There would be no other term to designate the alternative In a case like this, you have to put up a fight Even if the whole world tends to be changing and saying it’s negative, you have to take a stand because this is a purely philosophic fight It’s not like the word “liberal,” which switched its meaning, and you can throw it out You can say, “Oh, the hell with it then, I’m not using it anymore” or “I’ll use it in its modern sense.” Because it just represents one political view, and there are a thousand other words for the other political views But “selfish” is a word that represents a philosophic position, and abandoning it would leave you wiped out on a crucial issue In sum, there are various types of causes, ranging from the logic of the language as it developed across centuries to the random slovenliness of a given generation to fundamental philosophic issues that may be behind a given linguistic or grammatical change In addition, there are various opinions as to how far the change has gone, whether it’s already a fait accompli or in process or just starting, and thus you should fight it actively (if you think it’s worth the trouble) and determine how much trouble it is to combat it All of that has to be weighed and evaluated, and then you have to make a policy in your own mind And if you’re not sure, the best thing to is either stay away from it while it’s in flux or put “I use it in this sense” in parentheses, and that way, you keep yourself covered I want to conclude with a passage from The Reader Over Your Shoulder by Robert Graves and Alan Hodge Throughout this course, we have been discussing exactness, precision of expression And this apparently true story is a perfect example of the difficulties of being precise and exact The Reader Over Your Shoulder contains a series of good principles of style, including “No word or phrase should be ambiguous.” This example was taken from the minutes of a borough council meeting in England You just have to know that the word “lead,” in England, is used as we would use “leash,” i.e., something that you put on a pet Councillor Trafford took exception to the proposed notice at the entrance of South Park: “No dogs must be brought to this Park except on a lead.” He pointed out that this order would not prevent an owner from releasing his pets, or pet, from a lead when once safely inside the Park The Chairman (Colonel Vine): What alternative wording would you propose, Councillor? Councillor Trafford: “Dogs are not allowed in this Park without leads.” Councillor Hogg: Mr Chairman, I object The order should be addressed to the owners, not to the dogs Councillor Trafford: That is a nice point Very well then: “Owners of dogs are not allowed in this Park unless they keep them on leads.’’ Councillor Hogg: Mr Chairman, I object Strictly speaking, this would prevent me as a dog-owner from leaving my dog in the backgarden at home and walking with Mrs Hogg across the Park Councillor Trafford: Mr Chairman, I suggest that our legalistic friend be asked to redraft the notice himself Councillor Hogg: Mr Chairman, since Councillor Trafford finds it so difficult to improve on my original wording, I accept “Nobody without his dog on a lead is allowed in this Park.” Councillor Trafford: Mr Chairman, I object Strictly speaking, this notice would prevent me, as a citizen who owns no dog, from walking in the Park without first acquiring one Councillor Hogg (with some warmth): Very simply, then: “Dogs must be led in this park.” Councillor Trafford: “Mr Chairman, I object: this reads as if it were a general injunction to the Borough to lead their dogs into the Park Councillor Hogg interposed a remark for which he was called to order; upon his withdrawing it, it was directed to be expunged from the Minutes The Chairman: Councillor Trafford, Councillor Hogg has had three tries; you have had only two … Councillor Trafford: “All dogs must be kept on leads in this Park.” The Chairman: I see Councillor Hogg rising quite rightly to raise another objection May I anticipate him with another amendment: “All dogs in this Park must be kept on the lead.” This draft was put to the vote, and carried unanimously, with two abstentions.18 Now, that is a great example to keep in mind, although they overdo it a bit, but you see how, staring at something, you can come up with all these different interpretations A Final Test In the following, identify the errors of grammar, punctuation and diction Badly frightened, the bullet missed the manager who fell to his knees an hour earlier but it decimated a customer, Louise, a lady who is very attractive and revered by all A tragic outcome —tragedy being where a major value is destroyed The manager was profoundly shocked over the event He sounded strangely when he spoke, like he had