Periods Meeting Quotes

@ossobuco,

Quote:

I do that contraction by mistake sometimes, sloppy of me, but I admit it is wrong, even confusing, some of the times I use it. So, it's colloquial usage, but I prefer the formal for clarity.

I didn't even have to go back to Frank's post, Osso, to see that "I prefer the formal for clarity" is a steaming pile of bullshit. Why do folks who normally think become automatons when it comes to these silly prescriptive memes?

You, like Frank, and Roberta and a good number of other folks here at A2K, are nowhere near expert enough to deem what is and isn't a mistake in language, save for some crystal clear mistakes.

Using natural language structure isn't sloppy. Sloppy is using bad facts and old wives tales to discuss language.

That doesn't say y'all are dumb. It means that language is so complex that it actually takes a good measure of deep thought, reflection, more deep thought, looking past the one tree you are focused on to see the forest.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

A book burner eh? Fancy that!! It suggests using language as a stick to beat people with rather than of loving it for its own sake.

Not at all a book burner. Shred it and use it for worm mulch then. It's pretty much useless as an instructional book on English.

Quote:

Take Modern English Usage, by that good man H. W. Fowler, "a Christian in all but actual faith," as the Dictionary of National Biography called him. Despite a revision in 1965, it is out-of-date, yet it still has a coterie as devoted as the fans of Jane Austen or Max Beerbohm, who prize its diffident irony, its prose cadences, and, above all, the respect it shows for its readers' intelligence and principles.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I readily acknowledge that the subjunctive mood (and the incorrect appearance of the subjunctive mood) is a bitch to deal with (or, with which to deal, if you prefer).

Thanks, JTT. Once again I have learned something, although there is so much meat on this particular bone, I may not have mastered the lesson. But I will work on it.

You're welcome, Frank. Let me belabor this one last thing in hopes of encouraging an understanding of just what a spectacular thing language is.

The subjunctive and the subjunctive mood [taken as one entity] is not a bitch to deal with. You are confusing the ability to be able to discuss these grammar issues with the actual performance of these issues.

Let me give you an analogy. Imagine you watched a Cirque d' Soleil performer. You would be amazed by the artistry, the fluidity, the daring, the might, the ..., would you not?

Now what if, after the performance, an announcer asked the performer to explain all the moves in the entire program in the terminology of kinesiology [The study of muscular movement, especially the mechanics of human motion].

As you well can imagine, that performer would be at a loss to say anything about THEIR performance in that particular manner. Does that suggest that that person is incompetent in what they do? Would people start to look at that person as someone who, in actuality, doesn't know their craft -

"Geeze, she sure isn't as good as I first thought she was. How come I paid so much to watch this amateur?"

You'd laugh at someone who held such a nonsensical viewpoint, would you not?

So it is with language. A child, yes, children all learn all these incredibly complex grammatical structures that you think are a bitch.

Do you now see the difference? We all have this yet to be accurately described grammatical parser, grammar gene, whatever it is, in our brains, that learns without any instruction all these amazing grammar rules, with all the little nuances and we deploy all these monumentally complicated rules with nary a thought given to grammatical structure choice.

I have to go partake of some sustenance, a dinner invitation, as it happens, so I hope we can discuss this further.

[I paused and thought about word choice and spelling but there was no conscious thought, none, given to the needed grammar]

Catch ya later.

Hi Osso!!!! Smile

1 Reply

@JTT,

A book shredder then. What's the difference? A destroyer of books.

Quote:

It's pretty much useless as an instructional book on English.

That is an example of the most useless, most destructive and most corny usage any language has to put up with. The assertion as argument. And "pretty much" is wimpy as well. The uselessness has to be qualified to avoid being too far out on the branch.

You're no defender of language JT. It's just a club to you.

Language demands a maturity of judgement which few command and even fewer have not enough humility to realise their limitations.

You can't just be an anti-prescriptivist. It's too simple. It's like being anti-religious because of Jonestown or that Lazarus was a plant. A Jesus roadie.

And diffident irony, prose cadences and not being patronised by twats with phoney diplomas on the wall is what makes literature worthwhile.

