What are your pet peeves re English usage?

"Usage in the broad sense is always the determinator of correctness. The only way to falsify that assertion is to imagine that language somehow preceded its users ..." (D Bolinger)

Quote:

"Usage in the broad sense is always the determinator of correctness. The only way to falsify that assertion is to imagine that language somehow preceded its users ..." (D Bolinger)

I fundamentally disagree with this statement. Bolinger has been drinking too much of the stuff. Always the determinator of correctness? Give me a break. So "I could care less" is correct and means the same as "I could not care less"? Rubbish. If it did, what does "I could not care less" actually mean?

A statement and its direct negation cannot mean the same. Saying something exists cannot mean the same as saying something does not exist.

Usage is not always the determinator of correctness. You can mess around with words but not operators that change meaning.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Quote:

"Usage in the broad sense is always the determinator of correctness. The only way to falsify that assertion is to imagine that language somehow preceded its users ..." (D Bolinger)

I fundamentally disagree with this statement. Bolinger has been drinking too much of the stuff. Always the determinator of correctness? Give me a break. So "I could care less" is correct and means the same as "I could not care less"? Rubbish. If it did, what does "I could not care less" actually mean?

A statement and its direct negation cannot mean the same. Saying something exists cannot mean the same as saying something does not exist.

Usage is not always the determinator of correctness. You can mess around with words but not operators that change meaning.

After a few more years of research which should illustrate for you, Steve, that language means what the users of that language intend it to mean, not what ill-informed tinkerers think it should mean, perhaps we can again discuss this.

Usage IN THE BROADEST SENSE is always the determinator of correctness.

"Wrong is Steve." [only an example]

The foregoing sentence isn't really the normal manner that an ENL would use to express this thought, so in the broadest sense, it isn't "correct". But that doesn't mean that it isn't possible and effective in some language situations.

Argument like that is circular and not convincing. But your statements from on high are always entertaining and thought-provoking, JTT.

True, McTag. The circuity was a bold effort to steer Steve away from beating that old dead horse.

Looking again at the learned professor's pronouncement "Usage in the broad sense is always the determinator of correctness. The only way to falsify that assertion is to imagine that language somehow preceded its users ...",

I would say that correct language patterns can be corrupted and misunderstood, and subsequent "broad usage" of them does not convey correctness. I am aware of course, as ofttimes stated before, that language changes and is not set in aspic, nor should it be.

You're right, that does happen and it has to happen. But that cinches it then, doesn't it, Sir. 'thee' and 'thou' and thousands of other more expansive collocations have been corrupted. And guess what, the 'new' is what is correct in the sense of most common usage.

But that word, 'corrupted' is the wrong word [in a macro sense] for someone who allows that language does and must change. I doubt very much that you'll find a sentient human who would not allow that language does change when asked for that opinion. This macro sense is what Prof Bollinger was describing.


Now the problem we run into is that there is this grammar school bent, if you will, in the population at large, that there are "rules", [these "rules" were memorized and pounded into our heads], that guide language use.

Of rules, there are millions, but they are vastly more complicated and interesting than the conventions learned in school, taught by folks whose only qualifications are that they memorized the old saws better than the others.

So the nonsense about language persists and it is pervasive, but pervasive nonsense is no better than infrequent nonsense.

Setanta:

Instead, he offered a twisted and false characterization--in short, a lie--of the criticism offered, and then called it absurd. Yes, it is absurd to lie about what someone else has written rather than to address the substance of it.

Setanta: I do have a consistent view of the world, whether or not you know it or acknowledge it.

Until this posting I had no way to discern that. The disconnect between Set in other threads and Set here is truly amazing. You make pretty good, even damn good sense in other threads but I've mostly seen just drivel when it comes to what you offer in this thread.

I have not lied about what you have written--i've just pointed out that you peddle bullshit.

That's a lie right there, my friend. All you've ever done in this thread is repeat that lie ad nauseum, doing exactly what you chided Finn for doing. Caught smack dab in the middle of a contradiction, a self-induced one, this is now how you choose to handle it.

You have not effectively addressed Steve's criticism of usage which is claimed to mean what it patently does not mean.

Can you say, "Stay on topic", Set? The issue being discussed was not the same issue that Steve raised.

On a larger scale, your constant whining refrain that usage determines "correctness," and only usage, is a statement from unreality. In the real world, those who indulge argot and patois are nevertheless obliged to learn a standard form of the dominant language of their society--at least so far as to comprehend it when spoken, if not to actually speak it coherently--if they are to function effectively in the society to earn a living and avoid the toils of the law.

Please tell me something I don't know, Set. It's clear that you still do not understand.

Now I'm not saying that you should be able to get it all from one quote but why wouldn't you at least try? Why wouldn't you do exactly what you suggest Finn should do?

