What are your thoughts on the vagaries and particularities of the English language?
Packing a lot of stuff in here, so I’ve broken it down by topic. Feel free to add others if you want.
(But no polls, please.)
Singular they, generic he, singular themselves
Can they be used to refer to a single person? What if the person is of unknown gender or is a known person who rejects gender labels like he and she?
Or is he the generic pronoun in all (or most) cases?
Is the reflexive themselves ever used to refer to one person? Or would you use the singular themself, which doesn’t appear in most dictionaries? Would you use a singular themselves? Or would you go with the generic himself?
My opinions are that the singular they is perfectly acceptable in all (or almost all) cases and has been for about 700 years, either themself or themselves as a singular reflexive is fine, and the generic he is and always has been ridiculous.
Further, I’m thinking (hoping, really) that they will eventually become the standard pronoun, superseding he and she in most cases. Maybe in a hundred years or so.
Whom
For over 150 years now, whom has been the next word to disappear from the English language.
Hasn’t happened yet. Not quite. The rules for using who or whom aren’t that difficult, but most people can’t be bothered. And when they do try, they often botch the job and hypercorrect.
I say let it die. Outside of famous quotes, titles, and dialogue for people who would (rightly or wrongly) use the word, it is archaic, commonly hypercorrected, and overly formal. Whom has no place (other than the above examples) in our language.
Consider any primer or guide on the matter. The examples for where whom should be used are almost all stilted and formal. I know with whom I will speak. Who talks like that?
The few examples that aren’t stuffy and convoluted–that sound like actual human speech–are all sentences that people usually use who for. Whom should I talk to about an insurance plan? Nah, people in real life just say who.
So if people just use who anyway, and if people commonly misuse whom, what’s the point of keeping it around? (Not that I believe it’s actually going anywhere, mind you, just that I think it should.)
Prepositions, on accident, try and
Let’s start with the biggie–can you end a sentence with a preposition?
Also, do you consider particles to be prepositions, as in “up” in straighten up?
Next, do you say on accident or by accident?
What about the construction try and (Try and lift this?) Shouldn’t it be try to?
And lastly, are there any weird prepositional uses that you’ve noticed?
For me, the idea that you can’t end a sentence with a preposition is ridiculous. The guy who came up with that supposed rule was John Dryden. Back in the 1600s. IMO, he made that rule up solely to troll his contemporaries who were better received than he was.
No, I don’t consider particles to be prepositions, so even if there were a valid rule against ending sentences with prepositions, Turn off your alarm clock and get up! would still be an acceptable sentence.
I use both on accident and by accident, but I use the on construction more often. Which one you use seems to be largely governed by your age, but I’m an outlier due to regional dialect. In general, those born after 2000 use on accident, those born before about 1980 use by accident, and those born in between use both.
For try and, I’d almost always use try to. But sometimes–like when projecting defiance or a dare–try and can be the better choice. To me, Try and catch me! is a little different from Try to catch me!
I’m not sure try and ______ isn’t a compound verb that sometimes uses an archaic sense for try, meaning “test” instead of “attempt.”
I’ve noticed a few people saying by example where I’d usually say for example. By example, this sentence right here. I’m guessing they mean By way of example but just left out a few words. But maybe it’s dialectical.
I will say that Benjamin Dreyer, the copy chief at Random house, disagrees with me. That’s okay, we disagree on a lot. Here’s his take from his book, Dreyer’s English (which I recommend for any aspiring editors):
A while or awhile
Have the two forms become synonymous? Personally, I think they have.
I will note, though, that most grammarians–probably including any editors and schoolteachers you might know–still observe the distinction. To them, a while usually follows a preposition, and awhile modifies a verb.
So
John slept for a while.
but
John slept awhile.
(But note A while back, John slept soundly.)
But I think that the edges have blurred enough in common usage that the distinction is more pedantry than productive.
All right or alright
This one is always good for a heated discussion. People seem to have a visceral reaction no matter which side of the line they fall on.
Is alright a word? If so, how does it differ from all right?
Most style guides will say no. Most dictionaries will say yes.
To me, alright is not only perfectly cromulent, it’s the preferred form. I mean, who writes all ready or all though?
(Of course, if we’re discussing how many answers someone got correct on a test, we’d say The students got the answers all right, just as we’d say The students were all ready for the test if everyone was prepared.)
My go-to defense of alright as separate from all right refers to a terminally ill little girl who is in no immediate danger. She may be alright at the moment, but she is most certainly not all right.
And there’s the state of the kids to consider.
The Oxford comma
Not grammar or usage, but you had to know it was coming.
In a series of three or more items, is there a comma just before the conjunction?
Pick up a loaf of bread, a container of milk, and a stick of butter.
or
Pick up a loaf of bread, a container of milk and a stick of butter.
I am firmly in favor of the Oxford comma.
In a construction that may or may not contain an appositive such as My sister, a hairy ape, and a carnival clown walked the tightrope, I’d rewrite the sentence so that it’s clear whether or not my sister is a hairy ape.
Comprises, comprised of
Is the construction _______ is comprised of _______ horribly, totally wrong?
Some say it’s fine. The album is comprised of twelve new songs. Here, the individuals form the composite.
Others would prefer The album comprises twelve new songs. Here, the composite is formed by the individuals.
I think both are correct.
What say you, oh teeming millions?
A lot, a great deal
A couple of lines from Stephen King’s IT.
Earlier from the mean old English teacher:
Later from the newly published author in reply to the mean old English teacher:
Some people might not pick up on the subtle difference because I haven’t heard this bit of guidance in years and years: “Don’t use a lot–use a great deal, instead.”
I think it’s ridiculous. Were any of the rest of y’all ever taught this?
Flaunt, flout
John flaunted his gold rings.
John flouted the rules on having pets in the workplace.
John flaunted the rules on having pets in the workplace.
Flaunt in the third example means “blatantly disregarded,” exactly like flout does in the second example. Some say that it’s wrong. Others say that it’s right.
Do you consider the two terms to be interchangeable? Are they definitely different? Can flaunt be used for either, but flout always has one meaning?
I think that flaunt can be used both ways–either to “show off” or to “blatantly disregard.” Flout, on the other hand, means “blatantly disregard." I understand that some people use flout for both, but I don’t think enough do that it’s considered common.
My reasoning on the ambidexterity of flaunt is twofold. One is common usage–lots of people use it to mean (and understand it to mean) either thing, therefore it means either thing. The other reason is a bit more semiotic–when people blatantly disregard something, they are showing off that they’re disregarding it, so they’re flaunting their flouting.
Could of, should of
Is it okay to write John could of won if he’d tried harder? Can of ever serve as an auxillary verb?
I say “write” because there’s not usually any distinction between could of and could’ve in spoken English. They sound the same.
I think it’s common enough that could of is okay to write in an informal setting. Like, say, by a moderator on a message board. I wouldn’t put it in a formal paper or anything. (And pro-tip: many spell-checkers won’t always catch your would ofs and could ofs.)
Even if I were writing dialogue, I’d write could’ve in most cases. Using could of to show a lack of education or sophistication in the character is, to me, the same as using any other person’s dialect against them. In short, it embodies all the -isms–elitism, classim, even racism.
Anyway, Merriam-Webster has stuff to say about that, too.
(Adding a link back to the originating discussion.)
