Battles you know are lost but still won't stop fighting

In My Humble Opinion
101

I’m an urban planner who tries to write in simple, plain, jargon-free English. For the planners I supervise, I’m ALWAYS making the following corrections to their work:

Legalese. My planners adore terms of legal art like said, aforementioned, hereinafter, thereto, andso on. I tell them if it’s not part of your normal speaking vocabulary, don’t use it in writing. I tell them documents written in plain English are just as defensible as those written with a stream of legal terms. That never stops them, though.

Plannerese. Everyone knows what a driveway is, so stop calling it an “ingress-egress point.” Everyone knows what a septic system is, so don’t use “POWTS” (private onsite waste treatment system) or “HOSWDS” (household on-site wastewater disposal system). Nope, 'tis better to baffle with bullshit than to be clearly understood.

102

The false generic–“men” means everyone; “he” means “he and she,” etc. etc. I am not a man, so don’t include me in a group of men.

The whole fuss about this makes me wonder why we have the word “people.”

103

I fight the opposite way on this. “Men” means everyone, “he” means “he or she”. We are all men; it’s time for man to realize this, and for him to return to a sensible mode of speaking.

104

Good. Encouraging good, clear writing in government is a noble (though obvious trying) task. Planning documents tend to be almost unreadable, which is one of the reasons I probably won’t actually be doing anything with my planning degree.

105

This reminds me of a very simple experiment in an undergrad linguistics course. While the masculine “he/ him/ his” and “man” are indeed defined as the English equivalent to the neuter, the connotation of these words tends to be “referring to a man/ men”.

The phrase “Man is an animal that breastfeeds his young” sounds odd because the formal definition (of ‘man’ and ‘his’) differs from its common connotation.
IOW, I don’t think it’s quite as simple as returning to “a sensible mode of speaking”.

106

Yeah. Claiming that “man” is neutral means ignoring the connotation of the word. Demanding that everyone feel something different when a word is used is silly - that’s just not how the world works.

At one point, “man” was actually neutral, and two terms existed to specifically refer to male and female “men”. The female term lives on as “woman”, but the male term died out hundreds of years ago. Clinging to the notion that “men” is neuter means ignoring the fact that language has changed. You can tell people till you’re blue in the face what they should think when they hear a word - or you can take into account the actual meaning of the word when you talk, rather than what you’d like it to mean. One is going to give you much more sorrow than the other.

107

I would argue that rather than subtle shades of meaning it allows for more chances to misunderstand each other. People use words to communicate. If I make up a phrase or a spelling, then it is very likely that the person I am trying to communicate with won’t know what I’m talking about.

Figs gooey namya! Did you understand that means “I like figs”? Well everyone around here says it like that! It portrays our love for figs based on how gooey they are. It provides more shades of meaning than “I like figs.” Isn’t that great?

108

You suggest that language should thus be reduced to the bare minimum needed for our daily lives? Because my argument was that there’s nothing wrong with a perfectly normal construction in our language. You seem to be suggesting that we should artificially decide what the absolute minimum we might want to say should be, and then pare the language down so that we have no greater expressive potential than that. I suppose as someone who dabbles in the art of writing, that strikes me as bizarre - but even just as some guy who speaks a language, I can’t see what you’d possibly accomplish by wholesale removal of all sorts of words and phrases just to avoid any possibility of miscommunication. Language - no matter how simple - creates the risk of miscommunication. So what? We have ways to get around miscommunication.

Except that the argument I was responding to was someone trying to claim that we should stop using a construction that exists, and that everyone is familiar with. Are you genuinely confused by “You’ve got a friend in Pennsylvania”? No, of course not. So why should it be removed from the language? That’s absolutely not comparable to your example of making up words and phrases. And why the false dichotomy? Every time I make the slightest argument that yes, the way people actually talk is okay, someone pops in with some nonsensical argument that I’m defending making up nonsense words and using them in communication. You can talk how you like - you can make up words or confine your vocabulary to the most common 800 words in the language to avoid ever miscommunicating anything - either one is your choice. You won’t successfully communicate if you decide to speak in nonsense words - so what are you worried about? Do you think that if we don’t teach our children arbitrary, irrational rules that have no logical backing or historical relevance, that they’ll spontaneously all decide to speak in nonsense words and society will collapse?

