A question about the language used in the U.S. constitution.

[wtf]

Please forgive me posting here. My post was too big for Yahoo Answers, and I figured computer programmers would have the requisite linguistical knowledge and interest to help.

Article 1 section 2 of the constitution states: "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."

I understand intrinsically that the double negation begun in the nucleus of the subject changes the meaning of the first and third relative clauses, but in the second clause there is no additional negative, rendering me to consider it as a possible grammatical error with the following literal meaning: "No citizen shall be a representative."

Acknowledging only fools would adhere to that interpretation, I've tried reconsidering my interpretation to no avail. Either it is grammatically incorrect as is, or I'm ignorant of some grammatical rule long since neglected by grammar texts.

I've revised the sentence, changing a position of a comma, and added in parentheses cardinal numbers to indicate that the scope of "who shall not have" is applying to the next 2 immediate clauses, while the subject "no person" continues to apply for the remainder of the sentence.

No person shall be a representative who shall not have, (1) attained the age of 25 years, and (2) been 7 years a citizen of the United States, and who also shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

This rendering avoids split infinitives and is less ambiguous (although far from the least ambiguous possible). What do you think? Is there a better redaction possible that still keeps the general gramatical form? Or what are other interpretations of the original text that resolve both issues; retaining affirmation of requisites of being a citizen AND a resident?

[Duthomhas]

The language is correct, if not a bit dated. (You are misreading it.)

In today's language you might say:

"No Person can be a Representative unless he or she has attained the age of twenty five years, been a citizen of the United States at least seven years, and will be, when elected, an inhabitant of the State which he or she is to represent."

Breaking it down:

"No Person shall be a representative who"
The following things disqualify people from being a representative:

"shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years"
-- you aren't at least twenty-five

"and have been seven years a citizen of the US"
-- (continuing from the previous clause) you aren't (at least) seven years a citizen

"and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen"
-- you don't live in the state for which you've been elected

The age clauses are interdependent; the residency clause is independent of the other two. You can read this from the use of the conjunctive phrases with the introduction: "who shall not"
-- who shall not (..., and ...), and who shall not (...).

Use of the comma is not precise in English. A more pedantic fellow might have used a semicolon to separate lists:
-- who shall not ..., and ...; and who shall not ....

Or, the first comma could have been omitted:
-- who shall not ... and ..., and who shall not ....

There are no split infinitives in that text.

[wtf]

"No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years," first assertion.

"No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have been 7 years a citizen." second assertion.

Here I'm refering to the perfect infinitive "to not have been", which is split by the wording of the first relative clause aswell.

the first comma could have been omitted:

Why didn't you just say so? But still, the comma SHOULD have been omitted is a better solution. Now it reads perfectly.

[Duthomhas]

The people who wrote and reviewed and ratified that document were all scholars of their day, and they had a most excellent grasp on grammar. The better solution was to use language clear to the readers.


It's not a split infinitive unless you are using an infinitive AND an adverbial phrase -- neither of which apply here.

[wtf]

Oweing to their commonness, infinitives split by adverbial phrases are what is targeted by the application of the rule, an infinitive can actually be split by anything (thus violating the rule).

My point was that it would have been easy to avoid and cause less confusion regardless of the intended audience. In the absence of some prescribed stylistic language; a discussion of a different aspect of which that was ultimately unable to answer the question at hand and that can be found here and relates to the above passage; obfuscated language is always discouraged.





[13th or 14th edit] There I think that about does it...

[Duthomhas]

I think you ought to take this over to http://www.grammarphobia.com/, since you don't seem to want to believe me about stuff. Or go look it up in your copy of Harbrace's.

[wtf]

In my last post I forgot to leave the link that I was reffering to.

http://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-specific-purpose-in-law-for-using-double-negatives-like-in-the-U-S-Constitution

And to Duoas,
Please forgive me for not having known of your almighty eminence. I came here trying to have a meaningful discussion and perhaps learn a thing or two. Shame on me. I should have known that this forum is only for show-offs.

[Duthomhas]

wtf wrote:

I came here trying to have a meaningful discussion and perhaps learn a thing or two.

Bull. You came here arrogantly believing you have a better grasp on grammar than everyone else, and acting like a spoiled brat when reality conflicts with what you want to be true.

I mean, seriously, you think you can do a better job of writing the US Constitution than the scholars who did?

http://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-specific-purpose-in-law-for-using-double-negatives-like-in-the-U-S-Constitution

...and I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with that link. It only explains why legal writing uses double negatives; it has nothing to do with the commas and clauses and split infinitives with which you've occupied this thread.

