blame (was: Prescriptivism and the cinema)

[Charles C Doyle]

Regarding the way prescriptions and proscriptions "contaminate" seemingly related usages (and if I've mentioned this before, I apologize):

We all know that good writers supposedly shun copulas (or passive constructions), preferring the vigorous, virile active voice. Well, my son in high school had an English teacher who banned ALL uses of the verb "be," including its use as an auxillary. "I am writing a message" would have to become "I write a message"--not quite English!

--Charlie

________________________________________
From: American Dialect Society [ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] on behalf of Laurence Horn [laurence.horn at YALE.EDU]
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 10:02 AM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At 4:22 PM -0700 7/15/10, Arnold Zwicky wrote:
>...
>now, the big fuss among peevers is over the two argument structures:
>
>(a) blame SOURCE (for CONSEQUENCE)  (blame Kim (for the disaster))
>(b) blame CONSEQUENCE on SOURCE  (blame the disaster on Kim)
>
>the peevers' claim (since the mid-19th century=20
>or so) is that only (a) is acceptable and that=20
>(b) is simply wrong wrong wrong: you can't blame=20
>*something*, they say, majestically (you can put=20
>the blame on Mame, you can blame Mame for it,=20
>but you can't blame it on Mame).  but (b) has=20
>been used by polished, good writers for a very=20
>long time, and continues in such use today=20
>(alongside (a); the two variants have different=20
>virtues).  some handbooks still deprecate it,=20
>and some mark it as colloquial, but these=20
>attitudes bordered on the loony a hundred years=20
>ago, and there's no rational defense for them=20
>now.  (of course, if you choose not to use the=20
>(b) structure and opt for (a) instead, that's=20
>your business.)
>
>now observe that even the loonies have "blame"=20
>as a verb (in structure (a)), and that's been=20
>around, undisturbed, since early middle english.
>
>you can see why i'd be interested in seeing a=20
>textbook that actually says that "blame" cannot=20
>be used as a verb, period, which entails that=20
>(a) is as unacceptable as (b) is sometimes=20
>thought to be.
>
>in terms that i have sometimes used, this would=20
>be a case where the claimed unacceptability of=20
>(b) *contaminates* the innocent (a).
>
If so, the situation would be similar to what=20
MWDEU sees as having happened with "infer" in=20
what it refers to as the "More 1533" sense:=20
"infer" meaning 'imply' or 'lead someone to=20
conclude' with an non-human subject (where, of=20
course, no confusion is possible, since only=20
humans--or maybe other higher mammals--can draw=20
inferences).  This sense is widely attested since=20
Sir Thomas More used it in 1533 (5 years after he=20
introduced the universally approved "More 1528"=20
sense of "infer" with the meaning 'conclude,=20
deduce'.  This usage, as shown both by MWDEU and=20
the OED ("infer" sense 4: 'To lead to (something)=20
as a conclusion; to involve as a consequence; to=20
imply. Said of a fact or statement; sometimes, of=20
the person who makes the statement') has a=20
lineage that includes Shakespeare, Milton,=20
Jonathan Edwards, James Boswell, Jane Austen,=20
Thomas Hardy, Joshua Whatmough ("the levels of=20
restricted syntactic relationships infer an=20
individual complication of language") and William=20
=46aulkner ("to be a literary man infers a certain=20
amount of--well, even formal education"), but it=20
has become the target of prescriptivists since=20
the early 20th c., probably because of guilt by=20
association with the use of "infer" *with a human=20
subject* to mean 'imply', where confusion can=20
indeed occur.  This latter is what MWDEU dubs=20
"Terry 1896", for its first attested written=20
example in a letter from actress Ellen Terry: "I=20
should think you DID miss my letters. I know it!=20
but=8Ayou missed them in another way than you=20
infer, you little minx!"  The OED adds the more=20
recent cite "I can't stand fellers who infer=20
things about good clean-living Australian=20
sheilahs".  If MWDEU is right, and their argument=20
does seem plausible, the Terry 1896 use of=20
"infer" (=3D 'imply', with a human subject) has=20
come to "contaminate" the More 1533 use (=3D=20
'imply, lead to a conclusion', with a non-human=20
subject).

LH

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