1 Reply

@JTT,

You seem to be setting up war (oh, and losing).

Most of us will listen to reason, in contrast to you, person with agenda. Oh, also a hysteric,

1 Reply

@JTT,

Respectfully as possible, JTT, I think Spendius is on to something when he said, “You can't just be an anti-prescriptivist.”

Spendius seems to think it is being too simple.

I see it differently. I see being as anti-prescriptive as you are as being essentially prescriptive from an alternate perspective. You are prescribing by being as anti-prescriptive as you are being—essentially prescribing what constitutes poor grammatical considerations.

We can talk about that.

I do, however, appreciate that you are not being any ruder and unnecessarily belittling than necessary…considering the condescension that forms a significant part of your posts in this area.

You have been helping me with considerations about grammar…and I dare to presume I have been helping you become less hostile and antagonistic.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

A book shredder then. What's the difference? A destroyer of books.

No, that's not me, Spendi. I suggested that you could do that if you believed me, and Professor Nunberg, that Fowler is pretty much useless; 'pretty much' allows that you could find some small measure of utility in Fowler. But what good would that small measure do for someone who hoped to learn about how language works, with the greatest measure useless.

You might even find great comfort in reading this as a historical approach to language. In that, it will suffice for you, as well as the worms. Your call.

Quote:

You're no defender of language JT. It's just a club to you.

It only seems like a club to those who are wedded to old wives tales. These are held dear to the heart despite their being nonsense.

Quote:

You can't just be an anti-prescriptivist.

What is simplistic, Spendi, is this facile comment. Read the last couple of posts of mine. While you were bumbling around making errors, [forgiveable, because you do not understand the workings of language], I described to Frank how conditionals work. I sorted out, not in complete detail, but enough of a start so that people can actually understand what the subjunctive is and how it fits in modern English.

You simply do not have a firm enough grasp of prescriptive/descriptive to understand all this. You're just angry because you've discovered that one of your favs is terribly dated, a poor choice to learn about language.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Quote:

Most of us will listen to reason, in contrast to you, person with agenda.

Hi, Osso.

Why should you have to listen to reason?

If you believe that what I've presented doesn't describe how language works, please feel free to advance your reasons.

Don't you think it rather scary that after whatever number of years of grammar you can't offer any reason?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I see it differently. I see being as anti-prescriptive as you are as being essentially prescriptive from an alternate perspective. You are prescribing by being as anti-prescriptive as you are being—essentially prescribing what constitutes poor grammatical considerations.

Robert Gentel tried this argument, Frank. He didn't last very long.

One can't be prescriptive by describing how any discipline works. Being prescriptive means telling someone what they must/should do to conform to the rules of language.

Describing how language works doesn't contain a demand that people must do certain things. It shows how people do choose certain grammatical structures for certain language situations.

Descriptivism doesn't rule out any portion of language to anyone. In fact, descriptivists even tell people to go ahead and follow false rules if they so choose. But, as you may have noticed by now, they don't allow others to advance falsehoods without being challenged.

In the peeves threads, Setanta kinda accused me of the same thing. I told him that anyone is free to post anything they wished. But like it is with any science, they have to be willing to be challenged on those views.

Quote:

You have been helping me with considerations about grammar…and I dare to presume I have been helping you become less hostile and antagonistic.

I was going to address this from something you said in another post. Here's as good as there.

I have been very strident in many of my posts to you. Allowed, I do take issue with those who correct others for their using language in a completely natural fashion. [I think I just broke another prescriptive rule.]

Let me apologize for anything that I have said that has offended you.

3 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Speaking of which, have you been watching The Hollow Crown? I missed Richard II, but Henry IV pt 1 was really good, and I've got part2 on tape. The guy playing Falstaff is brilliant.

No, but I read a review of it yesterday and we have that tv set-up where you can retrieve shows that have already aired (although I don't know how to use it) so I'm going to see if I can get my daughter to help me find it and watch it.

