Mind explaining how?
My best guess to your thought process in this, based on the rest of the thread, is your fixation on this:
rather than this:
As I said earlier, there is no fundamental difference between “Who are you buying that for?” and “For whom are you buying that?” To call the former incorrect because some arbitrary rule said so is shortsighted and petty. On the other hand, “Buying for who that are you?” is the linguistic equivalent of a dried turd axe. Unless you’re Yoda, anyway.
There are two meanings of “grammar.” There’s the linguist definition of the term, and there’s the layman’s definition of the term. The mistake – and it is a mistake, not an opinion – is presuming that because linguists mean something else by grammar, that the lay meaning of grammar has been erased. Pinker deliberately distinguishes between these terms and says, explicitly, that as a linguist he means something else by grammar than what people usually think of when they hear the word “grammar.”
I never said anything like that, and it’s not my position. Language isn’t all one thing. It is actually used in different spheres and contexts, and each of those spheres and contexts has different rules. It is fair to say that a native speaker isn’t likely to break the linguistic rules of grammar, presuming they don’t have developmental disabilities, but there are other “rules” that exist within specific discourse communities. You don’t have to like or follow those rules, but if it’s absolutely transparent the context someone means when they say “this is against the rules,” it’s obnoxious and pointless to point out whether or not it’s against a different set of rules. It would be like a policeman arresting a baseball player for stealing second base.
If I were to say, “the first sentence is not good grammar,” I would be correct in the context of judging the sentence by the rules of traditional grammar. A linguist popping in to say “actually, it’s fine by the rules of grammar,” is also correct, but she means something else by “rules” and “grammar.” It would be completely sophomoric to go back and forth arguing about it.
I’ve read the book Dorkness has read and I’ve studied linguistics myself. I understand and appreciate everything he’s said. It’s just not all there is. You can’t confuse the general with the specific.
Right, but the OP is complaining about someone not following the formal rules of grammar on a freakin messageboard. If I watch a game of baseball and complain that they’re not dribbling the ball like they’re supposed to, I’m being stupid for expecting people to play by the rules of a different game.
Again, I worked as a writing tutor, and I have a strong appreciation for the Emily Post rules of grammar. I can teach them; I can explain their relevance and utility. I can also recognize settings in which they’re necessary and settings in which they’re not necessary. A messageboard is a setting in which the literal literally rule is unnecessary.
Daniel
Yep, I agree with this. However, it (and the rest of the post) doesn’t explain at all your contention that what LHoD said supports your contention that linguists think a dried turd axe is perfectly okay to use.
Hey, another word with two separate meanings. It’s a wonder English has survived for so long when such blatant ambiguity abounds. 
(Not directed at you, cricetus, but more at the original thrust of this thread.)
I’ll admit it: grammar is a worse offender than “literally” when it comes to these matters. The two definitions overlap enough that the ambiguity really does affect meaning.
Of course, the problem is that the first person saying “it’s not good grammar” is relying on rules that are arbitrary and arguably hurtful to the language, much as the old Chinese practice of binding women’s feet was hurtful. It’s a restriction that custom and tradition demand, but when you get right down to it, just how useful is it?
I don’t think you appreciate how essential standardized communications were to progress in trade and communications, even the arts. The rise of the English language was dependent on standardization.
I’m sorry I keep fighting with you, Daniel, especially when we’re not that far apart on any issue.
Because of the insistence by the turd-weilder that the general attitude of anthropologists trump specific uses of specific tools. And the non-meaningful use of “literary” is, in fact, a turd.
Now who’s playing fast and loose with meaning? 
It’s not “non-meaningful”, it’s already been shown that it’s been an accepted and recognized meaning for about 100 years.
Perhaps. I suspect it was more important in written communication, which I have consistently distinguished from spoken. When one person spells the word would “wud” when another person spells it “wod” or some such, that impedes communication severely.
But I cannot accept that the rule to not split infinitives made any sort of a difference in trade at all. That rule and others were conjured up, as Pinker notes, by someone who thought English should emulate Latin, as Latin was considered a “better” language. There’s no point to the rule.
For the sake of the argument, let’s say all these rules, the ones Pinker complains about, were necessary back then. I don’t believe they’re necessary now. Or, if they’re not obsolete just yet, they are not the sole correct forms, and people need to loosen the hell up.
As for literally, I can see the issue, but I just can’t get too worked up about it. The literal-literally use is really not used that often any more so far as I’ve noticed. Travesty of the language or not, that means there’s less chance for it to get confused with intensifier-literally. And when literal-literally is used, there’s no question that it’s not an intensifier. Further, way back in post 4 ITR Champion says “the English language now lacks an effective means to disinguish literal and figurative usages with a single adverb.” Is that really so? Do we really not have an adverb to fill in the blank here: “The party was so dead. There were ____ two people there.” Certainly we don’t have a word like “only” or “just” or even the option of leaving the blank empty. And those words don’t have the ambiguity that has arisen out of literally.
I once saw Toni Morrison speak, and she was asked if she felt herself more a champion of women or of African Americans. She answered that she didn’t really see herself as a spokesperson for either group, but that she wouldn’t want to be in a position where she was on opposite sides with her brothers. “I mean my brothers,” she said, and, grasping around for the right word, “I mean, I grew up in the same house with them.”
Heh. One of the great things about having a flexible, natural language is that you can get all sorts of shades of meaning. In a different context, she could have turned the two meanings of “brothers” to her advantage in a line of poetry, drawing parallels between her filial connections and her broader community connections.
