"WE THE PEOPLE" isn't a noun phrase, dammit

[alcibiades_mystery]

OK. I'm a grammar Nazi. I admit it. Proudly. Or, if I don't want to be viewed as some martinet strutting before a blackboard sentence diagram, I might say that I have an allergy to grammatical error. Yes, yes. I'm a descriptivist rather than a prescriptivist, as is right and proper, and I know all the literature on errors, expectations, phenomenology, and all that. And yet. This time of year especially, when you sit before a giant pile of student papers only to discover that your efforts have in large part been for naught, this allergy kicks up like hay fever in horse chestnut grove. Oh, indeed. And so, when I see the following, I am pushed, forced, called on even - like the calling from on high, from the ole Lawd God hisself - to comment:

While we the peoples tax dollars pay for this fancy white tie dinner tonight...

Oh, hell no. Needless to say, this formulation (in which "we the people" serves not only as a noun phrase, but even operates as a possessive, sans apostrophe, of course) is not alone, and I apologize in advance to its author. I've seen worse, like one poster who noted that "they are lying to we the people again," and other such absurdities. Nobody lies to we. People might lie to us, but nobody lies to we. So, without further ado - and here's where I really turn into the Heinrich Himmler of the blackboard - shall we diagram the preamble to the Constitution from which this monstrosity descends?

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The main clause of this sentence is actually quite simple. It goes like this:

We do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

That's the main clause. "We" - alone, mind you! - is the subject. Of course, with such a main clause, the authors found it necessary to answer a few questions: 1) To whom does "we" refer? 2) Why are you so ordaining and establishing? They answer these questions with an appositive and a subordinate clause.

We the people of the United States do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I know what you're thinking. If "the people of the United States" is an appositive, why isn't it set off from the sentence with commas? Easy. It's essential to the meaning of the sentence. But that doesn't make it any less an appositive. Here are some rearrangements of the sentence that might better illustrate the point:

1) In order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, we (the people of the United States) do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

2) We - the people of the United States - do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

3) We - the people of the United States - do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America in order to

• form a more perfect union
  
• establish justice
  
• insure domestic tranquility
  
• provide for the common defense
  
• promote the general welfare
  
• secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
  

4) We are the people of the United States. We do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

Whatever. The point here is simple. Those flinging around "We the People" carelessly are annoying the piss out of me.

Thank you for your time.

[jgraz]

1. Calm down -- it's just a goddamn piece of paper

or so I've heard.

;)

[JVS]

6. I fucking knew you were involved in an insidious plot against America!

[MADem]

18. George, is that you??? Heh, heh... nt

[jgraz]

20. heh heh, ya caught me

I wuz lookin to order some new GI Joes and somehow I got here. Karl says I only get two hours a day to play on the computer. I better go.

[MADem]

23. Well, say hey to Queenie fer us, now!!!

:rofl:

[Monkeyman]

2. I sort of Like WE THE PEOPLE it has a ring to it

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. Now you're just doing it on purpose

:-)

[Lilith Velkor]

47. "on purpose"?!

:spray:

I remember you chiding the basement dwellers about that. Good times. :toast:

[jgraz]

9. I still can't see that without thinking of Kirk reciting "E Plebnista"

Yes, I'm a geek.

[ReadTomPaine]

29. LOL!

;)

[Kelly Rupert]

4. I'm sure you'll next be jumping on those who say

"he out-Caesared Caesar" since OMG CAESAR ISN'T A VERB.

Language is mutable. People are taking the phrase "we-the-people" and using it as a stock phrase, which of course would not inflect for nominative or accusitive case. It's a common process. It's no different than saying something along the lines of "I want to punch I'm-So-Great over there in the face." This isn't even a case of the natural evolution of language that has been sending English prescriptivists into annual rages since Caxton (and before, no doubt). This is a common literary device. One might as well get pissed off at a simile (he wasn't REALLY as busy as a bee!)

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. Oh, I'm well aware

I just don't like it when people lie to we, and the like.

This objection is nothing like objecting to a simile. I object to the syntactical awkwardness, not the use of the figure itself (much less its literal meaning). It's more like saying "I'm I'm So Great's sister-in-law." Ooooooh. Shiver.

And I'm not (really!) jumping on anyone...:rofl:

[JVS]

5. There should be a comma dammit!

[azurnoir]

7. SWe the People seems

like an action verb to me

[Kelly Rupert]

8. Personally, I think it's a gerund.

[azurnoir]

14. Ok I had to look that one up

a verbal noun, thats a good definition

[rwenos]

11. Subject Verb Object

You're right about the main clause, of course. I find people often confuse a complex subject, especially when followed by a brief object, for a different structure.

This is why I gave up semicolons when I got my bachelor's degree. Don't use 'em any more. Used to be an addict. "Lolita; or, An Exploration of Moral Repugnance as Discourse Irony," or something like that. How the hell was I supposed to write a Master's thesis without a SEMICOLON, for God's sake.

