babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Associated Press style book finally caves on "hopefully"
April 25, 2012 - 3:18pm
See below:
Monica Hesse in the Washington Post:
I can take this one, but if irregardless ever makes it into a dictionary or style book, my linguistic snooty pants will be set on fire.
truth is, usage makes correct.... eventually
Yeah, this really exposes the stupidity of prescriptivist stubbornness. Hopefully they've learned their lesson.
i agree...words are just things we use to communicate. if you look at any language it evolves over time. think of how people used english a few hundred years ago, i probably wouldn't know what the hell they were talking about!
omg u guyz r so uptite. lolz.
I'll let you know what I think of this travesty momentarily.
i agree that prescriptivist grammar is ridiculous, especially with antiquated rules like pronoun and number correctness (using he instead of they, blah). But somethings were changed where the meaning just doesn't make any sense -- like the word irregardless. I will never accept.
Also when people qualify absolutes like unique (like most unique) that drives me nuts.
Yeah, some errors are tolerable, but that particular one is really some-of-a-kind.
Prescriptivism is bad, except for the things I prescribe! :P
I don't think unique is used as an absolute most of the time, with or without modifying adverbs.
True story: the first time I ever "met" the former babble moderator audra (original and best), was on her "other" discussion board/blog, where she castigated me for using "irregardless." I think that's the only time I ever used the word. It was definitely the last (except to relay this anecdote, obv).
Raymond Chandler: "when I split an infinitive, God damn it, I split it so it will stay split"
I have used irregardless before too -- back in the day :) -- and then saw that sketch on SNL with jimmy fallon and ben affleck where they parodied Boston ummm, highschool kids and felt like a huge idiot.
I agree with your notes on prescriptivism, I disagree with it, unless I agree with it. Most of the grammar stuff is too old timey, and descriptivist (spelling, my bad) grammar and a better commentary on how communities and cultures use language, except when words are integrated because of misuse and misunderstanding!
Also the word only if frequently used wrong (in terms of meaning in a sentence) and it too drives me nuts.
I think I took on a lot of my linguistic professors annoyances with words and grammar.
Also when people spell a lot as one word.
"The normalization of language serves to enlarge its range of communicability over space and time." E.D. Hirsch, The Philosophy of Composition 40 (1977).
Sven, you should take that quote to the United Nations and get everyone speaking (the Queen's) English! Then we'd get the best "communicability" ever!
We've been over this before, of course, but 'perfect communication', frequently cited or at least appealed to by prescriptivists, is a myth. It doesn't exist. It's never existed, and it never will. That's not to say normalization forces don't or shouldn't exist, however--but to believe that the operate around a single, dominant locus is not only false, it's impossible.
Making Peace in the Language Wars (a short essay which is well worth reading).
Heh. For a (in his heart of hearts a prescriptivist) take on Garner, see this (much, much longer) essay by lexiphile/savant David Foster Wallace: Tense Present. Also available in DFW's breathtaking Consider the Lobster. I guarantee you it is worth the read.
I could give what I consider a strong rebuttal of Garner and DFW if you like, but I've met with far too many grammarians to be too interested in goin through that. As a literary critic, I'm well aware of the grammarian programming that gets installed deep within our intellects from a very early age; so I'm not terribly inclined to going through the horrible process of trying to remove it, or at the very least, point out that it's there.
I've always disliked the phrase used in obituaries "died AFTER a long(or short) struggle with..."
The phrase implies that the former person made a full recover, then ran outside and got hit by a bus or something.
Can't they just say "died OF"?
Also, why does no one ever say that anyone just dies of old age anymore? It's not like dying that way is a disgrace. In fact, it should be considered an achievment, given the dangerous world most people live in.
How about "... passed away, a casualty of his/her struggle with a long life".
For myself, I'd liked "passed away while continuing to struggle with reality".
CF, the DFW piece was, indeed, well worth reading.
He offers many interesting observations which I'd like to think about for a while...and that's exactly what I'm going to do next.
kind of related (but not related) the DFW essay on John Updike is among the list of my favourite things I have read. The ending to it made me burst out laughing at a restaurant (mildly embarrassing as I was sitting alone at the bar of save-on meats, but in general not.).
The things DFW could do with language was incredible, leaving us too soon, dying after suicide.
Get out and read The Pale King! DFW and taxes! Fun!
Since this is our most recent grammar thread, I'll post this by Steven Pinker (Boo! Hiss!) here:
but The Pale King didn't win the Pulitzer Prize -- do I trust it?
And I will defend Steven Pinker (slightly, kind of) -- as a linguistics student I was forced to read him over and over again, I enjoyed reading his thoughts and opinions on language and more so how society uses language. I read the language instinct, and i think referenced it once, it was interesting.
But I bet you're asking "how can a former linguistics student have such poor spelling and high amount of run-on sentences?" well to that I say "I am a terrible typer, MSN did nothing for me as a student and adjectives are the greatest gift to language, disregard all the famous and talented authors that said otherwise."
McNabb out.