Comments for Arrant Pedantry

Comment on Impacted by Henry

Henry — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 18:32:24 +0000

The latest edition of the Chicago Manual of Style has a section entitled “Good Usage Versus Common Usage” (Section 5.202). They suggest that we avoid the use of impact as a verb, except in a physical context. They say that the use of impact as a verb to mean affect is hyperbolic, as well as being widely regarded as a solecism.

Comment on 10:30 o’clock by Melinda

Melinda — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 11:00:05 +0000

Could it be that ‘on the clock’ or ‘of the clock’ is referring to the physical presence of a numeral 10 on the clock? That 10 is ‘of’ or ‘from’ the clock in the same way that Mr Smith may be ‘of’ or ‘from’ London? As in ‘the hour is 10, as indicated by the hour hand pointing at the ten which is of the clock face.’ 10.30 is then an interpretation of time arrived at by noting the relative position of the hands to the 10, rather than 10.30 being a specific location upon a clock face.

Comment on Scriptivists Revisited by Mind your peeves and cures « Sentence first

Mind your peeves and cures « Sentence first — Tue, 18 May 2010 17:22:45 +0000

[...] conforming to predictable standards and in deferring to authority, be it bogus or enlightened. As Arrant Pedantry has observed, “there’s a lot of social value in following language rules, whether or not they are actually [...]

Comment on 10:30 o’clock by Jonathon

Jonathon — Thu, 13 May 2010 17:34:19 +0000

I think you’re right that very few people know the etymology, so it’s not the etymology that governs current usage. But it could be that the etymology established the pattern of usage, which has continued throughout the centuries even though the original reason is now irrelevant.

For example, go is missing its original past tense, and we use the suppletive form went instead. We could conceivably say goed, but this sounds strange and wrong, not for etymological reasons, but simply because no one else says it.

My wife also pointed out that “ten-thirty” is unambiguously a time, while “ten” is not, so perhaps there’s some extra justification for using “o’clock” only with whole hours.

Comment on 10:30 o’clock by goofy

goofy — Thu, 13 May 2010 16:28:31 +0000

The etymology of “clock” explains why “o’clock” was used to not refer to fractions of hours, but I don’t think it explains why it sounds strange now to use it with fractions. After all I’ll bet that very few people know the etymology. Or am I being too arrantly pedantic?

Comment on 10:30 o’clock by Esther Sherr

Esther Sherr — Thu, 13 May 2010 05:29:05 +0000

Saying “ten-thirty o’clock” sounds wrong, or at least affected, and if the language on formal invitations is anything, it’s affected. So I suppose it’s OK for formal invitations, since “affected” is the tone they’re shooting for.

I have heard “half past ten o’clock”, though, and that doesn’t jar on the ears nearly as much.

Comment on The Newest Fangled Backformation by Jonathon

Jonathon — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 04:27:08 +0000

I can't believe I didn't provide the source! It comes from a talk he gave titled "The Charted Course of the Church in Education." Here's a link.

Comment on The Newest Fangled Backformation by Bear Grant

Bear Grant — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 01:39:10 +0000

Jonathan,

If you are still there, I would like to know the title of the speech you cited as being by J. Reuben Clark. He was a prominent member of my Church before I was born, and I am always interested in reading anything he authored.

Thanks,

Bear

Comment on Scriptivists Revisited by Jonathon

Jonathon — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 06:13:52 +0000

I think that, by and large, prescriptivists and descriptivists are both in favor of (or at least not bothered by) informed usage advice. I think a large part of the problem is simply that both sides are talking past each other.

Language is certainly natural in the sense that we have a natural impulse to acquire and use it, but it’s certainly not natural in the same way that star formation or plate tectonics or weather are. Those things happen as a result of natural forces. Language may be the product of evolutionary forces, but it’s something we deliberately use and manipulate

In a nutshell, I think that linguists too often treat language as a natural system that exists independent of and detached from language users, and I think that misses something fundamental about language.

Comment on Would you like to take a survey? by Jonathon

Jonathon — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 02:24:02 +0000

Thanks!