stevenpiziks (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
stevenpiziks) wrote2008-08-10 11:07 am
stevenpiziks) wrote2008-08-10 11:07 am
Gay Rights and Grammar
I know many people sat through their various English classes thinking, "I'm never going to use this shit. I'm going to be a _______ when I get out of here. No one's ever going to ask me what an adjective is or how to avoid passive voice or about the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs."
I'll bet these lawyers thought the same thing.
So. The lesson is clear: pay attention to grammar. No matter what your eventual profession, you may need to know it and know it well.
I'll bet these lawyers thought the same thing.
Short version is this: The California Supreme Court recently ruled same-sex marriage legal. Proposition 8 in California, if passed, will amend the state constitution to make it illegal. It needs a simple majority vote to pass. The header on the measure, as prepared by the state's Attorney General, reads "Eliminates the Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry."
A guy named Mark Larsson sued to force the Attorney General to change the wording to "Limit on Marriage. Constitutional Amendment." Why? Because the AG showed prejudice by "selecting a ballot title that begins with a negative, transitive active verb."
The court ruled against him. "There is nothing inherently argumentative or prejudicial about transitive verbs, and the Court is not willing to fashion a rule that would require the Attorney General to engage in useless nominalization," wrote one of the judges.
Cool.
Did you follow that? No? Uh oh.
Can you imagine being in that courtroom as one of the lawyers? The other side brings up the argument that the title to Proposition 8 uses a negative, transitive active verb. The judge turns to you and says, "Your response?" You have a few choices. You can say, "Duh . . . " You can say, "Request a recess while I consult a grammar book." You can try to bluff your way through it. All three will make you look the fool.
Okay, here's the translation.
A transitive verb is a verb that does something TO something. In grammar talk, it's a verb that takes a direct object. In the sentence "Paul hit the ball," the verb "hit" is transitive. "Hit" does something TO something--in this case, the ball. In the title of Proposition 8, "eliminate" is a transitive verb because it wants to do something (eliminate) to the right of same-sex couples to marry.
There's actually no such thing as a negative verb. In this case, Larsson was actually referring to the tone of the verb. "Eliminate" has a negative connotation to it, and Larsson felt that the word therefore cast a negative light on Proposition 8. This, he feared, would cause people to vote against it.
An active verb is a verb which shows an action, such as run, sleep, think, jump, or eliminate. Action verbs are considered stronger than their wimpy cousins, the linking verbs: be, am, is, are, was, were, been, being. I'm not sure why Larsson was objecting to the presence of an action verb, unless he felt that a linking verb (or the total lack of a verb) would soften the title and make it seem less powerful.
Nominalization is the use of nouns or the changing of other words into nouns. A noun is a person, place, thing, or idea. Here, the judge was saying that the court was unwilling to require the Attorney General to avoid verbs and rely uselessly on nouns.
A guy named Mark Larsson sued to force the Attorney General to change the wording to "Limit on Marriage. Constitutional Amendment." Why? Because the AG showed prejudice by "selecting a ballot title that begins with a negative, transitive active verb."
The court ruled against him. "There is nothing inherently argumentative or prejudicial about transitive verbs, and the Court is not willing to fashion a rule that would require the Attorney General to engage in useless nominalization," wrote one of the judges.
Cool.
Did you follow that? No? Uh oh.
Can you imagine being in that courtroom as one of the lawyers? The other side brings up the argument that the title to Proposition 8 uses a negative, transitive active verb. The judge turns to you and says, "Your response?" You have a few choices. You can say, "Duh . . . " You can say, "Request a recess while I consult a grammar book." You can try to bluff your way through it. All three will make you look the fool.
Okay, here's the translation.
A transitive verb is a verb that does something TO something. In grammar talk, it's a verb that takes a direct object. In the sentence "Paul hit the ball," the verb "hit" is transitive. "Hit" does something TO something--in this case, the ball. In the title of Proposition 8, "eliminate" is a transitive verb because it wants to do something (eliminate) to the right of same-sex couples to marry.
There's actually no such thing as a negative verb. In this case, Larsson was actually referring to the tone of the verb. "Eliminate" has a negative connotation to it, and Larsson felt that the word therefore cast a negative light on Proposition 8. This, he feared, would cause people to vote against it.
An active verb is a verb which shows an action, such as run, sleep, think, jump, or eliminate. Action verbs are considered stronger than their wimpy cousins, the linking verbs: be, am, is, are, was, were, been, being. I'm not sure why Larsson was objecting to the presence of an action verb, unless he felt that a linking verb (or the total lack of a verb) would soften the title and make it seem less powerful.
Nominalization is the use of nouns or the changing of other words into nouns. A noun is a person, place, thing, or idea. Here, the judge was saying that the court was unwilling to require the Attorney General to avoid verbs and rely uselessly on nouns.
So. The lesson is clear: pay attention to grammar. No matter what your eventual profession, you may need to know it and know it well.