Comments on: Adverbial placement in the oath flub http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1039 Tue, 21 May 2013 06:10:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Janice Huth Byer http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1039#comment-20935 Janice Huth Byer Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:11:18 +0000 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1039#comment-20935 Mossy, like you I've pondered the meaning of "so help me God", in part, because until this inauguration, I misheard it, owing to the stress on "me" as "so help my God" - as in "I will help my God" . "So help me God" is surely a literal request for divine guidance, with the stress properly on "help" and not a rhetorical plea for mercy akin to "heaven help me!". For one, oaths are invariably meant literally, and second, the oath is for the office not for the President's soul. The latter would befit an informal oath. Mossy, like you I've pondered the meaning of "so help me God", in part, because until this inauguration, I misheard it, owing to the stress on "me" as "so help my God" - as in "I will help my God" .

"So help me God" is surely a literal request for divine guidance, with the stress properly on "help" and not a rhetorical plea for mercy akin to "heaven help me!". For one, oaths are invariably meant literally, and second, the oath is for the office not for the President's soul. The latter would befit an informal oath.

]]> By: merlyna http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1039#comment-20222 merlyna Sun, 25 Jan 2009 06:28:09 +0000 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1039#comment-20222 oh thanks for writing about this! as a non-native speaker of English and not American, i was curious about this incident, both legally and linguistically. you answered my questions!! oh thanks for writing about this! as a non-native speaker of English and not American, i was curious about this incident, both legally and linguistically. you answered my questions!!

]]> By: Terry Hunt http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1039#comment-20088 Terry Hunt Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:30:14 +0000 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1039#comment-20088 FWIW, my impression while listening to the ceremony live on radio (3,000 miles away, in the bath) was that both parties were, at the crucial moment, distracted by some emergency-vehicle sirens starting up: they certainly caught my attention. FWIW, my impression while listening to the ceremony live on radio (3,000 miles away, in the bath) was that both parties were, at the crucial moment, distracted by some emergency-vehicle sirens starting up: they certainly caught my attention.

]]> By: Mike Licht http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1039#comment-20027 Mike Licht Fri, 23 Jan 2009 08:06:31 +0000 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1039#comment-20027 Did the second swear-in add another odd Roberts precedent? And what about non bis in idem ("double jeopardy")? See http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/oath-oopsy/ Mike Licht Did the second swear-in add another odd Roberts precedent?

And what about non bis in idem ("double jeopardy")?

See http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/oath-oopsy/

Mike Licht

]]> By: Alan http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1039#comment-20023 Alan Fri, 23 Jan 2009 07:35:37 +0000 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1039#comment-20023 After the prescribed oath, presidents have traditionally inserted "So help me God." My question: Have those who administered the oath traditionally prompted that line, as Roberts did, or have past presidents spoken it without prompting, as George Washington did? After the prescribed oath, presidents have traditionally inserted "So help me God." My question: Have those who administered the oath traditionally prompted that line, as Roberts did, or have past presidents spoken it without prompting, as George Washington did?

]]> By: man from mars http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1039#comment-20019 man from mars Fri, 23 Jan 2009 05:37:19 +0000 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1039#comment-20019 OK, maybe third time's the charm here, let's try one final time: The change in adverbial placement has two distinct semantic effects. <i>First</i>, by moving the adverb from before the verb at the start of the oath to after the verb's direct object in the middle of the oath, its emphasis is diminished vis-a-vis the verb: the verb, not the adverb, becomes paramount. To see this effect, compare "He quickly ran to the store, the bank, and the arcade, and then had lunch" to "He ran to the store, the bank and the arcade quickly, and then had lunch." Clearly in the former case, the adverb has more emphasis; likewise here. <i>Second</i>, the echo of the adverb-verb phrase from the Take Care clause, that the President must "faithfully execute" the Laws is lost in the version that was uttered on the 20th. I realize that to those of you who are not Constitutional lawyers, the textual strategies of close reading of individual words and of using one part of a document to elucidate another may seem unfamiliar, but in fact whole bodies of law derive from this kind of careful reading of various clauses in the Constitution. OK, maybe third time's the charm here, let's try one final time:

The change in adverbial placement has two distinct semantic effects.

First, by moving the adverb from before the verb at the start of the oath to after the verb's direct object in the middle of the oath, its emphasis is diminished vis-a-vis the verb: the verb, not the adverb, becomes paramount. To see this effect, compare

"He quickly ran to the store, the bank, and the arcade, and then had lunch" to

"He ran to the store, the bank and the arcade quickly, and then had lunch."

Clearly in the former case, the adverb has more emphasis; likewise here.

Second, the echo of the adverb-verb phrase from the Take Care clause, that the President must "faithfully execute" the Laws is lost in the version that was uttered on the 20th.

I realize that to those of you who are not Constitutional lawyers, the textual strategies of close reading of individual words and of using one part of a document to elucidate another may seem unfamiliar, but in fact whole bodies of law derive from this kind of careful reading of various clauses in the Constitution.

]]> By: Herman Van de Velde http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1039#comment-19955 Herman Van de Velde Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:36:36 +0000 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1039#comment-19955 According to Mark Liberman, Coby Lubliner "wonders if Chief Justice Roberts' difficulty with saying "will faithfully execute" had something to do with a split-infinitive phobia that may at some point have been inculcated in him". Please, note that Chief Justice Roberts had apparently no difficulty with "and will to the best of my ability, preserve", also a split verb phrase. According to Mark Liberman, Coby Lubliner "wonders if Chief Justice Roberts' difficulty with saying "will faithfully execute" had something to do with a split-infinitive phobia that may at some point have been inculcated in him". Please, note that Chief Justice Roberts had apparently no difficulty with "and will to the best of my ability, preserve", also a split verb phrase.

