Obama's Grammatically Incorrect Election Victory

Over munchies at Obama headquarters in downtown Cleveland, shouts of "Yes, we did!" broke out among the ballroom of supporters. The chant was supposed to be a past simple version of Obama's campaign slogan --"Yes, we can!" -- made famous for energizing supporters in the present tense with an optimistic eye toward the future.

But look closer and you'll notice the grammatical incongruity.

The past tense of "Yes, we can" is not "Yes, we did" but "Yes, we could." But that just sounds weird (Yes, we did" is the past tense of "Yes, we do" which sounds like the nuptials of a group wedding). The correct phrase should be "Yes, we were able to," but of course that just sounds too clunky and verbose (and leaves an awkward dangling preposition).

Ah, but you might say that "Yes, we can" is a condensed version of "Yes, we can [make change/win this election]," an empty vessel speakers can fill with whatever phrase they want. So then "Yes, we did [make change/win this election]" makes more sense. But then had McCain won the election, would his retort to Obama have been "No, you couldn't," or maybe the urban street-savvy-sounding "Oh, no you didn't"? Grammatically, I guess we'll never know.

The other trouble is that "could" can -- could? -- be used as a subjunctive auxiliary verb, such as in: I could have won the election but America was not ready for change. Here "could" is not the past simple of "can," which means "to be able to."

Grammar is important. We just witnessed eight years of George W. Bush mangling the English language ("We got plenty of money in Washington. What we need is more priority.") Obama should send out a memo to his supporters applauding them for their GOTV efforts but that the correct phrasing is "Yes, we were able to." And yes, we can improve our nation's grammar.

Read more reactions from HuffPost bloggers to Barack Obama's victory in the 2008 presidential election

Comments

[ParaplegicNomad]

YES US HAD!

[itsDot]

Huh. And here I thought it was just a poorly-translated version of César Chávez' and the UFW's battle cry of ¡Si se puede! (Yes, it can be done)

[Mavarin]

It's not a mere change in tense. It's a parallel construction that takes into account the evidence that the earlier sentiment was correct. "Those who can, do." We could, so we did. Simple.

[bdaved]

Your poetic license is suspended.

[blindscouse]

The chant was supposed to be a past simple version of Obama's campaign slogan --"Yes, we can!"

There lies the slight of hand. Who says that it was supposed to be a past simple version? Oh, Lionel did, so he could write a ditty about how grammatically incorrect that is.

[lucie13]

WTF? I'm tempted to say, get a life. I have a Master's degree in linguistics, and I don't give a damn about this.

Why does Huffington Post?

[paul-o]

It's not just changing tense future to past; it's also changing conditional to declarative.

It WAS possible, but now it HAS BEEN accomplished. It ain't ungrammatical.

And, to whoever asked about ending a sentence with a preposition-- Contrary to many an old school marm, yes we can! Winston Churchill addressed the question like this: "That is the kind of pedantry up with which I will not put."

[inluvwkeitholbermann]

do you think you could have found something less trivial to write about?

PICK A RESPONSE: yes, you could/ yes, you were able to/ yes, you did

[Dawn Teo - Huffpost Blogger]

Oh good grief. We proved we could because we did. So there is nothing wrong with saying "Yes we did." In fact, "did" is more important than "could" -- I'd hate to know we could have elected him but didn't. Why are we even talking about this...

[txkayrose]

It's always nice to know the Grammar Police are alive and well outside of my mother's house.
Fortunately, Obama can talk to the country in every-day grammar, and still sound intelligent, without alienating either end of the spectrum.

[MathIsTruth]

Since one cannot do the impossible, it follows that "did" implies "could".

If Obama had lost the election, it would be logically valid to say "no we didn't", but it would not necessarily follow that "no we couldn't". The knowledge (by itself) that the election was lost would not be sufficient information to either prove or disprove "yes we can".

However, the knowledge (by itself) that the election was won DOES prove "yes we can".

Saying "yes we did" is an affirmation of something that really happened in the real world. And if having a group of people affirm reality is not enough of a contrast with George W Bush, I don't know what is.

[gbw1954]

Debating Obama's grammar and diction after eight years of Bush and the Palin screech of the campaign. Finally we have a president that sounds like a person worthy of paying attention to rather than watching on the beverly hillbillies.

[maxx1]

As some would say in Australia, "yes we done it"

[lovernothater]

Umm, ok. I fully admit it's been a few years since I was in grade school, but is it now fully acceptable to end a sentence with a proposition? "Yes, we were able to?" Ahh, the irony that is Beehner.

[blueskybigstar]

English is a Germanic language that has been heavily influenced by Latin base words through the French occupation of Britain so long ago. There developed, I would say, an inferiority complex, an admiration of the sound of the other culture's language and constructs. Romance languages never have this construct, but English is not a Romance language. It is natural that English, like German, continue in its natural construct of putting propositions at the end of sentences that arrogant knowitallknownothings looked down upon.

[flamingspinach]

A classic example:

The little girl says to her father, "What did you bring that book that I did not want to be read to out of about Down Under up for?"

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_linguistic_example_sentences .

[escorpion]

It's perfectly OK to end a sentence with a proposition, as long as the person you're propositioning isn't a member of the vice squad.

Prepositions are a different story.

[blueskybigstar]

What you are forgetting as many people do when analyzing speech or writing which takes all the joy out of it for everybody is that there is an implied ellipsis, the understanding of something there which is not said. Can is a conditional dependent on a verb which is not written. That verb's infinitive in this sentence is to do. So, when people say "Yes, we can." What they are really saying is Yes, we can do this. And, further, it also implies that Yes, we are doing this right now and upon completion Yes, we could do this and Yes, we did this. Shortened to now, "Yes, we did." Even the object, this, is an ellipsis which is implied and understood. As well, things have to sound good, and "Yes, we can" is a mantra alludingly straight from the children's story, I think , called The Little Train that Could.

"I think I can, I think I can, I think I can."

Yes, we did.

[jsarets]

If that's the worst mistake of his presidency, we're in for an amazing 8 years.