Poor grammar in lyrics

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 10:20 AM

I amn't aware of any parts of the UK where "amn't" isn't used.

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: Suegorgeous
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 09:04 AM

Never heard "amn't" in all my English-born days! :0 (though it seem more correct than "aren't" in first person singular)

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: melodeonboy
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 08:52 AM

"Both sound OK to me and seem pretty interchangeable. Under which circumstances would you use one in preference to the other?"

"I was sitting there" may describe a longer action during which a shorter action could take place, often accompanied by "while" or "when", e.g. "I was sitting there when the burglar came in", or "The burglar came in while I was sitting there". (Combined past continuous and past simple). If you said "I sat there when the burglar came in", that would indicate that the burglar came in and then you sat down!

"I sat there" (past simple) often describes an isolated action or one in a sequence, e.g. "I walked into the room, took my wig off and sat there".

I know that's only the tip of the iceberg, but I hope it makes sense (despite the rather silly examples!).

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: GUEST,mayomick
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 08:44 AM

Seamus , I understand your point.
Genie ,the point I made about the double negative and mathematics was made in Chamber's History of the English Language which I don't have to hand.

Hope this isn't too much of a transgression , but seeing that so many grammar experts seem to be honing in on this thread ,here's something that has been puzzling me ......

The word "amn't" meaning "am not" is never seen written in English other than when it's being said by an Irish person in reported speech . " Well no ,I amn't going to the shop today Mr Murphy" ,for instance. But in England amn't is used widely in everyday speech pronounced as "armpt" and sometimes confused with "aren't " . A cockney might say for instance "I am supposed to be at work today , amn't I ?" But if you spell it like that ,it always reads like it's being said by an Irish person. How should amn't be spelt in English English ?

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: Mr Happy
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 08:39 AM

...........'course, in traditional mummers plays, actors frequently proclaim their entrance with 'In comes I!!' not 'In I come' or 'In comes me'

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 07:47 AM

I have got the knack of sink/sunk etc. but I am not sure about sat/sitting or stood/standing.

Obviously 'I was sat sitting there' is an incorrect comedic phrase in the best Hilda Baker tradion but which is right, "I sat there" or "I was sitting there"?

Both sound OK to me and seem pretty interchangeable. Under which circumstances would you use one in preference to the other?

I am not sure if it is bad grammar or just bad but, to keep to the topic, the Turtles 'Elenore' takes some beating:-)

Elenore, gee I think you're swell
And you really do me well
You're my pride and joy, et cetera
Elenore, can I take the time
To ask you to speak your mind
Tell me that you love me better

In fairness, I do believe it was written as a spoof.

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: bubblyrat
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 07:29 AM

In England,we are often urged to talk proper,like what the Queen do.
But seriously ....we all need to have,and to learn, some basic rules of grammar in our own language,otherwise how could we learn anyone else's tongue ??

Meanwhile :
            "They were goin' down the river,
                Sittin' in the stern ;
             She were 'oldin' 'is'n
                   An' 'e were 'oldin' 'er'n "

As to trying to get people to understand the correct usage of Sink / Sunk....Ring /Rang.....Hang / Hung etc,and,worst of all, Fewer / Less ( drives me nuts !)   ... I give up !! And nobody I know writes
'bus (Omnibus)....'phone (Telephone) and 'plane (Aeroplane) as do I !! But of course, they damn well SHOULD !! Sigh !

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: Genie
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 02:24 AM

"The double negative works in a similar way to strenghens an idea - as in "ain't no use." The double negative was once widely used in everyday speech to emphasise a negative. It was discredited and done away with by formal grammarians some time around the nineteenth century so as to make language conform to the formal rules of mathematics where a double negative equals a positive."

English differs from some other languages in eschewing double negatives. In French, they're common, for instance. But even in English - regardless of how it came about - "ain't" sort of calls for the double negative.   I do accept "ain't" as more of a colloquialism or slang than "bad grammar," and how often does anyone say "I ain't got any cigarettes?" or "I ain't had any loving (as opposed to 'lovin'") since January, February, ... ?" You don't usually speak or write proper, standard English but then throw in the word "ain't."   But it's not at all uncommon for someone to speak or write something with perfect, standard grammar except for saying something like "between you and I."