I'll get (or request) the Shakespeare biography when I return the ones I've just read to the library. I've always found the whole cast of characters of Tudor England fascinating, but now that I've been to some of the places mentioned - like Cumnor - where Amy Rosbart was rumored to have been murdered by Robert Dudley because of his alledged affair with Elizabeth- it's even more interesting.
Cumnor House, where she either fell or was pushed down the stairs no longer exists, but the stone statue of Queen Elizabeth that stood at the house, which was demolished, is in the church.

http://www.berkshirehistory.com/churches/cumnor.html

Anyway - with all these rainy days, I've been getting alot of reading done, and I am looking forward to reading the Shakespeare biography, so thanks again for the suggestion. But wasn't it a beautiful day yesterday! Thank goodness, finally...

1 Reply

Men will be n shud be held responsible
for what thay actually say,
not for what the hearer SUSPECTS
that the speaker secretly had in mind.

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

And then there'd even be more nuance and differentiation depending upon if your speaker was white, black, hispanic, a debutante, etc., etc.

So, (to use Joe from Chicago's pet peeve) as it's not subjunctive, but conditional- would it still be correct if I were/was to use 'were' as in:

And then there'd even be more nuance and differentiation depending upon if your speaker 'were' white, black, hispanic, a debutante, etc., etc.'?

I mean, I'm just clarifying in terms of 'rules'. I know it sounds fine to my ear either way. I think I could have used 'was', 'were', 'is' and everyone would have known what I meant.

I guess what I'm asking is if the same 'rules' a prescriptivist would apply to the subjunctive also apply to the conditional?

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Whatever the writer wishes.

If the writer deviates from paradigmatic grammar,
he may well be misunderstood, and confusion
can infect committments upon which folks will rely.
Thay might avenge themselves upon him.

izzythepush wrote:

Nice rhyming couplet btw. For someone who claims to be a bit of an anarchist you're intensely prescriptive.

Sound logic is expressed thru proper English grammar (for the most part).
Words fit together like numbers in math.

U can be held responsible for what u say.

Beyond that issue, there is the matter
of avoiding expressing yourself with enuf
conspicuous error to appear to be a fool.

If a man shows confusion in his expression,
I have to take that as being indicative
of more, further extensive errors in his mind; it discourages confidence.

Concerning the Bible, I dunno whether the logic of grammar
had been figured out back then, nor whether its authors
were familiar with those concepts.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Hi Dave

Have you noticed that whenever you wish to express yourself clearly and without ambiguity, you adopt a style approximating to a standard form of English, in contrast to your usual crap?

0 Replies

@aidan,

It has been terrible, so much so that we can't get upset when people take the piss. When I was at primary school we have a French school comic to help us learn the language. On the one about weather it gave the following captions under various pictures. "In France it is beautiful. Can you see the cock?" (They meant a rooster, it was primary school) "In England it is raining. Can you see the frog?"

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
You have been helping me with considerations about grammar…and I dare to presume I have been helping you become less hostile and antagonistic.

I was going to address this from something you said in another post. Here's as good as there.

I have been very strident in many of my posts to you. Allowed, I do take issue with those who correct others for their using language in a completely natural fashion. [I think I just broke another prescriptive rule.]

Let me apologize for anything that I have said that has offended you.

No problem at all. None of it has actually offended me...it has just caused me to wonder why someone as intelligent as you would stoop to that kind of counterproductive thing.

In any case, this post of yours was massive on your part. I thank you for it.

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5045929)
Quote:
I see it differently. I see being as anti-prescriptive as you are as being essentially prescriptive from an alternate perspective. You are prescribing by being as anti-prescriptive as you are being—essentially prescribing what constitutes poor grammatical considerations.

Robert Gentel tried this argument, Frank. He didn't last very long.

He ought really to have pursued it further, because the only way around the argument is to so narrowly define “prescriptive” as to be prescriptive about it.

Quote:

One can't be prescriptive by describing how any discipline works. Being prescriptive means telling someone what they must/should do to conform to the rules of language.

But doing it the way you have been doing it, JTT, IS being descriptive...and IS telling people what they must do to conform to your rules of grammatical conduct (usage and commentary on grammar).