I would LOVE your grammarian's take on the more-perplexing Second Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be abridged."

That third comma . . .

[Kelly Rupert]

13. Punctuation and capitalization used to be more or less arbitrary.

Commas, for lack of a better rule, used to be wherever the speaker would put a slight break in speech. Almost all of our affectations of "proper" speech and style were simply made up by overzealous grammarians trying to inject artificial order.

[BuyingThyme]

15. I don't quite remember why, but I think

the original wording would explain this grammar. They cut out a huge chunk of text and left us with this silly ping pong ball.

[Kelly Rupert]

16. Idiosyncratic punctuation is exceedingly common in 18th century writing.

For instance, Jonathan Swift capitalized and punctuated seemingly at random, as did all the founding fathers in private letters. I would take any claims of a cut-and-paste typo with a grain of salt.

[JVS]

17. At this time/ I think it would be better to return to old forms/ because they look funkier.

For example/ commas could be replaced by their predecessor.

[BuyingThyme]

19. Here's what James Madison started with:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Then they got it to:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Then chopped down to:

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Eventually:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[BuyingThyme]

12. We The People is a political party/movement.

Thus, just as members of the Democratic Party are Democrats, members of the We The People party are We The Peoples.

Maybe that's the source of all this confusion.

[ComerPerro]

21. thanks for the lesson, but I don't think you're really "teaching" anyone

We the people use terms like "we the people" in order to invoke the Constitution, that sacred document by which we the people define ourselves in the political arena set up and established by, well, we the people. That is why we the people insist on typing "we the people" in order to refer to ourselves in a political, Constitutional context.

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. Oh, I know why you do it

I just think its jangling and silly.

[Justitia]

22. Hartman's Law of Prescriptivist Retaliation, check it out, Mr. "grammar Nazi". -eom

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. Feel free to confirm it in the original

:shrug:

[Justitia]

26. I regard it as bad manners to publicly correct the grammar of others.

The word "pedantic" springs to mind.

So, I will refrain, thanks.

[alcibiades_mystery]

27. Right

:rofl:

[Justitia]

30. Guess you missed the point entirely. -eom

[alcibiades_mystery]

34. I certainly understood the point you WEREN'T trying to make

And yet made anyway...

:rofl:

[Justitia]

36. You mean trying to humble your snotty, schoolmarmish rant by suggesting you may have made

grammatical errors of your own in your RUDE dissection of another DUers post?

When that didn't work and you fell right into what I expected next (a hubristic call for review of your own RUDE handiwork), I figured that my original subtlety was lost on you. See, I also believe it is RUDE (of me) to point out the RUDENESS of others (you).

Can I get any more plain for you? How's this:

Your original, smarmy, contemptuous, smug dissection of some probably unknowing DUers post is hardly worth starting a SMALL MINDED, tedious grammar lesson over.

IOW, I think you sound like an ass.

Got it?

[alcibiades_mystery]

40. Yeah, that was your trap

:eyes:

I'd prefer the review to the endless embittered moralizing, truth be told.

Unless you can't find anything?

[Justitia]

41. Why would I waste my time putting lipstick on a prig?

Do I need to explain that too?

It is hardly "moralizing" to point out that belittling contributors behind their backs, by starting silly new threads about their grammar, makes you look like a classless jerk.

Do you want to discourage participation here?
Or do you just want to look superior at the expense of making someone else look stupid without their knowledge?

[alcibiades_mystery]

44. Quelle dommage

I suppose you will continue to substitute insults for a rigorous demonstration of your law, and I'll assume it is because your law cannot be demonstrated in this case, so you're now making a virtue of necessity. Cheers.

[Justitia]

45. Don't you have some actual students to eviscerate? Bet they love your classes.

:eyes:

Meanwhile, did you ever let that hapless DUer know you were grading his paper?

[alcibiades_mystery]

49. Nope

Semester's over. Yippee!

Your mistake is clear. You attach the form to the poster, rather than examining the form itself. That's why you've been so keen to break DU rules here with personal insults galore. I distinctly didn't mention the poster, or point to the person, because the person is irrelevant in this case. The practice is so widespread that the person practicing it at any one time is beside the point. But not for you. For you it is all about the person. You want to track down that person and make good and sure that he or she feels wronged, victimized, belittled, insulted. That's your thing. Righteous indignation.

So self-righteous, in fact, that you are one of the few to miss the parodic tone in the OP, one of the few who chose anger over the joke. It's sad, really.

[Justitia]

53. Are you the Electronic Professor or a pop psychologist?

Either way, I'm not buying so you might as well quit selling.

I like the part about how you've got my brain all figured out. You know, like a diagrammed sentence.

You really should explore your authoritarian tendencies and proclivity for structuralism.

