Word and Grammar Rage
Posted by: JWM on 06 September 2008
I thought it might be helpful for the Forum to have a "Pedants' Corner" where the Forum pedants could get off their chest (or should that be 'chests'?) their word and grammar rage from Forum posts.
Yours, a keen pedant himself, but who on this Forum leaves it behind for friendship's sake,
James
Posted on: 11 September 2008 by BigH47
quote:
Surely the correct term is "building sand", is it not?
There is always one. Don't come around here confusing the issue with facts.
Posted on: 12 September 2008 by Frank Abela
All my life I have written the contraction of 'must not' as 'musn't'. Yet nowadays all I ever see is 'mustn't'. When I asked colleagues about this recently they both said it should be 'mustn't', yet I had never really come across 'mustn't' until recent years.
Anyone care to comment?
Posted on: 12 September 2008 by JWM
For myself, I have not come across "musn't" before, only "mustn't".
I am sure there is nothing wrong in principle with the first form, apart from a second apostrophe to indicate the omission of the 't' of 'must', "mus'n't"
The one thing wrong with grammar and spelling pedantry, especially in the English language, is that there really aren't many rules that can be strictly adhered to. In historic usage you'll find all sorts of variants.
A colleague of mine, educated very expensively a generation or two before me, gets almost appaplectic about split infinitives, of which "to boldly go" is almost certainly the most famous example. Yet Dickins, for one (and I'm sure other of our great writers) are stuffed full of the blessed things.
Language pedants often appeal to "Fowler" (Modern English Usage) to justify themselves (the 'baffle with b*llshit' approach), yet probably without having ever opened that volume, for Fowler's approach is much more practical, summarised neatly by a well-known online encyclopedia:
Fowler's general approach was to encourage a direct and vigorous style of writing in English and to oppose every kind of artificiality. For example, he advised firmly against the unnecessary use of convoluted sentence constructions, foreign words and phrases, and archaicisms. He also opposed every kind of pedantry, and notably ridiculed artificial grammatical rules that had no warrant in natural English usage, such as bans on split infinitives or on ending a sentence with a preposition, rules on the placement of the word "only", and distinctions between "which" and "that". He fiercely condemned every kind of cliché, coining or popularizing such terms as "battered ornament", "Wardour Street", "vogue words" and "worn-out humour" to classify them. At the same time he defended useful distinctions, for example between words whose meanings were tending to coalesce, and guided users away from errors such as misuses of words or illogical sentence constructions.
Fowler is something to learn
from. Lynn Truss (and her ilk) is something to learn
by.
Posted on: 12 September 2008 by Adam Meredith
quote:
Originally posted by JWM:
Fowler is something to learn from. Lynn Truss (and her ilk) is something to learn by.
Does the parenthesis (and her ilk) make this/these a plural?
Also (see elsewhere) is the "ing" form of "jaunte" jaunting or jaunteing?
See "Tiger! Tiger!" AKA "The Stars My Destination".
Posted on: 12 September 2008 by rupert bear
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Meredith:
Does the parenthesis (and her ilk) make this/these a plural?
I don't think so - the verb is outside the parentheses (which are, by the way, plural).
Posted on: 12 September 2008 by Consciousmess
Here's a question for you:
When do you use 'which' and when do you use 'that'?
On what basis do you decide?
Regards,
Jon
Posted on: 12 September 2008 by 555
I hope you don't teach English Jon?
Posted on: 12 September 2008 by JWM
Fowler, of Modern English Usage,
quote:
opposed every kind of pedantry, and notably ridiculed artificial grammatical rules that had no warrant in natural English usage, such as bans on split infinitives or on ending a sentence with a preposition, rules on the placement of the word "only", and distinctions between "which" and "that"
Posted on: 12 September 2008 by BigH47
No 'e don't teech english like wat i does,
Posted on: 12 September 2008 by Adam Meredith
quote:
Originally posted by rupert bear:
I don't think so - the verb is outside the parentheses (which are, by the way, plural).
parenthesis /p<schwa>"rEnTIsIs/ n. Pl.-theses /-TIsi:z/.M16. [Late L f.Gk, f. parentithenai place in besides, f. as PARA-1 + EN-2 + tithenai to place: see THESIS.]
