This discussion of continuous vs discrete quantities of persons reminds me of this bug report I submitted to Khan Academy several years ago:
7 Likes
You are right, of course. Look at the etymology of “terrific.” (Not to mention “awesome.”) And I do try not to be a grammar snob, although as a writer/copy editor/proofreader, I find it pretty much a professional hazard.
5 Likes
Oh god, the tyrannical style guide… Rest assured, the copy editor probably hates it too!
3 Likes
No, it’s definitely geordie that’s proper.
4 Likes
How about 5: I am paying you, either as an employee or a contractor, to write something that will communicate information clearly and effectively, either to me or somebody else.
That doesn’t happen rarely. That happens all the time. Almost all information in professional settings is conveyed and recorded by writing: reports, manuals, instructions, legal documents, business plans, research papers, performance assessments, and on and on and on. Use whatever (lack of) rules you want on Facebook, but if you are being paid to communicate and you either cannot or will not learn the grammatical rules that make clear and effective communication possible, then you lack a required skill to do that job, and you will be rightly fired. Communicating ideas and information is everything.
Yes, pointing out a your vs you’re slip instead of a genuine discussion of ideas – attacking how it’s said instead of engaging with what is said – is a dick move and intellectually lazy. But if you cannot be bothered to learn and follow the rules of language that make effective communication possible, your ideas will never be considered – not because grammar snobs are mean but because your poor writing fails to communicate your ideas effectively. And if any aspect of the job you’ve been hired for involves communicating ideas to other people, then you are unqualified for that job.
6 Likes
There may be something there. As the English speaking grammar pedant is usually harping on personal pet peeves in written or spoken language. Rather than things that are out and out wrong, or negatively effect understanding. But that argument usually goes in the other direction for English. Those engaged in, and familiar with, creative rather than formal writing tend to make the argument that rigid adherence to formality in language reduce the opportunity for aesthetics in artwork. Manipulating, ignoring, breaking, and playing with grammar standards. Writing in ways that mimic speech patterns, coining new words, and utilizing uncommon structures. All are generally considered beneficial in terms of artistic expression and beauty in language. In ways that rigid, formal language don’t allow.
That’s not strictly true. Many rules and conventions are socially determined (and I and others are arguing that those are the authoritative ones, largely). But there are academic structures that study, publish, reject or accept more formal rules. And there are multiple standards bodies for English tied to particular fields or situations. All of this exists in other languages as well. What English lacks is a single authoritative, legally empowered standards body that supersedes all that. There’s no one standard that all the other stuff is referring to.
And I’m still not sure how much I buy that having a standards board is common. It might be the general rule in Western Europe. And I’m willing to bet in China and Japan, at least for written language (there seems to be something of a large divide between spoken and written language in those parts). But how common is it really?
Is there a standards board for each of the languages of China? For Farsi? Tagalog? The various Mayan languages? Each and every language in India? Manx? For Hawaiian Pidgin?
These standards bodies seem to be only typical of the written form of the official language of a given country. I can see the utility in having that for English. But English dialect and written standards are disparate. If the UK forms an English Standards body, should the US adopt that standard, and thus British English as its written standard? Or should they form their own Standards body? If you’ve got 2 standards bodies from 2 major nations, each of whom’s English dialect is very influential world wide which one wins? Which one is really the authoritative standard? If its an international body, how then does it represent the whole of the language? Where there is a dispute which side does it come down on?
3 Likes
I should jolly well think so, yes.
5 Likes
I wouldn’t mind it. You guys sound so classy. But I would imagine most Americans would balk, and or start shooting.
The prescriptivist position isn’t just about formal written grammar though. And I think people forget that. Its at least as much about dialect, and spoken language. And that’s hopelessly tied up with culture and class. I’m not generally amenable to positions that say “hey you, yeah you! You’re culture is wrong. And it is banned now!”. Barring things like “child rape is my culture!”
4 Likes
Something which seems to cause a lot of friction with people is that many demand that semantic drift of definitions be substitutive rather than accumulative. Oddly enough, this tends to be done by self-professed descriptivists who support their argument by illustrating that words often can and do have multiple meanings. My position is that since that seems to be true, the un-bastardized meanings of words (such as literally, awesome etc cited above) are equally valid. This “drift” can manifest as a plurality of meanings, as English language often has done.
What do you think? Are drifted definitions really exclusive? Should they be? IF it is truly being in-use which determines a word’s or usage’s validity, then doesn’t the act of using it obviate such judgements against it?
1 Like
Yes, fair point. It’s a superset of #2, which should have been expressed the way you just did.
1 Like
I had a boss (real jerko – this wouldn’t have made the top 1000 of his most dickish actions but it may have annoyed me the most) correct my grammar while I was chatting on IM with him. I wrote “me and John did X” and he responded "it’s John and I, you never say “me and John” or “John and me” – it’s always “John and I”. Then I gave him an example of when “john and me” would be 100% correct. Then I said I had to go. Then I blocked him so it looked like I logged out. Then he called me asking if he had upset me. Then I got started searching for a new job. Then I got one. Me and my friend quit on the same day.
15 Likes
No disappointment, this comment thread will top 1000 before it closes. Perhaps a BoingBoing record?
And by the way, Ms. Chalabi is missing an Oxford comma at 3 seconds in. Just sayin’
3 Likes
When you handed in your resignation, did you say “me quit”?
14 Likes
The Guardian style guide says she doesn’t need it in that instance.
2 Likes
The Guardian style guide says she doesn’t need it, in that instance.
4 Likes
I don’t think “in use” is the correct criterion to determine usage. I think “syntactic comprehensibility” is.
In The Avengers, Tony Stark says to Thor, mockingly, “Dost mother know thou wearest her drapes?”
Much of that sentence is made of archaic language, and, although I really don’t feel like looking it up, I think one, if not two, of the archaisms are used incorrectly. However, both the surface meaning and the subtext are clear from the syntax.
On the other hand, if someone, when asked if a haunted house was appropriate for young children, replies with, “It’s terrific!” then the clear, contemporary meaning is “Yes, bring the kids, it’s great!” If you actually meant to use the original meaning of the word, and say, “No, don’t bring the kids, they’ll be terrified,” then despite that being a legitimate use of the word at some point in the past, your meaning isn’t clear, so your use of the word is incorrect.
7 Likes
I have already noted the irony of someone who works to a style guide complaining about grammar snobs.
However, I think your pointing out the Oxford comma isn’t really much of a thing to point out absent any particular reason for it since the Oxford comma is not a universal grammar rule even among grammar snobs.
1 Like
Maybe there needs to be an agreement on what “next Tuesday”, “this Tuesday”, and “this coming Tuesday” all mean. Are they all the same thing? If today is Sunday is “next Tuesday” in two days or nine? That’s more a problem than ambiguity in the word “terrific”.
6 Likes
I can definitely say that decisions made about proper French have absolutely no effect on Cajun French. Granted it is spoken much more than written anyway.
3 Likes
