What would a rule look like that describes the more recent practice  that some of us were taught was wrong?  Maybe something like this:  if a sentence contains a series after a verb, put a colon after the verb.  (Notice I obey another rule currently in decline:  don't capitalize an otherwise lower case word after a colon.)  As a historical linguist, my statement of the new colon rule looks like a common sort of linguistic change.  The old rule:  lists occurring after a full clause (or fragment) take a colon.  The full clause condition entails a pause before the list.  When we speak sentences that have lists after verbs we commonly pause after the verb, so the list is marked by a pause before it in speech.  The colon marks the spoken pause in writing; hence, when we pause before a list we insert a colon.  What has changed here is the conditioning for the colon, from a full clause followed by a list to a pause followed by a list.  We haven't talked much about how prescriptive rules change, but it's interesting (and significant?) that this case follows the pattern of normal linguistic change.

 

Herb



	

	

	 



	When I learned that rule, it called for the series being introduced by 

	the colon to stand in apposition to an NP in the clause (e.g., "four 

	items" or "several objections"). Some of these rules try to enshrine 

	previous practice, while others try to create a practice that never 

	existed before the rule; this one is clearly in the latter category. 

	However, cases that violate the rule nevertheless *bother* me (all that 

	indoctrination in my youth had a lasting effect), and now I'm wondering 

	how much they bother other people. Is the rule still sufficiently in 

	force that students should at least be told about it, or is it fully at 

	the "will vs. shall" point in American English? 



	Bill Spruiell 



	Dept. of English 

	Central Michigan University 



	-----Original Message----- 

	From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar 

	[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edgar Schuster 

	Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 10:30 AM 

	To: [log in to unmask] 

	Subject: Re: Dead rules 



	Here are a few other contemporary examples: 



	The OED says that religion is: Belief in, reverence for, and desire to 

	please, a divine ruling power.  (Reynolds Price) 



	For example, if the numbers read aloud were: 1. 2. 3. and 4, the answers 

	would be 3, 5, and 7.  (Education Week) 



	Fragments followed by colons are also not uncommon: 



	To sum up: the classical words adopted sine the Renaissance have 

	enriched the 

	English language very greatly . . . .   (Otto Jespersen) 



	Well-known fact: In neither K-12 nor college English are systematic SWE 

	grammar and usage much taught anymore.  (David Foster Wallace) 



	I do wonder for how long the rule has been dying.  The following is from 

	Strunk and White's Elements of Style: 



	". . . it is exciting to reread . . . of this noble theme.  It goes: 

	"Vigorous writing is concise . . . ." 



	Ed Schuster 



	To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web 

	interface at: 

	     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html 

	and select "Join or leave the list" 



	Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ 



	To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: 

	     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html 

	and select "Join or leave the list" 



	Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/