Joe, I generally agree with this: "I think that if a grammatically-incorrect language construction appears commonly in spoken English, it's perfectly OK to use it in a lyric. But when it's not common usage and done just to match a meter or rhyme, it's WRONG, WRONG WRONG!!!! "

I guess the question is, how "common" does something have to be before it becomes "acceptable?"   I'll admit that there are instances where the pronoun "I" SOUNDS awkward and weird to me, even though I know it's "correct." E.g., "That would be I," sounds odd, while "It is I" does not," to me - but "It's me" also sounds OK. Maybe it's just a matter of familiarity, and eventually "Give it to him and I" will (shudder) also sound natural. But so far, even though that kind of construction has begun to be used more and more in the last decade or so by people who should know better (English majors, newscasters, teachers, etc.), it hasn't become "standard usage" by well-educated, articulate people. That's why I hate its usage in song lyrics.

I also think that when poor grammar is used in the lyrics of commonly heard songs it tends to make people THINK it's correct.   Not so much with colloquialisms or slang, but when an otherwise grammatically correct lyric includes one incorrect usage such as "for you and I."   

I know that sometimes it's done for the sake of rhyme. An old trad song, has the line "For poor, ornery people like you and like I" to rhyme with "I wonder as I wander out under the sky."   But Iz (Israel Kamakawiwo'ole) has a fairly popular song, with lyrics in Hawai'an and English, that has a tag line "for you and I," which isn't part of any couplet or rhyme scheme. Totally unnecessary to use "I" instead of "me."   And today's music lyrics often don't rhyme anyway.   I've known of songwriters who often dispense with trying to rhyme yet will use "I" instead of the correct "me" apparently just because it rhymes with a previous lyric word.

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: Genie
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 01:51 AM

One of the worst offenders - and I still have no idea how or why the songwriter came up with the line - is a country song with the hook:
"Forever and ever, till death do we part ... "

The only way this makes sense, grammatically, is if it means "we will part until death" -- which is obviously a strange wedding vow!

Of course, Neil Diamond's horrible line from "Play Me": "Songs she sang to me, songs she brang to me ... " makes me cringe every time I hear the otherwise lovely song. But that's really not "grammar," is it? It's a semantic error - much like the use of "ain't" as a substitute for "aren't," "didn't," "haven't," etc. But unlike "ain't," "brang" is not all that common, even in regional dialects, nor is it an almost mandatory part of blues or country music.

-----

BTW, in "Live and Let Die," McCartney SOUNDS to me like he's singing "... this ever changing world in which we're livin' ."    The first time I heard the song I thought he was singing "... in which we live in," but once someone pointed out the alternative, grammatically correct, line, it sounds more like that than it does like the awkward, redundant version.   As to what "Macca" originally wrote, I'd have to see his original lyric sheet -- not an album liner note or some sheet music from a third party -- to know that.
(Sheet music and liner notes sometimes have egregious errors.)

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: Eiseley
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 09:14 PM

Hey, this is my first post!
One of my favorite nongrammatical lines is from The Wind in the Willows where Rat and Badger are talking. Badger says he'll "larn" them weasels and stoats a thing or two. Rat corrects him and says, "You mean you'll teach them." Badger disagrees and it ends up with Rat going into the corner to mutter "Larn 'em, teach 'em, larn 'em, teach 'em."
But then again, children's books are my THING!

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 07:05 PM

This thread reminds me of a roommate I had in my freshman year at the University of Minnesota.

He maintained that he had been taught that the proper comparison of "bad" was:

bad

worse

more worser !

And he would not be corrected on that!

It should be said that he was enrolled in what was called "University College". University College was a sort of make-up course for very marginally qualified students. After a year of University College you just MIGHT be allowed to enroll in the University proper.

I should say that he didn't come back for the second quarter.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: semi-submersible
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 03:54 PM

Good! My cookie's back at last.

David el Gnomo:
Yes, Kipling's grammar was correct there, but there should be another comma after "and" to make the phrase "which is more" a parenthetical phrase: If you can fill the unforgiving minute with sixty seconds' worth of distance run, yours is the Earth and everything that's in it; and, which is more, you'll be a Man, my son.