You essentially are telling others that they must not question grammatical prescriptions...prescribing, in effect, that doing so is "wrong."

And in being as extreme as you are (calling it lying or spreading falsehoods)...you are prescribing that setting arbitrary standards is "wrong"...and doing so by setting that notion as an arbitrary standard.

Quote:

Describing how language works doesn't contain a demand that people must do certain things.

But it does contain an implied demand that people must NOT do certain things...which you seem reluctant to see as a mirror image of that which you are correcting with such vehemence.

I think if you were to present your case in a less aggressive and unnecessarily insulting way, you would better further the cause you seem to have adopted to excise what you perceive to be unacceptable prescriptive involvement. (Almost all of grammar seems to be prescriptive...even what you term "the natural" element. Some you seem to accept; some you seem almost to despise.)

Quote:

It shows how people do choose certain grammatical structures for certain language situations.

It does indeed...and it DOES HAVE a prescriptive element to it.

I understand your reaction to this comment will be a variation of "you simply do not understand what prescriptive means in this context, but I assure you I do. Think about what I am saying...and it may become more clear.

Quote:

Descriptivism doesn't rule out any portion of language to anyone. In fact, descriptivists even tell people to go ahead and follow false rules if they so choose. But, as you may have noticed

The "But, as you may have noticed" was cute, but forced...and anyone reading your remarks would instantly notice the departure from your usual mode of grammatical construction.

Even if you are correct that descriptivism does not rule out any portion of language to anyone...

...the fact that you do what you do in the situations in which you do them indicates that some descriptivists don't GET that.

You ARE ruling as objectionable (to the point of calling them lies and calling people who engage in them, liars) anyone who crosses lines you (and the authorities you cite) arbitrarily draw in the sand.

Great discussion, JTT. I'm enjoying it.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

It's pretty much useless as an instructional book on English.

Asertion an that's. Nunbergsalsoassertionanremarkisvalidityparrotwisenotisitsenhanc-edrepetitionby.

Nunberg is a faddist winding up faddists. His conceit sticks out like a hapel chatpeg improperly dressed.

"Today is well thine but where's may tomorrow be. But, bless his cowly head and press his crankly hat, what a world's woe in each's other's weariness waiting to bedroll his own properer mistakes, the backslapping gladhander, free of the florid future and the other singing likeness, dirging a past of bloody altars, gale with a blost to him, dove without gall. And she, of the jilldaw's nest who tears up lettereens she never apposed a pen upon. Yet sung of love and the monster man. What's Hiccupper to hem or her to Hagaba? Ough, ough, brieve kindli!"

I don't believe either you or the fancy man.

Quote:

It only seems like a club to those who are wedded to old wives tales. These are held dear to the heart despite their being nonsense.

That's another invalid assertion propping up an asserted seeming. Drivel in other words.

Quote:

You simply do not have a firm enough grasp of prescriptive/descriptive to understand all this. You're just angry because you've discovered that one of your favs is terribly dated, a poor choice to learn about language.

More mirror preening. Making up your own self-assurance.

1 Reply

@JTT,

see next post.

0 Replies

@JTT,

It's a well known psychological fact JT that a hair-trigger readiness to insult is sensitive in direct proportion to insecurity.

Quote:

Robert Gentel tried this argument, Frank. He didn't last very long.

What does that mean? Bob could easily have not lasted after realising you are a brick wall of bigoted superficiality against which it was pointless for him to bang his head.

He might have had a car crash. To assume he didn't last because you had defeated him in argument is just another of your self-flattering affectations. He's a busy man.

Quote:

I do take issue with those who correct others for their using language in a completely natural fashion.

A "completely natural fashion" is a ridiculous expression. The whole point of fashion is that it is unnatural. And civilisation is unnatural as well and requires unnatural language forms to exist. Language itself is unnatural outside of reflex vocalisations such as grunts, sighs and squeals.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

dirging a past of bloody altars

That's a stunner. The American Dream caught in a flash.

1 Reply

Periods Meeting Quotes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know