JTT
I'm still none the wiser as to your motivation or boundaries in this matter. Perhaps I'll never know. You seem content to label opinions "falsehoods" and quote names and acronyms which are unfamiliar to me.
I'm still more than a bit perplexed with your question, Pete. I thought that my motivation was clear and I think I've stated it like this. I don't like to see people spread false rules about language, innocently or maliciously; a falsehood is a falsehood.
Who does this serve? What possible purpose does it serve? It isn't, as you claim, a question of clarity, because when one looks at the process, these claims are found to be bogus.
As to the boundaries, all language has a place. The biggest error ever made by PGs was to equate formal with correct, informal/casual with incorrect. It has been done numerous times in this thread.
There are many levels of language and within those levels, many differences occur. To think that one can measure the collocations of casual language with those of formal is, to put it kindly, really silly.
Sure there are apects of language that are tried, they don't catch on and they die. But those are still part of the grammar of English for the time they exist. We ENLs have very clear rules of grammar contained within our brains that allow us to realize just how big the envelope is.
Regarding those things that you don't know found within my postings; you should ask when you don't know.
I'm pleased that Setanta has entered this debate with a very considered view, much of which I appreciate. He has the advantage of commanding my respect, based upon past interactions on this forum - something you have not yet earned.
Me too. He has offered support for my position. I just hope he'll get to some specifics before long, instead of beating around the bush.
If you have anything else specific in mind, Pete, don't hesitate to ask.
KP
Setanta: I also have little regard for lexicographers whe pretend to anything greater than the avocation of recorder.
Setanta: Noah Webster set out with the intent of providing to American school children a rationalized spelling of the language, and in his correspondence envisioned a day when an American language would exist. I believe that it now does, and that it is as close to English as the slavic languages of the Croats and Serbs are to one another.
And these languages "cross-polinate" one another. Webster dropped the "u" from words such as colour and humour--and yet we understand one another well enough despite the divergence. He dropped the "k" from words such as magick and musick, and the change has been accepted by all speakers of English.
This might be a wonderful opportunity to insert a performance of Get Back ************, You Don't Know Me Like That, by Ludacris. However, apart from being appalled at the spelling of the performer's name, the entire work would likely cause near-fatal apoplexy, and i don't wish to be impeached of attempted murder against other members.
JTT
First, Pete, let me congratulate you on being the first person to hit PAGE 100. Your prize is a first edition of Fowler, HW: The King's English. Use it as a paper weight or as a fireplace log.
I appreciate your response.
Likewise, I appreciate yours.
I still think that your use of the word "falsehood" is inflammatory and inappropriate. Those who post peeves here are expressing a disquiet with the manner in which the language if flexed from its "accepted" ("old fashioned" in your view, perhaps) form. In doing so they are not writing new rules, except perhaps those which they themselves follow.
I think that this term has been appropriately softened to include those who have, who are, who will act/ed/ing innocently.
I am quite content with my grasp on the use of language in different registers and that informal language (whether spoken or written) requires less criticism on the grounds of form than a formal text.
In my work, I write reports which summarise complex matters of business and financial crime in a manner which needs to be both precise and easily understood. In this context I am much more careful to use "accepted" grammar and choose words very precisely to ensure that the meaning is clear. I don't use that language when speaking with my friends.
Furthermore, the purpose of communication is for the meaning to be appreciated by the recipient, not just for the originator to broadcast. As a result, I will alter the words and phrases I use depending on whether the person with whom I communicate is English, American or a non-native speaker.
Added to which, I love word-plays to extract the best out of a double-entendre or capitalise on a nuance in meaning for comic effect.
To give you an example: some time ago I was asked what my friend F was doing. My response: "He's on the dog to his bitch" (He's on the telephone to his girlfriend). This mixes Cockney rhyming slang "dog & bone" = 'phone with contemporary US-rap terminology and gives a nice juxtaposition of dog and bitch.
Now I have explained that I share your appreciation of the flexibility of language and its uses, I'm still curious to understand in what context you would apply any rules or are you a linguistic anarchist?
You've described my sentiments exactly, Pete. Render unto SWE/SFE that which is theirs; so too to SSE/SCE. I told you specifically in an earlier thread that I follow the rules of English grammar. That's what we all do when we speak and write. It's when people follow old fictions that were not ever real rules that we run into these problems.
Actually, I don't seem to be in disagreement with anyone here except on some specific peeves [read 'old fictions']. Even Setanta described a descriptivist approach to language and you haven't asked him to explain himself. [Be ready for a song and dance routine.]
The only difference between Setanta and me is that he sat back while people peeved, I didn't. [well, not the only difference, but on this one point, the only difference]
Some people here don't seem to like it that they've had their beliefs deflated. I appreciate that and I appreciate the feelings, but why let anyone persist in ignorance.
Now, if any of these peevists cares to show me how I've wronged 'em and that their peeve has wings, well, I'm right here waitin' for 'em, ears cocked and ready.
Follow that inner grammar that has helped SCoates a number of times in this thread. When your inner grammar says, "Hold on a moment, somethin's just not kosher here", trust it, it's the best grammar book that you'll never have to buy.