Quote:

Setanta: I do have a consistent view of the world, whether or not you know it or acknowledge it.

Until this posting I had no way to discern that. The disconnect between Set in other threads and Set here is truly amazing. You make pretty good, even damn good sense in other threads but I've mostly seen just drivel when it comes to what you offer in this thread.

I have not lied about what you have written--i've just pointed out that you peddle bullshit.

That's a lie right there, my friend. All you've ever done in this thread is repeat that lie ad nauseum, doing exactly what you chided Finn for doing. Caught smack dab in the middle of a contradiction, a self-induced one, this is now how you choose to handle it. (emoticon removed in the interest of good taste)

You have never demonstrated that usage trumps any other definition of what is or is not correct in spoken English. Therefore, to refer to my criticism of your bullsh!t as a lie is without foundation. What you have so often posted here constitutes drivel, in that you have no better basis than a Google search, and are apparently so devoid of an understanding of what constitutes statistically significant evidence, that you completely faile to demonstrate an understanding of the valid criticism of using Google as a source to underpin your silly thesis. It also seems to escape your attention that with your basic premise undemonstrated--i.e., in that you have never provided even plausible evidence that we should consider usage to be the only valid criterion for determining linguistic rectitude--that any "proof" you offer of the prevelance of usage is meaningless without the further reference to the statistical unreliability of your method.

Quote:

You have not effectively addressed Steve's criticism of usage which is claimed to mean what it patently does not mean.

Can you say, "Stay on topic", Set? The issue being discussed was not the same issue that Steve raised.

You responded to Steve's post, so if you consider Steve's post not to have been "on topic," you are responsible for the diversion of the discuss, i am not. I commented on your response to Steve. Sorry if you don't like that--you may be surprised to learn that your likes and dislikes have zero value in determining what i or any one else will post here.

Quote:

On a larger scale, your constant whining refrain that usage determines "correctness," and only usage, is a statement from unreality. In the real world, those who indulge argot and patois are nevertheless obliged to learn a standard form of the dominant language of their society--at least so far as to comprehend it when spoken, if not to actually speak it coherently--if they are to function effectively in the society to earn a living and avoid the toils of the law.

Please tell me something I don't know, Set. It's clear that you still do not understand.

Now I'm not saying that you should be able to get it all from one quote but why wouldn't you at least try? Why wouldn't you do exactly what you suggest Finn should do?

I understand perfectly well what you are either uncapable of understanding, or are unwilling to acknowledge. There is a globally recognized usage known as standard English. Far more people speak that English than those who are native speakers of that language--a group which increasingly does not even constitute a significant fraction of those who employ standard English constantly. For those who are not native speakers, what is to be considered correct usage is crucially important, the more so as they pursue excellence in the language in order to further their careers. Studesnt of ESL habitually ask what is the correct usage, or the common usage, and they have no use for drivel such as you peddle, with your unfounded claim that usage trumps any other view of rectitude in spoken English. They expect to speak to and to listen to native speakers of English in the course of business transactions, and they therefore care very much what those people consider to be correct usage.

That you would disagree with what Steve, McT, KP, Clary or any other obviously competent native-speaker of this language considers good usage means nothing to those who hope to learn standard English. What such articulate and well-educated native speakers consider good usage does matter. Too bad, so sad . . . you need to get over yourself, but i doubt that you will--you've never even shown the abitlity to comprehend why your Google searches constitute poor evidence of usage, let alone that usage is not a final arbitror.

You have never demonstrated that usage trumps any other definition of what is or is not correct in spoken English. Therefore, to refer to my criticism of your bullsh!t as a lie is without foundation. What you have so often posted here constitutes drivel, in that you have no better basis than a Google search, and are apparently so devoid of an understanding of what constitutes statistically significant evidence, that you completely faile to demonstrate an understanding of the valid criticism of using Google as a source to underpin your silly thesis. It also seems to escape your attention that with your basic premise undemonstrated--i.e., in that you have never provided even plausible evidence that we should consider usage to be the only valid criterion for determining linguistic rectitude--that any "proof" you offer of the prevelance of usage is meaningless without the further reference to the statistical unreliability of your method.

I truly don't know what's worse, Set, your pathetic grasp of the language issues or your weasely attempt to get out of one lie with yet more lies.

If you were to go back and examine my postings to every language issue you'd find that I have addressed them with sources and reasoned argument. Compare that to the postings that you have offered since you came stormin' out of the gate.

Now you cling to this one issue raised by Steve that came right out of left field with all the righteous indignation of a Tom Delay and all because you seek to deflect from the jam your big mouth has gotten you into.

If you'd like to discuss a language issue, then by all means proceed. If not, then I leave the floor to you and your ranting. The choice is yours.

If a person is re born again, does that mean that he is born? Just a smile remembering my daughter asking me about that.

As yourself, PDLC, I try to use the "mot juste"...