Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: For what is grammar good? - (nf)
Message-ID: <812@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 28-Mar-84 19:00:21 EST
Article-I.D.: dciem.812
Posted: Wed Mar 28 19:00:21 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Mar-84 19:45:19 EST
References: <6397@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 26

"This is an impertinence up with which I will not put."

If we forget theories of syntax based either on modern linguistics or
on ancient languages, and don't worry about whether something is a
preposition of a particle, the problem becomes reasonably easy to handle.

Think of the strength of association between the words of the sentence,
and of the number of completed units (words, phrases, etc) that must
be held in mind at any one time.  Is there a tighter binding among
"put up with" or "with an impertinence".  To my ear, there are various
things I have to put up with, but few things in company with which I put up.
Hence I think of "up with" as a tightly bound complement to "put".
If I use "with" earlier in the sentence than "put", I have to hold
it in mind as the rest of the bindings are made, and then link it.
If I finish the sentence with "put up with", that problem goes away.
Better overall would be "I will not put up with this impertinence"
in which the bindings happen earlier, and the lightly bound groupings
("up with this impertinence") require no stacking.

Grammars may not be good for much, or they may be good for a lot,
depending on your needs.  Good usage, however, always helps communication,
and good usage defines "good" grammar.
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt