There is absolutely nothing I have written here that comes anywhere near close to what you are asserting here. Nothing.
Where does this come from?
Well, that may be your opinion…and I truly do respect that, JTT…but it is not the opinion of many, many people. I’ve seen several books by qualified authors (people I still claim can be considered “language scholars”…who use those terms.) You could probably get a couple of million hits in Google using that. And just because you don't want their opinions to count really is not the operative factor here.
Let’s not get too exclusionary or elitist here!
http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/1994_01_24_thenewrepublic.html
Perhaps most importantly, since prescriptive rules are so psychologically unnatural that only those with access to the right schooling can abide by them, they serve as shibboleths, differentiating the elite from the rabble.
Decent, well-educated, reasonable, well-intentioned people use the terms good grammar and bad grammar…and accept the notion of there being such a thing.
C’mon! For all I know, Pinker has a bug up his ass about something…and has gone off on a tangent on the issue. Academics do that sort of thing, you know! For all I know, you are Pinker...or his son or a friend...or for whatever reason, his word is gospel to you.
I understand all that other stuff, but you are trying to make it seem simple minded to refer to what almost any user of the language would call “bad grammar.” What say we get a bit of perspective here.
Many prescriptive rules are just plain dumb and should be deleted from the usage handbooks. And most of standard English is just that, standard, in the sense of standard units of currency or household voltages. It is just common sense that people should be given every encouragement and opportunity to learn the dialect that has become the standard one in their society and to employ it in many formal settings. But there is no need to use terms like "bad grammar," "fractured syntax," and "incorrect usage" when referring to rural and Black dialects. Though I am no fan of "politically correct" euphemism (in which, according to the satire, "white woman" should be replaced by "melanin-impoverished person of gender"), using terms like "bad grammar" for "nonstandard" is both insulting and scientifically inaccurate.
HOW GRAMMARS OF ENGLISH
HAVE MISSED THE BOAT
There’s been more flummoxing than meets the eye
Charles-James N. Bailey
Consider the possibility that English grammar has been misan¬a¬lysed for centuries because of grammarians’ accepting fundamentally flawed assumptions about grammar and, even more so, about the his¬tory of English"and that this has resulted in a huge disconnect be¬tween English grammars and the genius of the English that really exists. The development of the information age and of English as a world language means that such lapses have greater import than formerly. But what is available on the shelves has fallen into sufficient discredit for grammar to have forfeited its place in the curriculum, unrespected and little heeded by the brighter students.
http://orlapubs.com/AL/L7.html
[click on the orchid and it will download as a MS Word]
H2O has the brains of a celery stalk…and he was calling me a moron and calling my posts stupid…in posts containing what goddam near any user of the language would call “questionable” if not “poor” or “bad” grammar. And I called it to his attention.
There are no language scholars at all who subscribe to that errant, outdated notion, Frank. Why? Because it is simply unsupportable.
Frank, it's funny but you are the one that's being elitist.
I challenged one of the statements you made:
"There are no language scholars at all who subscribe to that errant, outdated notion, Frank. Why? Because it is simply unsupportable."
I have three books on my desk right now (authors I have furnished) that pretty much indicate you are wrong about this. William Safire also considers grammar to be “good” “bad” “acceptable” not acceptable” (whatever words you prefer). There are millions of hits in Google talking about “good” and “bad” grammar.
When I submitted the names, I mentioned that what I expected you to do would be to say, “Well these people are not really language scholars.”
I suspect no matter who or what I produce…you will define “language scholars” as people who do not subscibe to “that errant, outdated notion.” That way your statement stands no matter what!
But that is just plain bullshit, JTT.
I am not big on this call to authority in the first place. There is another thread active at the moment that has citations from several individuals with impeccable academic credentials in geology and paleontology who claim humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
These are ******* nut cases…with a Christian axe to grind.
For all I know, Pinker is that kind of person. And like I said, no way for me to know that you are not Pinker...and simply using your own opinions to justify your own opinions.
Dear Mr Lederer,
I'm trying to track down, for a paper I'm writing, any speech or written replies made in response to Steven Pinker's comments about "language mavens" in his book "The Language Instinct".
Did you personally address any of his comments in any public forum? I would be very grateful if you could point me to any internet or magazine articles in which you or other purported "mavens" responded to Mr Pinker's comments.
Thank you
Mr Lederer replied:
I apologize for being so late in responding to your inquiry below, but I don;t have any useful information toi [sic] share with you about these responses to Pinker's book.
============
Thank you for your reply, Mr Lederer. Can I take it to mean that you have never made any response or that your responses weren't, as you put it, "useful"?
Actually, anything that has been written/spoken in response to the material contained with that book would be very useful for my paper.
If I may impose just a wee bit more on your time, have you encountered any public responses from the people who were discussed in that book?
Thank you again
------- --------
Mr Lederer replied:
From: "Richard Lederer" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: your inquiry
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 22:52:55 -0800
You're right. In my rush to catch up with my email, I wasn't clear. I never issued any response and never encountered any response from other mavens.
=================
Thank you again for your response, Mr Lederer.
Part of my article addresses this very issue that you've raised with your reply. Why haven't there been any responses, by you or anyone, to the issues adressed by S Pinker in The Language Instinct?
This is truly puzzling for it seems to me that language professionals would defend their respective positions. Would you care to comment further on this? It would be most helpful if you would.
Sincerely,
----------- -----
Mr Lederer replied:
I have nothing additionally helpful to add here.
I will return to the comment up above for as long as it takes to resolve it before moving on to any other aspect of this discussion
Now, of course, you can put this all to rest with a few quotes from your pile of sources showing how 'that' used for people is ungrammatical/incorrect/bad language/...
There are no language scholars at all who subscribe to that errant, outdated notion, Frank. Why? Because it is simply unsupportable
We’ll get to that in due time.
Right now though, the thing you are evading here is the discussion of your comment:
Quote:
There are no language scholars at all who subscribe to that errant, outdated notion, Frank. Why? Because it is simply unsupportable
I already have produced names of language scholars who do…and you have simply dismissed them as not being language scholars…which, as I mentioned, is what I expected you to do.
So we are still hashing that out.
When we get finished with that, we’ll go on to other things.
Sorry you have such a hard on for Richard Lederer, JTT; his book is a delight. A joy for anyone who enjoys words and language.
Not sure why you are so intent on trashing him...don't remember him saying anything bad about you.
Anyway...what about Kingsley Amis and Edward D. Johnson…who wrote books detailing what they consider proper grammar? What about them?
By the way"do you have something going with Pinker. You mentioned him in your emails to Lederer also. Sounds like some hanky panky!
M-W:
usage That, which, who: In current usage that refers to persons or things, which chiefly to things and rarely to subhuman entities, who chiefly to persons and sometimes to animals. The notion that that should not be used to refer to persons is without foundation; such use is entirely standard. Because that has no genitive form or construction, of which or whose must be substituted for it in contexts that call for the genitive.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/that[4]
There are no language scholars at all who subscribe to that errant, outdated notion, Frank. Why? Because it is simply unsupportable.
M-W:
usage That, which, who: In current usage that refers to persons or things, which chiefly to things and rarely to subhuman entities, who chiefly to persons and sometimes to animals. The notion that that should not be used to refer to persons is without foundation; such use is entirely standard. Because that has no genitive form or construction, of which or whose must be substituted for it in contexts that call for the genitive.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/that[4]
You are introducing a passage that talks about proper or acceptable usage from a publication like Merriam Webster…
In any case, you just posted a link to an excerpt from the Merriam Webster Dictionary"which, it turns out discussed grammar from the perspective of what is acceptable and what is not.
M-W:
usage That, which, who: In current usage that refers to persons or things, which chiefly to things and rarely to subhuman entities, who chiefly to persons and sometimes to animals. The notion that that should not be used to refer to persons is without foundation; such use is entirely standard. Because that has no genitive form or construction, of which or whose must be substituted for it in contexts that call for the genitive.
The notion that that should not be used to refer to persons is without foundation; such use is entirely standard.
" standard English is just that, standard, in the sense of standard units of currency or household voltages".
using terms like "bad grammar" for "nonstandard" is both insulting and scientifically inaccurate.
Most of the prescriptive rules of the language mavens make no sense on any level. They are bits of folklore that originated for screwball reasons several hundred years ago and have perpetuated themselves ever since. For as long as they have existed, speakers have flouted them, spawning identical plaints about the imminent decline of the language century after century. All the best writers in English have been among the flagrant flouters. The rules conform neither to logic nor tradition,
The name Standard English is perhaps not the best, since it implies a standard against which various kinds of spoken English are to be measured, and this is hardly a fair comparison.
These nonstandard varieties of English are no less logical or systematic than Standard English. In this book an expression labeled nonstandard is not wrong; it is merely inappropriate for ordinary usage in Standard English.
It is important to remember that formal and informal refer to styles of expression, not standards of correctness. Informal English has its own rules of grammar and is just as logical as formal English. You can be serious using informal English, just as you can be comical using formal English. The two styles are simply used for different occasions.
If you still do not understand the differences and what they mean to language, please feel free to ask further.
You fucked up big time, my friend, by getting involved at all. It was a tit-for-tat thing going on...but you stuck your nose into it. That's your right...just as it is my right to consider it a major **** up on your part.
You were completely wrong and now you're not even man enough to admit it.
If you like, I could make your apology to h20man for you.
Look…I am trying real hard to handle H2O in a reasonable manner. He started this name calling…with emphasis on my being stupid. I am making every attempt to keep my responses moderate…teasing and provoking…but holding back on the name-calling.
I suspect he is just a kid…and I’m not looking for overkill here; don’t want this to be Mike Tyson stomping on a girl scout. I want to keep my responses proportional. But whether he is a kid or not (or even if he is not a “he”)…the fact remains that he has been slinging insults at me and disparaging my intelligence…and he has been doing so in posts filled with the kind of grammar only ignorant people use. If you want to attribute that or excuse it via “register”…I guess that is your right.
But it seems to me that we are getting to the point where ignorant grammatical mistakes are all excused on the basis of Register…and in light of what has been happening between H2O (his charges)…that excuse is inappropriate here. A more reasoned characterization of them is that they are ignorant grammatical errors"made by a person who is an intellectual lightweight.
If you absolutely have to carry this further, go for it. But the only way I can address what you are raising is to do more of what I am trying very hard not to do.
What say???
The much preferred version would be:
"It's always a great day when liberal loons try to sound superior."
In fact, I would say that "try and" is grammatically incorrect--although I know you argue that it is a register situation.
My feelings are that “register” is being used to excuse poor grammar.
In any case, I wouldn’t make anything of this, except that it sounds ignorant…and it was used in a post calling me ignorant…so I called it to his attention.
Most educated people…particularly when the words are being written rather than spoken…would use the version I called the “preferred” version.
I think, though, that there IS a consensus about what is good (or proper) English grammar…and what is not. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous. Libraries of books have been written about proper English grammar…I have several on my bookshelves.
This is not to say that plenty of leeway is not allowed in casual or informal settings.
But…and this is a big but…there are rules (suggestions, if you will) for what is good or proper English grammar…and what is poor.
I dare say I could go to sites on the Internet or to those books on my bookshelves (not going to do it at this time) where the accepted proper usage for these two words would be as I posted in my first commentary, namely "who" refers to a person"“that” refers to a group or to a thing.
And although I was busting balls with my comments over in the other thread"I do not think it inappropriate to consider usage inconsistent with that “proper usage” to be characterized as “grammatically incorrect.”
The three closest to me at the moment, JTT, (there are several more in other shelves) are: Kingsley Amis "The King's English"; Edward D. Johnson "The Handbook of Good English; and Richard Lederer "Play of Words."
Not going to bother with quotes...because I know that there are as many, undoubtedly a lot more, scholars who subscribe to the concept of "good English grammar" and "poor."
Some folks like to defy convention...and often I am one of them. That does not detract from what I said in the other thread...nor from the thrust of my remarks here. Language chaos would result from total disregard of rules of grammar…and what you and Steven Pinker are doing is merely setting arbitrary boundaries for what you accept and what you see as unseemly or unnecessary.
Great. Sorta like OmSigDavid who insists on phonetic spelling. No problem.
But I suspect there is as little chance of concession from me as from you on this issue.
There are no language scholars at all who subscribe to that errant, outdated notion, Frank. Why? Because it is simply unsupportable.
Well…I submit that you are wrong…and I will say that the authors of just the books I mentioned earlier are all “language scholars” and all subscribe to the notion that there exists both good grammar and bad grammar. In fact, they've written books about it. And I have read other books (not going to look for them now) that have “language scholars” as authors…who see that distinction.
Now you might say, as I am beginning to suspect you may, that any anyone subscribing to the notion cannot be considered a “language scholar.”
Do it if you want.
There are a couple of million hits on the Internet for good grammar…and for bad grammar…and I chose to suspect that there are “language scholars” as contributors.
Under any circumstances, I submit Kingsley Amis, Edward D. Johnson, and Richard Lederer…along with William Safire…as “language scholars”"and all of them suggest there is such a thing as good grammar and bad grammar.?