Yes, Don T, but I agree with Leeneia too. The medium must not obscure the message. Stopping the flow to figure something out can lose our interest. It doesn't matter how brilliant your ideas are if your audience does not get it.

If a singer speaks and no-one understands, does the song say anything?

Example: Primiti Too Taa. Lizzie Cornish, does this renowned Primitive Sound performance "take you WAY beyond grammar and into the realms of another world, where grammar was never even invented"? If "it is the way the singer interprets the song that makes the meaning clear" then how should a meaning (that "overrides ANY grammatical error") be made clear in this case? Does it stir your emotions? Vacuous fluency did make an instructive contrast with my expectations. Hey nonny no?

Lizzie C, without your correct use of grammar we'd not get the wit of your remarks about subjunctives. (And no, learning the subjunctive is optional because it's been withering in English for generations, possibly since the industrial era's increasingly mobile and international working classes started dismantling a few of the more troublesome features of English usage.)

Maybe brilliance (or poetry, Snuffy?) consists of developing something in the audience's mind that wasn't there before, but which makes sense according to all you know, because it agrees with most of the implicit rules you use to assemble and weigh ideas.

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: Howard Jones
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 03:46 PM

Glenn's post about someone saying "bring that file to I" illustrates the pitfalls. As DeG points out, it's common enough West Country usage, an example of dialect following it's own grammatical rules. Glenn's comment about that person have "gotten" some bad advice is itself "wrong" in terms of standard English - although of course it's perfectly good American. Another example of different forms of the language having different grammatical rules.

As well as the differences between the British and American forms of English, colloquial and dialect forms (not to mention other regional variations) all differ. Nevertheless they do all have their own rules, so if you're going to use dialect you have to use its correct grammar.

The difficulty with songs is finding a balance between using language you're comfortable with and which is intelligible to your audience (which may mean altering both vocabulary and grammar) without significantly altering the character of the song.

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: PoppaGator
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 03:26 PM

Amen, Joe.

************

Speaking of "forced," one of my least-favorite lyrics is the second verse of "Let It Be Me," most famously recorded by the Everley Bothers and Willie Nelson, lyrics translated from the original French by one Manny Kurtz:

Don't take this heaven from one
If you must cling to someone
Now and forever, let it be me

The grammar, per se, might not be incorrect, but the syntax is graceless and, well, weird. Use of the word "one" is often more formal or even more correct than "you" or "me," but in this case, it seem to be used only to force a rhyme.

Too bad, it's a lovely melody, and the rest of the English lyrics are fine.

*****************

Use of "I" in preference to "me" as the object of a verb or preposition is common usage in Rasta/Jamaican, as far as I cen tell from song lyrics. It would not surprise me to learn that the origin of this quirk might be found somewhere in England.

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: frogprince
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 03:21 PM

And in response to a remark back there somewhere: Grammer didn't get run over by a truck; Grammer got run over by a reindeer.

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 02:52 PM

Don's "All this chitter chatter makes I smile" makes me think of a well-known English folk song that uses that construction. What's the song? Is that construction (makes I do something) used with frequency in any region of England?



I think that if a grammatically-incorrect language construction appears commonly in spoken English, it's perfectly OK to use it in a lyric. But when it's not common usage and done just to match a meter or rhyme, it's WRONG, WRONG WRONG!!!! (are you hearing what I'm saying, Neil Diamond?)

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 02:41 PM

I could be entirely wrong but isn't the structure 'Bring that file to I' common in the English West Country dialect? 'File' needs to be pronounces 'foyle' and 'I' needs to be pronounces 'Oy' though:-)

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 02:28 PM

All this chitter chatter makes I smile,
Ain't 'eard such fuss in quite a while,
Don't make no matter at th'end o't day,
T'ain't 'ow I says it, 'tis what I say.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 02:18 PM

Mayomick - not to split hairs or anything, but 'quick and soon' to me means 'pack your gear as fast as you can, but start doing it ASAP, not half-an-hour from now.'
Two separate meanings but with the same end.

And as for perfect grammar in lyrics, I think Tom Lehrer is hard to beat.