just awakened “I wanted to have hired guards,” he said, “but it was no dice New York is both complicated and it costs too much I could not approve of us spending money on them.” The manager had however once given gifts to his best customers being frantically worried about the new store across the street The killer was neither contrite nor did he grieve for my dear friend, Louise “I have as much right to her money as her,” the slob said, “and I will kill whomsoever stands in my path.” If one were to convert him philosophically, perhaps he will repent I know philosophers swell with indignation when their concept structures are undermined But such men are dangerous and each of them deserve to be attacked They merely write words onto paper, thus causing suffering and destruction This is what can happen in life PARAGRAPH ONE First sentence: “Badly frightened” is a misplaced modifier, and it makes it look like it was the bullet, rather than the manager, that was frightened It could be “The bullet missed the badly frightened manager” or “The manager, badly frightened,” etc There must be a comma after “manager,” because there is only one manager, and therefore, the modifier, “who fell to his knees,” is nonrestrictive “Fell” is the wrong tense It should be “had fallen,” to complete an action in the past “He was on his knees an hour earlier when the bullet came by,” and consequently, you have to say, “The bullet missed the manager, who had fallen to his knees an hour earlier.” “Decimated” is wrong You can’t decimate a customer “Decimate” means to kill one-tenth of; it’s used for vast numbers of people when you kill a huge mass of them, so it’s not applicable to an individual You’d have to say that it killed a customer The tense of “is” is wrong in “a lady who is very attractive,” because Louise is no longer alive So you could say “was,” or if you want to be very scrupulous, you could say “had been,” because her attractiveness was all over as soon as she was “decimated.” You could get away with “was,” but “who once was” might be the nicest simple usage There’s a problem with “was very attractive and revered” because there are two uses of the word “was.” One is the copula to simply connect a noun to its adjective Another is as an auxiliary, part of a verb, of which the other part is the participle And the whole verb is “was revered.” You cannot use the same word implied as a copula and an auxiliary in the same construction So it would have to be “a lady who was once very attractive and was revered by all” or “had been revered by all.” Second sentence: “A tragic outcome” is a sentence fragment, not a sentence, no subject and predicate A fragment sometimes can be used for emphasis, but this is not the case here, because it’s out of the blue, without any context to make it appropriate “Where” is wrong It’s a location, but “tragedy” is not What type of clause is introduced by “where”? An adverbial clause What part of speech is “tragedy”? A noun “Being” has to take the same type of construction on each side, so we have a noun as an adverb, and that is unacceptable So this is a noun clause in place of an adverbial clause That’s the technical error Using the same construction, you’d have to say “tragedy being the destruction of a major value,” and then you have a noun on each side Third sentence: “Shocked over” is unidiomatic The idiom is “shocked by.” Fourth sentence: Use “strange,” not “strangely,” because “strangely” is an adverb It’s a verb of state or condition, rather than an action You’re not saying how he did something, but how he was “Like” is wrong It’s proper to use “as if” or “as though,” but not “like” before a clause By the way, use of a preposition before a conjunction is a technical error Fifth sentence: “To have hired” is wrong It’s a verbal, an infinitive, a perfect infinitive You can use a perfect infinitive only if it precedes the main verb, so it’s a wrong tense of the infinitive “I wanted to hire.” “No dice” is colloquial, or slang “Impossible” would be better Sixth sentence: “New York is both complicated and it costs too much” is wrong It’s not that the pronoun “it” is ambiguous, but “both” and “and” are correlative conjunctions and therefore must take parallel constructions So this is a violation of parallelism because following “both” is an adjective, and following the “and” is a clause If you say, “New York is both complicated and costly,” then you have put an adjective after each Or “Not only is New York complicated, but it costs too much” makes two clauses out of it Seventh sentence: The antecedent of “them” is vague The antecedent is apparently “guards,” so it’s a remote reference—it could be “dice” or something else “Us” should be “our.” That’s what Fowler calls a fused participle Eighth sentence: “However” should