I was gathering information on a patient today and someone had charted
"Communication: English, litrate."

My son's Junior High English teacher once returned a hand-written paper to him
with the comment "not to neat!" [shudder]

Theo's third grade yteacher sent home a note on a late assignment: "I'm sorry, I cannot except this for full credit." But it's OK, she's off to pursue a masters degree this year.

...and why do we title the thread "giggles"?

It's things like these that make me proud to be a prescriptivist.

(And I don't mean "glow" as in "radiate" up there in the restated title, either...make that "-ow- as in "scowl." )

[/grump]

And I'm proud to be a prescriptivist,
Where at least I know I'm clean
And I won't forget the rules laid down,
'Cause I know what they mean.
And I gladly stand against
All those who'd take away their light
Cause there ain't no doubt I love these rules...
God bless Messrs. Strunk and White.

(With apologies to Lee Greenwood)

Amen!

OK, what's the prescription that allows one to put some phrasal verb particles at the end of the sentence (e.g., Jack and Jill ran a big bill up) but not others (e.g., *I ran an old friend into)?

For starters, the former, about running a big bill up, is, at best, subpar. I cannot imagine either writing or saying it that way.

And perhaps you didn't complete the latter:

I ran an old friend through the sausage grinder. Or some such.

I'll admit to not having gone back up this thread, but I certainly don't remember anything that would generate your question. Whence came it? Actually, I just went back and looked and I still don't see anything like what you've asked your question about. Was it something we said? Or just something that came to mind?

TEd

Edit:

Of course if I were a basketball coach I could run a Chauncey Billup.

I'll admit to not having gone back up this thread, but I certainly don't remember anything that would generate your question. Whence came it? Actually, I just went back and looked and I still don't see anything like what you've asked your question about. Was it something we said? Or just something that came to mind?

It was sparked simply by the comments that some of y'all were proud of being prescriptivists. I picked a couple of common English expressions that would seem, on the face of them, to be the same sort of construction, but of which, only one could exist in either of two possible forms:

Subj PVerb Obj PVParticle

Subj PVerb PVParticle Obj

In case you're not familiar with them the phrasal verbs in question are:

To run into (someone) - to meet (someone) unexpectedly

To run up (e.g., a bill) - to create, amass (a bill)

One can say:

Subj           PVerb   PVParticle     Obj
Jack and Jill  ran       up       a big bill

or

Subj          PVerb     Obj       PVParticle
Jack and Jill  ran   a big bill      up

and

Subj   PVerb   PVParticle     Obj
 I     ran      into        an old friend.

but not

Subj  PVerb     Obj        PVParticle 
 I     ran   an old friend    into.

I just thought that, since y'all were so proud of being prescriptivists, y'all could state the rule that governs this usage pattern. That's all.

Please note previous use of the word subpar.

It's not good English, but is understandable.

And one begins to wonder why you keep beating on prescriptivists up? There are those of us who believe that linguistic and grammatical rules are good and then there are all the others. The others are those who believe that rules are not good or are for someone else. We prescriptivists tend to think of them as either Libertarians or Ted Bundy wannabes.

Them be would and one without would rules no a sentences could would jumble understand,.

>>(e.g. a bill) amass, create<<

Is "run up" meaning amass used in any context but debt ('ran up a huge collection'?)? Is it *ever used to mean create where "create" cannot be replaced by "amass" ('God amassed the heavens and the Earth' (though I like that))? The question, I think, is what we will or won't still anticipate when we run into the particle. In your first sentence, once you've said 'bill' there just isn't much place to go but up; in the second -- if it were accepted as a sentence -- we would be left wondering whether the verb was transitive or intransitive, that is, whether the sentence is complete: did they run into an old friend, or did they run an old friend into an alley and take his wallet?

Relatedly, I always wonder if there isn't an unrecognized class of verbs in English that is similar to the seperable prefix verbs in German.

Not that I would qualify as a prescriptivist, even if I wanted to be one.

My problem with the prescriptivists is not that they "believe that linguistic and grammatical rules are good", but that they sort existing linguistic rules into two categories: the "real" rules which everybody ought to follow and the "non-" rules that are "subpar". If this activity were not bad enough, they also "use" grammar (in some non-linguistic sense of the word), logic, and history to attempt to bolster their peculiar bagging of "good" (or perhaps I should say "only") rules. For example, not splitting infinitives or using which/that in certain kinds of relative clauses. So, it is not so much the rules that one uses, but the ones that one excludes that rile the descriptivists.

When somebody tells me I am "wrong" because of how (and not what) I said, I take them as fighting words, and begin the (verbal) beating it up machine.

Mary beat Johnny up.
Mary beat up Johnny.

"Subpar"! Snort, snicker, guffaw.

>>When somebody tells me I am "wrong" because of how (and not what) I said, I take them as fighting words, and begin the (verbal) beating it up machine.<<

Still, certain rules may lend clarity to writing.

Still, certain rules may lend clarity to writing.

No, I don't think so. Writing clearly lends clarity to writing. A sentence may be grammatically well formed, in both the descriptive and prescriptivist sense, but unclear.

[Fixed typo.]

>Writing clearly lends clarity to writing.

That's a tautology.

>A sentence may be grammatically well formed, in both the descriptive and presriptivist sense, but unclear.

Without actually seeing an example of this, I tend to disagree; even in cases where the sentence is extremely long and complex, following the rules of grammar tend to make the sentence more clear than unclear.

