home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
- Path: sparky!uunet!convex!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!princeton!crux!roger
- From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
- Subject: Re: quite unique
- Message-ID: <1992Nov17.173448.10269@Princeton.EDU>
- Originator: news@nimaster
- Sender: news@Princeton.EDU (USENET News System)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: crux.princeton.edu
- Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
- Organization: Princeton University
- References: <1992Nov17.031653.12387@news.columbia.edu> <1992Nov17.074928.24128@Princeton.EDU> <1992Nov17.140133.25643@news.columbia.edu>
- Distribution: alt
- Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:34:48 GMT
- Lines: 233
-
- In article <1992Nov17.140133.25643@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
- >In article <1992Nov17.074928.24128@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
-
- >>>Many dictionaries are purely descriptive. They'll list "axe" as a form
- >>>of ask and "irregardless" as a variant of regardless. I know few people
- >>>whose visceral sense of correctness would be satisfied by that. Yours,
- >>>perhaps.
-
- >>So we must only go by some undefined instinct? Is that it? No rules?
- >>No methods of deciding?
-
- >In a way, yes. You go on the instinct of careful users of the language.
-
- Right. I agree. But in practice, does this mean doing what they do
- (speaking or writing) or does it mean doing what they say about
- language? I have no trouble using Edwin Newman's style and speech as
- models; but his comments on language are utter tripe, for the most
- part. (Just an example.)
-
- >Most intelligent writers are not going to use "irregardless" or "axe" or
- >"most unique."
-
- True enough. But many good, forceful speakers *will* use those words,
- especially in less-formal situations.
-
- >>Of course, I've never seen you say "I feel this usage is wrong." You
- >>just say "It's wrong," listening, no doubt, to your viscera. Seems
- >>like your preferences *are* the standard, eh?
-
- >I've never once claimed that my preferences are the standard. All my
-
- But you've simply said "this is wrong" or "This is a misuse," without
- alluding to the source of your opinion in preference.
-
- >statements are only my opinions. I can call "axe" wrong as much as I
- >want.
-
- Well, could you do us a favor and couch your opinions in language
- usually used for opinions? You know, things like "I think" and
- "I don't like."
-
- when you say "this is wrong," you imply that there is a standard
- you are using that is something other than your preference. When
- I'm offered blue cheese, I don't say it's wrong. I say I don't like it.
-
- > To me, it's a dreadful usage. That isn't going to stop a
- >sizable population from using it, nor do I plan to spend time trying.
-
- Foolish me. And I thought your postings here -- saying "Usage X
- is wrong" or "construction Y is a misuse of the word" were just that:
- attempts to change people's language use.
-
- >But to me, it's still a bad usage, along with "most unique" and
- >"irregardless" and that which would call "infer" and "imply" synonyms.
-
- Now we're cooking with gas! You don't like these usages, and so you
- don't use them. As an editor, you might revise text to eliminate them
- (depending on whose prose you were editing). We're in complete
- agreement here.
-
- (btw, I had a long talk with my editor last night; he and I came
- to an agreement on their being a long list of things that we
- wouldn't do, but wouldn't edit out of other people's prose. A
- cardinal rule of editing, according to Eric, is that one should be
- able to imagine the writer's voice.)
-
- >(Claiborne suggests that one add "absolutely" if one wishes to
- >>avoid all possible confusion.)
-
- >Nah. I'll just use "unique."
-
- But be careful. It's a jungle out there.
-
- >>>>>I'll overlook the grammatical error in that sentence :-)
-
- >>>>Sorry, should be "like nobody else..."
-
- >>>Or "as nobody else does." Unless, of course, you wish to dispute that
- >>>rule too.
-
- >>Frankly, I think that eliding the copula, especially in a modifying clause,
- >>doesn't change much about the sentence. Oh, and -- WHAT rule?
-
- >As you said, it should be "like nobody else." No verb with "like." You
- >can use a verb with "as" though. That common error was brought to the
- >public by the old Winston commercial.
-
- Back to square one, I see. If it's such an error, how come so many
- of the "careful writers" use it?
- I have examples from Southey, Keats, Emily Bronte,
- Dickens (in a letter), and Darwin before me; Shakespeare and Newman and
- William Morris examples are also found in OED. Fowler says it's not
- an error, but a matter of preference, Evans and Evans add EB 11th Ed.,
- More, Sidney, Dryden, Smollett, Burns, Coleridge, Shelley, Thackeray,
- Kipling, Shaw, Wells, Masefield, and Maugham, and state that "like"
- as conjunction is always acceptable, and that those who object are in
- a minority. Evans and Evans also note that Furnivall, the great
- scholar of the language in the 19th C, endorsed it.
-
- >>Once more with the insults and prejudice. You wanted prejudice? Here
- >>it is: a usage that Gabe doesn't approve of is "slovenly."