]]> By: Cara Spencer http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1039#comment-19895 Cara Spencer Thu, 22 Jan 2009 04:48:43 +0000 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1039#comment-19895 Some people are speaking as if the oath is pointless unless it makes the oath-taker into the President (which clearly it doesn't according to the Constitution--that just happens at 12 noon on inauguration day). But this isn't the point of the oath at all. The Hippocratic oath doesn't make medical school graduates into doctors. That's not the point. The point is to make a public promise. Same with President Obama's oath. Some people are speaking as if the oath is pointless unless it makes the oath-taker into the President (which clearly it doesn't according to the Constitution–that just happens at 12 noon on inauguration day). But this isn't the point of the oath at all. The Hippocratic oath doesn't make medical school graduates into doctors. That's not the point. The point is to make a public promise. Same with President Obama's oath.

]]> By: Paul http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1039#comment-19892 Paul Thu, 22 Jan 2009 04:19:19 +0000 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1039#comment-19892 Someone said not political interest but illocutionary. Well I am back to politics. IMHO it was ego--struggle. Not overt mind you. The last comment has yet to be weighed, but I bet Obama will come out AT LEAST even. (This will show my bias:) Roberts interupted?, this was the first spark struck? --Interupted before Obama could say his complete name? Erm. Someone said not political interest but illocutionary. Well I am back to politics. IMHO it was ego–struggle. Not overt mind you. The last comment has yet to be weighed, but I bet Obama will come out AT LEAST even.

(This will show my bias:) Roberts interupted?, this was the first spark struck? –Interupted before Obama could say his complete name? Erm.

]]> By: Pete http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1039#comment-19857 Pete Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:08:26 +0000 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1039#comment-19857 Let's not forget that when James Earl Carter took the oath, he did so under the the name "Jimmy" Carter. Even though that was not his legal name it didn't seem to invalidate the oath. Let's not forget that when James Earl Carter took the oath, he did so under the the name "Jimmy" Carter. Even though that was not his legal name it didn't seem to invalidate the oath.

]]> By: Jim http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1039#comment-19848 Jim Wed, 21 Jan 2009 21:14:49 +0000 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1039#comment-19848 Clearly, the 20th Amendment made him president at noon of that day no matter what, provided the election has been confirmed and he's still alive. Since Article II of the Constitution requires that he take the oath "before he enter on the execution of his office," the very worst case that could be made is that if he begins executing his office before properly taking the oath, he breaks the law. The Constitution also informs us what we can do about scofflaw presidents. If anyone truly thinks that repositioning an adverb in the oath, while still retaining identical meaning, counts among "high crimes and misdemeanors," well, they can try to convince Congress to start impeachment proceedings. Good luck with that... Clearly, the 20th Amendment made him president at noon of that day no matter what, provided the election has been confirmed and he's still alive. Since Article II of the Constitution requires that he take the oath "before he enter on the execution of his office," the very worst case that could be made is that if he begins executing his office before properly taking the oath, he breaks the law.

The Constitution also informs us what we can do about scofflaw presidents. If anyone truly thinks that repositioning an adverb in the oath, while still retaining identical meaning, counts among "high crimes and misdemeanors," well, they can try to convince Congress to start impeachment proceedings. Good luck with that…

]]> By: Juan http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1039#comment-19845 Juan Wed, 21 Jan 2009 21:04:34 +0000 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1039#comment-19845 @man from mars... good god, really? Really? Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that, had Obama taken the oath as it is written in the Constitution, and thereby repeated back a different formulation than Roberts gave him, man from mars would have somehow divined that the oath was invalid because it was not a verbatim repetition of what the Chief Justice had offered? I also think it's curious that you refer to it as "Obama's Oath," as though it wasn't the CJ who bungled it in the first place. Aghh! I'm violating Murphy's Law: never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference. @man from mars… good god, really? Really?

Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that, had Obama taken the oath as it is written in the Constitution, and thereby repeated back a different formulation than Roberts gave him, man from mars would have somehow divined that the oath was invalid because it was not a verbatim repetition of what the Chief Justice had offered?

I also think it's curious that you refer to it as "Obama's Oath," as though it wasn't the CJ who bungled it in the first place.

Aghh! I'm violating Murphy's Law: never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference.

]]> By: Betsie http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1039#comment-19844 Betsie Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:49:31 +0000 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1039#comment-19844 When Diana Spencer married Prince Charles, she mixed up two of his middle names whilst repeating the vows. I don't remember there being any comparable flap over whether or not they were therefore really married… When Diana Spencer married Prince Charles, she mixed up two of his middle names whilst repeating the vows. I don't remember there being any comparable flap over whether or not they were therefore really married…

]]> By: Lowell http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1039#comment-19836 Lowell Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:13:22 +0000 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1039#comment-19836 Look at it this way: G.W. Bush said the oath word-pefect twice and never faithfully defended the Constitution. In the end, it doesn't matter what they say, it's whether they do it. That said, it was Roberts' muck-up. But the oath was taken and we have a new President and we can all hope that he will abide by what he said, regardless of word order. Look at it this way: G.W. Bush said the oath word-pefect twice and never faithfully defended the Constitution. In the end, it doesn't matter what they say, it's whether they do it.

That said, it was Roberts' muck-up. But the oath was taken and we have a new President and we can all hope that he will abide by what he said, regardless of word order.

]]> By: Greg http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1039#comment-19830 Greg Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:48:52 +0000 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1039#comment-19830 Just more arrogance from a Bush appointee ("Oh, no need to write this down, I can recite the oath from memory!"). Which he couldn't. Just more arrogance from a Bush appointee ("Oh, no need to write this down, I can recite the oath from memory!"). Which he couldn't.

]]>