My previous post contained the following sentence:
Weapons of mass destruction or no weapons of mass destruction, Iraq, being located smack in between Iran and the Saudi Arabian oil fields, with Saddam and his murderous Oprichniki removed as a regional stabilizer of sorts, I guess there’s little chance of pulling out of there until such time as we’re all driving solar vehicles.
A former-sort-of-coworker-turned-Facebook-acquaintance of mine (not the gentleman pictured above) kindly yet forcefully lamented that something was “very wrong” with this sentence and that it made “no sense,” grammatically speaking.
Yet I contend that my sentence works just fine, as it is structurally modeled upon the Second Amendment:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This antiquated construction is called an “ablative absolute.” Recast into modern parlance, the amendment would read thus:
Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Perchance due to its somewhat antediluvian grammatical structure, the Second Amendment continues to engender confusion and controversy as to its precise meaning; but that’s a discussion for another day.
Here’s my sentence stripped down to its structural skeleton:
Iraq, being located between Iran and Saudi Arabia, with Saddam removed as a stabilizer, there’s little chance of pulling out.
Recast into more modern English:
Because Iraq is located between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and because Saddam has been removed as a stabilizer, there’s little chance of pulling out.
I believe my sentence is structurally identical to the Second Amendment, hence perfectly sound. A mite arcane and cobwebby, perhaps. Wrong, no.
My former-sort-of-coworker-turned-Facebook-acquaintance apparently disagrees and has officially vowed to give up trying to “edumacate” me on proper grammar.
But I no I dun nuttin’ wrong.