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: meself
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 01:47 PM

'I used to know a real, actual person who, in his everyday doings, spoke as if the nominative "I" were always correct. As in, "bring that file to I." SNIP He must have just gotten some really, really bad advice somewhere in his past.'

Or else he just came from a background in which that was accepted and common usage.

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: GUEST,highlandman at work
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 01:39 PM

Gee, mrmoe, you must stay very offended most of the time.
Take your beef to the radio announcers who never, ever ID the writer of a song when it is played. People remember what they hear over and over again, and in the pop radio world it's the recording artist, not the songwriter.
Sorry.
-G

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: mrmoe
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 01:01 PM

......."I'm usually more surprised when a song gets the finer points of grammar right. and I still smile every time I hear the subjunctive ("If I were the king of the world") in Three Dog Night's Joy to the World."

There is no such thing as "Three Dog Night's Joy to the World."! .....I'm sure you meant to say Hoyt Axton's "Joy to the World".....don't give a shit about grammar, but as a songwriter I'm very offended when credit for authorship is improperly given.

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: GUEST,semi-submersible
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 12:38 PM

Sorry, that was I (cookieless) at 12:00.

By the way, "Dr. Quelch," I loved your poker-faced post. I'm not sure how many rules of style you broke: half a dozen, not counting repeat offenses? Anyone who took that post seriously had better see if his legs are still attached.

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 12:00 PM

Grammar existed long before anyone named it or ever described any rule of grammar. It's something people do instinctively: develop systems, for using our word-symbols to get ideas across. Sign language, for instance, was assumed - even by its speakers - to be just a list of sign-words, until some bright researchers pointed out the spacial grammar and inflections of direction, speed, size, facial expression, etc. which people had developed and were consistently using without consciously thinking about it. Another natural language had evolved under our noses.

The rules of grammar are not there to tell us what to do, they are descriptions of how people use language. Prescriptive pedantry can give the word "grammar" a bad name, but we simply cannot get our meaning across in speech without following some kind of grammar. The alternative is babbling: "mean one what something," for example.

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: GUEST,highlandman at work
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 11:50 AM

I used to know a real, actual person who, in his everyday doings, spoke as if the nominative "I" were always correct. As in, "bring that file to I." Unbelievable. And English (or whatever it was he was speaking) was apparently not a second language for him, either. He must have just gotten some really, really bad advice somewhere in his past.
-Glenn

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: GUEST,mayomick
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 11:30 AM

Seamus
There ain't nothing wrong with those lines from The Rising of the Moon - they work very well in my opinion. My point was that the addition of the word "soon" was unneccessary and redundant from the point of view of adding any meaning to the sentence . Make ready as quickly as possible would have been 'correct', but quick and soon and helps the rhymne and sounds better which is what is important when it comes to a song .

The double negative works in a similar way to strenghens an idea - as in "ain't no use". The double negative was once widely used in everyday speech to emphasise a negative .It was discredited and done away with by formal grammarians some time around the nineteenth century so as to make language conform to the formal rules of mathematics where a double negative equals a positive .

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 11:13 AM

Is '...and which is more, you'll be a man my son' Grammaticaly correct?

I'm pretty sure that 'And Lord knows where, and I don't care, my belt and my tunic goed;' isn't:-)

I also think that as a lot of rules of grammar (split infinitives for one) were made for Latin we can safely go where no Roman hyas been before....

BTW - If the poor gramma gets run over by a truck it is probably country rather than folk...

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: bubblyrat
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 10:31 AM

When Cliff Richard's hit "Travelling Light" was released in Spain,they called "The Light That Travels" !! Apparently,the concept of travelling without much luggage ,and the way of expressing it,in Spain,is rather different.

" I Can't Get No Satisfaction" means,obviously, "I CAN get SOME Satisfaction " .....doesn't it ?? But does it matter ??

Another "Knowed & Road " combination ;

"And the only home I ever knowed
Was a suitcase and the open road " ....Delightful!! (Buffy St Marie).

"Roses are red,and violets are purple;
Sugar is sweet,and so's maple syrple " !! Stunning !! (Roger Miller).

