ENGLISH USAGE EXPERT INTERPRETS 2ND AMENDMENT

Waco Waltz

http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb1075995

ENGLISH USAGE EXPERT INTERPRETS 2ND AMENDMENT

by J. Neil Schulman

July 17, 1991

California Libertarian Party

I just had a conversation with Mr. A.C. Brocki,
Editorial Coordinator for the Office of
Instruction of the Los Angeles Unified School
District. Mr. Brocki taught Advanced Placement
English for several years at Van Nuys High School,
as well as having been a senior editor for
Houghton Mifflin. I was referred to Mr. Brocki by
Sherryl Broyles of the Office of Instruction of
the LA Unified School District, who described Mr.
Brocki as the foremost expert in grammar in the
Los Angeles Unified School District -- the person
she and others go to when they need a definitive
answer on English grammar.

I gave Mr. Brocki my name, told him Sherryl
Broyles referred me, then asked him to parse the
following sentence:

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and read
Books, shall not be infringed."

Mr. Brocki informed me that the sentence was
overpunctuated, but that the meaning could be
extracted anyway.

"A well-schooled electorate" is a nominative
absolute.

"being necessary to the security of a free State"
is a participial phrase modifying "electorate"

The subject (a compound subject) of the sentence
is "the right of the people"

"shall not be infringed" is a verb phrase, with
"not" as an adverb modifying the verb phrase
"shall be infringed"

"to keep and read books" is an infinitive phrase
modifying "right"

I then asked him if he could rephrase the sentence
to make it clearer. Mr. Brocki said, "Because a
well-schooled
electorate is necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and read
books shall not be
infringed."

I asked: can the sentence be interpreted to
restrict the right to keep and read books to a
well-schooled electorate --
say, registered voters with a high-school
diploma?" He said, "No."

I then identified my purpose in calling him, and
read him the Second Amendment in full:

"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."

He said he thought the sentence had sounded
familiar, but that he hadn't recognized it.

I asked, "Is the structure and meaning of this
sentence the same as the sentence I first quoted
you?" He said, "yes." I asked him to rephrase this
sentence to make it clearer. He transformed it the
same way as the first sentence: "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."

I asked him whether the meaning could have changed
in two hundred years. He said, "No."

I asked him whether this sentence could be
interpreted to restrict the right to keep and bear
arms to "a well-regulated militia." He said, "no."

According to Mr. Brocki, the sentence means that
the people \are\ the militia,
and that the people have the right which is
mentioned.

I asked him again to make sure:
Schulman: "Can the sentence be interpreted to mean
that the right can be restricted to "a
well-regulated militia?"

Brocki: "No, I can't see that."

Schulman: "Could another, professional in English
grammar or linguistics interpret the sentence to
mean otherwise?"

Brocki: "I can't see any grounds for another
interpretation."

I asked Mr. Brocki if he would be willing to stake
his professional reputation on this opinion, and
be quoted on this.

He said, "Yes."

At no point in the conversation did I ask Mr.
Brocki his opinion on the Second Amendment, gun
control, or the right to keep and bear arms.

wiz1997

He said he thought the sentence had sounded
familiar, but that he hadn't recognized it.

A school teacher didn't recognize it?
Oh my bad, a Califorian school teacher.