Originally posted by operation mindcrime
Thank you for taking the time to explain the English grammar to me. 
Although I'm still having problems with understanding wether the structure of that sentence is merely a choice or just plain incorrect. I can
understand:
the only important thing is that the first and last letter are in the right place.
the only important thing, for the first and last letter, is to be in the right place.
For the first and the last letter, being is the right place is the only important thing.
etc etc...
but this...
the only important thing is that the first and last letter be in the right place
feels like it's incorrect or is it a matter of preference and could it be considered correct spelling??
Peace
(Sorry for the off-topic but I'm learning something here...)
Of the three quotes you have at the top of your post the first is the closest to being correct.
The original material should say " in the correct place" instead of "in the right place".
I wish I could remember the rule but in English you should use "correct" instead of "right" as "right" is a colloquial word and while grammatically
correct, it is considered poor English.
I just can't remember why though...
The reason the last one feels incorrect is because "be" normally referees to animate objects like a cat or dog, or human.
Grammatically it is correct, but it's considered "lazy" or "poor" English.
English is full of tons of weird rules where there are two correct options, but one is a better choice or more correct than the other.
On a tangent for weird English rules:
The rule that a double negative is improper is a fallacy.
It was invented by an English priest(I think Church of England) who loved math but couldn't get his papers published because they were rubbish or just
reworks of other papers.
So he decided to apply the math principle of a negative number times a negative number is a positive.
In doing so he said having two negatives in an English sentence they negate each other and make the sentence logically false.
This itself is wrong because not all sentences are logical statements therefore they are additive not multiplicative.
Basically the no using double negatives in sentences was invented by someone with an ego and wanted to be remembered.
Other languages use double negatives.
So saying "I can’t get no respect" is actually fine as long as you aren't going up against a grammar nazi who doesn't know the history of
grammar.
I'm willing to bet all of the weird English grammar rules that just seem wrong were invited by some quack who wanted to be remembered.
I hope this clears some things up, but I doubt it will as English is more of an "obey the rules" language instead of a "what makes sense"
language.
edit on 14-3-2012 by Pigraphia because: typo
I have no idea what the OP was saying. I feel worthless just like the 55% of other people who
couldn't read it, and are not geniuses. Oh drat, I need another shot of bobuorn.
