Ok, this clearly doesn’t come up as often as I thought since I haven’t had a good example until now, but here it is a year and a half later:
Maybe a minor public shaming when this happens can stop the cancer from spreading.
Why would anyone keep posting in this thread, let alone 6 months after it is dormant?
Yeah, geez, let it alone, woudja?
(iswydt)
.
But I’ll admit that did raise a few eyebrows. But I’m sure it was just a mistake, and they meant to type "where do you find one Corinthian, … let alone two?
I had occasion to use “let alone” in a conversation today and, no sooner had I used it, I thought of this thread. Did I use “let alone” correctly?
There’s a mismatch here: what they want to happen vs. what’s even possible, let alone realistic.
Wow, a colon, a ‘vs.’, and a ‘let alone’ all in one sentence, and all used correctly. Well done!
Thanks!
Most people can’t use a colon correctly, let alone a “let alone”, not to mention a “not to mention”, much less a “much less”.
I know we’ve done that joke to death, but I can’t stop now, let alone pause.
Shame! Go sit in the corner and think about what you did.
Good luck with this one; nothing is incorrect anymore.
I hate to take on a prescriptivist attitude, but I can’t help being irritated when it seems that, at least sometimes, educated people feel obligated to dumb down their grammar, usage, or pronunciation. In this NYT column, linguist John McWhorter discusses the currently ongoing merger of simple past tense and past participles in irregular verbs. He mentions , some of the usages that I recently mentioned in another thread, e.g. “have ate”, “could have saw”, and so on. The author mentions how he himself once said “She could have went to college with the rest of us, but she went to Bennington”. I think what amazes me is that it’s possible to earn a liberal arts or social sciences doctorate (linguistics, Stanford, in his case) and not have the usages of formal writing rub off on you. Or that it presumably does affect your natural way of using the language, but you still feel obliged to dial it back lest you come off as overly punctilious.
It’s only fair to acknowledge, as he does, specific phrases in casual usage that have practically become standard, like “I got took” (scammed). but when he mentions a young female character in a Broadway musical singing the lyric “When a young girl gets took out, she gets took”, he misses the point that the first “took” is there because the character is poorly educated, or at least presumably so, given her occupation and the time when the play was written (1956), and the time in which it was set (1927). Is this any reason we should all talk that way?
My belated New Year’s resolution will be to stop “dialing it back”.
Is there any reason we shouldn’t?
Awful, isn’t it? You must be equally frustrated by the fact that half the things you say would be grammatically incorrect by past standards.
I have a sneaking suspicion that you enjoy it a little bit.
Good luck with your heroic stand. My own New Year’s resolution is to be less parochially clueless about language, but you do you.
What a terrible name.
What’s so bad about it?
Only if it isn’t an affectation. I think I’m safe in saying that almost nobody here, not even @Riemann, would say “When a girl gets took out…”, unless doing so for comic or ironic effect. Memes and ongoing jokes of various kinds often incorporate mangled usage and nonstandard grammar which comprise part of the humor.
But if someone consciously dumbs down their grammar because they feel pressured to, or they want to seem less educated than they are, then that’s an affectation. The same would be true if I started using English in the manner of Victorian novelists.
It sounds like a fake name you give when the cops bust you for trying to solicit an undercover cop for prostitution.
Why are you so certain of this? Do you think that nobody has that construction as part of their native dialect? Or are you just assuming that someone who does have that as part of their native dialect, must be ignorant or uneducated?
Or maybe they use it because it conveys something they feel isn’t conveyed by the standard construction? Or they just think it sounds nice? Or they’re doing it to piss off pedants like you?
Seems like there’s a lot of possible explanations other than, “They’re being pressured into talking dumb.”
Even if it is an affectation, what do you have against affectations?
It’s not a question of actually being ignorant or uneducated, but of being educated yet pretending not to be. I said I doubted there were many members on this message board who would use that construction, and from what I’ve seen during 22+ years of membership, the evidence bears me out. Or to put it another way, we can advocate for descriptivism till the cows come home, but as far as this message board goes, nearly everyone seems to be using what might have once been called “university English” whether it’s their native dialect or not. Seriously, except for the contrast of eras, styles, slang, and so on, most of what I read here could come from the transatlantic mouths of characters in films from the golden age of Hollywood.