Sometimes,it just wouldn't seem right if it was "Correct".

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: melodeonboy
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 10:11 AM

Cripes! I'm off to hide in the tuck shop!

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 09:33 AM

"discraceful lack of grammar and appalling spelling "

DisCraceful indeed, Quelchie! Fetch the cane & bend over!!!

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: Snuffy
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 09:26 AM

Masato, thanks for coming up with a couple of examples of the subjunctive to show Lizzie what it looks like.

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 09:24 AM

Masato

1)    that's the subjunctive

2)    It's not English, it's Scots, which has different grammatical rules.

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: GUEST,Dr. Quelch
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 09:14 AM

POOR GRAMMAR IN LYRICS!!!
More to the point is the discraceful lack of grammar and appalling spelling to be found and, it would seem, tolerated on MUDCAT. May I recommend a refresher course in English language for all those who have forgotten what they were taught at school. If children are leaving school with such low standards of written English what hope is there?
An absolute abomination. They could do better with a little effort.!!

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: masato sakurai
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 08:48 AM

Gin a body meet a body
Comin thro the rye,
Gin a body kiss a body,
Need a body cry ?

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: GUEST,Gail
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 07:02 AM

I think the 'you and I' in the Olympic song is downright embarrassing. It's not dialect or idiom. It's quite simply a common misunderstanding. As someone has mentioned, at school we had 'you and I' drummed into us to stop us saying 'you and me did something', but the correct use of 'you and me' was often left out.

Another one that always makes me cringe is that song which seems to misquote Kipling by saying 'the female of the species is more deadlier than the male'.   Yuk.

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 06:33 AM

An' it ain't no use in turnin' on your light, babe
I'm on the dark side of the avenue!!

Perfick!!

Only 'perfick' if you're happy with the scansion, as you've just added two more syllables!

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: Mr Happy
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 06:28 AM

""It ain't no use in turnin' on your light, babe
A light I never knowed
An' it ain't no use in turnin' on your light, babe
I'm on the dark side of the road

Or alternatively:

It ain't no use in turnin' on your light, babe
A light I never knew
An' it ain't no use in turnin' on your light, babe
I'm on the dark side of the avenue!!

Perfick!!

Also, what's this hangup with 'You & I', why not 'I & you'??

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 06:17 AM

'Between you & I' is indeed a solecism, since 'between, as a preposition, takes the accusative. But there is, alas, respectable Bardic precedent for it: Antonio's letter to Bassanio, Merchant of Venice III ii, "... all debts are cleared between you and I if I might but see you at my death." It must be all right if it's Shax, as they say ~~ but this is till a usage I avoid like the plague!

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 05:56 AM

""'I will not lie me down, this rain a-ragin'""

As I read that line, Marty, I believe the grammar is essentially correct.

I lie down, but I lay down my burden.

I don't see that the addition of the "me" in this case alters that, since the composer is not saying that he has picked himself up, and is now laying himself down again.

Since "lay down is what you do to something you are carrying, I think the word "me" is added for scansion purposes only, and I would not find it difficult to live with.

Now, of course, twenty people will tell us why that is wrong.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: melodeonboy
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 05:40 AM

It's not a matter of "bad" grammar; it's simply a matter of whether you speak/sing (or claim to speak/sing) in Standard English or not. I generally use the same grammar when I sing as when I speak. I therefore sing "She swum and she swum...." (Marrowbones) rather than the usual "She swam and she swam..." because I don't naturally use the word "swam". In the same way, I sing "And the blackbirds and thrushes sung from every green spray.." because it comes naturally to me to sing it that way.

Were I singing a song where, for example, the word "swam" was used to rhyme with, say, "ham", then I would make the effort to sing "swam" in order to preserve the rhyme.

As for "between you and I", that's not, to the best of my knowledge, a non-standard or dialectal form; it's just hypercorrection!

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 02:14 AM

I think that most times, language can be grammatical without being ridiculous, so I think it's a good idea to follow the rules of grammar whenever possible. There are certain grammatical errors you can get away with when writing lyrics, and other errors just make the songwriter look stupid.