have commas around it Who was frantically worried about the new store across the street? The manager, not the customer So there’s a misplaced modifier You’d have to say, “The manager, however, being frantically worried” or “because he was,” and so on PARAGRAPH TWO First sentence: “Neither/nor” go together to form a unit They are correlatives, and a correlative has to take parallel construction It’s the same error as in “complicated” and “costs too much.” So it would have to be something like “was neither contrite nor grieving” or “upset.” Or you could say, “The killer was not contrite and he did not grieve,” making two straightforward clauses The comma after “friend” (in the likeliest interpretation) is wrong There’s nothing here to suggest that the person has only one friend, so that would be an extraneous piece of personal information So in this context, you assume it’s the friend Louise, no comma, restrictive Second sentence: In the quote, it should be “she” rather than “her.” The implication is “I have as much right to money as she does,” so it’s the implied subject “Slob” is slang It’s too insignificant a term for a killer, so you weaken your effect enormously by using it A slob is not a killer, rather someone who drools at the dinner table “Whomsoever” should be “whosoever” because it’s the subject of “stands.” “Whoever” would definitely be better “Whosoever” is too formal for someone who says “slob” in the same sentence Third sentence: This is a particularly important error: It should be “would,” as in “perhaps he would repent,” because it’s subjunctive The fallacy is switch of mood from the subjunctive to the indicative Fourth sentence: To avoid misreading the sentence, you should say, “I know that philosophers …” “Swell with indignation” is a half-dead metaphor, which comes to life We’re using another metaphor, “undermined,” so you get this picture that the building is collapsing and the philosophers are floating above it, and that’s absurd Either one alone would be okay, but the two together gives you an architectural image that defies the law of gravity “Concept structures” is a noun pileup It should be “conceptual structures.” Fifth sentence: “Deserve” has to be “deserves” because “each” is singular Sixth sentence: Use “on,” not “onto.” “Onto paper” is unidiomatic This sentence reverses subordination It puts a side issue into the main clause, and the essential thought is thrown away as a modification So the thought is “Merely by writing words on paper, they cause suffering and destruction,” and then it becomes clear Last sentence: “This” has no antecedent “This” is a very vague, broad reference to what can happen in life “Suffering can happen in life,” “philosophers can happen in life,” “depravity can happen in life,” who knows? So this is a vague reference Here’s my extemporaneous rewrite of those two paragraphs: The bullet missed the manager, who, having been badly frightened, had fallen to his knees an hour earlier But it killed a customer, Louise, a lady who was very attractive and who was revered by all It was a tragic outcome—tragedy being the destruction of a major value The manager was profoundly shocked by the event He sounded strange when he spoke, as though he had just awakened “I wanted to hire guards,” he said, “but it was impossible New York is both complicated and expensive I could not approve of our spending money on such a service.” Frantically worried about the new store across the street, however, the manager had once spent money, giving gifts to his best customers The killer was not contrite, and he did not grieve for my dear friend Louise “I have as much right to money as she,” the degenerate said, “and I will kill whoever stands in my path.” If one were to convert him philosophically, perhaps he would repent I know that philosophers become indignant when their conceptual structures are challenged But such men are dangerous, and each of them deserves to be attacked Merely by writing words on paper, they cause suffering and destruction This destruction of the innocent is the result in real life 18 Robert Graves and Alan Hodge, The Reader Over Your Shoulder (New York: Vintage Books, 1979), pp 95–96 ... or expression of some essential requirement of the human mind ? ?Leonard Peikoff, Principles of Grammar B eginning October 13, 1981, and ending December 15, 1981, Leonard Peikoff offered a nineteen-hour... provide an understanding of the principles of grammar, an understanding of proper grammar, of the whats and whys, the what-nots and why-nots Most of us remember the study of grammar (assuming that... be able to see not only the principles of grammar, but why those principles are as they are—what the roots of those principles are in the nature of the human mind and of human knowledge Ideally,