1 A word, clause, sentence, etc., inserted (as an explanation, qualification, aside, or afterthought) into a passage which is already grammatically complete, and usu. marked off by brackets, dashes, or commas. Also, the use of such insertions, esp. as a rhetorical figure. M16.
b Either of a pair of (esp. round) brackets used to include words inserted parenthetically (usu. in pl.). E18.
Posted on: 13 September 2008 by 151
nice to see you in a Padded Cell adam.
Posted on: 13 September 2008 by Adam Meredith
quote:
Originally posted by 151:
Nnice to see you in a Padded Cell, Aadam. : D
Posted on: 13 September 2008 by 151
Posted on: 14 September 2008 by Consciousmess
555
Senior Member
Posted Fri 12 September 2008 18:20 Hide Post
I hope you don't teach English Jon?
As it happens, 555, I don't teach English, I teach Psychology.....
But my question still remains, and I've seen no answer yet, when do you use "which" and when do you use "that"????
Is it based on whether the items referred to are animate or inanimate?
I look forward to whatever contribution can be made.
Kind regards,
Jon
Posted on: 14 September 2008 by JWM
To which I responded that Fowler (Modern English Usage) says that it is not worth worrying about.
Posted on: 14 September 2008 by JWM
PS
Posted on: 14 September 2008 by Consciousmess
I apologise then, JWM!
Thank you!
Jon
Posted on: 15 September 2008 by Frank Abela
In which case Fowler doesn't know English. It's just that most people simply can't be bothered to make the distinction and use the language correctly.
Colloquially it seems acceptable to say things like:
'...says that it is not worth worrying about.'
...where the correct form should be:
'...says it is something about which it is not worth worrying.'
...or optionally:
'...says it is something about which it is not worth the worry.'
There are a few other correct ways of putting it which would be correct grammar. However, I do feel that the correct versions often tend to be less intuitive than the more common forms.
Consciousmess - 'which' always discusses inanimate subjects where 'that' may be used with an animate. 'Which' acts as a form for turning around the sentence so you do not finish it with a split infinitive or some such objectionable word.
e.g.
"...says that it is not worth worrying about." - About what? It's inappropriate (grammatically) to use 'about' to close a sentence, so one turns the sentence around using combinations of 'about', 'of', 'on', 'with' and 'which' to construct a sentence which can be resolved satisfactorily.
So:
'This is something (that) I disagree with!'
Becomes:
'This is something with which I disagree!'
Or at least - that's how I've always though of it!
Posted on: 15 September 2008 by 151
how sad.
Posted on: 15 September 2008 by BigH47
Methinks thou' 'aint seeing that the English language evolves other wise we wouldst still being speaking like this forsooth.
Posted on: 15 September 2008 by Nigel Cavendish
Poor grammar is something up with which I shall not put.
Fowler, thankfully, takes a far more pragmatic approach to the evolution of grammar.
Posted on: 20 September 2008 by Adam Meredith
You live and learn - I was reading some George Orwell essays this afternoon and he wrote "under weigh". I would, erroneously, have been happy to write "under way".
under weigh, (of a vessel etc.) in motion through the water, under way.
Posted on: 20 September 2008 by 151
Or, she's off.
Posted on: 20 September 2008 by u5227470736789439
That sounds llike a grim fake Vodka to me!
Posted on: 21 September 2008 by Adam Meredith
Speaking of fakes - I can recall when "Japanese" was pejorative in terms of manufactured quality.
A few years later you had Comet, I think, labelling its own brand with cod-Japanese branding. Matsui and the like.
