There’s nothing wrong with prescriptive grammar as a set of guidelines for formal writing: you just have to know what you are doing and why you’re doing it, which he does not, and it has to be based to some extent on what educated speakers and writers actually do, which he isn’t.
Even Grévisse, that monument of prescriptivism, bases its rules on observation of the finest writers in the French language. One often reads, “(whatever) was commonly regarded as an error, but Hugo, Zola, Mallarmé, and Queneau do it here and here…”
I’m not a prescriptivist or a linguist (thank God, if this is what passes for linguistics), but your assumption that I don’t know the difference between descriptivism and prescriptivism underestimates what I know about language.
I claimed that “No.” is not a sentence. People tried to counter my claim with various supposedly refuting cites, none of which actually refuted my claim. Then, instead of conceding the argument, people got stroppy and started lecturing me, saying that people can write any way they want, and that standards are for blockheads who don’t know any other way to write. You sound like high school kids trying to wheedle a C-plus. When I parse the posts of Polycarp and matt_mcl, I come up with, “Standards don’t matter, except when someone like Polycarp, matt_mcl, or possibly Victor Hugo (but we’re not really sure if he qualifies) chooses to ignore them.”
Since you want to turn this into opinion, I can play in that arena. My opinion is that “No.” is snippy, unnecessary, and calculated to raise the ire of its intended target. People even write it when no yes-or-no question has been posed. The fact is that “No” is not a standard English sentence. It’s your right to say that you don’t care.
Harking back to the days of sentence diagramming, I can remember how we were told to deal with such things. We used the “unspoken” words rule on it, or whatever it’s proper name is. So it would be “No, (it is not.) The reason is that…” There are actually many examples of this to be found, for example: “Stop! Don’t do that! Would be: (You) stop! (You) don’t do that!” (Thanks to Ms. Byer, I still remember what you taught at least, and love mythology to this day.)
It’s not a sentence but it is proper fucking English and it’s really goddamned argumentative and petty to be insisting “oh, but it’s not a sentence” when that doesn’t matter. You accuse others of being snippy and trying to raise others’ ire when your very OP and your defense of your position does precisely that!
? Obviously the first is what matters to you, but by trying to attack people on an utterly irrelevant technicality rather than their presumed attitudes, you just make yourself look like a petty, whining dumbass.
Hyperelastic, dear. We’ve approached this with you on two grounds. One is that “No.” is a perfectly valid English sentence based on the definition of a sentence as a unit of language which expresses a complete thought.
But we gave you the benefit of a doubt. Fine. You can label it a “fragmented sentence” (incidentally, still a type of sentence) or just a plain ol’ fragment. Let’s pretend it’s not even a sentence for the sake of argument.
So?
The gyst of your post (if I’m parsing it correctly) was that certain words–in Standard American English–cannot stand alone. We have shown you that they can. Are you contesting that my interjection “so?” in the previous paragraph is not a valid English construction? Because I don’t even think the most conservative and die-hard of prescriptivists would make that assertion.
The adage against sentence fragments does not apply to these cases. When you were taught by your high-school composition teacher, you missed the point. The point was to avoid. Sentences like this. With randomly. Placed periods.
If you’ve ever read through English compositions and have a grasp of proper grammar, you would know that there are acceptable and unacceptable fragmented sentences. Not all fragments are created equal, and many fragments contribute to the pacing and clarity of arguments.
So support what you’re saying. Come up with evidence that a sentence has to conform to the limits you want it to. Perhaps it comes as a shock to you that those who have expertise in language don’t support your assertions. That’s because your assertions are incorrect, and are not supported except within the limited realm of what elementary schoolteachers teach.
No, the trouble with your standards is that they’re simply wrong. They are not based upon the way language works. I’m sorry that you have so much trouble reconciling what you were taught as a child with the way language actually functions, but the trouble is that what you were taught as a child is not correct.
Well, you’re “parsing” their posts wrong, then. The “standards” you’re appealing to don’t exist. The references to famous writers are here to point out the arrogance of claiming that there are standards for language such that the writing of Shakespeare is deficient. Are you a more capable writer than any of the great writers who didn’t hold to your standard? Otherwise, you’re not capable of judging them.
Prove it. Find some evidence. You haven’t supported your assertion at all, which is what leads me to believe that you’re just repeating dogmas you were taught in elementary school. It amazes me that people cling so desperately to half-remembered lessons from when they were nine years old, but I suppose it reflects an underlying failure of the educational system to teach them anything further about language.
OK, let’s pull out the Strunk & White. That’s a fairly prescriptivist text, isn’t it? Pretty well-regarded by many English teachers. Old school, old fashioned, written in 1918. Let’s see what Strunk had to say.
This is exactly what I meant by “not all fragments are created equal.” There’s a fundamental difference between misused punctuation and punctuation used for emphasis. Like I said, there are grammatical and ungrammatical fragments. The fragment you harp on about—“No.”—is clearly covered by Strunk & White’s suggestions.
Your job, Hyperelastic is to find a reputable source disagreeing with this. I think you’ll have a hard time finding a proscription against this as none of the well-known grammarians or stylebooks—not Strunk & White, not Fowler, not the Chicago Manual of Style—claim that such usage is prohibited.
You’re welcome to hold your own prejudices, just don’t get bitchy when everybody points out there is no rational, authoritative basis for them.
Claim (a) is debatable, and there are obviously plenty of people willing to debate it with you. Claim (b) is simply evidence that you’re an oversensitive prig. Starting a post with “No.” is sometimes obnoxious and sometimes it is not. If someone asks whether I have a dog and I begin my response with “No.”, there’s nothing “obnoxious” about it. I’m sure whoever offended you by beginning a response to you with “No.” deeply regrets their error. Now shut the fuck up.