-
- >And you take the PC approach to language...anything that anyone uses
- >somewhere that has been written down must be an ok usage. That's
-
- See above: I do no such thing. Anything that *lots* of people use
- with little or no misunderstanding is by *definition* usage.
-
- >certainly not for me.
-
- Nor for me, as I've stated over and over again. (Oh, and "PC" is
- obviously being used as an insult here, and one that's hopelessly
- wide of the mark.)
-
- >>No, it's more *precise.* By YOUR standards. Also by the standards
- >>of people who discuss points of language. Calling syntax or usage
- >>"grammar" in a discussion of word change and evolution is at least
- >>as sloppy -- by any standard I can think of -- as using "more unique"
- >>in formal speech.
-
- >Gee Roger, why wouldn't you use "more unique" in formal speech? After
- >all, according to you, it's been an accepted usage for centuries. Don't
-
- Where did I say that? I said nothing ofthe sort -- not wrt formal
- speech!
-
- >tell me that it's *still* questionable...
-
- No, just uncommon in formal situations.
-
- >>>In other words: "Oh, 'most unique' is perfectly fine usage, and I'm
- >>>confident that it will prevail. I might even use it in my own writing
- >>>in some situations...someday, maybe, but not likely." I'll bet you a
- >>>Handel opera CD that you'd never use it in any writing of even the least
- >>>significance, any more than you'd use "less notes" or "axe."
-
- >>Not with Wilson Follett's son-in-law editing me... 8-) But of course
- >>you're right. I wouldn't use it there. I might use it in informal
- >>speech or a letter, though.
-
- >Why wouldn't you use it if you stand so firmly behind its correctness?
-
- Because it's correct IN SOME SETTINGS. Colorful similes and words like
- "humungous" and "all-fired" are certainly correct, but I wouldn't use them
- in liner notes either.
-
- Gabe, there are different KINDS of speech, which are used in different
- situations, idfferent times and places, with different audiences.
-
- >>> "I enjoyed the Symposium. it was a unique opertunity to hear so
- >>> many Schoenberg scholars in one place."
-
- >>>Now, was it just an unusual symposium? or was it truly one of a kind?
-
- >>In this case, who cares?
-
- >YOU, I should think!
-
- Why? What difference does it make?
-
- >Would anyone uttering that sentence really
- >>care that the 1974 Centenary Conference actually had a slightly higher
- >>attendance? Would anyone listening care?
-
- >Huh? Since when has the interest of the listener been a criterion for
- >using accurate language?
-
- Since forever, Gabe. You worry about accuracy when inaccuracy would
- matter. Besides, what matters to the listener shouild be of
- paramount importance to the speaker.
-
- >>> a) no it isn't. It's just what you choose to reduce it to.
- >>> b) I never said "It's wrong because it's wrong because I say
- >>> it's wrong."
-
- >>What *else* have you said? What arguments about this word have you
- >>borught to the table? What evidence? (Note: the current posting
- >>is something of an exception.)
-
- >Hardly an exception. But when you respond to such postings with
- >"who cares?" I see no reason to provide you with any more information.
-
- That was a serious question, Gabe. What difference does the distinction
- make in real life? Language change happens out there in real life,
- not in academies; and if a distinction doesn't matter, it will not
- be respected.
-
- >It becomes hardly worth my time, since it is clear that you respect no
- >opinion but your own.
-
- On the contrary, Gabe: I WANT to know why you say the things you say.
- You tell me what you think is right or wrong, but you don't tell me how
- you got there.
-
- >>> c) Even if, _arguendo_, that had been my argument, there is a
- >>> difference between such a thing and "are you not bright
- >>> enough to figure it out?" or "What will impress you? A
- >>> blow to the head?" Emily Post would be proud of you.
-
- >>You know, Gabe, I started out cordially enough. But after a while
- >>the repeated, unbacked assertions can get to one.
-
- >Or in this case, positions you don't *like* can get to you.
-
- I don't like them because they are presented (or so it seemed --
- weren't you imprecise in using "Wrong" when you meant "not my style"?)
- as more than positions, but with less than the support that a
- worthwhile position would necessarily be able to muster.
-
- >>>>Where did you get your initiation into the mysteries of linguistic
- >>>>correctness, then? Can I come too, sometime? I'd love to learn.
-
- >>>You should first learn how not to be crass and contemptuous.
-
- >>Funny, "misuse" and "slovenly" and "sloppy" all sound pretty contemptuous
- >>to me.
-
- >Nope. "misuse" and "slovenly" and "sloppy" are judgment
- >calls...points of opinion.
-
- So tell me about some slovenly or sloppy things you're *not*
- contemptuous of.
-
- >"Hit yourself in the head with a
- >two-by-four" and "can't you read?" and "aren't you bright enough to
- >figure it out"....that's contemptuous.
-
- Only in self-defense, my friend -- and, as it turns out, against your
- imprecise language. You were using mighty odd terms to express opinions
- with.
-
- Roger
-
-