But, all rational thought aside:

My eminence bows to your righteous intelligence.

[wtf]

I inquired from the forum at large about 1) a better possible wording and 2) assistance in understand the language at hand.


Duoas wrote:

it has nothing to do with the commas and clauses and split infinitives

I admitted that.

a discussion of a different aspect of which that was ultimately unable to answer the question at hand

(emphasis added)

Perhaps, however, I should have known better than to have used language myself that would confuse children.


The article discussed different aspects of prescribed language found in the same passage. Since I can have no hope left for ascertaining the rationale for using obfuscated language in respect to the spliting of "shall not have attained" and "been" in the second clause from you, or, oweing to their apparent lack of interest from others on this board; the forum at large; I can only hope to offer my advice; whatever it be worth; to you, not on grammar but on etiquette.

If you notice I even joked with an edit indicating how many times I had to revise my previous post to give an inkling of my own grammatical uncertainty, but you, as quick witted as you are, came back and as arrogantly as I have ever seen anyone on this board act, proverbially punched a little, old, grey-haired lady with glasses below the belt.

My grammer is not perfect, but I can read and understand most complex prose without too much jargon. My punctuation however, quite frankly sucks. Should I therefore strive never to improve on it for fear of someone calling me out as a wannabe? Being polite doesn't mean not forming opinions, you can hold what opinion you want of me, but for the love of god Duoas, be damn sure of your facts before you make accusations. And if by chance you don't understand something, and don't have the courage to admit it, shut up.

[Duthomhas]

I inquired from the forum at large about 1) a better possible wording and 2) assistance in understand the language at hand.

Which I thought I had provided you in my first response -- owning to the fact that you never said otherwise.

Instead, you moved on to split infinitives and a value judgement on how it SHOULD have been written.

Duoas wrote:

it has nothing to do with the commas and clauses and split infinitives

I admitted that.

What!? Where?

wtf wrote:

Oweing to their commonness, infinitives split by adverbial phrases are what is targeted by the application of the rule, an infinitive can actually be split by anything (thus violating the rule).

I hope you aren't reading this as an 'admission' that you were wrong about split infinitives -- because it is anything but; you still claim that the that the rule is violated!

Perhaps, however, I should have known better than to have used language myself that would confuse children.

Like this language, perhaps?:

My point was that it would have been easy to avoid and cause less confusion regardless of the intended audience. In the absence of some prescribed stylistic language; a discussion of a different aspect of which that was ultimately unable to answer the question at hand and that can be found here and relates to the above passage; obfuscated language is always discouraged.

This is language that would confuse anyone -- it's a bunch of run-on thoughts and incomplete sentences. But, persisting:

wtf wrote:

a discussion of a different aspect of which that was ultimately unable to answer the question at hand

(emphasis added)

Oh, that different discussion which didn't happen here, right?

I cannot be held responsible for unanswering a question not asked in a discussion I didn't have.

The article discussed different aspects of prescribed language found in the same passage. Since I can have no hope left for ascertaining the rationale for using obfuscated language in respect to the spliting of "shall not have attained" and "been" in the second clause from you, or, oweing to their apparent lack of interest from others on this board; the forum at large; I can only hope to offer my advice; whatever it be worth; to you, not on grammar but on etiquette.

Clearly, the fact that I didn't received your (grammatically incorrect) advice was not well-received.

If you notice I even joked with an edit indicating how many times I had to revise my previous post to give an inkling of my own grammatical uncertainty, but you, as quick witted as you are, came back and as arrogantly as I have ever seen anyone on this board act, proverbially punched a little, old, grey-haired lady with glasses below the belt.

There is only one thing I said that could elicit such a response:

Duoas wrote:

I think you ought to take this over to http://www.grammarphobia.com/, since you don't seem to want to believe me about stuff. Or go look it up in your copy of Harbrace's.

Alas, offering better recourses than simply continuing with one dude on a C++ forum with whom you obviously disagree is now equivalent to going and hitting old ladies below the belt in the most arrogant possible way.

Should I therefore strive never to improve on it for fear of someone calling me out as a wannabe? Being polite doesn't mean not forming opinions,you can hold what opinion you want of me, but for the love of god Duoas, be damn sure of your facts before you make accusations

Of what had I accused you?

The only facts I have of you are present in this thread and your assertions about grammar. I never called you a wannabe, or even intimated it; I only said that, as you don't believe me, you should go ask someone else or look it up.

To which you responded with personal vitriol.

So right now my opinion of you is actually pretty low, since you are determined to abuse me personally for not answering your question to your liking.

And if by chance you don't understand something, and don't have the courage to admit it, shut up.

Then shut the hell up.