"For you and I," "between you and I," and anything written by Neil Diamond fall into the latter category.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: Gurney
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 01:33 AM

If I don't like it, I don't sing it.
That attitude makes my repertoire poorer than it could be, makes me avoid some nearly (IMO) great modern songs, because the grammar grates on my sensibilities. My loss.

I understand why PHJim posed the question.

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 12:56 AM

"I bear orders from the captain make your ready quick and soon /for the pikes must be together by the rising of the moon."

I believe the words are:


I bear orders from the captain,
"Make you ready quick and soon,
For the pikes must be together by the rising of the moon."

What's wrong with that?

Quick and soon are not tautological, IMO.

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: robinia
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 08:48 PM

Sometimes "cleaning up the grammar" really ruins the song.    Singing "if I were a mole in the ground, I'd root that mountain down" (instead of "if I'se a mole in the ground . . .")   Honest, I heard someone sing it like that;

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: oldhippie
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 07:35 PM

I always thought part of the charm of a song are its expressions. For instance, in Tom T Hall's "Old Dogs and Children and Watermelon Wine", there's the line: "Women think about theyselves when men folk ain't around". It would not sound correct with proper grammar. I agree with those who invoke poetic / artistic license in this discussion.

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: Artful Codger
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 07:32 PM

Lizzie: Eats, Shoots and Leaves is, IMO, a brilliant book, both highly entertaining and informative. Although Ms Truss may appear overly concerned with punctuation--as any serious writer should be; it's there for a reason--she's really a pragmatist discussing punctuation for the same reason we're discussing grammar in this thread: because awkward or improper usage confuses or distracts rather than clarifies. Her advice includes a healthy dose of irreverence toward punctuation rules; ultimately, her concern is clarity, not fastidiousness.

The more attention a writer pays to crafting his language, the less noticeable the effort should appear in the end result: attention should flow unencumbered to the sense and the manner of expression, not to jarring side issues. Nor should the reader or listener need to mentally back up to puzzle out the meaning. There's a difference between idiomatic usage (which aids in creating character and place) and bad grammar (which just throws you like a rodeo bull).

I must agree with Truss: the modern habit of dispensing with punctuation hinders rather than aids communication. Out of respect for your audience, you shouldn't omit punctuation--or capitalization--any more than you should speak in a monotone. Punctuation is the written counterpart of inflection; use it well.

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 06:58 PM

what McCartney sings , and has always sung is

"If this ever changing world in which we live in"

not " in this ever changing world ..."

and not " ... in which we're living ".

I agree that "If this ever changing world in which we're living" would have been less egregious, but that's not what Macca wrote or sung.

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: Artful Codger
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 06:35 PM

Amos: You're right, listening closely I hear the line is "But if this ever-changing world in which we're livin' / Makes you..."
That makes more sense than with three in's, one clearly redundant; someone pointed it out to me the other way, and I stupidly took it on faith. Memorable music, but the lyrics always seemed tossed-off, another melange of half-songs. The phrase "in which we're livin'" still sticks out as a silly tautology: where else would we be living?

Betsy: It could be "in which we live" or "we live in" (with a dangling preposition), but "in which we live in" is clearly improper: one would not say "We live in in the world".

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: Bupkes
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 06:32 PM

If the original grammar is noticeably wrong and grates, I feel free to change it. After all, I'm a "folk" too.

But if the "correct" grammar sounds stilted or just doesn't work, then I'll sing the original.

For example, in Rod MacDonald's "A Sailor's Prayer" (here's an author-approved text), the chorus line

"I will not lie me down, this rain a-ragin' "

just doesn't work with "lay me down"; the original sounds good, wrong grammar and all, so I sing it that way.

But the last verse (in which "death waits just off the bow"), with awkward wording, seems to me such an artless mess, I sing it differently every time, and no one seems much bothered. (And if anyone did notice, I'd tell them what I did, of course.) Mostly, the verses are an excuse to sing the lovely chorus, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: Poor grammar in lyrics
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 06:24 PM

can we establish once and for all that McCartney did not write

"In this ever changing world in which we live in" ...

He wrote

"IF this ever changing world in which we live in
(makes you give up and cry)

Admittedly, it still jars a bit, but nothing like to the extent which it would have done with three "in's"