yeahbut, Jesse does work, ultimately, for the mother country; so I'm sure Fr. Steve is feeling conflicted on this one.

My thought, upon reading this article, was that such issues are often more complex and nuanced than simple bi-polar labels will allow.

This topic has been a point of discussion over to wordorigins. There was some disagreement about what was literal and what wasn't.

...more complex and nuanced than simple bi-polar labels will allow.

Perhaps an off-shoot of that board could argue the pros and cons of being *bad.

Interesting article.

I wonder if writers such as Joyce and, especially, Twain, don't use literally figuratively partly funnily. That is, do they use it with a wink and a nod at the 'literal' meaning, and a gentle poke at persnickities.

"The one sensible criticism that can be made about the intensive use of literally is that it can often lead to confusing or silly-sounding results. In this case, the answer is simple: Don't write silly-soundingly. Some usage books even bother to make this point about literally. Then again, most usage advice could be reduced to one simple instruction: 'Be clear.' But that would be the end of a publishing category."

And this, I believe, is why we need more, not fewer, prescriptivists. As I've said before, communication is just that: getting one's point across. One cannot communicate effectively without having rules of language. And part of really good communication is knowing when to break the rules for some positive impact on the imparting of information. But in order to know when to break the rule one must know the rule in the first place.

And this, I believe, is where pure descriptivism has shortcomings. It says, "We've seen this in print," or "We've heard people talking like this." But unless a prescriptivist comes along and says, "This is the rule," then most people will not know whether or not they are following the golden rule of communication: "Be clear."

It reminds me of one of Freedman's famous quips: "In economics, there is only one rule: TINSTAAFL.* All the rest is corollary."

*There is no such thing as a free lunch."

it's yin and yang, guys. can't have one without the other. it's the energy that drives language.

Thank you!
Dang!

Though I straddle the prescrip/descrip fence, I do like to try to quote correctly and, admittedly, make an assumption here: I belive it's TA*NSTAFFL (after Heinlein's 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress'). Maybe the grammar has since been "improved" ....

---

*ain't

Agree wholeheartedty! (And I suspect Heinlein would have acknowledged being a prescriptivist himself, had he been asked.)

But in order to know when to break the rule one must know the rule in the first place.

Here *your cart seems to be put before *my horse. There ain't no special time to break the steekin rules

... and although, I admit, that even wit (if you will) may fall on less/fewer deaf ears when the rules are clear, the goal of creativity is its newness not its sameness. This reminds me of times when I hear a language I do not understand (99.99999% of all other languages and a huge chunk of this one). Inspiration and intrigue comes to me from the sounds and combinations thereof 'with which I'm not familiar'... yet, I suppose I should've said "which I'm not familiar with". Neither of those are less clear. One I would speak the other... not! (But that's parbably being shellfish, taint it?)

That is: my focus lies in the creation of communication. Others' may be to understand meaning. The whole issue is clearly one of context. Asking someone what was the intended meaning of what was spoken doesn't automatically assign fault to the speaker, nor does it necessarahlee mean it was faulty listening/hearing.

Clarity *almost requires that we all speak the same language. Communication, per se, doesn't. Creativity seems to sidestep the whole clarity concern.

>

hear, hear.

shall we dismiss Charlie Parker because he didn't play Bach?...

But, Kev, creativity wasn't what I was talking about. I was talking about communication. And if I have to wonder what someone is saying to me, then there's a problem. If the problem comes again and again from the same person then I cpnclude that the problem is him, not me.

And if someone continues to use grammar, words, etc., that are inappropriate to the medium, then that person's message becomes lost, or at least watered down. As an example, if a person says to me that he cannot afford to pay the principle of his loan, I absolutely do not care whether he is thinking principle or principal. But if he writes to me and repeatedly makes mistakes such as using principal when principle is meant, then I begin to discount his communication to some perhaps very small extent. If, for further example, the communicator continues to use an improper agreement between subject and verb I will to some extent question his or her educational level. If it isn't educational level its certainly obvious to me that the person trying to communicate doesn't care very much about being received properly.

The above is about formal expository writing, not for the informalities we have here. I can pretty much always figure out what a person really means here, and it doesn't bother me a bit that I have to do some figuring, but in formal writing I should not have to do that.

As a general rule I tend to be very precise in my writing, whether here or in a more formal setting, but that's because that is how I have trained myself in my 30 plus years of writing for a living.

But I can double damned assure you that I don't see a particle of difference between 'with which I'm not familiar' and "which I'm not familiar with" except to wonder why you had two different quote styles in the same sentence. And I think I assume correctly that you would use the latter when talking with someone. So would I, but in writing even in an informal setting I will automatically use the former. Blame it on my particular gene pool. Both my parents were really big on rewriting, and this was back in the days when we had these things called typwriters. If I wrote something for school and they didn't like it I'd have to retype it.

And when I began writing stuff for GAO I pretty much had to do all my own final typing, so I quickly trained myself to get it right the first time. If I needed to write a letter I'd put an original and three carbon sets in my trusty old Remington 26 and start typing. It took five years to convince them to use xerox instead of carbon for retained copies! The other adjudicators all thought I was crazy, but I wasn't waiting three to four WEEKS for the understaffed and incompetent typing pool to return a polished copy of a draft.

But, Kev, creativity wasn't what I was talking about. I was talking about communication.

I think you know I know that (which is why my horse ran into your cart), but what I was *saying was that communication can have the goal of creativity. Maybe not as an exclusive goal, but. Clarity comes contextually, certainly as one goal of "formal expository writing", but even that form assumes some ideas which aren't immediately commmunicated. Even physical examples can make things clearer... where words will fail to describe ("-sarahlee" notwithstanding).

And I think I assume correctly that you would use the latter when talking with someone.

My use of single quotes objectify the words within. The double quotes refference as copies of words actually used (written or spoken)), however, I caught myself typing the later (what I would speak) and then went back, edited and added my own self-editorial.

I'm just not convinced that formal should be any different from informal given that communication is the goal.

(ps - yeah... it often takes me a few rewrites to make sure I ain't not clear when posting here, but then again, that often isn't my goal.)

Tumbling past, totally out of control, is the bronze shell of the Potent Voyager, a sort of neolithic spaceship built and pushed over the edge by the astronomer-priests of Krull, which is conveniently situated on the very rim of the world and proves, whatever people say, that there is such a thing as a free launch.

Terry Pratchett: The Light Fantastic pg. 9