It is perfect grammer. The statement about the militia is a preceding clause. As directed by sentence mechanics it is separated by a comma.

 

From what I gather you are arguing that there is a rule of grammar that makes anything before the first comma irrelevant or meaningless. Is this right?

From what I gather you are arguing that there is a rule of grammar that makes anything before the first comma irrelevant or meaningless. Is this right?

 

As the author pointed the predecessor clause is used to provide a simple narrative as a simple introduction to the 'main clause'. The clause opening the sentence is a 'dependent clause' - i.e. it does not stand alone. So from that we know that this not merely a complex sentence made up of two independent clauses.

 

In this case the instruction to the government by the people, who own the Constitution (note - this is a dependent clause here), in the main clause is not altered, modified or changed by anything in the opening dependent clause. So while not 'meaningless' the opening clause is not operational and is not required to understand the instruction and direction commanded in the main clause.

 

As the author pointed the predecessor clause is used to provide a simple narrative as a simple introduction to the 'main clause'. The clause opening the sentence is a 'dependent clause' - i.e. it does not stand alone. So from that we know that this not merely a complex sentence made up of two independent clauses.

 

In this case the instruction to the government by the people, who own the Constitution (note - this is a dependent clause here), in the main clause is not altered, modified or changed by anything in the opening dependent clause. So while not 'meaningless' the opening clause is not operational and is not required to understand the instruction and direction commanded in the main clause.

 

I'm not being obtuse but I'm not following how to determine which clause is "narrative" or "absolute" or needless. Can you give another example of a sentence that is governed by these rules?

I can't tell if you're being factitious or not.

 

It's half and half.

I'm not being obtuse but I'm not following how to determine which clause is "narrative" or "absolute" or needless. Can you give another example of a sentence that is governed by these rules?

 

Here is a link with lots of the 'comma rules'.

 

To say 'simple English' is probably a misnomer or oxymoron.

 

Major Comma Uses

 

 

Towards the bottom...

 

4. Separate nonessential adjective clauses from the rest of the sentence.

There are two kinds of adjective clauses:

- one that is needed for the sentence to be complete (ESSENTIAL)

- one that is NOT needed for the sentence to be complete (NONESSENTIAL)

The essential adjective clause should NOT be separated from the sentence with commas.

The nonessential adjective clause (like other nonessential elements) SHOULD be separated with commas.

 

Using the constructs in the link above and cut and paste:

 

The essential clause of the amendment is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'. It does stand alone. As such the nonessential portion, while not meaningless, is TECHNICALLY nonessential. 'Essential' and 'non-essential' are not subjective terms that have anything to do with meaning of the founder's message - they are the defined mechanics of the sentence structure.

 

Here is an example...probably not the best but here is a shot...

 

'Being a very long, hot, humid day, I will sweat like a pig.'

 

The non-essential part of the sentance is 'Being a very long, hot, humid day'

Essential part is 'I will sweat like a pig.'

 

Like the 2nd amendment the non-essential front can not and does not stand alone - it is just narrative. The core of the sentence is after that - 'I will sweat'. That is the essential part of the sentence. It is the followed by a additional short adverb phrase - 'like a pig.'

 

 

Here is a link with lots of the 'comma rules'.

 

To say 'simple English' is probably a misnomer or oxymoron.

 

Major Comma Uses

 

 

Towards the bottom...

 

4. Separate nonessential adjective clauses from the rest of the sentence.

There are two kinds of adjective clauses:

- one that is needed for the sentence to be complete (ESSENTIAL)

- one that is NOT needed for the sentence to be complete (NONESSENTIAL)

The essential adjective clause should NOT be separated from the sentence with commas.

The nonessential adjective clause (like other nonessential elements) SHOULD be separated with commas.

