Thanks for the link, Mav, I've added it to my favourites.
I think there's a time and a place for prescriptivism in any discipline, and language is no different. If you know the "rules" and understand them you are then at liberty to vary them in whatever way you wish, knowing as you do the potential penalties as well as the benefits.
When I first started studying economics I remember thinking that the definitions of the various types of market model we were taught were illogical in the face of everyday reality. However, when we got to the second year, the rules were relaxed and in the final year the rules were basically only used as starting points and not mentioned explicitly.
The same goes for written grammar, I think.
I completely agree with you, Pfranz. I have been known to play the devil's advocate - literalism is not always my forté :)
>>devil's advocate
But, my dear Mav, you?!!!!
[/shocked, SHOCKED]
LOL!
I confess. But not the whole truth...
>literalism is not always my forté
the prescriptivist hidden deep within me wants to scream out "there's no accent in forte, unless you're musically directed!".
-ron (STIFLE! ;) obvious
there's no accent in forte
But there is in :).
the prescriptivist hidden deep within me wants to scream out "there's no accent in forte ..."
Take comfort, Ron, in knowing that you are not alone. But I thought maybe Mav did that on purpose, just to pull our chains.
Is there a word for a person who describes prescriptivists?
Is there a word for a person who describes prescriptivists?
prescriptidescriber?
Is there a word for a person who describes prescriptivists?
prescripdescriptivist?
>prescripdescriptivist?
I think this might be reserved for someone who describes everything, but in a prescribed manner. I'm envisioning James Murray at work in his Scriptorium here...
(Thanks again, A & F!)
Oh, poor memory! You ended up with the book? Cool.... It has a different title in Britland, but memory fails me once again.
It's OK, Ron, you have a strong point ;)
USAGE NOTE: The word forte, coming from French fort, should properly be pronounced with one syllable, like the English word fort. Common usage, however, prefers the two-syllable pronunciation, (fôrt), which has been influenced possibly by the music term forte borrowed from Italian. In a recent survey a strong majority of the Usage Panel, 74 percent, preferred the two-syllable pronunciation. The result is a delicate situation; speakers who are aware of the origin of the word may wish to continue to pronounce it as one syllable but at an increasing risk of puzzling their listeners.
[Bartleby]
thanx mav, for once again recognizing irony when you see it -- whereas at least one of my countrymen seems not to have.
:D
Is there a word for a person who describes prescriptivists?That depends on whether you describe them favourably or unfavourably. If unfavourably, the word is "astute".
MISTAKES, FALLACIES, AND IRRESPONSIBILITES OF PRESCRIPTIVE GRAMMAR
Extract:
Prescriptive grammarians are adamant, and their forceful prescriptions and high-brow judgments are irresponsible, and a denial of the rich cultural heritage of our language.
Descriptive grammarians, those who think and attempt to promote that usage rules should be based upon the more reasonable precedents set forth in the language's dialects and history (sometimes as far back as Old English), fight a seemingly endless battle against the established norms of prescriptivists. However, descriptivists can use a plethora of arguments to point out the many logical fallacies of a language with an improper usage base in Latin.
Hot linguistic debate often occurs over a number of normative usage rules. One example which leaps instantly to mind is the foolish "one must never split an infinitive." In Lowth's grammar infinitives cannot be split. It is not possible for Lowth because it is not possible in Latin to split an infinitive. Well, of course not. In Latin, an infinitive is one word. However, it is not in English. English infinitives are two words, such as "to split," and there is little logic to keeping them fused together, except that it cannot be done in Latin and Bishop Lowth decided, quite on his own, that English should emulate Latin, and the world followed suit. Thus, one foolish man has made a messy mockery of the rich and dynamic English language. Because of Lowth's erroneous decision, users of English have no end of confusion and difficulty sorting out these illogical rules. http://www.newdream.net/~scully/toelw/Lowth.htm