That’s Not a Thing: English “Rules” that Don’t Exist
English is a dynamic language with evolving rules of grammar, punctuation, and usage. While there are many “rules’’ that apply in English, there are some that simply aren’t a thing. These are prescriptive rules that linguists argue don’t accurately reflect the fluid and evolving nature of the language. Maybe you were taught some of them? Read on and find out.
Never end a sentence with a preposition
This rule is often attributed to a desire to align English with the structure of Latin, where such a construction is impossible. Latin once reigned as the lingua franca for scholarly and government discourse, carried along by the expanding Roman Empire and kept relevant by the Roman Catholic Church even after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. It was the language of religious services and learning for well over a millennium.
Hey, what if we wrote this in English?
The shift from writing in Latin to writing in vernacular languages, including English, occurred gradually over several centuries, with significant variation across different regions and disciplines. The transition to writing in English (and other vernacular languages) can be seen as part of the broader cultural and intellectual developments that spanned the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance, roughly the 14th to the 17th centuries. Both the Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century influenced the spread of native languages, the former fostering an appreciation for vernacular literature and the latter promoting the use of vernacular languages to make religious writings accessible to laypeople.
We need some rules up in here
Gutenberg’s printing press (mid-15th century) not only significantly influenced the spread of vernacular languages, but also a desire to codify them. The printing press played a huge role in standardizing the English language. Spelling in earlier times was pretty much “anything goes,” for example. But now, there was a desire to get this wild language under control, as in, “We need some rules up in here,” followed by, “Where are we gonna get rules?” and then someone said, “Well, let’s just use the Latin rules….” And away they went.
Poet John Dryden (1631–1700) was the first to articulate an objection to ending sentences in English with prepositions. Dryden’s influence was significant, and this preference would have a lasting impact on English grammar.
Well, not that rule
Unlike Latin, there’s no real reason for never ending a sentence with a preposition in English. English is a remarkably flexible language, and that’s the beauty of it. In English, ending a sentence with a preposition can sound more natural and fluent. A classic example is often attributed to William Churchill, although there’s some debate on whether he actually wrote or said this (and the exact words do vary, depending upon the source):
This is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put.
If you strain or sprain something to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition, you could end up looking absurd. This just sounds better:
This is the type of arrant pedantry I will not put up with.
To be on the safe side, consider simply tacking the word “yo” onto any questionable sentence:
This is the type of arrant pedantry I will not put up with, yo!
Don’t split infinitives
Again with the Latin grammar! This rule is also based on trying to make English conform to Latin, where infinitives are a single word and cannot be split. However, English infinitives can be naturally and effectively split by adverbs for emphasis or clarity. My favorite example?
To boldly go….
Imagine if Captain Kirk had gone boldly.
To go boldly where no man has gone before.
Nah. And, bonus points to Kirk for ending that sentence with a preposition. Now, that is bold.
Avoid starting a sentence with “And” or “But”
Why? Contrary to this rule, starting a sentence with “And” or “But” can be a powerful tool for emphasizing an idea or conveying continuity or contrast, and it’s widely accepted in both spoken and written English.
Style guides in the past have discouraged starting sentences with conjunctions, perhaps because of the perceived informality or someone was in a crabby mood or whatever. But, it’s fine. So, trust me on this. It’s a style preference and not a rule. You don’t want to overdo it, but that’s true of any rhetorical choice. Just…be cool, yo.
It’s perfectly fine to start a sentence with “Because,” too. This is a rule many of us were taught, and as a teacher, I know why. Some high school teacher somewhere got fed up with reading sentence fragments that began with “Because” one day and declared, “We have a new rule! No more sentences can begin with ‘Because’!” Why? “Because I said so!” This is perfectly fine if “Because” begins a complete sentence:
Because she was sick to death of marking fragments, the teacher implemented a new rule.
Never use the passive voice
Again, this is a style choice. If you want to bore your readers with excessively bloated prose and convoluted head-scratching sentences, you do you. Active voice is clearer and stronger, however.
The passive voice is sometimes necessary, though, especially when the doer of the action is unknown or irrelevant.
The cookies were gone when I came home!
Where did they go? Were they stolen? Did someone break in and eat them? Did the cats get them? We don’t know. They were here one minute, and the next they were gone. Active voice is not the best choice here:
Someone did something to the cookies.
How do you know?
They’re gone!
Why didn’t you just say that? And, “someone”? How do you know it wasn’t the cats?
“I” before “E” except after “C”…
…and something else I forgot because it’s a dumb rule. Or, a mnemonic device. Says who? These guys:
Foreign, protein, seize, neither, either, weird, leisure, heir, sovereign, feisty
Okay, but it’s definitely “e” before “i” after C, right? Ha, no. Not always.
Science, sufficient, ancient, efficient, society
Mostly, “e” comes before “i” when the pronunciation is /i:/ or “ee,” so I’ll give you that.
Don’t use double negatives
Not because they cancel each other out (which makes no sense; this ain’t math, yo!) but because it’s redundant in English. You don’t need two of them. One will do. Also, it can be confusing to listeners or readers as they try to puzzle their way through the sentence.
That don’t make no sense.
You have to stop and think about that. Any rhetorical choice that has a reader stopping and rereading a sentence is probably not the best choice.
And, a real rule that seems to be on the decline
Using “whom” in objective cases instead of “who” has long been a rule. While technically correct, the use of “whom” in everyday language has been declining, and many native speakers find it overly formal or awkward. In many contexts, using “who” instead of “whom” is becoming the norm. I’ll be honest: I am not sure how I feel about that one yet.
The Takeaway
It’s important to recognize that language evolves and rules that once were strictly taught may no longer align with contemporary usage or the descriptive approach to grammar that many linguists advocate for. Understanding the context, audience, and purpose of your communication can help determine when it’s appropriate to adhere to traditional “rules” (even fake rules) and when it’s acceptable to bend them, or in most of the cases highlighted here, toss them out entirely.
