So... you're saying that the attack on Pearl Harbour did not occur on a day? What was it... still night-time at 7:48am?
I'm sure
everyone is terribly impressed that you knew the precise quote, but you probably should have stopped there. Beyond that, you're seemingly parading your own pompous ignorance in failing to realise that it would be just as correct (and indeed, arguably more evocative) to talk about the infamy of that day and its events as to talk about the infamy of the date, December 7th. The attempt to invent new
grammar rules constraining FDR's speech looks a little bit silly
Red:
No. Why would I? The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on a Sunday. The date of the Sunday on which the attack occurred is December 7, 1941, and that is the date that even now remains infamous. Sunday is not, at least not as a result of the attack on "Pearl," an infamous day.
Blue:
Maybe they are or maybe they're not. Folks' thoughts in that regard aren't by me sought, but if they so think, fine. TY.
I wouldn't have had a damn thing to say had the other member not quoted that very famous passage, but he did. The OP-er could have paraphrased FDR -- in which case no quotation marks would have been necessary, and presumably the OP-er wouldn't have used them were he knowingly paraphrasing FDR -- and I'd have said nothing about it for his correct or incorrect use of "day"/"date" would have no impact on my comprehension/recognition of the reference.
Pink:
The matter to which I called attention isn't a grammar rule, unless one thinks it a matter of grammar to accurately quote another and not "put into another's mouth" words s/he didn't utter. The fact is that neither I, you, the OP-er or anyone else gets to, when quoting folks, re-word their utterances, and it takes scant little effort or integrity to ensure one accurately quotes another.
- Original quote: "...-- a date which will live in infamy --..."
- Edited quote: "...-- a date which [lived] in infamy --..."
- One can, align a quoted passage fit the grammatical structure of one's sentence. In doing so, one must indicate to readers that one has altered the original wording. For example:
- Despite Congress having, in the wake of the enduring outrage over the Japanese having bombed Pearl Harbor, declared December 7th National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day, I submit that in but another 50 years it be "a date which [lived] in infamy."
- "... -- a [day] which will live in infamy --..."
- Paraphrasing: This approach doesn't at all quote the original speaker. Seeing something akin to any of the approaches below, I'd have had nothing to say about whether they accurately reflect FDR's remarks for from any of them I'd have known to what the writer referred.
- FDR called this date one that will live in infamy.
- FDR called this day one which will live in infamy.
- Though FDR said this is a day that lives in infamy, it seems the nation's outrage over the attack on Pearl Harbor has abated.
Say what you want, but it's clear the OP-er knew his intent was to quote FDR, for doing so is presumably why he used quotation marks when he wrote, "day that will live in infamy."
I don't care whether he quoted or didn't opt to quote FDR. I care only that he quote FDR, or anyone else, accurately. To indicate that one is quoting another and not indeed do so accurately, or not indicate that one has edited the other person's remarks, is to misquote that person, to put words in the person's mouth and lead readers to infer things (however great or small) about the original writer/speaker of the misquoted passage. Regardless of how major or minor be the impact of misquoting another, it's just wrong...
If one mistakenly misquotes another, okay, just "own" having done so and move on.
After such an acknowledgement of one's mistake, nobody's going to give one grief. On the other hand, try defending an indefensible error such as misquoting another and one'll catch hell for it unless and until one does simply "own" the nature and extent of one's mistake. (Misquotations of others aren't, of course, the only genre of indefensible errors.)
Is the nature of the error the OP-er made minor? Yes, which confound my comprehension of why, upon the mistake's being noted, he did anything other than proffer a simple statement similar to the one I above offered. I have noticed that on DP, unlike in my "real world," people take exception to owning their simple mistakes. I don't know why.