Grammar in NUT ad

[Dannie]

I know this is a cheap jibe and the issue an important one, but the National Union of Teachers aren't really helping their case by taking out a full page advert in today's Grauniad that contains the sentence "The Government has removed the entitlement that pupils must be taught by qualified teachers only."
I quite agree that my children should be taught by a properly trained graduate. One who can string together a grammatical sentence would be nice...

I absolutely loath bad grammar but have to say, Tamum, that the whole split infinitive thing is fine with me. I actually think it's more elegant 'to boldly go' than 'to go boldly'.

Arrghhh, nerdgirl!

I love literally too- my all-time favourite was when a house on our road was advertised as having a supermarket "literally on the doorstep". Handy, eh?

nerdgirl that's not more elegant, it's just more startrek

It's actually a very tricky sentance to rewrite and I've been wondering why and I think it is because it is trying to do too much in one sentance - ie 1/ tell you that children used to be taught only be qualified teachers. 2/That the goverment has recently removed this requirement and 3/That the NUT thinks this is doing a disservice to children and depriving them of their entitlement to proper teaching.
This is nigh on impossible to conflate into one elegant and correct sentence. In fact, I think it only really works as two sentances. ie, something like, 'The government recently removed the requirement that all teachers should be properly qualified. The NUT thinks this is wrong and that all children are entitled to the best quality teaching."

The problem is that the NUT has used the word 'entitlement' to imply that the decision was wrong. Obviously the word 'requirement' works much better, but it makes the sentance morally neutral, which was not the intention!

Your reconstruction looks good aloha (although the spell checker didn't pick up your "sentances".

Speaking as one who had no education in English grammar (much to my disgust), I have read this thread with interest. I often hear or read a sentence which sounds wrong but have no idea why? Can anyone recommend a good book to help me?

Going back to the sentence again, my initial reaction was that the "only" shouldn't be at the end but nobody mentions this so is it OK?

What about "The Government has removed the entitlement that pupils be taught only by qualified teachers."?

Please dissect/pulverise/criticise in any way. I'm here to learn!

Jude, you are quite right I don't have a spellchecker but don't usual make such silly mistakes, I think. I am very tired (and bit hungover...) after night out with girls last night and should be in bed! Anyway, what about: 'The Government has removed the right of children to be taught only by qualified teachers' - though of course, the word 'right' would be a bit dodgy, as who says it was their 'right' before? It was the law, but was it a 'right'?

jude, I will dig out a book we use at work. It's meant to help us write in plain English. I am a copywriter but now work in local goverment and one of my tasks is to write some of their communications literature.

Anyway, I have earned my living writing for over 15 years without ever knowing the rules of grammar. So I may easily be responsible for some of those of cringe making mistakes out there!

My own rules? If a sentence feels wrong, simplify it, shorten it, split it up and use the active tense over the passive tense whenever possible. Walk away, have lunch, come back, print out the piece and look at it again. IME what seems perfect on the computer screen will be full of errors and clumsy phrases when it appears on paper.

ps I rarely preveiw anything I write on mumsnet so daren't even imagine what it would look like on paper.

Sorry gals but I can only think of two reasons for not splitting an infinitive -

1. Because you feel that the rules of English ought to conform to the grammatical precepts of a language that died a thousand years ago.

2. Because you wish to cling to a pointless affectation of usage that is without the support of any recognized authority of the last 200 years, even at the cost of composing sentences that are ambiguous, inelegant, and patently contorted.

Let's leave Star Trek aside. Which of these phrases actually sound better? Be honest!

'firmly to establish' - 'to firmly establish'
'to forbid flatly' - 'to flatly forbid'
'to increase adequately' - 'to adequately increase'
'to move powerfully the heart' - 'to powerfully move the heart'
'better to equip' - 'to better equip'

LONG LIVE SPLIT INFINITIVES!

\lin{http://www.princeton.edu/~jmkelly/split_infin.html\ Split infinitve stuff)

Found this which is interesting. Knew it something about imposing Latin grammar onto a Germanic language

Bugger. Try again

Split infinitve stuff

Can't spell infinitive now!

Thanks for the site, Tinker. I'd forgotten about the GBS quote.

Agree with everything Tigermoth wrote. My only addition is to say, if in any doubt, say it out loud to yourself. You will soon trip over any clumsy or unnatural phrases and automatically rephrase them. IMO written words are normally best if they are similar to spoken worlds.