As a professional linguist and professional Italian, it gets challenging when editing wikis for pronunciation of bruschetta. I’m under no illusions about prescriptivism in linguistics, but to enshrine in writing the American /bruːˈʃɛtə/ instead of /brusˈkɛtta/ gives me physical pain in my Italian heart. I’m only human.
I maintain that /bruːˈskɛtə/ is an entirely reasonable anglicization. For those who say English speakers think ⟨sch⟩ must always be /ʃ/ because of German, just remember the guy who coined the term schizophrenia was German. How come you don’t say /ˌʃɪzəˈfriːniə/?
John McWhorter knows a lot, but his opinions are for shit. I listen to his podcast because he offers veey interesting facts about things, but whenever he starts talking about his preferences or his tastes, I want to vomit. And of course his politics are not great.
I’m in a fan group for the radio program A Way With Words, and peeve petting is specifically forbidden there. The prevailing attitude among the most active members of the group is exactly what you described: How cool to come across another fascinating unexpected variant.
And as I noted in post #51, that’s my attitude as well. Let me quote the relevant part:
But I distinguish between an expertly crafted turn of phrase and an ignorant mistake that brings negative value to the business of communication. Do you consider “for all intensive purposes” used in a non-ironic way to be “a fascinating unexpected variant”? Or is it just evidence that the writer once misheard something and is thoughtlessly repeating it? Or expressions like “should of” or “would of”? They’re in no way fascinating, and sadly, not even particularly unexpected. They may be of academic interest to a linguist, but they also deserve criticism.
How are you still so oblivious to the point here? The argument is not that all errors are interesting (though some certainly are). The argument is that prescriptivists are almost exclusively focused on harsh criticism of errors or stylistic faux pas (sometimes real, often imagined), rather than celebrating the fascinating diversity of language like a linguist - with the curiosity of a scientist observing the world.
That is not borne out by the content of your posts on language, most of which consist of harsh prescriptivism decrying usage in terms like “careless” and “ignorant”. If your posts are not representative of your true feelings about language, I think you need to hire a PR person.
So, your theory is that I lied when I described how much I enjoy creative, well-written prose? Or maybe the boundless joy I get from reading and re-reading P.G. Wodehouse (and collecting his original first editions) is just a figment of my imagination? Who’s being “harsh” and judgmental now?
It’s in no way “harsh” to try to describe the likely sources of non-standard usage in the context and register in which it appears. I think there are basically three:
Carelessness: the writer knows better, but has not made the effort to create a grammatical, readable sentence.
Ignorance: the writer doesn’t know better.
Deliberate: the writer (often a skilled one) is doing it for effect: for emphasis, for uniqueness, for humour, or for some other specific literary purpose.
Well it would illustrate that “proper” grammar and usage is insufficient to accomplish effective communication!
@wolfpup I for one have little doubt that you enjoy creative and well written prose. And that you personally usually find deviations from what you understand to be Standard English as distractions at minimum, and as an impediment to communication commonly, in most contexts. Deviations reflect ignorance, carelessness, or rarely skillful flouting of the rules. (Flaunting their skill! )
What you miss are complete other categories that are possibly more common.
Communication in a context that is not necessarily best served with your accepted version of Standard English.
Usage that may arise even but not necessarily ignorant of proper usage that actually communicates highly effectively. Novel usage that meets a need. Usage that is spreading despite its being “improper” because it meets some communication or even social signaling need. Language caught in the act of evolution.
That’s a fair point, but I think what you’re asking is not whether I’m interested, but whether I’d be accepting of non-standard usage in particular contexts or particular subcultures. The answer is that it depends. There is a subset of language all its own that frequently infests business writing and conversation, and my belief is that so-called biz-speak has a nasty habit of growing out of control and becoming an infestation of barely comprehensible jargon. I detest excessive biz-speak.
The language of science I generally have no problem with, as its aim is typically precision. If the language of a journal paper is different from commonly used standard English, there are usually good reasons for it.
The dialects of subcultures are not really a matter to be judgmental about. If they don’t comport with standard English, then so be it. This is the sort of thing that linguists love to study, and it can indeed be interesting. Although I really don’t have a lot of patience with much of teen-speak which, like biz-speak, can be annoying when it’s excessive.
That said, however, I’ll still come back to the point I raised earlier, that 54% of American adults are so lacking in reading proficiency (and, presumably, as bad or worse at writing proficiency) that they read below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level. That’s just appalling for any modern advanced nation.
Well, no. I like it when PG Wodehouse writes about “the unpleasant, acrid smell of burnt poetry”. I like it when he writes “I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled.” I like it when he described a jilted lover trying to throw away painful old love letters, only to have “a large and hairy dog” repeatedly fetching them, dropping them at his feet, and looking at him with an adoring “look of genial imbecility”.
I do not like it when someone writes “for all intensive purposes, I could of stayed home”.
There’s a certain amount of objectivity there, no? Or do you feel that these two writers have achieved an equivalent level of artistic accomplishment?
The eggcorns that become established as standard usage tend to be those that actually make sense if you are unfamiliar with the true etymology or the original allusion.
Eating humble pie came from umble (offal) pie. So, the kind of pie a person of humble means would eat.
In real time transition, I’d say free reign from the original free rein. The meaning is identical, but with a different metaphor - a monarch who can do anything they want, vs allowing a horse to do anything they want. I think we’re seeing a transition from error to standard usage in real time here. I would guess that most well educated people over 40 still see free reign as an error, and editors would correct it; but it’s so common now that I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s accepted at least as a variant within a generation, and perhaps it will later become the accepted standard form. Personally I prefer the old metaphor, but probably not everyone is familiar the word rein and the use of reins, whereas everyone knows about powerful rulers.
Yeah, that’s pretty much just what I said: it’s okay when you like it, it’s not okay when you don’t.
Depends on how you feel about Wodehouse, doesn’t it? Something that tries to be art, and fails, is often less palatable than something that’s just trying to be functional. I like Wodehouse well enough, but I could really do without hearing another joke about someone being “gruntled” again. That’s fairly close to anti-humor to me, at this point.
So don’t leave us hanging. What are the defining characteristics of a professional Italian vs an amateur Italian? Superior muscle tone in the arms? The width of the range of acceptable texture in pasta?
That’s from The Code of the Woosters. Wodehouse wrote that in 1938. Sure that little quip is getting old, and has been widely copied, but it wasn’t when he first wrote it. If you Google for Wodehouse quotes, there are some marvelous examples that are still fresh today, but I was trying to keep my examples short and simple.
Wodehouse has been widely regarded as one of the great masters of the English language. Your continued attempt to claim that the difference between his writing and that of a typical marginal illiterate is merely a subjective matter of opinion is not an argument that anyone could take seriously.
And you are doing little to falsify my claim that so much of what you write about language is framed in harsh negative terms. Even when deliberately attempting to provide a positive example of great writing to refute what I said, you just can’t help it.
You can return to it as often as you like. I will continue to respond that mishearing “to intents and purposes” or “would have” as “to intensive purposes” and “would of” can and does occur in many who read quite competently. I know some with advanced degrees who those and other errors. These eggcorns are not a result of functional illiteracy and correcting their misuse would not address functional illiteracy.
And now I’m wondering how I have been spelling minuscule. I’m fairly sure I have been spelling it (or at least “think-spelling” it) miniscule my whole life.
)