I’m still not getting it. What criteria do you use to determine whether a usage in English is “technically correct”? Is the same fellow who railed against “appeals to the masses” suggesting that a majority of grammar elites are the arbiters of correctness? If so, do we need a supermajority or a simple majority in order to determine whether something is “technically correct”? Who counts as an arbiter of correctness? Are certain usages “technically correct” in some regions but technically incorrect in others? What are the acceptable regional divisions? Must the grammar elites who determined correctness within a region hail from that region?
The whole concept of “technically correct” English is absurd. If you’d argue otherwise, I ask you to start by defining the concept, with clear criteria.
Really, why the hell do we need to have people running around correcting our grammtical nuances? If the meaning isn’t clear, then I understand, but if it is, then I say leave it alone. I am here to discuss stuff without having to proof-read every single damn post so some self-serving prescriptive grammarian can come in and say "oooo, that should be “are!” giggle I should point that out to discredit him. Who the fuck really cares. Not only is english an evolving language, it is evolving seperately in all of the places that speak it. Which is it? the government are? or is?. Just say what feels natural and as long as everyone understands what you mean, then its all good.
OTOH, when I see the They’re their there confusion, it does make me consider the source. But I don’t need some jackass to come in and say “HEY EVERYBODY LOOK! THIS GUY DOESN’T KNOW HOW TO SPELL! HAHAHAHAHAHAH, I’M SOO COOL.!”
Four out of five medieval torturers choose StickyCheeks brand glue for closing up assholes. Also works great on mouths. That’s why they call it StickyCheeks.
Apparently everyone but me knows the definition of prescriptivist, but it isn’t in my on-line dictionary.
I don’t mind looking up words, but when there’s nothing close in the alternate section, it tends to drive me BONKERS!
Give freely and pityingly to the definitionally challenged.(Definitionalistically)?
Prescriptivism is one end of a long-running (perhaps eternal) linguistic debate, on whose other side is descriptivism. Most grammarians are neither strictly prescriptivist nor strictly descriptivist, but fall somewhere along a spectrum between the two extremes:
I’d love to take credit for that answer, but I should mention that it was written last year by John Rosenthal, who was filling in for William Safire writing the “On Language” column in The New York Times Magazine (hence the reference to “the usual author of this column”).
I’d love to take credit for that answer, but I should mention that it was written last year by John Rosenthal, who was filling in for William Safire writing the “On Language” column in The New York Times Magazine (hence the reference to “the usual author of this column”).
I received a private e-mail from Walloon (or someone claiming to be her) about six hours ago.
Frankly, I was shocked by the things she had to say, and challenged her to post her views here in this thread. I’m tempted to do so myself since she hasn’t yet come forward, but because she disclosed a lot of sensitive personal information in her e-mail, I don’t want to violate her privacy by repeating everything.
Suffice it to say that she seemed to be justifying her behaviour, or at least her contempt with the majority of participants on this thread, by citing unpleasant personal conditions beyond her control.
Walloon, no matter how bad the conditions of your personal life are, I don’t see what bearing they possibly have on your predeliction for seeking out infinitessimally trivial grammar anomalies to “correct” in threads where people are trying to have a coherent discussion. (And I’m not just talking about the “media” issue here. You’ve been an unwelcome copy editor in many other cases.) Nor do I see how they ought to be taken into consideration when others raise legitimate complaints about said behaviour.
Yes, I came down on you hard in my OP. This was done to shame you out of behaviour I and many others found to be rude and annoying. It was not intended to hold the entirety of your posting history to public ridicule, nor to kick you off the SDMB for good, as you seemed to imply in your message.
If you have taken exception to the vociferousness of my post, you’re more than welcome to take out your frustrations on me in this thread itself. That is, after all, precisely what it’s for. I won’t be cowed into submission by a privately-sent irrelevant plea for sympathy.
And here I was giving Walloon the benefit of the doubt about not responding, thinking maybe she had other things to do than cruise the board over the weekend.
Apparently I was wrong.
Walloon, you pansy ass. If you’re sticking by your position, at least have the guts to come in here an express that position. Don’t hide behind personal emails while pretending that you’ve never even seen this thread. That’s just pathetic.
Man I can’t stand people who endulge in behavior that get’s them pitted, or in a heated debate, then run away like freakin’ scardy cats… :mad:
