a grammar question

I never argue with Roberta (because she's always right). But...ahem...there is nothing really wrong with the other expression either. It is not UNgrammatical because the preposition "of" is understood.

Merry Andrew expresses the post Chomksian view that "grammar" is descriptive not prescriptive. Depending on the idiolect of your social group, even expressions like "aint not got one" are on the descriptive view considered to be grammatical.

Of course foreign learners of English have to be given "general rules of grammaticality", but if you actually uttered the sentence "Of what use is your gun" native speakers would immediately know you were a foreigner.
i.e. Language is about "communication" which implies convergence of speaker and listener. It is a mark of "intelligence" to switch register (idiolect) according to situation and hence "grammar" can be considered to be a form of "stylistics".

fresco is correct. Most native English speakers would probably say "What use is your gun", although "Of what use is your gun" is more proper grammatically.

Merry Andrew wrote:

fresco is correct. Most native English speakers would probably say "What use is your gun", although "Of what use is your gun" is more proper grammatically.

No, Andrew, Frescoe is not correct. Frescoe is wrong. There is nothing grammatically wrong with either sentence. Fronting the preposition <of> makes the one sentence more formal but that's all. More formal does NOT mean more grammatical or more correct.

JTT wrote:

Merry Andrew wrote:

... Most native English speakers would probably say "What use is your gun", although "Of what use is your gun" is more proper grammatically.

Quote:

I never said there was anything "grammatically wrong" with either sentence. Neither did fresco, as far as I can see.

Grammatical is not a scalar thing, Andrew. Both sentences are perfectly grammatical.

"Proper" is also not something that increases as we move from informal language to more formal to highly formal. Highly formal language isn't any more "proper" than the most casual of language.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
CGEL: It has been a common assumption of prescriptivists that only formal style is grammatically correct. ... The standard language embraces a range of styles, from formal through neutral to informal. A satisfactory grammar must describe them all. It is not that formal style keeps to the rules and informal style departs from them; rather, formal and informal styles have partially different rules.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

JTT

Have actually read what I wrote ?

I made no statement about correct/incorrect. I implied that recent views of "grammar" are about "appropriateness" vis-a-vis idiolect. i.e grammar is descriptive not prescriptive. Is that the point with which you agree ?

Okay...my answer was tailored to the original questioner who as a non-native requested "a ruling". In general nuances of usage tend to escape foreigners to the extent that the concept of "English" itself is problematic exacerbated by its status as a lingua franca. Formal linguists sometimes forget the social dynamics within which idiolectical "rules" operate, including the dynamics involved in responses to a chat-room thread such as this ! Compris ? :wink:

Although your suggestion, which inludes the word "formal" is fine for the original questioner, you seem have misunderstood my level of analysis in the last response as you seem to think there is a "correct" answer here.

My phrase "formal linguist" implies anybody (prescriptivist or descriptivist) who attempts to make universal rulings. Within a "stylistic approach" rules can be local and temporary, extreme examples of which can be found in poetry. But since this thread demanded "a ruling" one is tempted to give statistically based "advice", and to debunk the word "formal". Such a response to the questioner embraces not only his question but previous answers to him from those whose think "English" is singular entity.