I sure would love to have some examples of grammar rules that have softened in your lifetime--and examples of applications. I'm trying to give my students a sense of the language being in flux--that what holds true today may be very different in the future. Perhaps 'grammar' is a bit too restrictive here because I'd like to cross into vocabulary applications as well.

Here's an example:

Splitting the infinitive was about as hard as splitting the atom when I was going through school. We simply weren't allowed to back in the 60s. Things changed--and now we can split the infinitive in even formal writing when the sentence flows more naturally by doing so. Example: I want to consciously observe when my little finger assumes incorrect position on the keyboard.

If you can even write a sentence that's a bit better than the one I used for splitting the infinitive, thanks.

Another rule I learned that's pretty much consistently broken these days--at least in the world of advertisement-- is the distinction between healthful and healthy.

Thanks for any input.

One thing that has changed since my day of being taught grammar rules is the recognition of the phrasal verb. Way back when the preposition was not permitted at the end of a sentence. Now, grammarians are recognizing that that thing that looks like a preposition isn't always one. This is not so much a change of the grammar is she is used as it is a recognition of something that has been going on all along.

I'm afraid that a lot of adverbs are on their way out. I'll wager that 90% of schoolkids in the U.S. wouldn't think anything was wrong if they heard, "I did good on my report card", or, "I didn't do too bad on my report card".
I also think that 'of' may replace 'have', when used with could, would, and should.
But you asked what has changed. Well, over-all, we've become a lot less formal, and in other things than language as well. How many letters today start with Dear Sir or Madam, or are signed, Very Truly Yours?
One thing your kids may be able to relate to is the "shorthand" that has developed with the use of pagers, or Leetspeak, I believe a previous thread called it. And don't forget words and phrases that have entered our language from movies; I'd be interested to know how many of your students recognize Here's lookin' at you, kid; whereas you and I couldn't have recognized Make my day.

Something you could do, Wordwind, is get copies of 19th century or early 20th century books on grammar and usage (some are on the internet), and see how much of their advice is still current. Also, I think the latest edition of Fowler's (edited by Burchfield, I believe) does have discussions on how usage has changed on some points.

Bingley

Well, there's "me and my brother" instead of "my brother and I." Of course "...and I" is grammatically correct, but now it's beginning to sound so rigid, archaic, and uncomfortable (at least in these waters), that "me and..." actually sounds "right." I almost feel silly when I use the "...and I" form, even in writing, anymore. But I know from previous discussions on this board that the "...and I" is still in common usage in, at least, some areas of the British Isles, and Upunder.

Or, "my brother and me."

Which brings up the notion of the singular they. Hardly new, having been used since, what is it, tsuwm, the 17th century? But certainly much in the news lately. And that's not even counting the habit of starting sentences with conjunctions. Thumb through your AHD and read the Usage Notes.

Good suggestions here, and thanks.

The kind of thing that I'm looking for--and your suggestions will send me searching this weekend--are for rules that were rigid for formal writing that have categorically changed, such as the split infinitive and the use of the preposition at the end of certain sentences to which Faldage refers.

The incorrect usage of the pronoun "I" gives me shivers up my spine. It's almost at the point now that when I correctly use "me", to some ears it's as though I had erred--but I hadn't. "Before leaving class, make sure you give your papers to Mrs. Edwards and me." Soooo many people in that sentence would have said "...to Mrs. Edwards and I." No joke. We've discussed the problem here on AWAD some time ago. I've found myself sliding into that construction incorrect "whosit and I" objective construction incorrectly on occasion--and I immediately correct myself.

But funny things happen in class. I thought a group of freshmen were going to mutiny day before yesterday when I suggested that the word 'swimming' could be a noun. They scowled and complained and said I was wrong and how could simming, which everybody knows is a verb, be a noun??? Those kids were really upset with me. After they finished being upset, I acknowledged the verbitude (!) of swimming, but showed them how it mysteriously became a noun in certain constructions. My kids don't trust me yet. It's somehow interesting to realize that I'm being examined with great suspicion.

Again, thanks for the suggestions.

They scowled and complained and said I was wrong That is a very good thing; it means they actually already know some things, and therefore you don't have to go back to the very beginning!

my spelling is horrid, my typos, and use of ellipis.. (or rather a sort of ellipis to indicate an incompete thought!) my tendency when excite to leave out words, all are legendary.

but somehow the hard wiring of grammer came to me intact!

the onliest word i can think of is ain't-- a word frequently used, correctly!, in my spoken idiolect. It is not the long that it has been in the dustbin, a scant 200 years or so. (our founding fathers might well have used the word!)

and unlike the school yard chant,
Ain't ain't in the dictionary,
so I ain't going to use ain't no more!
Ain't is in most dictionaries!

>the hard wiring of grammer

Is grammar hard-wired, but? It seems unlikely to me, given that grammar differences from language to language. I am, btw, 100% with you on the invaluable ain't - especially since I know how much it appeals to our Louahvull ayleur.

to Mrs. Edwards and I

I wonder if anyone has ever heard anything on the model of to Mrs. Edwards or I?

The incorrect usage of the pronoun "I" gives me shivers up my spine.

For me it's the constant and insistent English misuse of the word "yourself". I don't know how many times people have said "Oh, I wanted to talk to yourself about that." or "That would be important to yourself." I feel like asking "Which of my selves?" What the f*ck is wrong with "you"? Not enough syllables or summat?

There's been a definite loosening of the reins regarding ending sentences with prepositions. It is no longer "something up with which we will not put."

"Oh, I wanted to talk to yourself about that." or "That would be important to yourself."

