|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 500
addict
|
addict
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 500 |
Is there a word for a person who describes prescriptivists?
prescripdescriptivist?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
>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...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511 |
(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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
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]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
thanx mav, for once again recognizing irony when you see it -- whereas at least one of my countrymen seems not to have.
:D
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 114
member
|
|
member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 114 |
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
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,331
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
854
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
