#206251 - 06/27/12 11:52 AM
Re: Why they peeve
[Re: Faldage]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 08/13/05
Posts: 3269
Loc: R'lyeh
|
what he's saying is that the QES claim that it is, but they themselves are not following the rules that they themselves promote.
Yes, I agree. He's saying by their own fussy rules they've made mistakes and are thereby leading English down the garden path to be shot in the back of the head. He also points out that style-wise their prose leaves a lot to be desired.
_________________________
Ceci n'est pas un seing.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#206252 - 06/27/12 12:48 PM
Re: Why they peeve
[Re: zmjezhd]
|
newbie
Registered: 01/19/12
Posts: 37
|
I'm not so sure. Pullum says "But even if you ignore all the stupid stuff, the last two sentences really are genuinely ungrammatical for perfectly clear reasons." He's referring to sentences 7 and 8, which he says are ungrammatical because of punctuation. It seems to me that for Pullum, punctuation is grammar.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#206253 - 06/27/12 01:02 PM
Re: Why they peeve
[Re: gooofy]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 12/01/00
Posts: 13653
|
I'm not so sure. Pullum says "But even if you ignore all the stupid stuff, the last two sentences really are genuinely ungrammatical for perfectly clear reasons." He's referring to sentences 7 and 8, which he says are ungrammatical because of punctuation. It seems to me that for Pullum, punctuation is grammar. I dunno. He says: First, let's look at the seven sentences of the letter above in the light of the usual kind of judgmental prescriptivism that the members of QES always purported to care about (and keep in mind here that in some cases I am applying what prescriptive authorities generally say, not endorsing it): and then goes on to list the reasons why orthodox prescriptivists would condemn them. Only then does he say that the last two are "genuinely ungrammatical for perfectly clear reasons" but he doesn't say what the perfectly clear reasons are. I don't see what they are but I don't see any reason to believe that they are the reasons of punctuation that he had already outlined.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#206254 - 06/27/12 02:27 PM
Re: Why they peeve
[Re: zmjezhd]
|
newbie
Registered: 01/19/12
Posts: 37
|
I see your point. But then why doesn't he say what the reasons are?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#206258 - 06/27/12 04:20 PM
Re: Why they peeve
[Re: gooofy]
|
old hand
Registered: 11/13/11
Posts: 1029
Loc: Lancaster, UK
|
Preumably because he thinks, "they are perfectly obvious."
I must say, I tend to agree they are 'ungrammatical', but I'm not so sure the reasons are quite as 'obvious' as he claims.
_________________________
I'm immortal until proven otherwise
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#206260 - 06/27/12 05:22 PM
Re: Why they peeve
[Re: BranShea]
|
newbie
Registered: 01/19/12
Posts: 37
|
BranShea, are you talking about me? What exactly is incomprehensible? In what way have I mystified?
As for Pullum, it's possible that he has different ideas about what grammar is than I do.
Edited by gooofy (06/27/12 05:23 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#206261 - 06/27/12 05:32 PM
Re: Why they peeve
[Re: gooofy]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 06/23/06
Posts: 5249
Loc: Netherlands, the Hague
|
No Gooofy.  You can see. After the re:. My last post was to Faldage. Pullum may have a different idea about what grammar is from you for sure and I don't understand this thing about " grammar is not in written languages ". To me that seems like a peeve of a different order.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
8423 Members
16 Forums
13686 Topics
209757 Posts
Max Online: 3341 @ 12/09/11 02:15 PM
|
|
|
0 registered (),
38
Guests and
2
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|