So, are we done for today?
This is becoming absurdly humorous and I loathe to be clung to by a didactic.

}(

Edit to add: Have a nice summer break, get some sun, let loose and dangle some participles why doncha?

[alcibiades_mystery]

57. I'm already having fun

Nice diversion, by the way.

While I'm out dangling participles, you might wanna go find some worthy cause to get all whiney and pouty about. Shouldn't be hard. Apparently, any imagined sleight will do.

Cheers!

[Justitia]

61. LOL - Dear Electronic Professor! "Sleight"? You're incorrigible!

Now, go outside and pull some wings off of flies while it's still daylight!

[alcibiades_mystery]

62. Ah...you finally caught me in an error

And it only took all day!

Your willingness to jump on it now, however, only belies your previous protestations that you would not possibly engage in such tactics. You didn't because you couldn't, as is now obvious.

Salud. I'm going to play with my kid.

[Justitia]

63. Oh lighten up, sourpuss. Unintentional comedy is the best. Ciao! -eom

[Kelly Rupert]

58. And just for fun,

Running down the street my building's next to; he stop's to quickly walked into his house that's shared by my wife and I.

I can't fit no more errors in there.

[alcibiades_mystery]

60. Here ya go

Running down the street my building's next to; he stop's to quickly walk into we the family's house that's shared by my wife and I.

That's actually relatively coherent. At least you didn't dangle the participle! ;-)

[Kelly Rupert]

64. Bam!

Thanks for the edit; I can't believe I let that opportunity go.
Edit: Oh, but you made the tenses agree around my split infinitive: "he stops to quickly walked!"

[Kelly Rupert]

52. I laughed aloud at "lipstick on a prig."

Never heard that one before.

[Justitia]

54. ....

:evilgrin:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. "Proudly" and "whatever" are not a complete sentences.

[alcibiades_mystery]

33. No! Really?

;-)

[EFerrari]

31. This is so funny. I've nearly written this OP about 100 times.

AM, you and I need to chill but I'm glad you wrote it and, wrote it much better than I could have done.

lol

:hi:

[Lance_Boyle]

32. It's certainly less offensive

than the use of "methinks" in place of "I think that..." That one makes my skin crawl. And it's grammatically correct, for Shakespeare. In modern writing, though, it sounds pretentious, hackneyed, and, erm... dumb.

[alcibiades_mystery]

35. Don't forget "doth protest too much" - another Early Modern favorite of

internet board hacks everywhere.

Is there a better way of saying "I'm an unoriginal, self-satisfied, dim-witted asshole" than by noting that somebody "doth protest too much?"

I don't think there is.

[Lance_Boyle]

37. So sayeth YOU!

Methinks we the people doth protest too much, over, like, grammar and stuff. ;-)

[geardaddy]

39. Pray tell, why doth it make thy skin crawl?

;)

[krispos42]

38. Yikes!

<mental note: keep grammer good or me'll be big troubled>

Why is't our children learning?!?!?

:rofl:

[Marie26]

42. It must be hard to be you

I kind of feel for the grammar Nazis. How can they even survive the e-mail era? Every day must bring fresh torment - split infinitives, misplaced modifiers, "you're" used as a possessive pronoun, AHHHH! :banghead: And nobody understands their pain. It's tragic, really.

[slackmaster]

43. E Plebmnista; norcom, forcom, perfectumum."

[Xenotime]

46. Just fix "the people" issue in the second amendment to it is more clear.

[ljm2002]

48. You're right about one thing...

...the missing apostrophe is jarring:

"While we the peoples tax dollars pay for this fancy white tie dinner tonight..."

would really read a lot better as

"While we the people's tax dollars pay for this fancy white tie dinner tonight..."

But with the apostrophe, the phrase works well, and is a good usage in this context. Now you can go back to the original source document and say, correctly, that the actual noun phrase as used there is not "We the people" but "the people of the United States". But since when do we have to parse an original source sentence in order to use a phrase that has gained credence by frequent usage? Since never, that's when. "We the people" has gained standing by long and frequent usage, and it has gained long and frequent usage for the obvious reason that it has a ring to it, and it harkens back to one of our founding documents, in a way that "the people of the United States" never could, it being a simple descriptive term.

[alcibiades_mystery]

50. It certainly is common

I'll agree with you there.

:-)

[Bucky]

51. A real grammar nazi would know that "We the people" is a pronoun with an appositive antecedent

And it's perfectly acceptable grammar. Of course the right punctuation is to set off "the people" with commas, but why be a nazi about it?

[Justitia]

55. Oh, Snap! -eom

[alcibiades_mystery]

59. Er...which is precisely what I said it was?

:shrug:

The pronoun is the antecedent of the appositive, and vice versa. ;-)

[Gabi Hayes]

56. "The Birds" is coming!