Comments on: Arrant Pedantry

By: bradshaw of the future » linky

bradshaw of the future » linky — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:18:44 +0000

[...] Grammar all look at English grammar and usage from a rational, descriptivist perspective, with comments on how grammar is misunderstood, detailed essays on the apostrophe, and comments on prescriptivism in comic books. English, Jack [...]

By: goofy

goofy — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:15:36 +0000

Keep spreading the truth.

Here’s a nice essay on the rise of prescriptivism in English:
http://www.uqu.edu.sa/majalat/humanities/2vol15/011.pdf

By: Katya

Katya — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 18:15:50 +0000

Should be “pickeT fence.” Sorry.

By: Katya

Katya — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 18:14:20 +0000

rivka -

Certainly, many great writers break the rules of their craft to great artistic effect, and no one thinks that “[anyone] sang his didn’t he danced his did” because e.e. cummings didn’t know the difference between an inflection and a noun phrase.

However, prescriptivists are fond of invoking some sort of bygone golden age of grammatical purity, when men were men and women were women and pronouns that take singular antecedents were pronouns that take singular antecedenets. A little research will reveal that many commonly criticized grammatical constructions have existed (*unmarked*) in the English language for centuries, even in the works of the greatest writers (i.e. “they” with a singular antecedent in Shakespeare). Where, exactly, are these rules coming from, if they’re not based on the language usage itself?

What’s more interesting are the things over which earlier generations of prescriptivists wrung their hands. A century ago, some people were aghast at such phrases as “the picked fence was dilapidated” and “hopefully, my exam won’t be very hard.” If you don’t see what’s “wrong” with those phrases, it’s because we’ve moved on to frying a different kettle of arbitrary fish (and because there was nothing really wrong with them in the first place).

By: Jon Boy

Jon Boy — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 17:08:28 +0000

I think you’re assuming that Shakespeare thoughtfully considered whether it was okay to break the rule and use they with a singular antecedent. I think you’re also forgetting that it wasn’t until well after Shakespeare’s time that people suddenly decided—for no good reason—that such usage was wrong.

By: rivka

rivka — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 16:43:40 +0000

“Just because Shakespeare made mistakes doesn’t make it alright.”

No, no, no. That’s not the correct response! That would be, “Well, when you’re as great as Shakespeare, you can break all the rules of English grammar and usage too.” Followed by an explanation that one must first *learn* all the rules before one can determine when it’s ok to break ‘em.

By: pooka

pooka — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 10:53:34 +0000

I don’t believe in place either the letter or the spirit of the law higher, FWIW.

By: Primal Curve

Primal Curve — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:47:13 +0000

Jon, you’re definitely more of a linguist than a grammarian.

By: Jon Boy

Jon Boy — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:58:23 +0000

Oh, goodie, another copy of Strunk and White to burn!

It’s alright, Brozy—there’s hope for you yet. All you have to do is start reading Language Log on a regular basis. You’ll be cured of your grammatical misconceptions in no time.

By: brozy

brozy — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:35:19 +0000

You use “they” with a *singular* antecedant? [throws Strunk and White at head] Not, umm, that I’m one of those uptight, misguided faux-grammarians or anything.

Someone has been editing “that” out of my writing lately. It makes me sad.