egregious prescriptivism

[Wilson Gray]

On Sep 10, 2004, at 9:46 AM, Gordon, Matthew J. wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       "Gordon, Matthew J." <GordonMJ at MISSOURI.EDU>
> Subject:      Re: egregious prescriptivism
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
> 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.

My observation re the use of "I'm done" rather than "I'm through" was a
pretend "gotcha" that referred to our earlier discussion regarding
variation in the use of "done" vs. the use of "through" in certain
contexts, one such context being the one that Professor Butters refers
to. For those who missed a truly scintillating and
consciousness-raising discussion, I observed that, in certain syntactic
contexts in which a person wishes to express, in some sense, the
meaning, "finish(ed), complete(d)," etc., a speaker of Black English
was more likely to say "I'm through," etc. than "I'm done," etc. On the
other hand, I continued, a person accustomed to speaking standard
English was more likely to say, "I'm done," under the same set of
conditions. I don't recall that many people were in agreement with me,
if any were.

So, when I saw "I'm done ..." used in a context in which I would most
*definitely* have used "I'm through ..." I couldn't resist the chance
to say, in effect, "See there?! I *told* you so!"

For the record, I would never prescribe a usage that I consider to be
non-standard or, at least, out of the mainstream. I'm too much of a
prescriptivist for that.

-Wilson Gray

>
> -----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
> =20
> 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
>>
>