Prescriptivism and the cinema

[victor steinbok]

Dunno... seems to be fairly standard part of speech taboo, just like
"impact". On the other hand, 1843 Cyclopedia clearly uses "blame" as a
transitive verb (even specifically says so). So, like "impact" the
proscription is bogus.

I could not find any specific recommendations on the subject, but I
did find one interesting suggestion that relates to "blame"
peripherally:

"...In your 'number of things' example, 'number' also takes a plural
verb. If you remove 'of things', the verb remains plural. "A number of
people are to blame." "A number are to blame." If you said 'a number
is to blame', I’d say, "That darn Four is at it again!" "

As usual, this is just a find, not an endorsement of the opinion.

VS-)

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Jonathan Lighter
<wuxxmupp2000 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah, but he still put the blame on her.
>
> I heard a lot of prescriptivist statements in my impressionable years, but
> I've never heard the one reported by Wilson.
>
> In my day, maybe the worst thing you could do, short of writing "ain't" with
> a straight face, was to use "contact" as a verb.  That taboo may have even
> edged out, in severity, the controversial uses of "presently" and
> "hopefully."
> JL

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org