Insel, in answer to your question about the use of "run up" to mean anything other than "amass": People who sew will say that they "ran up" some curtains or plan to "run up" a dress (or whatever). Although I'm no seamstress myself, and the useage is probably dated. Jackie or of Troy may be more help with this particular phrase.

Two of my favorite tautologies:

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." [S. Freud]

"A rose is a rose is a rose." [G. Stein]

even in cases where the sentence is extremely long and complex, following the rules of grammar tend to make the sentence more clear than unclear.

I couldn't fail to disagree with you less.

I don't like to have to kill nobody without they ain't no chance of no gold in it for me.


One descriptivist complaint about prescriptivists is, as the Dragon says, that they think that descriptivists believe there are no rules. Descriptivists recognize that there are rules but the ones that the prescriptivists recognize don't come anywhere near describing the language that people use. Prescriptivist rules are fine if you are writing a style manual for some publication but if they can't describe the simple phrasal verb examples I used above or the one that zmjezhd mentioned they don't describe the language.

Or are they, partially, partial descirptions?

Without actually seeing an example of this, I tend to disagree; even in cases where the sentence is extremely long and complex, following the rules of grammar tend to make the sentence more clear than unclear.

Here's an example for you:

"I am not one of 'the usual gang of idjits' in the sense that I failed to submit a proposed definition for the term yexing."

Without the context I would take this to imply that "the usual gang of idjits" failed to submit a proposed definition for the term. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This same battle also rages in the German language area. I just finished reading a book on the subject by Dieter E. Zimmer. He makes the important distinction between implicit "rules" (which have "grown" without anybody prescribing or formulating them) and explicit ones, i.e. formulated so that you can mechanically apply them to new situations. The former are much more widespread - and relevant.

Oh my gawd, Zed! They've hijacked your giggly thread and turned it into a (gasp) word thread

And the battle in Germany has been aggravated by the new spelling reform (Rechtschreibreform) which went into effect at the beginning of this month. Not sure if Switzerland and Austria are following. Poor little esszet (ß) never hurt nobody.

...and why do we title the thread "giggles"?
I called it giggles because I was amused by the fact that it was an ironic word to make a mistake on. Spelling haemoglobin or apartment wrong wouldn't have made me giggle.

Would it have been funnier in wordplay?

Please tell us more about the German spelling reform.

When I was in Germany ten years ago, I had a discussion with a teacher about German spelling. She was intrigued by the idea that "spelling" must be taught in English with rote memorization of many words; at the time, she was "giving dictation" regularly, during which the students wrote down words she recited to them ... apparently, the spelling structure was such that prior study of the words was deemed unnecessary.

I take it that the reform is meant to further simplify the spelling rules?

Well, about 6 years ago, a spelling reform was passed, and everybody, schools, newspapers, magazines, etc. were supposed to get on board by this month. Some major newspapers opted out early on and went back to the old spelling. (also more recently some states in Germany have gone back to the odl ways, too.) The only thing I know for sure is they got rid of the esszet (scharfes s) which is a ligature of a long s and a z (so, sz, ß). The rules for when to use -ss- (zB, ich wusste) or when to use -ß- (ich weiß) were tough on foreigners and Germans alike. I spoke with a couple of friends who teach in German high schools (one in a Gymnasium, and the other in a Gesamtschule), and they also mentioned a lot of the more obscure comma rules being dropped. I seem to also remember that German has some weird hyphenization rules that might have been affected.

Here's a couple of articles in English.

http://tinyurl.com/9yb9c
http://tinyurl.com/7ablp

And, if you read German here's a list of the new rules:

http://tinyurl.com/ay5h9

Thanks for the links.

It's odd to my eye to see phrases like "science fiction", "jumbo jet", and "swimming pool" hyphenated.

>>She was intrigued by the idea that "spelling" must be taught in English with rote memorization of many words; at the time, she was "giving dictation" regularly, during which the students wrote down words she recited to them ... apparently, the spelling structure was such that prior study of the words was deemed unnecessary.<<

After glancing at the 60 pp Rechtsschrebsreform I'm thinking them days is past.

After glancing at the 60 pp - which are not even comprehensive, and are out of date anyway. At least part of the perceived need for a "reform" stems from the present schools' aversion to "rote learning", which, in my opinion, is part of any learning process. Another reason was the need to adapt the "logic" of language to the logic of computers (machine translation is still far behind expectations).

http://cyberwelt.ch/humor.asp?id=80

>>"reform" stems from the present schools' aversion to "rote learning", which, in my opinion, is part of any learning process. <<

I agree with you, W. Rote isn't toto, but, it's part of pie -- I'd only bracket "any." As a child of the days of this aversion's cresting, I can tell you it is no wave to ride.

Is the reform pan-germanic, or only pan-german?

This reminds me of a text by Mark Twain on English spelling reform, which resurfaced on the web as an EU joke some years ago.

I think I saw a version making the email rounds recently. The bottom line sounds German, as I recall! Don't know whether I can locate it again; I tend to throw this source's mails away after reading. Sometimes even before...

Yes. It's here: http://www-personal.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/Humour/language.html

Not terribly complimentary. You'll have to decide for yourselves whether it's funny.

Hi AnnaStrophic,
Thank you for this Swiss site - rare enough around here. A few minutes ago a young man came into my office to clean the windows. His German (he must have come from Eastern Europe) sounded just about like the most simplified example given. So maybe it's not as utopian as it may seem.