Standards of grammar and usage

[Jonathon]

This topic has been on my mind a lot the last several months. My undergraduate education made me somewhat schizophrenic on the matter. In my major classes, we took a mostly descriptive approach to the language; that is, we analyzed English as it is, not as anyone claimed it should be. But in my editing minor classes, we took a mostly prescriptive approach; that is, we discussed what was correct and incorrect and how to spot the difference and fix problems.

I used to be regarded as somewhat of a grammar nazi, and I probably still am to a degree, but I've noticed a marked shift towards descriptivism in my own point of view. Icarus once called me a "grammar free-love hippie," but I don't think that's really accurate, either. Many prescriptivists seem to see it as a battle between standards and moral decay, between enforcing the rules and saying that anything goes, but isn't at all how I see it. I see it as a matter of choosing where your standards come from—the people, or the self-proclaimed pundits.

On the other hand, I, like many people, believe that a pure democracy is neither realistic nor desirable. I think that the standard should be based on well-informed, educated usage and that it should be as logically consistent as possible. I'm thinking about writing up a list of overarching grammar and usage guidelines and fallacies. Any thoughts?

[Porter]

Hmm.....

Rules certainly are useful by creating a certain uniformity of English, enabling us to understand documents written across space and time.

What bothers me, though, are rules that don't seem to serve a useful purpose.  Rivka's claims to the contrary, I see no added value in rules for when you should use lie and lay, less and fewer, farther and further.

I also don't like rules such as "Ain't ain't a word."  It's not?  Give me one good reason why it ain't.

I said a good reason.

[Jonathon]

I'm not as bothered by rules that aren't useful; language is full of vestigial rules, and it's impossible to weed them all out. I'm not even sure it'd be desirable. But what bothers me is rules that are artificial, like the ones that say that there shall be no overlap in meaning between less and fewer or farther and further. Nothing is gained by trying to artificially pigeonhole pairs of words like that, and it has the negative side effect of making a lot of people feel like they don't know how to use their own language.

[Porter]

You say that you aren't bothered by rules that aren't useful, but all of the reasons you gave for not liking the less/fewer farther/further rules are reasons about them not being useful.

[Jonathon]

Hmm. Let me try to clarify. Strictly speaking, there is nothing gained by having a distinction between he and him. After all, we don't have different subject and object forms for you, and this doesn't seem to trouble anyone. So the rule about when using he for subjects and him for objects isn't useful.

The "rule" about when to use fewer and less is also useless, but that is the least of its crimes. What I really don't like about—which has nothing to do with its utility—is that it's contrived. It tries to take the natural order of things and turn it into something else, something that goes against speakers' instincts and makes them constantly second-guess themselves.

Case in point: most of the usage questions that people ask me involve contrived rules. People can never quite get the hang of a rule that has never reflected linguistic reality.

[Icarus]

The thing is, some of the rules that seem contrived to you seem descriptive to me. For instance, less and fewer. To say that this is contrived because many people get it wrong is like saying that effect and affect mean the same thing, or that "should of" is as acceptable as "should have." Just because a mistake is common doesn't mean that the usage commonly regarded as correct is not, in fact, common among educated speakers and writers.

[Jonathon]

The thing is, it wasn't a mistake for centuries until someone suddenly decided that it was. I'm not talking about a mistake that has become common, but rather something common that has been declared a mistake.

[Tante Shvester]

TTo say that this is contrived because many people get it wrong is like saying that effect and affect mean the same thing, or that "should of" is as acceptable as "should have."

I say "should've".  But it's pronouced "should of".  I can see where people get confused.  

[pooka]

I made a post about this on Hatrack the other day, and with my prescriptivist hat on I really do like the idea of establishing a grammar based on usage observed in the founding documents.  These are the documents that it is important for people to be able to understand, and the most controversial to be translated into a later dialect.  Plus I like the idea of out-tigh@$$ing the tight@$$es.  

Maybe my next book will be "Founding Grammar."  Or "Grammar of our Fathers."  Though that's often associated with Kipling.  Will it be distinguishable in any meaningful way from English English of the time?  I don't know.  The Declaration of Independence, certainly, was addressed to English people.  But the Constitution is fine.  And if people want a grammar usage to be incorporated, they can just get an amendment approved.  Mm'kay?

[Tante Shvester]

"Grammar of our Fathers."

That would be your Great-Grammar, right?

[Ela]

I used to be regarded as somewhat of a grammar nazi,

I object to the term "grammar nazi."    

[Tante Shvester]

I'm not loving the construction "[insert term here] Nazi", but I've given up objecting to it.  Can we at least choose another horrendous dictatorial power, at least to break up the cliche?

Like the Grammar Khmer Rouge?

[Jonathon]

People used to (and sometimes still do) call me a grammar nazi. I don't like the term either and don't use it anymore myself.  

[Ela]

Ok, then.

[Jonathon]

I'm kind of sad that this thread didn't generate more responses. Maybe the question of linguistic authority isn't something that most people care about (actually, I'm pretty sure that's not a "maybe"). But then I read posts like this one and feel depressed that even if you've dedicated your life to studying the English language, you will probably always be trumped by a few long-dead hobbyists whose opinions somehow managed to become canonized.

[Tante Shvester]

What can I say.  I  believe that there ought to be a sensible middle ground between the descriptors and the prescriptors.  But who wants to go out on a limb with the stance "Can't we all just get along, people?  Huh?  Can't we?"