|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 176
member
|
member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 176 |
I'm sorry for my absence from the discussion. I've been too busy lately.
The misuses of "nice" and "silly" have been established in the language for so long that to try to revive and reinstate the original meanings now would be somewhat quixotic.
Even the misuses of "disinterested" and "uninterested" have, more than likely, taken root in the language so deeply that to try to remove them would be almost impossible, and certainly much more painful than anyone would be willing to bear. The only thing that might reinstate their original meanings, as the only meanings, would be an evolutionary selection process, so to speak, that would favor the original meanings over the new meanings.
I think our discussion has diverged into two areas: 1) prescriptivism as applied to the spoken language, and 2) prescriptivism as applied to the written language. Mea culpa! I should have been more specific and written, “People would utter and write whatever they chose…” I intended the comments I made above to be directed toward the written language, and not the spoken language. Nevertheless, I submit that prescriptivism as applied to the spoken language requires a different perspective than it would when applied to the written language.
To try to apply prescriptivism to something as dynamic as the common, everyday conversation, riddled with interruptions of thought, accidental, incorrect choice of words, sudden changes in topic, interruptions in general, etc., would be frustrating, to say the least, and no doubt, sans some sort of jack-booted grammar police, futile. Certainly, it would annoy people, as jheem wrote.
Faldage’s analogy of the shoes seems to apply primarily to the spoken language. Consider that one who would not apply for an oil rig job wearing Guccis would probably not apply the same reasoning to the written application, i.e. he or she would not intentionally down play, or dress down, if you will, his or her use of the written language by choosing to misuse words and grammar.
Regarding the correction of grammar (and, of course, I mean as applied to the written language): there are obviously many who believe there to be a need to use correct grammar, or there wouldn’t be so many English classes focusing, in whole or in part, on grammar throughout every level of education. Just because a teacher can sift through a student’s writing and arrive at a meaning doesn’t mean that the teacher shouldn’t point out the student’s mistakes. Although I have no experience with editors, I can nevertheless imagine an editor pointing out a writer’s incorrect grammar, in spite of the fact that the editor grasped the writer’s meaning. (Should the writer require a reader to wade through poor grammar, misuse of words, or misspellings in order to arrive at the writer’s meaning?) There is some use in pointing out grammatical mistakes.
toOrulz thee abb.anndonne vigINht woodk-osS ,
I do not suggest that language is learned through dictionaries. Nevertheless, I still contend that they are the authoritative representatives of the words of our language. When one wants the authoritative answer on how to spell or use a word, or to find the word's part of speech, or to learn the word's etymology, one consults a dictionary, not a comic book, not a cereal box, not a mail carrier, not a bank teller, not a crystal ball, but a dictionary. Granted: there are many words in dictionaries that began as misuses. But, that doesn’t necessarily make their use grammatically desirable.
I don’t think I expressed myself one way or the other on this point, but to be clear, I am not suggesting that this forum adhere solely to formal writing, or for that matter, have any rules about formal writing at all. It’s obvious that everyone here has a strong grasp of the rules of English, and in the discussions of the language, can apply, bend, or abandon those rules as they choose. My thoughts on prescriptivism apply primarily to those who do not think about words or the language at all, and perpetuate misuses until they become so popular in the language that some dictionaries include them, giving their continued misuse the aegis of authority.
A final thought: I agree that there are many archaic and unnecessary rules in our language. The split infinitive is a very good case in point. Perhaps it’s time for those rules to be formally reassessed. Certainly they are being informally reassessed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Welcome aBoard, Dgeigh. Stick around. I always enjoy a battle of the wits with an opponent who is armed. You and Father Steve should make quite a team.
Quite the essay, Dgeigh. Please forgive me if I misrepresent your meaning in any way; it'll be a while before I can give it the attention it deserves, but I want to make a few points in response to it.
You seem to be claiming a one to one correspondence between written and formal language, on the one hand and spoken and informal language on the other. I think this is an oversimplification, but it isn't the main thrust of your argument so I'll not mention it further.
My point in mentioning silly, nice, and (dis/un)interested is that while the shift in meaning in these words happened long ago, in the case of nice more than once (and we have no reason to believe that it is not still going on) it is a normal linguistic process. There's no reason for it to stop now just because some folks bewail its happening on their watch.
As far as bad grammar's obscuring meaning, I would say that the vast majority of cases of prescriptivists' complaints do not address this issue and, further, that it is quite possible, and I would even say common, for misunderstood usages to be perfectly grammatical, or that the root of the misunderstanding to be in elements other than the grammar.
toOrulz thee abb.anndonne vigINht woodk-osS ,
I'm not sure if this was just a case of lax proofing, but if it was intended to illustrate some point, I am at a loss to understand what point that was. Please enlighten me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,475 |
I'd like to welcome you aboard, too. Some of my animus towards prescriptivists was not really aimed at you, though I did use some of your examples.
My point about the dictionary as an authority is that besides only being as good as the lexicographer(s) who put it together, many contain—as you point out—usages and meanings that prescriptivists rail against. (That is modern dictionaries are becoming more descriptivist than prescriptivist.) So, it comes down to some kind of personal choice on the part of he who prescribes. (And, I'm sure any true prescriptivists won't be upset with my using the third person singular masculine personal pronoun to refer to a person of undetermined gender.)
What I was trying to say yesterday is that many of the prescriptivists rules have nothing to do with grammar, and many go against the grain (or spirit or drift) of English. They were invented for all the wrong reasons: split infinitives, for example.
Spelling and punctuation are in need of some sort of overhaulage, but I doubt that would ever happen short of a science fiction scenario of near nuclear devastation. Punctuation especially, as handled by the "experts" (cf. Lynne Truss whose recent book is riddled with mistakes) is a confused and ever changing hodge-podge of "rules".
toOrulz thee abb.anndonne vigINht woodk-osS
Ya got me, too. What's it mean? I teach classes at university, and I must say, in the worst writing examples, even of non-native speakers, I've never ever seen a sentence approaching this kind of incomprehnsibility. That's what I was on about with my reference to accomodation theory. Many folks cannot write formal English, and so they transcribe how they talk, sort of. And, many of their problems, I wouldn't list under grammar, but rather rhetoric and logic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
toOrulz thee abb.anndonne vigINht woodk-osS Taking into account possible misspellings, misuse of punctuation, and unusual word order, I come up with:
Vigilance would cause thee to abandon rules. ?
Dgeigh, I am so happy that you're here! Stick around for a while, won't you?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 176
member
|
|
member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 176 |
Faldage, jheem, Jackie, thank you all for your words of welcome. I am glad to have found such a group of people. I’ve always enjoyed words, but have never met anyone with whom I could discuss my thoughts on the subject. As I mentioned before, to offer an apostrophe as a topic for discussion will usually drop a conversation dead in its tracks. I wish I had more time to participate, but with everything I have going on, I don’t have much time to spare.
toOrulz thee abb.anndonne vigINht woodk-osS ,
toO rulz thee abb.anndonne vigINht wood k-osS ,
toO abb.anndonne thee rulz wood vigINht k-osS ,
To abandon the rules would invite chaos.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
The point is that the rules have not been abandoned, merely changed. The prescriptivist has it easy; he need only parrot the rules handed down to him. The descriptivist must examine the language in the wild and determine what the real rules are.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
A-HA! Thanks. I should have left the word order alone. K-oss---how obvious!
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,372
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
220
guests, and
2
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
