Heaven forbid - grammatical mistake in The New Yorker?

[Inner_Stickler]

@Eddie The Horrible

Misuse is not only much closer between generations, it often bypasses the slang stage and goes straight to some variant of dictionary.

wut

Slang is way more derived from the concocted than the misused, making it, to this hombre, a more valid basis for language evolution than the doltish incorporation of misused words.

wut

You know, words mean things. You can’t just slap together a bunch of nouns and verbs and think you’ve said something.

[Guest-starring_Id]

@Inner_Stickler

wut wut

You know, words mean things. You can’t just slap together a bunch of nouns and verbs and think you’ve said something.

Well, “argot”, and “Nadsat” for starters. (really?)
Like Julie Coleman said in “Life of Slang”: “…slang is differentiated within more general semantic change in that it typically has to do with a certain degree of ‘playfulness’. The development of slang is considered to be a largely ‘spontaneous, lively, and creative’ speech process”.

[wolfpup]

@SlackerInc

It’s not, but there is still **reflexivity **here. He was attacked by his own knife, in his own house, in his own collection room. There’s a suggestion of irony conveyed by “his own”. Contrast this with:

“He chased me into a room where Jane kept her collection of antique silverware. As he backed me into a corner, I reached for the nearest object to defend myself. I attacked him with one of Jane’s own knives, in Jane’s own house, in Jane’s own vaunted collection room.”

Do you think that’s an acceptable use of “own”? Or should it be excised? I say the latter.

I’ll answer that, but first, a repost of Riemann’s excellent response to that:

@Riemann

I think my only remaining bone of contention is whether “reflexivity” is a sensible word to describe when it’s appropriate to use “own”. As you say, wolfpup’s example is one of ironic emphasis, and it’s clear you agree that there’s no limitation on exactly what can belong to whom in the structure of the sentence. Stylistically, it just seems that when we insert “own” there should be a good reason to emphasize ownership; otherwise the reader may be left puzzled as to whether they have missed some subtle ironic element.

The point here is simply that the “reflexivity” rule which makes “Joe, Jane, and myself” and office-speak like “please forward the report to myself and the department head” so incontrovertibly wrong does not apply to “own” in the same sense. My original version of the knife-in-collection-room sentence is grammatical by any rational standard and likewise should be considered acceptable writing because it has linguistic utility in emphasizing irony. When you substitute “Jane” it no longer seems appropriate, and yet it might be if there was a back story that made such use of Jane’s property ironic or otherwise notable. With respect to the use of the peculiar determiner “own”, context is everything.

It’s the same with “He did not recognize me because I was wearing one of his own disguises” which you declared to be “wrong” yet somehow “not as obviously egregious”. That’s just not necessarily true. It seems to me that it’s impossible to acknowledge the above without also acknowledging the potential correctness of that statement in a suitable context, one in which an intended nuance of meaning would be completely lost if we eliminate “own”. It’s a word that permits of very flexible usage and isn’t strictly bound by rigid “reflexivity” rules.

Working backwards by the same logic, the use of “own” in the OP is not necessarily “wrong” in any absolute sense.

[bob_2]

I wonder if the problem that made someone write "please forward the report to myself and the department head" was their difficulty with ‘me’ and ‘I’, which seems to afflict Americans more than most.

Clearly he or she should have written “please forward the report to the department head and me”, but then they would have wondered if it should have been “and I”. Either that, or it was just the usual way that people who are not sure of their grammar tend toward the pompous. Substitute "with a copy to me and it looks much better anyway.

I frequently find that when the grammar looks awkward, even if it is correct, it is much better to rearrange the sentence or phrase.

I used to have a boss who was born and educated in Switzerland. He refused to read anything longer than one page of A4, and wouldn’t even read that if it was badly constructed.

[Inner_Stickler]

@Eddie The Horrible

Well, “argot”, and “Nadsat” for starters. (really?)
Like Julie Coleman said in “Life of Slang”: “…slang is differentiated within more general semantic change in that it typically has to do with a certain degree of ‘playfulness’. The development of slang is considered to be a largely ‘spontaneous, lively, and creative’ speech process”.

No I mean your post.

“bypasses the slang stage” “some variant of dictionary” “more derived from the concocted than the misused”

Just nonsensical.

[SlackerInc]

@bob_2

I wonder if the problem that made someone write "please forward the report to myself and the department head" was their difficulty with ‘me’ and ‘I’, which seems to afflict Americans more than most.

Clearly he or she should have written “please forward the report to the department head and me”, but then they would have wondered if it should have been “and I”. Either that, or it was just the usual way that people who are not sure of their grammar tend toward the pompous. Substitute "with a copy to me and it looks much better anyway.

I frequently find that when the grammar looks awkward, even if it is correct, it is much better to rearrange the sentence or phrase.

I used to have a boss who was born and educated in Switzerland. He refused to read anything longer than one page of A4, and wouldn’t even read that if it was badly constructed.

Good points. Style books tend not to get bogged down into whether something is technically grammatically accurate, but whether it should be reworded. I don’t understand what you mean by “A4” though. It reads to me like the fourth page of the first section of the newspaper, but that doesn’t really make sense.

[Terminus_Est]

@SlackerInc

Good points. Style books tend not to get bogged down into whether something is technically grammatically accurate, but whether it should be reworded. I don’t understand what you mean by “A4” though. It reads to me like the fourth page of the first section of the newspaper, but that doesn’t really make sense.

“A4” is a standard metric size of paper, 210 x 297 mm. It’s roughly the size of American letter paper.

[SlackerInc]

OIC.

[Guest-starring_Id]

@Inner_Stickler

No I mean your post.

Oh - so much for addressing this, then?

@Inner_Stickler

You know, words mean things. You can’t just slap together a bunch of nouns and verbs and think you’ve said something.

…which I answered.

@Inner_Stickler

“bypasses the slang stage” “some variant of dictionary” “more derived from the concocted than the misused”

Just nonsensical.

Not even the slightest bit nonsensical, so then - an earlier post in this thread erroneously claimed that misuse becomes slang, which then becomes an acceptable variant of standard usage.
Nope. Instead, quite often misuse “bypasses the slang stage” and goes straight to a “variant of dictionary”. You honestly don’t know what I mean by “variant of dictionary”!? Like - either a book or online dictionary?

If you had actually comprehended the following, from my previous post…

Like Julie Coleman said in “Life of Slang”: “…slang is differentiated within more general semantic change in that it typically has to do with a certain degree of ‘playfulness’. The development of slang is considered to be a largely ‘spontaneous, lively, and creative’ speech process”.

…then you wouldn’t have needed to inquire why slang was “more derived from the concocted than the misused”. Really? I have to explain that “concocted” is a “spontaneous, lively, and creative’ speech process”?