tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post1830093640675167019..comments2023-10-23T11:13:35.712-04:00Comments on Games with Words: And the silliest fake-but-convincing prescriptive rule is...Edwardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04295927435118827266noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post-90531982493218328502012-10-24T19:01:46.445-04:002012-10-24T19:01:46.445-04:00I see our metaphorical garden not as all weeds, bu...I see our metaphorical garden not as all weeds, but as straight rows of plants that make sense, with weeds growing haphazardly throughout. And a few nice plants that are growing in the path or somewhere they shouldn't, but they're too well established to uproot.<br /><br />You seem to have a binary view of descriptivism vs prescriptivism: either we try to eliminate all irregularity or we give up entirely and allow all irregularity. I'm not sure why you see it as black and white.<br /><br />I believe that most modern prescriptivists agree that there is no problem with splitting infinitives or ending sentences with prepositions if the alternative is awkward or confusing. These are holdovers from the glory days of Latin and don't have any logical reason to maintain in English. There is no reason not to say "It's hard to put up with", but on the other hand, I don't think we should accept "Where is it at?" when "Where is it?" is more economical, concise, and (IMO) pleasing to the ear. You can say it all you want to your friends, but I don't think it has a place in formal English (e.g., in print, in a lecture).Tom Jeannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11830745967830134664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post-27992721487465350472012-10-17T21:48:55.040-04:002012-10-17T21:48:55.040-04:00Another way of looking at it: If the only thing gr...Another way of looking at it: If the only thing growing in your garden is weeds, maybe you should reconsider what you are classifying a weed.<br /><br />I think if someone wanted to take a position that we should eliminate all irregularity (start saying "enough good" and "goed" and "thinked"), I would respect the consistency!<br /><br />Of course, not all prescriptive rules are about regularities. For instance, I have no idea what the problem with splitting infinitives or ending sentences with prepositions is.GamesWithWordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15107067137612954306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post-17426356695012359452012-10-16T21:44:19.500-04:002012-10-16T21:44:19.500-04:00Your argument is essentially that because language...Your argument is essentially that because language is full of irregularities, we should not strive to make it more logical or even maintain logical linguistic rules or ways of speaking. This is not a convincing argument against prescriptivism.<br /><br />It's like saying, my garden has lots of weeds, therefore I'm not going to weed it. You're saying there are so many weeds it's pointless to try to pull some out. I'm saying, every weed you pull makes the garden better.Tom Jeannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11830745967830134664noreply@blogger.com