Prescriptive grammarians do you enjoy classic literature?

Cafe Society
21

Love 'em, archaic linguistic forms and all. Being a prescriptivist, or what I prefer to identify as “prescriptivism-positive”, doesn’t mean that you have to be ignorant or intolerant of the natural evolution of language from a previous “standard” form to a current “standard” form.

I also enjoy reading well-written dialogue in so-called “textspeak”, even though it’s very different from formal written modern English, and all sorts of other historical and contemporary dialects as well. Yes, formal modern written English should follow the current rules of orthography and grammar. But not everything has to be formal modern written English.
What the posturing anti-prescriptivists generally fail to realize is that prescriptivism itself is also part of the natural evolution of language. That “skin crawling” feeling of “something ain’t right” when you encounter usage that doesn’t follow the conventions of the dialect the speaker is using is just as natural and legitimate as the constant experimentation with those conventions. It’s part of the natural selection process that makes linguistic evolution slower and more stable, instead of a perpetual burst of mutually incomprehensible mutations.

And that instinctive “something ain’t right” response is a natural response to nonstandard usage in any dialect, not just a formal written one. It applies to a sentence like “I ain’t saying what he hath done was smart” just as much as to a sentence like “The competitors took they’re places in the starting gates”.

The whole process of linguistic evolution is some of those usage mutations surviving the natural impulse of prescriptivist rejection until they actually manage to change our prescriptivist expectations, while many other usage mutations remain “errors” because the rejection impulse is too strong for them.

22

:confused: Faulkner’s and Twain’s works were handled by editors, as were pretty much every other author’s works coming out of the commercial publishing industry.

Authors, including Faulkner and Twain, typically accepted some editorial changes while rejecting others, but there’s no denying that editorial “handling” to some extent altered the content of what they published from what they originally wrote in their manuscripts.

23

I remember finding it somewhat grating when Trollope used the word “eat” instead of “ate” (e.g. Joe sat down at the table and eat his dinner), but I got used to it eventually.

24

As far as writing goes, be it literature or technical writing, the reader must either adapt to it, read it in translation, or pass it by, while the writer must find a balance between creativity and comprehensibility.

We live in a world of descriptive grammars. Often the differences between descriptive grammars can be offputting. A prescriptive grammar can be a useful teaching tool when helping writers and readers deal with descriptive grammars.

25

Talented writers are aware of what the rules are and sometimes knowingly choose to break them to achieve a desired effect. Bad writers are just ignorant of the rules.

26

Some are. Some talented writers don’t actually have conscious awareness of “the rules” but are sufficiently gifted in their “ear for language” that they can achieve their desired effects without really thinking about the mechanics of grammar and orthography.

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Bad writers are just ignorant of the rules.
[/QUOTE]

Some are. Some bad writers are actually very well-informed about the rules and follow them conscientiously, but simply don’t manage to write anything that’s interesting to read.

27

Which classics?

Lope, yes. Cervantes, yes. Góngora, can’t stand him. Quevedo, yes, and he gets criticised for being a son of a bitch but I’ll give him points just for thoroughtly roasting Góngora (they hated each other for personal reasons, I just hate Góngora for being the kind of writer who will not use a three-syllable word if he can find a seven-syllable synonim). Calderón can kiss my ass, although he does get points for being very good at doing angst (I just happen to have very violent reactions to angst). Moliére, yep. Does Dumas father count (the son is just not my style)? And Verne? I would devour anything by those two; in fact, I need to practice my French and I think I’ll go get some of their books in the original…*

Shakespeare and older, I need them translated to modern English. Lots of the English poets I’d need to spend so much time with a dictionary just forget about it, but I can do Poe for example. Twain I like but the accents are such a slog that looks both ways I tend to prefer him in translation, don’t tell anybody.

  • Less than 10€ for their complete works. I think my Kindle just burped.
28

I’ll concede the point. People can write poorly in a variety of ways. Some bad writers use good grammar and demonstrate their flaws in other aspects of writing.

