egregious prescriptivism

[Gordon, Matthew J.]

I didn't read Wilson Gray's comment as prescriptive. I thought he was reminding us of an earlier thread in which it was suggested that "be done" vs. "be through" might be indexical of some variety or other. Obviously, I forget the details.

-----Original Message-----
From: American Dialect Society on behalf of RonButters at AOL.COM
Sent: Fri 9/10/2004 8:35 AM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject:      egregious prescriptivism
 
I haven't been following this thread, but if Mr. Gray's egregious comment is
typical of the level of discussion, then it is time to stop it completely. The
comment represents exactly the sort of arrogant prescriptivist ideology that
has no place in serious linguistic discussion. Worse, it completely deflects
attention from the substance of what the writer was saying to the FORM in which
it was presented--an ad hominem attack that does no credit to an attacker,
much less the attacker's arguments.

Even worse, the comment is just plain wrong, whether viewed descriptively or
prescriptively. Obviously what the speaker meant WAS "done,"   which is the
past participle of "do"; past parts. routinely occur after the copula in
English, and it is no great stretch to use it in the way that the writer was so
dismissively criticized for doing. The first dictionary I pick up--AH4, college
edition--lists DONE as meaning 'carried out or accomplished', informally
'exhausted, worn out'. There is no usage note that tells one that THROUGH is somehow
to be preferred in this construction. Perhaps Mr. Gray can find some
prescriptivist rule book that tells him that DONE cannot "mean" 'finished' and that only
THROUGH will do (would Mr. Gray's personal solecism detector allow FINISHED
in this environment, I wonder?), but surely the point is utterly trivial. Even
Garner's MODERN AMERICAN USAGE says that, although "when used as an adjective,
[DONE] is sometimes criticized, ... the word has been so used since the 15th
century." Obviously, what the writer "means" is the same thing that writers
and speakers have been meaning for the past 600 years or so.


In a message dated 9/9/04 7:00:13 PM, wilson.gray at RCN.COM writes:


> >>If you don't believe us, I'm done
>
> Don't you mean, "I'm through ..."?
>
> -Wilson Gray
>