Anybody who has even been accused of Nitpicking

Walden · Post by **Walden** » Tue Sep 16, 2003 9:59 am

The undisputed provided an apt thought on the matter, "The home raising of simian species was first encouraged in classical society by Socrates, who rightly observed their behavior in picking nits was far preferable to the nitpicking of Xantippe."¹

_________

1. Paraphrased in Alternatives to Librarian-Run Institutions, by A. B. Walden, and published by Waldco Press, by kind permission of the Home Gorilla Breeding Society of North Central Alabama.

TonyHiggins · Post by **TonyHiggins** » Tue Sep 16, 2003 11:42 am

Transformational.

The mention of 'inspirational' reminded me of it. Walking into a big bookstore and seeing a display of Deepak Chopra books (none of which I've ever read, no opinion of the dude) they are all described as 'Transformational.' If it's a book by a different author in the same vein, Deepak is quoted on the front as calling it 'Transformational.' How many times can a person transform??? Into what?

Tony, a spiritual Luddite.

cj · Post by cj » Tue Sep 16, 2003 12:15 pm

Preventative--shouldn't it be preventive?

Wombat · Post by **Wombat** » Tue Sep 16, 2003 12:27 pm

Bloomfield wrote:
Wombat wrote: Sorry ihc_ssii (and sorry Botox). Once a word has made it into a dictionary, it has made it into the language, however direputable the means by which it got there. Languages reflect the societies in which they evolve. Even if a word enters a language by a silly mistake, once there we're stuck with it unless, collectively, we choose not to use it, in which case it will leave silently and unlamented almost as quickly as it arrived.
Sorry, Wombat, but that's nonsense, if you take it to mean we should approach language descriptively rather than prescriptively.

Of course you're quite right Bloomfield. How silly of me to overlook the facts. Every year the Society of Nannies for Overseeing Terminology (SNOT) get together, usually in Princeton, and decide for us all which new terms we may now use and still be speaking correctly. (I believe something rather like this actually happens from time to time in France.)

Bloomfield wrote: I won't go into this (political) debate, but let me just say that I agree with you that language reflects society, but it does so normatively. Saying "God tells us not end a sentence with a preposition" is no more convincing than saying "God tells you not to jaywalk" but that does not mean every thing that is being said or written, should be said or written.

As far as I'm concerned, this isn't a political debate at all. Of course there is a legitimate activity which consists in the making of critical remarks about which changes in the English language are worthwhile and which retrograde and at various points in our education it does us all good to be exposed to sensible critical activity of this kind. Those old fashioned prescriptive grammars which set out rules without giving sensible reasons are worthless not because they are prescriptive but because they do not offer suitable explanations of why the rules are worth adhering to.

None of this has the slightest bearing on the question of whether purely descriptive linguistics is also a legitimate activity for people to engage in. Obviously it is. Equally obviously, dictionaries are the fruit of this activity. To use your example, the existence of prescriptive cannons of pedestrian behaviour does not render redundant sociological studies of pedestrian behaviour that accurately report the existence of jay walking.

Suppose you drive off one morning and, after numerous lucky escapes, it dawns on you that everybody else is driving on the 'wrong' side of the road. Prescriptive accounts of driving tell you to stick to the rules. A quick descriptive survey tells you that nobody else is. On which side of the road is it rational for you to drive?

carrie · Post by **carrie** » Tue Sep 16, 2003 12:47 pm

Well, there's of course the misuse of flaunt for flout, and then 'nother for other. And if you worked in the field I work in, educational publishing, that But at the beginning of the sentence would need to be replaced with However and a comma, which makes things much choppier IMHO.

*blows on the tip of her smoldering red pen and replaces it in its holster, dodging oncoming traffic*

Carol

Post by **Nanohedron** » Tue Sep 16, 2003 12:59 pm

cskinner wrote:Well, there's of course the misuse of flaunt for flout, and then 'nother for other.

Ah, I was hoping to draw you out, Carol! Flaunt was it. 'Nother was just a repeat.

And if you worked in the field I work in, educational publishing, that But at the beginning of the sentence would need to be replaced with However and a comma, which makes things much choppier IMHO.

*blows on the tip of her smoldering red pen and replaces it in its holster, dodging oncoming traffic*

Carol

Hmmm. OK. Umm...ah...I was going for a more reel-like rhythm, rather than a hornpipey choppiness. Yeah, that's it.

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Tue Sep 16, 2003 1:01 pm

Wombat wrote:As far as I'm concerned, this isn't a political debate at all. Of course there is a legitimate activity which consists in the making of critical remarks about which changes in the English language are worthwhile and which retrograde and at various points in our education it does us all good to be exposed to sensible critical activity of this kind. Those old fashioned prescriptive grammars which set out rules without giving sensible reasons are worthless not because they are prescriptive but because they do not offer suitable explanations of why the rules are worth adhering to.

None of this has the slightest bearing on the question of whether purely descriptive linguistics is also a legitimate activity for people to engage in. Obviously it is. Equally obviously, dictionaries are the fruit of this activity. ....

That is not is obvious (to me). Dictionaries are not originally the fruit linguists' attempt to take a value-free inventory of the language. And it makes all the difference whether "mischievious" is listed as "alternate spelling of mischievous" or as "common misspelling and mispronounciation of mischievous."

It is a political debate that ultimately comes down to who may set the rules of the language. The Descriptivists attempted to take the language away from the ivory-tower professors and give it back the people in the street who spoke, well, the way they spoke and whose language should not be considered "wrong" or "inferior". I sympathize with the democratic thrust, but resist the implication that prescription could be cancelled from linquistics. Also, we do have prescriptive standards for good language: meaning and clarity (which admittedly are functional rather than absolute approaches).

Suppose you drive off one morning and, after a numerous lucky escapes, it dawns on you that everybody else is driving on the 'wrong' side of the road. Prescriptive accounts of driving tell you to stick to the rules. A quick descriptive survey tells you that nobody else is. On which side of the road is it rational for you to drive?

Are you trying to say it is better to be wrong and alive than dead and right?

herbivore12 · Post by **herbivore12** » Tue Sep 16, 2003 1:46 pm

I think I may have linked to this article in another thread, long ago, but here again:

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1111/ ... wallace%22

Believe it or not, a very funny, engagingly-written piece tackling the descriptivist-prescriptivist debate. Well, Wallace tackles lots of things in the piece, but the p-d debate is at the center. I know, it sounds dry and tedious, but man does Wallace make it fun, and funny. I promise.

The book around which much of the article revolves -- Garner's newish Dictionary of Modern American Usage -- is great, too.

Wombat: imagine teaching one of your ethics courses if the authoritative text was the result of a descriptivist approach, where ethical principles were based on how people really behave in their daily lives. Oy!

--Aaron

(edited to link to the first page of the Wallace article, rather than the middle of the damned thing...)

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Tue Sep 16, 2003 2:02 pm

I was wondering when you'd come out with the Wallace piece, Herbi.

Wombat said a little earlier that the problem with the old prescriptive grammars is that they do not give reasons for their prescriptions. That, according to Wallace [and Bloomfield, incidentally] is the beauty of Garner's work: Garner is a prescriptivist, but each prescription is anchored in principle. The principle is, of course, effective communication. Rules are not to be followed because Ms. McGillicuddy told you so in sixth grade, but because it makes your writing more understandable (or generally: more effective). That means that it is desirable to use he correct term "self-depreciating" rather than the almost universally employed "self-deprecating" if you want to say that you are putting yourself down. (To depreciate: to reduce in value or esteem; to deprecate: to disapprove regretfully, as in: He deprecated French foreign policy.)

On the other hand, it makes no sense at all to adhere to the rule "don't start a sentence with a conjuction", a rule which I deprecate as much as Carol. I never write "However, ..." and do not hesitate to start a sentence with "But" or "And". But who asked me?

If you ever have a chance to meet Bryan Garner, take it. He is a wonderful man, and has a bright mind.

herbivore12 · Post by **herbivore12** » Tue Sep 16, 2003 2:18 pm

Bloomfield wrote:I was wondering when you'd come out with the Wallace piece, Herbi.

I am a predictable man, I know.

. . .the beauty of Garner's work: Garner is a prescriptivist, but each prescription is anchored in principle.

Yup. Garner's fine writing and wonderful examples add a good bit to the book's beauty, as well.

Nano, I think you can find your "hopefully" in the "Skunked Terms" essay in Garner's book; words and phrases that are marginally acceptable but somehow tainted, in that they're likely to distract at least some readers.

On the other hand, it makes no sense at all to adhere to the rule "don't start a sentence with a conjuction", a rule which I deprecate as much as Carol.

You deprecate poor Carol? Or you deprecate the rule as much as she does?

If you ever have a chance to meet Bryan Garner, take it. He is a wonderful man, and has a bright mind.

You lucky guy! I'll have to look into taking a law degree just so I can justify taking one of his seminars someday, if he's still doing that. Or not.

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Tue Sep 16, 2003 2:53 pm

aaaaackkkk!

You're deconstructing me, Herbi!

MarkB · Post by **MarkB** » Tue Sep 16, 2003 2:54 pm

But, But, But, But,, However, there are many eloquent writers on this board, and I thought I was just posting a fun page. Adversely many of us have whole bunch of nits and not just the biological ones, being balder than a snooker ball saves me the trouble.

Blazing red ink pens, flaunting airs of englishdomatrixes and when my embyrochure fails I am more flouting than phluting. Being six foot one the description of my perspective on things differs in kind from everybody else, considering I have one glass eye and one leg shorter than the other.

But I am really enjoying the conversation, although a fine tooth comb wouldn't work on me.

MarkB

herbivore12 · Post by **herbivore12** » Tue Sep 16, 2003 3:09 pm

Bloomfield wrote:aaaaackkkk! You're deconstructing me, Herbi!

Just wait'll I pull out the poststructuralist retractor, Jaussian Reception Theory scalpel, and Reader-Response Criticism clamps. You won't even know what happened.

Gawd. Had a class in postmodern literature (or postmodern criticism of contemporary literature, or something) back in the day, and it just about ruined me for reading. Even met Derrida, who acted the preening rockstar and responded to any critical questions with "Zat is a ridiculous statement, to which I shall not respond!"; he just about ruined me for the French.

But now, having let my head drain, I love books again. The French, too. Sometimes.

Post by **Nanohedron** » Tue Sep 16, 2003 6:43 pm

Great link, Herbi! I'll be back to this one.

Wombat · Post by **Wombat** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 1:23 am

herbivore12 wrote:
Wombat: imagine teaching one of your ethics courses if the authoritative text was the result of a descriptivist approach, where ethical principles were based on how people really behave in their daily lives. Oy!

--Aaron

Good point Herb which I'll come back to after I've clarified what I was saying. Thanks for the link BTW although I haven't yet had the chance to follow it.

I realise that there was a prescriptivist/descriptivist war that is probably still going on, but in mocking Bloomy's extreme prescriptivist position, I wasn't locating myself in the descriptivist camp. I actually think that there is more than a grain of truth in both views and that extreme versions of both positions are seriously misconceived. So to Bloomy's question who is to set the rules of language, my answer is that nobody does unaided by the activites of the other candidates. That's why I described the war as misconceived.

I agree that there is a legitimate role for prescriptive linguistics, rather like the role played in sports by a good coaching manual. The role is much more like that than that of a law book since nobody is vested with authority to enforce the rules. Furthermore, if someone succeeds in communicating more effectively by breaking the rules in a novel way, that person's departure should be seen for the improvement it is and not as a 'mistake.'

What prescriptivists aren't acknowledging is the role of descriptive linguistics in constraining what they can sensibly say. For a prescriptive rule to be recognisably a rule for English, it has to be a descriptive rule for an actual or possible dialect that closely resembles English as spoken on the street. If someone comes up with a way of talking that violates existing prescriptive rules, catches on and facilitates communication as well as, or better than, the violated rules, the onus is on the prescriptive linguist to adjust and not on the innovator to back down. Put simply, prescriptive linguistics must be grounded, both in being recognisably applicable to rough and ready street practices and in being prepared to defer humbly to street practices that are clearly improvements, and descriptive linguistics provides that grounding by keeping track of both these features of language use.

Now to your point about ethics. Obviously you have in mind normative and practical ethics because metaethics is heavily constrained by the phenomenology of moral judgment and armchair sociology of morals. Well, although I can teach normative ethics in the way expected of me, I really have no idea exactly what it is I am teaching. Obviously the best normative ethic is the best ideal code of behaviour, I know that much, but the activity of arriving at that code by rational means is so underconstrained that I see no prospect of our ever reaching agreement in the academy. I therefore use classes in normative and applied ethcis as opportunities for students to learn how to defend their views and prejudices better rather than as occasions for reaching agreement by rational means.