LL-L "Grammar" 2014.03.21 (01) [EN]

[Lowlands-L]

=====================================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 21 March 2014 - Volume 01
lowlands.list at gmail.com - http://lowlands-l.net/
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
Archive: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-08)
Language Codes: lowlands-l.net/codes.php
=====================================================

From: Steven Hanson ammurit at gmail.com
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2014.03.20 (01) [EN]

I was once one of those grammar Nazis.  Oddly enough, I was always more
accepting of ‘grammatical deviations’ when I encountered them in the
languages I studied, but heaven forbid there be any in English!  Now, after
I’ve dabbled in so many foreign languages, and as I’ve progressed further
and further along as something of an amateur linguist, I have a far better
understanding of language – what it is and how it works – and as such, it
seems to me that being a grammar Nazi is quite incompatible with being even
remotely interested in linguistics.  The two just don’t go hand in hand, in
my opinion, much to the contrary of the general population’s idea of what a
linguist is.



As far as whether they’re ruining the language or not, I’m inclined to say
no, simply because their ‘rules’ tend to be observed only by those people
who are in agreement with them, while the rest of us happily split our
infinitives and end our sentences with prepositions and so on.  I’ve always
thought it was a bit hypocritical of them to rail against the natural
progression of language as we see it in our day and age, even though they
seem fine with the same processes that changed Old English into Middle
English, and Middle English into Modern English, and everything in between
and still to come.

----------

From: "heatherrendall at tiscali.co.uk" <heatherrendall at tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2014.03.20 (01) [EN]

from Heather Rendall  heatherrendall at tiscali.co.uk

I saw this article at the weekend and was puzzled by one of the examples
given "You have to really watch him"   Were they really saying that this
was an example of a split infinitive?

Or what was it meant to show?

best wishes after a long absence

Heather

Worcester UKel

----------

From: (Ted Harding) <Ted.Harding at wlandres.net>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2014.03.20 (01) [EN]

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Grammar
>
> Dear Lowlanders,
>
> Some of you may be interested in an article published in The
> Telegraph<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/>today:
>
> "Are Grammar Nazis Ruining the English
> Language?"<
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10692897/Are-grammar-Nazis
> -ruining-the-English-language.html>
>
> "Guardians" or "Nazis"? What are *your* opinions?
>
> Regards,
> Reinhard/Ron
> Seattle, USA

Interesting, and somewhat provocative, but (as written) a somewhat diffuse
target!

My own view (and I am no professional linguist, is that if not
reasonably channelled then language, like water, tends to flow
downhill -- until it reaches the polders, at which point it will
breach the banks and spread out messily.

It is one thing to use "informal" language constructs in casual
conversation with people whose language usage you can relate to,
so that people know they understand each other, whatever their
quirks of speech. No problem there, even if they are splashing
around in the flood plain.

But when you say or write something which is intended to be
understood by any English (say) speaker, then it is a good idea
to adopt more formal and rigid constraints on your language use.
"Who's that pretty girl?" would be understood throughout the
English-speaking world; "Fa's yon bonnie quine?" would not.

I have the following comment on one of Pullum's examples:
  The key, he says, is to realise that your preferences
  -- using "fewer" instead of "less" when referring to plural
  objects, for instance -- are just preferences, and claiming
  that they're "wrong" is false.
Well, I could disagree with that! Compare and contrast the following:

[1] There is less beer in my glass now than there was 10 minutes ago
[2] There is fewer beer in my glass now than there was 10 minutes ago
[3] There are fewer chocolates in the box than there were yesterday
[4] There are less chocolates in the box than there were yesterday
[5] There is less chocolates in the box than there was yesterday

One of the creeping downhill flows these days is the use of "data"
as a singular noun: "The data is available on our website at ...".
Etymologically, "data" is a plural noun, the plural of "datum",
and the French and Germans still respect that: "Une donnée",
"les données", "une base de données"; "ein Datum", "die Daten",
"eine Datenbank". To some extent this hints at a collective-noun
aspect of "data" -- in the Telgraph article Pullum gives a nice
example.

As for splitting infinitves -- well, nearly everybody does it,
and it doesn't usually corrupt communication in the slightest.
But I see (mostly) nothing wrong with rigorously avoiding it,
if you really want to.

A propos of which, I'll close with a little example I once invented
to illustrate how the position of the adverb can dramatically affect
the meaning:

[A]: I prepared slowly to go home thinking   i.e. (prepared slowly)
[B]: I prepared to slowly go home thinking   i.e. (slowly go = go slowly)
[C]: I prepared to go home slowly thinking   i.e. (slowly thinking)

Between [A] and [B] we can have a battle between the split-infinitive
B-army and the anti-split-infinitive A-army; but the B-army can
win this battle because they can claim that [B] indicates "going home
slowly" while [A] indicates "preparing slowly"; and that the A-army
have cut themselves off from the "preparing slowly" meaning by
forcing themselves to use [A] instead of [B] (which they abhor).

One the other hand, the A-army can counter-attack by pointing out that
if you really do mean "preparing slowly" then you could say

[D]: I slowly prepared to go home thinking

But I think the B-army would still defeat the counter-attack by pointing
out that anyone who sees [A] would interpret it as

[A]: I (prepared slowly) to go home thinking

and not as

[A]: I prepared (slowly to go home) thinking

So, perhaps, that example leaves split infinitives still hanging
in the air!

Best wishes to all,
Ted.

-------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <Ted.Harding at wlandres.net>
Date: 20-Mar-2014  Time: 19:42:57
This message was sent by XFMail
-------------------------------------------------

 =========================================================
Send posting submissions to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
Send commands (including "signoff lowlands-l") to
listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands.list at gmail.com
http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html .
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/group.php?gid=118916521473498
==========================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20140321/81bf02c1/attachment.htm>