I have never, ever heard this usage, Pfranz. Is is Zild or midlands Brit or both or more?

you obviously don't hear enough after-the-game interviews, ASp; to wit:
They came right at myself, so James [the aforementioned self] had to make the play. Yourself shouldn't be dissin' me about that.

I wonder if anyone has ever heard anything on the model of to Mrs. Edwards or I?--Faldage

Thanks, Faldage. I'll use your own model here to help show the kids how to listen for the misuse of the hypercorrected "so&so and I".

Betsy, it's Brit bizspeak. They all do it. It's indescribable!

> They all do it

Balls. I hardly ever hear it. I suspect it may be more prevalent north of Watford...

Not a grammar change but involving punctuation.
The use of lower case "s" and an apostrophe when pluralizing numbers and acronyms (e.g., F-14's, PC's).
I am told that current usage says leave out the apostrophe.
Although I may have used it incorrectly throughout my early school years, I was never corrected. Logically, the apostrophe connotes a possessive; but until recently, I thought when pluralizing things like "the roaring 20s", it was optional or at least acceptable. Did something change, or did I lead a sheltered life in grade school?

GBS left a trust fund (with very little money in it!)funded by royalties from his work to support a 'society' dedicated to the the eliminations of 'extra' puctuation, like the dot after Mr or Mrs- The society, didn't get much done, since Shaw spent most of his money when he was alive. but "My Fair Lady"- in London, NY, World Tours, the movie, etc, poured huge amounts of royalties into the trust fund, (after his death) and the society (with some fancy sounding name) has been quietly working to get rid of dots/periods, dashes, hyphens (in words) apostrophes and other puctuation in spelling. The Economist style book has adapted most of the recommendations. YCLIU, i am sure. they are much more 'active' in UK, but they are a factor in some of the changes.

Its not really grammer, its punctuation, they are trying to perfect.

Judging from its use in various respectable journals, it seems to be ok these days to use like as a conjunction, although--showing my advanced age--I still can't go along with it.
I'd never say: "They don't write songs like they used to." Better, IMHO, to use as, or the way.

...the hard wiring of grammer came to me intact! ... the onliest word i can think of is ain't-- ...It is not that long that it has been in the dustbin, a scant 200 years or so. (our founding fathers might well have used the word!)

I have enjoyed many a quiet self-righteous conniption over "ain't"... and then all of a sudden today a quote from Robert Louis Stevenson popped into my head:

"A birdie with a yellow bill
Hopped onto my windowsill,
Cocked his shining eye and said,
Ain't you 'shamed, you sleepyhead!"

I am abashed.

A birdie with a yellow bill

Robert Louis Stevenson???

Jeesh!!! It *was RLS. I thunk it were some Hoosier.

Attual® the way I first hearn it were:

A birdie with a yaller bill
Hop upon my windie sill
He squint an shine his eye an said
Ain't you shamed you sleepyhead?

from the lips of Albert Alligator.

Not long ago, I bumped heads with a poster on another site over the use of "It is I" versus "It is me."
I felt secure in my support for the former usage and defended it mightily. I subsequently found some equivocation on the part of several web grammarians who, while acknowledging the grammatical correctness of "It is I," added words to the effect that "It is me" has become acceptable, at least in non-formal writing. I have to admit, I felt a bit let down. At the same time, I would never respond to someone's question, "Who's there?" with other than, "It's me."

when my kids were young, Me an(d).. vs Cathy and I always got ignored, or worse (from my daughters point of view to)was intentionally mis-heard by us... so we would ask: Meagan? Who is Meagan? Cathy's real first name is Meagan?-- but It's me! was considered OK...(it was a matter of choosing ones battles..)

acceptable, at least in non-formal writing

I'm having a little trouble imagining a situation where the phrase would come up in formal writing.

I believe "formal" would apply to an essay submitted in fulfillment of a class assignment or a magazine article whose target audience would be sufficiently aware of the rules of grammar to be offended by the misuse of the construction. In a "formal" narrative, I could easily see the writer saying something along the lines of, "...They never suspected it was I who let the dogs out."(Not that I would use those words to make that point).

> Another rule I learned that's pretty much consistently broken these days--at least in the world of advertisement-- is the distinction between healthful and healthy.

I remember a discussion about this ages ago. I had never heard the word healthful until I saw it on this board. So you can probably blame us for the confusion.

Similarly regimen for diet - our diet serves both the slimming and the everday use of the word. I only see regimen used on UK medical sites to do with treatment by a particular drug or cocktail of drugs.

the distinction between healthful and healthy.

A distinction that has been muddy since 1550 according to OED1.

Which brings up the question of "changes" in "rules" that have little or no historical basis.

This is one of the frustrations of being a writer and a reader and an earnest student of grammar:

You go to all that trouble of learning a picayune rule--and then the masses go charging through it, ignoring it in the way bullheaded but powerful masses do, and you realize you learned the darned rule for nothing.

I learned the stupid distinction between healthful and healthy--and, honest to goodness, the AHD made the distinction between the two at least in the '60s. The first time I heard a commercial in which 'healthy' was misused, I nearly blew my stack. But why? For nothing. Because the masses bloody didn't like the sound of 'healthful'--the masses just plain avoid using the word 'healthful.' They like 'healthy.'

And one day some future tsuwm--some tsuwm with three heads and six arms and instant access to every linguistic element that ever existed, including Neanderthal grunts found still reverberating in some strange channel in the earth's core--that future tsuwm will use 'healthful' as a useless word of the day--a relic.

But, honestly, I cannot make myself say:

"Oh, that's a healthy choice!"

It makes my blood curdle, and, yes, I'm antiquated.

But I do like splitting infinitives because that's an altogether different situation, in my way of thinking.