29

First, a brief preamble. I’ve sometimes referred to myself as a prescriptivist, but it was in the same sense in which I’ve also called myself a “grammar Nazi” – namely, not really being serious. True strict prescriptivists of the schoolmarm variety are widely scorned, and in many cases quite rightly so.

What I am, basically, is a linguistic conservative; someone less willing than others to excuse loose and sloppy or outright incorrect usage when it stems from mistakes and ignorance.

This background is necessary to properly answer your question because old works generally regarded as classics are rarely characterized by loose and sloppy writing in that sense, but rather, they typically diverge from modern usage, but they do so in a way that is self-consistent and generally conformant with the standards and usage of their time. At the same time both classics and quality modern works frequently push the boundaries of established conventions, using words in non-standard ways and developing new and creative turns of phrase. But this is done skilfully and with creative intent, and when done well it’s not obfuscating but illuminating, and a joy to read. It’s a great example of why inflexible prescriptivism is such bad practice, but there is a world of difference between a skilful artist in command of his craft and and someone just making sloppy and lazy mistakes out of ignorance, and I will always feel justified in criticizing the latter.

30

“Whom is killed” – incorrect.
“Who is killed” – correct.

31

But “whom they say” is correct, and “who they say” is incorrect.

I think. Maybe not. Dunno. Whom sounds righter.

32

Aha, but in this case “who they say” technically is correct. It depends on the function of the relative pronoun “who” or “whom” within the relative clause. Obviously. :wink:

That is, if you put commas or parentheses around the framing phrase “they say”, or just remove it altogether, you see that the use of “who” versus “whom” depends on whether it’s the subject or the object of the relative clause. Examples:

I’m looking for the grave of Arthur, who was killed tonight. (subject of relative clause: subjective case “who”.)

I’m looking for the grave of Arthur, whom you killed tonight. (object of relative clause: objective case “whom”.)

This grammatical function of the relative pronoun doesn’t change if you put a parenthetical or framing phrase like “they say” after it:

I’m looking for the grave of Arthur, who they say was killed tonight. (subject of relative clause: subjective case “who”.)

I’m looking for the grave of Arthur, whom they say you killed tonight. (object of relative clause: objective case “whom”.)
You are right that we often lean toward expecting the objective-case “whom” in such examples even when the subjective-case “who” is technically correct. I think that’s because we tend to expect the relative pronoun to be the object of some verb in the relative clause, and the other pronoun to be its subject, as in the following examples:

I forget the name of the man whom I saw in the elevator.

The child tugged at the skirt of the woman whom she mistook for her mother.

But if the other pronoun is instead just part of a framing phrase while the relative pronoun is the actual subject of the relative clause, the relative pronoun is technically required to be in the subjective case too:

I forget the name of the man who I think got into the elevator on the third floor.

The child tugged at the skirt of the woman who she mistakenly thought was her mother.

Clear as mud, right? :smiley:

33

Grin! Clear as mud, but I think you are almost certainly correct. All I had was a “feeling,” and that doesn’t mut the custard!

34

Yep. Mind you, I’m not saying that Shakespeare (or anybody else, for that matter) can’t use an objective-case relative pronoun as the subject of a relative clause if he wants to. But rat avatar is right that by the rules of modern formal written English, that usage is incorrect.

35

FYI, just as an illustration of above, but also as I was curious about the “modern” editing of texts in “original” form in modern books.

Here is a portion of Hamlet - Act 4, Scene 5 where Laertes is speaking as Ophelia enters.

(Modern “original” text)

First folio version, where the only editing is the “long s” (ſ) is changed to a (s) as most modern readers get tripped up when reading and treat it as a lower case (F). I tried to keep capitalization, spacing and line breaks as close as possible.

Thank you for everyones input, and also thank you for clearing up my misunderstanding on how much editing as been done on texts that do claim to be “original”.

Note as this writing pre-dated documented work by the prescriptivist grammarians, I am not making any claim on what is correct. While it may be fun to talk about prescriptivism vs descriptive I would have asked in GD.

Thank you again for sharing your view of the world.