It does have the drawback that in rare, notable circumstances, you need to add a sentence to clarify your meaning. This sin’t something you’d need to do in C++.
I think the tradeoff is worth it.
Daniel
Hah, nice one. The important thing here is context. Had she said “I mean my literal brothers,” I don’t believe there would have been much confusion, as she was drawing a distinction. Even better, “I mean my actual brothers” would have worked as well. Or “I mean my literal brothers” would have gotten the message across quite clearly.
But then, in this case, “literal” could be construed as the third meaning, of having to do with literature, given that she’s an author. But nobody’s complained about that ambiguity yet.
Ah hah: “I literally mean my brothers.” That sentence would be very difficult to interpret with intensifier-literally, IMO. It makes much more sense as literal-literally. Then, again, you have context. What if she’d said “I literally mean my brothers. I grew up with them and I have no desire to oppose them”? Maybe you’ll scoff at requiring a second sentence to remove the ambuigity, but again, context is everything.
“He stole second base.”
“He stole second base. The crowd went wild.”
“He stole second base. The police apprehended him two blocks from the stadium.”
And LHoD posts a much more elegant post than my rambling thing.
Really? How so? Can you give me an example?
Who said that?
Sometimes communication is. It’s difficult to communicate effectively when you aren’t following some basic rules of grammar, spelling and punctuation, forcing the rest of us to guess your meaning.
Have you read the thread? Just wondering, since basically the whole thing addresses the question.
When linguists study grammar, they study how people actually talk, then “describe” the rules as the are observed.
When copyeditors study grammar, they study the rules of standardized English – your Fowler-type books, you know, which tell you when to use “that” and when to use “which.” These are much more restrictive than the “real” rules of grammar as they are learned and followed by native speakers. They generally aspire to clarity and consistency in language, although some rules are obscure and others pure hogwash.
“He ain’t in,” is legitimate to a linguist, because it’s how people talk. “In not him,” is bad grammar – it’s not how people actually talk. There’s not a chance in hell that anyone would not understand what the first sentence means, so it’s hard to argue that anyone is guessing at your meaning, and grammatical constructions can be more ambiguous. Henry James is a master grammarian, but his sentences sometimes take 10 or 11 passes before I know what in the hell he’s talking about. Mark Twain is ungrammatical and clear as a bell.
Good summation, cricetus. I was actually about to bring up “ain’t” as an example of something not to use in a written piece (unless, like Twain, you’re going for verisimilitude) but is perfectly okay in spoken English (to most people, anyway; I know there’s others who get the vapors when they hear it, because they’ve been told it’s bad). And, of course, things like comma usage are impossible to apply to speech. 
What are the rules of standardized English based on, then, if linguistic grammar is the “real” grammar? Where did standardized English even come from if not the study of the common use of the language?
I don’t understand your example. Who in their right mind would make the translation you just made? “He ain’t in” would translate to “He’s not in.”
The answer to that is long and complicated – certainly more complicated than “a bunch of stuffy old monks,” as someone else suggested, but that’s part of it. Monks did try to make English sound more scholarly by developing rules based on classical Latin. Some of it was social stratification – the upper class codifying a prestige dialect as a kind of filter, and as the middle class grew the climbers aspired to speak “proper English” by mimicing the prestige dialect of their superiors. Some of it was standardization of spelling and syntax after the printing press began widespread use. Both publishers and readers were probably tired of having things spelled a gazillion different ways. It’s complicated, but there’s obviously an artificality to “proper English.” If it was really indistinguishible from the common use of the language, there would be no distinction between good grammar and bad.
Exactly. Those rules of grammar describe how people actually talk. The only “wrong” grammar would be an utterance no non-disabled native speaker would utter.
Well, yes, exactly. That’s sort of the point.
He’s not in = grammatical linguistically (it’s a sentence of English) and prescriptively (it adheres to standardized conventions)
He ain’t in = grammatical linguistically but not prescriptively (it’s non-standard)
In not him = not grammatical linguistically
It can be pretty much assumed that if something isn’t grammatical linguistically (that is, it isn’t a sentence of English), it’s not going to be prescriptively grammatical either. Standardized rules are overlaid on top of the actual language to make it conform to an arbitrary construct. Not to say standardized rules aren’t useful, but they’re not inherent to the language; English can get by just fine without them.
Some random shmucks. cricetus will probably have the answer before me, but if I look in The Language Instinct, Stephen Pinker says:
“[In the eighteenth century] London had become the political and financial center of England, and England had become the center of a powerful empire. The London dialect was suddenly an important world language. Scholars began to criticize it as they would any artistic or civil institution, in part to question the customs, hence authority, of court and aristocracy. Latin was still considered the language of enlightenment and learning (not to mention the language of a comparably vast empire), and it was offered as an ideal of precision and logic to which English should aspire.”
So basically, you’ve got critics who are saying the linguistic rules of Latin should apply to English, despite one being nothing like the other syntactically. The infamous rule “Don’t split an infinitive” came about because in Latin you can’t split infinitives as you could in English. Many other rules, particularly for writing, came about simply because a group of people got together and decided what looked good on paper, then published a book about it. People looked at these rules, decided they liked them, and adopted them for use in writing. Some people go overboard and try to apply it to speech as well.
(I hope that passage isn’t too long for copyrighted material. Would it help if I pulled an MLA style guide and gave a proper cite? )
The poynt is two git the massage accross anythink else is superfluid.