 

Using the constructs in the link above and cut and paste:

 

The essential clause of the amendment is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'. It does stand alone. As such the nonessential portion, while not meaningless, is TECHNICALLY nonessential. 'Essential' and 'non-essential' are not subjective terms that have anything to do with meaning of the founder's message - they are the defined mechanics of the sentence structure.

 

Here is an example...probably not the best but here is a shot...

 

'Being a very long, hot, humid day, I will sweat like a pig.'

 

The non-essential part of the sentance is 'Being a very long, hot, humid day'

Essential part is 'I will sweat like a pig.'

 

Like the 2nd amendment the non-essential front can not and does not stand alone - it is just narrative. The core of the sentence is after that - 'I will sweat'. That is the essential part of the sentence. It is the followed by a additional short adverb phrase - 'like a pig.'

 

 

 

I see what you're saying here, but I don't think it supports what you've said earlier. Here you describe the initial phrase as an "adjective clause." An adjective has the purpose of modifying its noun. In your example, your noun clause is that "I will sweat" but your adjective clause clarifies that it is because the temperature is hot. This serves the purpose of distinguishing your sweating from other reasons like being nervous or ill or what have you. This wouldn't be a superfluous distinction in a legal document. To go back to the Second Amendment, by your own analogy, this would then support the opposite interpretation, which is that the people have a right to bear arms because there needs to be a well regulated militia.

 

And I add that I am not a grammaticist (as anyone who has read my posts would note), nor do I think that the words alone signify a clear intent of the amendment one way or another. But, I think as the evidence in Stevens' dissent would suggest, the idea of protecting the existence of local militias instead of allowing a standing army was very important to the men of the time (something that was altered fairly quickly after the wars with native Americans and the English) and something that would not have been treated as mere superfluity. For instance, the Virginia Declaration of Rights (largely authored by the same George Mason earlier cited in this thread) stipulated what I consider a nearly identical sentiment with "That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state."

What would folks these days consider a well regulated militia compared to 250 years ago? Same for guns now vs then. We are advanced, spread out and so on. All that's changed is that we all reach further, nothing more.

...

To go back to the Second Amendment, by your own analogy, this would then support the opposite interpretation, which is that the people have a right to bear arms because there needs to be a well regulated militia.

 

And I add that I am not a grammaticist (as anyone who has read my posts would note), nor do I think that the words alone signify a clear intent of the amendment one way or another. But, I think as the evidence in Stevens' dissent would suggest, the idea of protecting the existence of local militias instead of allowing a standing army was very important to the men of the time (something that was altered fairly quickly after the wars with native Americans and the English) and something that would not have been treated as mere superfluity. For instance, the Virginia Declaration of Rights (largely authored by the same George Mason earlier cited in this thread) stipulated what I consider a nearly identical sentiment with "That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state."

 

From the quotes of the time it is clear that there was debate on the definition of 'the militia'. I believe that the founders did not believe in a standing army. Standing armies have been used to suppress both internal and external opponents of tyrannical governments. England at the time was the worlds superpower using its standing army. Today, due do to the use of standing military functions the US plays that role. Usually in a positive manner but since WWII the US military has not been used to directly defend the country from an aggressor nation.

 

More tied to the right is the looking who 'owns' and is responsible for the defense of the Constitution. The first sentence of the Constitution tells us who are ultimate and overall owners of the foundation of our Constitutional Republic - "We the People of the United States....". I believe this is why "the people" were never to have their right to access the tools required to defend the county and the Constitution itself. The Bill of Rights are not rights GRANTED to the people. They are direction instructions to the entity created under the Constitution - the Federal government to not abate or hinder critical natural rights that are the foundation of human existence. "Congress SHALL make no law..", "...SHALL not be infringed.", etc. These were direct and explicit instructions to the Federal government by the owners of new country - the people. In contracts and legal documents the word SHALL is a compelling one - it directs action on a party with no recourse. Though all freemen were personally armed at the time and it was normal and natural for all freemen to have weapons the need to protect their ability to stay armed was considered so important it was #2 on the list.