A daily blog by author John Green, winner of the 2006 Michael L. Printz Award for his debut work of fiction, "Looking for Alaska."
John's second novel, "An Abundance of Katherines," is now available at Amazon.com.
June 23, 2008
Karl Rove's Comments about Obama
So which is it: Does Rove think Obama isn't a person, or does Rove believe in country clubs full of talking cigarettes?
Well, he used the words "He" and "guy", so I assume that he believes Obama to be a person. So he'll probably believe in country clubs with talking and, reading the comment above, against-wall-standing cigarettes...
I assume that a country club would only allow a cigarette that is able to stand against a wall and make snide comments. I mean, if they let in any old cigarettes they lose their exclusivity.
See, now my main concern with this is that is suddenly makes clear why tobacco companies and republicans can get along. Cigarettes and republicans talk at their country clubs and bond over martinis, so they don't kick the tobacco companies in the butt. This makes so much sense!
John, maybe you already know the following. But, for anyone who doesn't know:
From Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed., under 'that' (pronoun):
"The notion that 'that' should not be used to refer to persons is without foundation; such use is entirely standard."
From The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed., Sec. 5.58 ("Relative Pronouns: Definition"):
"'That' refers to a person animal or thing...."
If Karl Rove spoke the quoted sentence, then he is perhaps guilty of obscuring his antecedent and creating the distractingly absurd image of a talking cigarette. And yes, he could have fixed those problems easily by using 'who' instead of 'that'. But he is not guilty of breaking some kind of "'who' not 'that' for persons" rule, because no such rule exists.
Not that you claimed otherwise! I'm just trying to clarify this point in case people draw the wrong conclusion about how, exactly, the quoted sentence fails grammatically.
On more serious note, I'm not sure that your observation counts as much of a gotcha. In print, the sentence in question would be unacceptable. But in speech I think the distracting "smoking cigarette" image, as well as the ambiguity of the antecedent, could be avoided though intonation and pauses. Many sentences that are ambiguous or obscure in print can be perfectly clear and natural when spoken aloud. I think it is somewhat uncharitable to present this sentence as evidence of poor linguistic skills on Rove's part.
Of course, your main goal in making the grammatical objection may have been to present amusing criticism rather than serious criticism. In that case, please disregard the "serious" part of this post!
Seriously, how is it that I haven't seen this video before? Too much time on the Ning and too little on SparksFlyUp? Or was it on the Ning and I just missed it? Anyway...
Thank you for bringing attention again to the problem of using "that" for people. I hear it all the time, and I just cringe. On the other hand, the fact that at least some people are paying attention to grammar does make me feel a little more trepidation about writing public comments. What if I make a grammatical/spelling/typographical error?
Well John, clearly you are not farmilar with country clubs because we do have a stash of talking cigarettes. But Karl Rove was WRONG! Our cigaretts arn't advanced enough to make snide comments. Our cigarettes just sound adorably like Mr. T. It's cute, it really is.
plugging that quote into google leads to this:
ReplyDeletehttp://tinyurl.com/57ar4n
which cites a part of the quote that you neglected to share, "...a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments..."
a small exclusion, but still. hilarious. i hope someone illustrates this.
Well, he used the words "He" and "guy", so I assume that he believes Obama to be a person.
ReplyDeleteSo he'll probably believe in country clubs with talking and, reading the comment above, against-wall-standing cigarettes...
I assume that a country club would only allow a cigarette that is able to stand against a wall and make snide comments. I mean, if they let in any old cigarettes they lose their exclusivity.
ReplyDeleteI vote for the talking cigarette. I can just imagin that...
ReplyDeleteooo that makes it better!
ReplyDeletethe cigarette can stand AGAINST THE WALL and TALK! IMPRESSIVE!
Talking cigarettes?
ReplyDeleteOH NO!
See, now my main concern with this is that is suddenly makes clear why tobacco companies and republicans can get along. Cigarettes and republicans talk at their country clubs and bond over martinis, so they don't kick the tobacco companies in the butt. This makes so much sense!
ReplyDeleteThat's it. I'm voting for Antecedent Barack Obama.
ReplyDeleteJohn, maybe you already know the following. But, for anyone who doesn't know:
ReplyDeleteFrom Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed., under 'that' (pronoun):
"The notion that 'that' should not be used to refer to persons is without foundation; such use is entirely standard."
From The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed., Sec. 5.58 ("Relative Pronouns: Definition"):
"'That' refers to a person animal or thing...."
If Karl Rove spoke the quoted sentence, then he is perhaps guilty of obscuring his antecedent and creating the distractingly absurd image of a talking cigarette. And yes, he could have fixed those problems easily by using 'who' instead of 'that'. But he is not guilty of breaking some kind of "'who' not 'that' for persons" rule, because no such rule exists.
Not that you claimed otherwise! I'm just trying to clarify this point in case people draw the wrong conclusion about how, exactly, the quoted sentence fails grammatically.
On more serious note, I'm not sure that your observation counts as much of a gotcha. In print, the sentence in question would be unacceptable. But in speech I think the distracting "smoking cigarette" image, as well as the ambiguity of the antecedent, could be avoided though intonation and pauses. Many sentences that are ambiguous or obscure in print can be perfectly clear and natural when spoken aloud. I think it is somewhat uncharitable to present this sentence as evidence of poor linguistic skills on Rove's part.
Of course, your main goal in making the grammatical objection may have been to present amusing criticism rather than serious criticism. In that case, please disregard the "serious" part of this post!
Vanity edits:
ReplyDeleteMy "smoking cigarette" should be "talking cigarette", of course.
And my quotation of the Chicago Manual of Style should be punctuated as originally printed: "person, animal, or thing."
More importantly, Rove's racist play on words -- "coolie arrogant," or, in other words, "uppity nigger" -- has been completely ignored.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, how is it that I haven't seen this video before? Too much time on the Ning and too little on SparksFlyUp? Or was it on the Ning and I just missed it? Anyway...
ReplyDeleteThank you for bringing attention again to the problem of using "that" for people. I hear it all the time, and I just cringe. On the other hand, the fact that at least some people are paying attention to grammar does make me feel a little more trepidation about writing public comments. What if I make a grammatical/spelling/typographical error?
Well John, clearly you are not farmilar with country clubs because we do have a stash of talking cigarettes. But Karl Rove was WRONG! Our cigaretts arn't advanced enough to make snide comments. Our cigarettes just sound adorably like Mr. T. It's cute, it really is.
ReplyDelete