blame (was: Prescriptivism and the cinema)

[Jonathan Lighter]

Jesse informed me of this eccentricity many years ago.  The movement was
called "e-prime" (for "English Prime," of course).  The name is chosen
to suggest that the perpetrator knows math as well as English.

AFAIK, no one has successfully achieved the e-prime state in extended
utterance. But it remains a manic ideal for some.  God knows why.

Am too lazy to Google, but I bet there's lots to see.

JL

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Charles C Doyle <cdoyle at uga.edu> wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Charles C Doyle <cdoyle at UGA.EDU>
> Subject:      Re: blame (was: Prescriptivism and the cinema)
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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
>



--
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

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