There is a difference between “improper” and “incorrect,” though I probably could have been more specific. To me, the use is a mistake, and I think it sounds terrible, just as I would if someone used “it’s” when they meant “its” in print, or when they use “supposably” when they mean “supposedly” and vice versa. People in this very forum have argued that the “it’s, its” rule is silly and that it’s perfectly acceptable to use one in place of the other. I disagree.
Ahh. So when you said this?
“People using them improperly and the masses mimicking the mistake” - not only did you decide that the ordinary usage of the word is somehow wrong, but you injected a healthy note of elitist contempt for the “masses” who “mimic” - apparently the “masses” aren’t capable of using speech properly?
If people have misused “millions of words”, changing their meanings, then you’re suggesting that the entire lexicon of the English language has been misused in this way several times over (since there’s around half a million words in the language according to sources I’ve seen) - but that shouldn’t be taken to mean that the language was “pure” and right at some point?
The it’s/its rule is somewhat silly, I suppose, but in formal grammar (written) and stylistically there is only one correct usage: “its” is the possessive, and “it’s” is a contraction for “it has” or “it is.” There is absolutely no ambiguity on this matter.
“Handful,” whether you like it or not, is correct in both formal and informal contexts to mean a small amount. Dictionaries flag informal usage. “Handful” is not one of these flagged words and, to be honest, you are the first person I’ve ever come across who has a problem with this usage.
Yes, I’ve decided this for myself, not for everyone who uses the English language. Clearly most people don’t have a problem with the ordinary use of this word (those would be the “masses” I spoke of earlier), and that’s why it annoys me so.
Elitist? Well, I guess you might know something about that.
How can it be pure if it’s constantly evolving? Does that mean that there are changes in the language that others can’t find annoying or even improper?
I didn’t actually count all the words I thought might have evolved from misuse, misspelling or mispronunciation; I just guessed, and “millions” sounded good to me. After discovering this web page, which says that the English language likely contains more than 3 million words, my guess clearly is an over-estimation.
Why are you taking this so personally? Have I given you a hard time in a previous thread? If so, my apologies.
[sub] Avalon? Is that you?[/sub]
There are a bunch more than annoy me, too, but I won’t bore you with them here.
Whether a word is flagged as informal depends on the dictionary you use. I use the AP approved dictionary, which is the Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition. “Handful” gives an informal use, but for a different usage: * [Informal] as much as one is able to manage; someone or something hard to manage.* The first definition is the one I like: as much or as many as the hand will hold. 2. a relatively small number or amount. I wish I had a really, really old unabridged dictionary so I could look up “handful” right now. My guess is that the second definition would not be present. Perhaps someone can help us out?
Why do you think the “it’s its” rule is silly?
Those things are impossible to truly count (it’s hard to define what counts as a word in the first place, and then finding every one of them is harder yet) but that estimate is grossly higher than anything I’ve ever heard.
No, my apologies. I was really unnecessarily snarky about it in my first post to you.
Language use is heavily tied in with social factors - in fact, the field of sociolinguistics focuses specifically upon the influence of society upon language usage. One thing that becomes clear with the most basic study of linguistics is that many of the traditional usage rules that are called “grammar” are essentially arbitrary and often contrary to actual usage in the language (things like not ending sentences with prepositions, or the rule about splitting infinitives, or “which” and “that” in restrictive clauses - I can never even remember how that’s supposed to work.) Further, though, the “proper” forms are generally the ones associated with the dialect of the wealthy and well-educated - witness how the word “ain’t” (associated with ruralness and poverty) is deemed “incorrect English”, or the fact that some people will still deride African American Vernacular English (so-called “Ebonics”) as a “bad” and somehow flawed form of English when in reality it’s no such thing.
So I tend to get my hackles up when people talk about certain things as “bad English” or the like. It’s quite clear that these judgments are heavily tied into issues of societal prejudice and occasionally some very ugly covert bigotry. But that said, it’s obviously not true that people who deride something as “bad English” are buying into this societal prejudice - it’s easily possible to believe that “ain’t” is bad English without having any prejudice at all against folks who use it. It’s bad to project anger about larger issues onto innocent people. I should remember that.
I still think your rule about “handful” is silly, though. 
Not a dictionary, but the 1946 entry in my Roget’s Thesaurus for Fewness has:
- n. a few, small number, only a few, scrimption [dial.]; handful; minority; small quantity etc. 32.2
Given the other words in the entry, it seems clear to me that “handful” was synonymous with “a few” way back when. I’ll pop by the library to see if I can find an old dictionary or see what the OED has to say about this.
As for it’s/its silly is perhaps not the best way to desribe my impression of the distinction. I suppose I meant that I understand why people get the two confused and don’t consider it a big deal in informal contexts.
Your view on “handful” is almost 500 years out of date:
From the OED (via my scribbled notes; I popped in the library before work):
- A small company, number…1525…Ye se yonder your enemyes, they be but a handefull of men.
And that’s just the first extant written account of the word in that usage. Who knows how long it’s been around.
BTW, “handsful” is also noted as an incorrect plural which was formed through misanalysis.
Drats! Foiled again.
But it hasn’t changed my opinion about the use of “handful” to mean: a small number. It makes me cringe.
Thanks for looking it up!
This is a (reasonably) current OED saying “handsful” is incorrect?
If so, that’s fascinating. I don’t recall who indoctrinated me, but it was certainly a teacher. :dubious:
The fact that it developed through misanalysis doesn’t necessarily mean it’s incorrect - a lot of things happen through misanalysis. “A numpire” was misanalyzed to “an umpire”. Same goes for “apron”.
And soon, perhaps, “astigmatism.”
When I get a chance (on Monday), I’ll find the actual wording of the entry…unless somebody with access to the OED can help.
Incidentally, just looking online, “handsful” is not even recognized in many dictionaries. American Heritage doesn’t list it. Merriam-Webster does. Personally, I think “handsful” sounds a bit jarring and archaic.
Apron used to be napron? Would it then be from the same root as napery?
If you go back far enough. I’m not certain when the words diverged, though.
According to Merriam-Webster:
[apron] Etymology: Middle English, alteration (resulting from false division of a napron) of napron, from Middle French naperon, diminutive of nape cloth, modification of Latin mappa napkin
[napery] Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French naperie, from nappe, nape tablecloth
Thanks!! I gotta admit I’m pleased with myself for making the connection.
napron, numpire, norange, nadder, nauger, ewt