Results 1 to 9 of 9

    • Join Date: Feb 2007
    • Posts: 7
    #1

    Bush against grammar.

    "See, the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit, and it's over.
    --George w. Bush

    St. Petersburg, Russia
    06/16/2006".
    Source: The Chimp-O-Matic

    " ...is to get..."; "...is getting..."; is that right?

    He's american, its true. But I don't think that, even in Texas, they talk like that.
    'morning


    • Join Date: Jul 2006
    • Posts: 2,886
    #2

    Re: Bush against grammar.

    Quote Originally Posted by chomsky5 View Post
    "See, the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit, and it's over.
    --George w. Bush

    St. Petersburg, Russia
    06/16/2006".
    Source: The Chimp-O-Matic

    " ...is to get..."; "...is getting..."; is that right?

    He's american, its true. But I don't think that, even in Texas, they talk like that.
    'morning
    Are you the Chomsky, the very man? :)

    "what they need to do is get..." is correct.


    • Join Date: Jun 2007
    • Posts: 13
    #3

    Re: Bush against grammar.

    unfortnately, Bush, the worst man between politicians, is talking as he is responsible for the world.

    How poor is he !!! He can't control His country, so he tries to show his false responsibilties in another countries.


    • Join Date: Feb 2007
    • Posts: 7
    #4

    Unhappy Re: Bush against syntax.

    Quote Originally Posted by svartnik View Post
    Are you the Chomsky, the very man? :)

    "what they need to do is get..." is correct.
    I'm not Noam Avram Chomsky, it's evident.
    You are right.
    The quote I quoted fights syntax not grammar.
    In other words, the sentence may be gramatically correct but, I insist, it is syntaxically incorrect. In Italy we would say that it do not respect "consecutio temporum".
    Anyway, let's wait for a teacher advice.
    Bye


    • Join Date: Jul 2006
    • Posts: 2,886
    #5

    Re: Bush against syntax.

    Quote Originally Posted by chomsky5 View Post
    I'm not Noam Avram Chomsky, it's evident.
    You are right.
    The quote I quoted fights syntax not grammar.
    In other words, the sentence may be gramatically correct but, I insist, it is syntaxically incorrect. In Italy we would say that it do not respect "consecutio temporum".
    Anyway, let's wait for a teacher advice.
    Bye
    "I'm not Noam Avram Chomsky, it's evident. " Also it is evident that I was joking.

    Anyway, let's wait for a teacher's advice -- how do you know I am not one?
    I am a physics teacher, that is true.
    "The quote I quoted fights syntax not grammar."??
    Syntax is a subset of grammar.


    • Join Date: Jul 2006
    • Posts: 2,886
    #6

    Re: Bush against grammar.

    "As the word is understood by most modern linguists, the subfields of grammar are phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Traditionally, however, grammar included only morphology and syntax."


    • Join Date: Feb 2007
    • Posts: 7
    #7

    Re: Bush against grammar.

    Quote Originally Posted by svartnik View Post
    "As the word is understood by most modern linguists, the subfields of grammar are phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Traditionally, however, grammar included only morphology and syntax."

    Teacher or not, as I'm Italian, you are hungarian, aren't you?

    So, let's wait for an advice from an english teacher. On the subject proposed by the thread.

    We are not discussing about my English but about the linguistic tool (English? English in its American version) used by G.W. Bush.

    Regardless to the rest, whatever it means, English or American grammar/syntax, to me, the sentence
    "...to do is get Syria..." is incorrect.
    He had to say:
    "....to do is getting(to get) Syria....".

    Greetings.


    • Join Date: Jul 2006
    • Posts: 2,886
    #8

    Re: Bush against grammar.

    Quote Originally Posted by chomsky5 View Post
    Regardless to the rest, whatever it means, English or American grammar/syntax, to me, the sentence
    "...to do is get Syria..." is incorrect.
    Greetings.
    You started this thread to elicit answers from others, did you not?
    You say incorrect, I say correct; what others may say I do not know.
    In my culture we say thanks if somebody tries to help you.

    The New York Times: Search for 'to do is get'

    End of story on my part.

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • Laos

    • Join Date: Nov 2002
    • Posts: 57,888
    #9

    Re: Bush against grammar.

    'Need to do is to get' would more more acceptable in writing, but dropping 'to' in speech doesn't strike me as an error; it strikes me as a normal enough form for speech. I don't like the suggested use of the gerund.

Similar Threads

  1. Is there a grammar of spoken English?
    By M56 in forum General Language Discussions
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 09-Feb-2009, 01:58
  2. Complex english grammar
    By shivam in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-Oct-2007, 04:57
  3. Complex english grammar
    By Unregistered in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 17-May-2007, 08:03
  4. Prescriptive grammar and Descriptive grammar
    By zoobinshid in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-Sep-2005, 13:25
  5. corrections help
    By Anonymous in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 21-Feb-2003, 18:05

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •