Comments on: Fake Grammar Experts

By: Cavemen debating society, Zombies created by crowds, Liquidating some gov, Making worse decisions that feel better, Assortative-mating created classes « Mike Kenny

Thu, 24 Nov 2011 12:02:17 +0000

[...] Hahaha. Wow, awesome. If this is true, I am amazed at Strunk’s reputed certitude. [...]

By: Stephen R. Diamond

Stephen R. Diamond — Mon, 25 May 2009 18:34:48 +0000

None of the reviews of Strunk & White have looked at the historical context. Did the book first propound the style guidelines it announces, or were they already current? What concepts of stylistic virtue were in the running when White published the book? Answers to these questions would be more interesting than the polemics of linguists searching for battlefields to enact their obsessional mock war between prescriptivists and descriptivists.

By: Barkley Rosser

Barkley Rosser — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:21:54 +0000

Others have said it, but I found this piece pretty fatuous, given that a) Pullum really does not provide clear examples of what S&W proposed that is actually incorrect (or their own supposed errors of grammar), and b) he agrees that there are no agreed-upon experts, and thus in the end no rules (although I realize that he is partly complaining about people using S&W as the authorities on what the rules are).

One of the things he seems worked up about is the whole “that-which” business, although that seems to have been invented by Fowler rather than S&W. As an editor, I have noticed that this seems to be one of those things distinguishing British English and American English, with the former not obeying this “rule” at all.

Which brings up that S&W are very American, with many Americans admiring “efficiency” in writing (Hanson?). So, S&W are a great hit with their advocacy of brevity and clarity, and certainly the latter is generally desirable. Among no-nonsense Americans, this would be Hemingway, along with Hammett. Of course, this says that Faulkner is a naughty, and, Proust? Well, he is not American anyway.

Needless to say there are times when not following the rules can lead to problems, with the title of that recent book, _Eats, Shoots, and Leaves_ (Panda in restaurant) being a prime example.

By: Doug S.

Doug S. — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 01:04:14 +0000

But this is not the question people want to ask. Instead they want to ask the question: how do I cover my ass? How do I ensure that what I write cannot be objected to? If someone doubts the way I phrased something, what authority can I hit them with?

Exactly.

One of the times I tried to take the Expository Writing course at Rutgers University, which is a graduation requirement for all students, the instructor declared that the class was not allowed to begin a sentence with “however” because it was grammatically incorrect. However, I disagreed that it was incorrect grammar, but a mere undergraduate student arguing with a professor over something that stupid isn’t going to get very far. I never did pass that course, and eventually got special permission from the Dean of Engineering to take a technical writing course instead of the evil, evil expository writing course. (And, dammit, just because I can’t think of a single thing to say about genetically modified potatoes doesn’t mean I’m not capable of producing better prose than than ninety percent of the other students in the class!)

By: billswift

billswift — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 18:13:36 +0000

Bad grammar and bad spelling interfere with the smooth reading of the text; they unnecessarily make the reader work harder to understand what was written. In the event, careless grammar and spelling can be considered a sign of contempt for the reader, or serious incompetence in the writer (in which case why bother reading what he wrote).

As the old saying goes, “Hard thinking makes for easier reading.”

By: mtc

mtc — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 07:48:41 +0000

The usage of and insistence upon proper grammar is largely a form of signaling anyway. In english, grammar is critically important to understanding the meaning of a sentence, yet it is rare that we misunderstand the meaning of those we would accuse of bad grammar. Because in fact ‘bad’ grammar is not really all that bad in and of itself, but we perceive it so disdainfully because it signals an unwillingness or inability to conform to, and or at least an ignorance of, certain arbitrary conventions of society.

By: mariana

mariana — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 06:05:16 +0000

A great many people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices.

By: David Smith

David Smith — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:02:54 +0000

I find it delightful that the two fairly vicious attacks on Strunk and White that I’ve seen on the Web recently have both been by the authors of dramatically less successful volumes. Sour grapes?

I agree that S&W are about good writing, not grammar (which is a much less interesting and useful subject).

By: Br00ke

Br00ke — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:30:55 +0000

urubu-you scare me.

By: David

David — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:42:20 +0000

Nebu,

Of course I had the best wording; I used the Elements of Style

My point was that if S&W didn’t exist, and some other book of which Pullum approves filled the void, there would still be people (and software applications) that take the rules too seriously and cause the kind of harm Pullum is warning about. I don’t think S&W should be tarred with that particular brush.

That I was able to take example sentences Pullum approved of and make them shorter and arguably not worse hints that maybe the Elements of Style is fundamentally sound and just needs a few corrections or an errata page.