Language is something we don’t even fully understand yet. It’s amazing in its communicative power, and it’s amazing how well it works. Languages evolve, and they evolve to suit the needs of their language community. There’s no reason to go around worrying about some phantom spectre of miscommunication, because language on its own is incredibly sophisticated and works to make communication easy. Features that cause confusion fix themselves on their own; language naturally strikes a balance between risking miscommunication and losing our ability to express everything we need it to. None of these silly strictures taught about language do anything to alter this balance (though sometimes people make nonsensical claims that some artificial rule works to make communication clearer, their claims never seem to stand up to any scrutiny.) There’s no reason for grim schoolmarms to step in and “fix” it, because it’s not broken in the slightest degree.

109

I know. :slight_smile: It’s my own little Quixotic battle. Surely even die-hard descriptivists are allowed one little bugbear?

110

You must think I’m someone else. Please point out where I ever said anything about the topic before.

BTW, it may be of interest to you that the “arrrgh” line was a footnote referring to specific Spanish-language mistakes noted earlier in my post.

Attributing claims to the wrong people sort of ruins your attempt to sound like you’re discussing this from any logical standpoint, BTW.

I’ll grant that it generally went down like you said. But I’m pretty sure I heard it used as a second-person singular pronoun a couple times. I would’ve noticed something like that.

This is a target a lot of would-be grammar Nazis latch on to*, but the usage described isn’t actually wrong. Your further arguments on this point seem to confuse preferred written style with correct usage. These are two seperate things.

*I could write that “to which a lot of would-be grammar Nazis latch on”, but it’s not necessary.

Doesn’t mean it’s wrong, either.

111

Yes, I understand I’ve got a friend in PA. I even say it that way. I was arguing the philosophy moreso than the specific point.

Yes, and in theory, Communism works. By simple observation of the world I’d say that the exact opposite is true. Is it an imaginary phantom that English has developed dialects all around the world? Do various dialects make communication easier? Heck, we are even seeing arguments amongst southerners whether “all y’all” is the valid plural or if it should just be “y’all”. Getting easier on it’s own? History tells us no.

112

You said something about “logic” in your description of “irregardless” earlier in the exact post.

It wasn’t clear. You put it right after something you wrote to me.

I see no evidence that I have done so.

I see it as helpful to examine real-world examples because bare philosophy is liable to result in all kinds of silly results when the conclusion of the philosophy is not checked against what actually happens in the world. Like I said - I think your concerns over miscommunication are overstated, and I returned to the example at hand to demonstrate that.

So now you’re arguing that having different dialects is bad? And that prescriptive grammar helps avoid that problem? The trouble with that statement is that prescriptive grammar has been a plague upon English pedagogy for centuries, and by now most Americans are well and thoroughly subjected to it because most Americans are educated in schools with that flawed pedagogy. It can be seen clearly that teaching prescriptive grammar does not stop the “problem” of dialectization (though television and the other mass media are actually slowing or reversing the formation of dialects.) If people are unwilling to change the way they speak, then you’re actually positing a world in which (1) people are taught prescriptive norms in school (as they are now) and (2) people actually accept those norms (which they do not do now.) I would say the evidence suggests that they never do so except when there is some specific purpose to doing so for their own benefit. People who don’t speak standard English at home or in their communities will do so in the academic and professional worlds because of sheer necessity - but that only affects the small percentage of people who actually have to do so to achieve career success. And even they tend to retain their native dialects when they’re outside of their professional environment. So point (2) is pretty much impossible - even if you can make a philosophical argument that somehow the world would be better given both (1) and (2), you haven’t come up with any evidence that it’s even possible.

