We have a reason for doing so, but that is not the reason.
We pass along class and cultural markers to children. Some are inadvertent and some are purposeful. The purposeful ones are generally in an attempt to make sure a child doesn’t look stupid/uneducated/classless, etc. These things are defined by and reflected in the class and culture. If you display the right markers, you fit in, and if you fit in you’re good. If you don’t fit in, you may be bad.
That’s about it.
Oh, I hope this is a whoosh.
Although it nicely demonstrates how hard it is to say what is “proper English”. PSXer used the word “maths”. Is this correct? It is perfectly grammatical in the UK (and probably Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa). It’s ungrammatical in the U.S., where the discipline is called “math”.
There most certainly is a prestige variety of English that’s often called “Standard”, and educated people in English-speaking countries are expected to use it; but like every other variety of English, it: A) changes over time, and B) differs from country to country. “Have you got bit?” is casual English, but the standard British English speaker, who would say “Have you been bitten?”, would probably find “Have you gotten bit?” or “Have you got bitten?” to be slightly wrong, even though both are perfectly acceptable in standard American English.
Do we need to define the entirety of proper English, or is it enough to cite the portions relevant to the past perfect tense?
I think one of the legitimate roles of prescriptivism is to slow the change of the language. The language will change, but some of us are trying to put on the brakes.
Yes.
Yes, and possibly, although you’d need an evaluation by a trained professional to be sure.
Yes.
Nothing that doesn’t happen to any living language.
No. Degradation is a value judgment.
Spelling errors have always been common.
Again, value judgment and nothing that isn’t happening to any other language in modern popular use. This is what happens to languages.
And the worst spelled and punctuated work emails I get are from middle-aged white women so make of that what you will.
Why is that necessary? If the language changes too fast, people won’t understand each other as well, and they’ll naturally revert to old forms so that their communication is more effective. This is a dynamic that naturally plays out at the micro level; why do we need some sort of artificial force with its thumb on one side of the scale?
I dislike the term “proper english [sic].” I prefer “bourgeoinics,” the particular version of the language taught by the middle class to everyone in an effort to get everyone to sound middle-class. So no, “got bit” is not standard bourgeonic. It’s perfectly cromulent speakin, however.
Well, seems to me that if only one of these could be “correct”, I’d give it to on accident. The two describe the two options available in a binary situation, so why *wouldn’t *you use the same construction? IMHO, it’s both more logical and more aesthetically-pleasing.
More importantly, you are fighting a losing battle, my good man. On accident is not only here to stay, but also will likely become the standard usage, with by accident noted as an acceptable – though dated/archaic – variant.
(I love the tongue-in-cheek usage of A and II for your two closing points. :D)
Of course they are rules – they are just not laws, which you might be punished for violating.
Not to mention in these situations the preposition is pretty much arbitrary. Some people (read: my mother) insist that on implies intent while by implies chance but I think that’s an after the fact rationalization of the historical usage of ‘on purpose’ but ‘by accident’.
I sometimes say ‘with accident’ just to see prescriptivists’ veins bulge.
Quite. It’s a common argument that language jeremiahs are somehow keeping the language from mutating too fast. What they never explain is what terrible thing happens if it does, especially given that pretty much every language pre-writing would not have had said thumb on the scale. What calamity befell Homer’s greek that we’re looking to avoid, again?
I think schools no longer teach grammar. I notice too that a lot of people don’t know the difference between
then and than
lose and loose
ideas and ideals
etc.
I have even heard teachers screw those up. I must assume the standards these days are pretty low.
Yes, that’s a (but not the only) proper way to say it.
What she said is correct/acceptable. I don’t know if you’re out of your mind, but I will venture that you’re obsessing on a usage that, besides being beyond your (or anyone’s) power to change, isn’t even actually wrong. Your outrage would be better directed elsewhere.
Yeah, the teachers at least should of known better.
I think you are like a few people standing in front of a hurricane with your arms uplifted trying to take credit for it being a Category 4 instead of a category 5.
We’re not trying to “take credit” for anything. We’re just trying to impede the onrushing hurricane by whatever means we may.
One man stood in front of an army tank at Tiananmen Square. It isn’t always futile.
That’s a really goofy comparison. Heck, I bet the prescriptivists in this thread wouldn’t even agree about what is “proper English” and what is okay evolution.
You aren’t stopping or slowing anything. You’re just yelling at clouds.
I think you are like a few people standing in front of a hurricane with your arms uplifted in the self appointed role of trying to slow a category 5 into a category 4.
Is that better?
Why? There’s nothing dangerous about language change. And unless you’re sorry that we’re not all walking around talking like they did in Chaucer’s day, I don’t see why you would think that there is.
The answer to the OP’s question, by the way, is “yes”. “Proper English” is doomed. Should you worry about it? Heck, no. Just learn to relax and love the lava lamp that is language.
Anyway, that English, of all the languages one could pick, should have a manifestation of it that is “proper” and deserving of special status, and that it should stop changing, is silly on the face of it. Take even a cursory look at the history of the thing. As a wise man once said, English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. To talk about “proper English” is like a feral mongrel barking about conserving the purity of his breed. Does not compute.
Chaucer? Chaucer, you say!?!? Why that Frenchified tongue would make our Beowulf-reciting ancestors turn over their graves.
I often say that English evolved for 888 years to a state of perfection and has been going downhill ever since. (888 years is the interval between 1066 and 1954, the year I finished HS.) Jokes aside, English, like any other non-dead language, evolves constantly. Probably evolved fastest between 1066 and about 1400. However, between 1550 and 1600 it underwent a complete reorganization of the modals, which henceforth ceased being verbs, while the new periphrastic constructions (“about to”, “have to”, “able to” arose anew.
As for the current complaint, I would assume that historically, “bit” was a perfectly acceptable participle for “bite”, just as “got” is for “get”. And when I taught mathematical linguistics, we recognized three passive auxiliaries: “be”, “get”, and “keep”. So I have no problem with the sentence even in traditional grammars.
Given that the role is self-appointed, sure. Everyone else meanwhile is saying, “There’s no storm, that’s just the sun rising, and you can’t shout it back down, and why would you want to?”
Well, I am a teacher, and I do teach grammar. But honestly, I spend more time teaching proper research skills. Why, just today I had to tell a kid that whatever he assumed was true about Greece wasn’t true, even if he was “really confident in [his] guess.” What you “must assume” is pretty meaningless if you don’t have evidence to back it up.
I suppose back in your day, teachers didn’t really fuss with research skills, huh?
Well, there is some logic in it being better for language to say the same so that there is maximum comprehensibility between generations and over history. But it just ain’t possible.