What we’re seeing is an argument over the precise syntax of a particular construction - we haven’t seen even the slightest evidence, though, that this argument over syntax has any effect on actual communication. None of the examples given in the thread suggest that any actual difficulty with communication existed. Of course, such difficulties do sometimes present themselves when a person moves to an environment with an unfamiliar dialect. But those are largely minor and transient. Sure, if I moved to Georgia I’d probably be a bit confused by the dialect spoken - for about three days. We’re not talking earth-shaking problems here.

The point I’m making here is mostly that prescriptive grammar education doesn’t tend to make much difference, and that it would likely be of little benefit if it did. You seem to accept it as axiomatic that it would be better if everyone spoke the same way, but I disagree. I don’t see why the existence of different dialects is a problem. On some rare occasions, it might create certain difficulties - buth those difficulties are miniscule. The social advantages of the existence of dialects are undeniable, and that’s a big part of why they continue to exist.

In fact, I suspect that prescriptive pedagogy is sometimes quite harmful. An illustrative example is with black students in inner city elementary schools. When students are told that the way their community speaks is “wrong” (and again, I challenge you to find any a priori justification for the idea that one way of speaking is “right” and another is “wrong”), it’s naturally offensive. Further, social pressures outside the school to fit into one’s community go up against pressures inside the school to speak and act a certain way. Those conflicting pressures, according to some sociological research, are a major contributor to the notorious problems faced in inner city schools. Obviously not all of those pressures revolve around linguistic issues - but to whatever extent they do, is it somehow advantageous to “stick to your guns” and teach traditional prescriptive grammar (even when those prescriptions are not in themselves of any particular merit) if it means driving student and educator further apart?

113

Ah, OK, I hadn’t connected the two but I see your point. I don’t see the two as being connected, though, and here’s why: the first is literally inventing a new word, and the second is pronouncing an old word in a strange way. My point with “irregardless” was that–much like most mondegreens–it would clear itself up for any flagrant word-abuser if said abuser just thought about it for a second, and asked critical questions of him- or herself: Why do I say this word? Where did I hear it? Do I see it in written communication? If so, from which sources? How is this word constructed? Does it make sense?

This differentiates what I believe to be “lesser” mondegreens like “beckon call” from the ones which deserve the deepest circle of hell, like “should of”. The first makes as much sense as any alternative spelling. The second doesn’t.

Anyway, back to “nucular”: after further review, I concede that a dialect’s pronunciation of a word really can’t be inherently “wrong”, at least unless it makes it so that it can’t be understood, which “nucular” doesn’t. It’s still utterly ridiculous, though. :wink:

I assumed that the asterick next to it would clear the matter up, but apparently I should’ve been more clear. My bad.

My apologies; I thought you were referring to an earlier argument about the logic of pronouncing nuclear “nucular”, specifically. I was wrong.

114

We’re cool then. I have my little pet hates, too.

And don’t get me started on people who write “should of”. Did they just sleep through their entire education and then never read a book ever?

115

I hate “off of”. The model plane mags I read regularly include this solecism. (I know you can parse the preceding sentence two ways. That’s the beauty of it; both readings are valid.) It got worse when we got Windows XP installed as our operating system on the network, and someone set up a logoff screen that said “You are now being logged off of Windows”. They want disembowelled with a blunt spoon. :stuck_out_tongue:

116

D’oh! D’oh! :smack:

117

That’s a common misspelling for “offa”, as in, “get offa me, you ijit.”

118

There are an awful lot of people who think this > * < is called an “asterick” or “asterix.”

It is an asterisk.

119

And criterion/criteria.

My peeves:

  1. Misplaced modifiers, such as this classic from Steve Wariner’s “Holes in the Floor of Heaven”:

One day shy of eight years old
My grandma passed away

Or: As President, I think George Bush is doing a bang-up job.
2) Series that are not parallel:

She’s pretty, smart and knows how to cook.

So basically you are saying:

She is pretty.
She is smart.
She is knows how to cook.

ARGGH!

120

Oh, and:

And I’ll tell you the reason why: the reason why is, is because peaches are too expensive.

aka

The reason is (that) peaches are too expensive.