Where have all the peevers gone?
« previous post | next post »
Back in the fall of 2022, I asked "What happened to all the, like, prescriptivists?". I still don't have any actual counts, but I continue to find fewer instances of prescriptivist peeving in my various media feeds and foraging.
So when I stumbled on this skit, from Series 1 Episode 6 of Walliams and Friend, I immediately added it to my to-blog list. It's from 12/27/2016, and maybe it's a symptom of the changing social attitudes that I (think I've) sensed — or even a fragment of the cause(s):
Cervantes said,
December 16, 2023 @ 9:55 am
It probably has to do with the death of Edwin Newman, John Simon, and William Safire. However, incorrect use of the apostrophe is a national crisis.
Philip Taylor said,
December 16, 2023 @ 10:03 am
Wonderful. I shall henceforth adopt that vicar as my rôle model — I can conceive of no finer guide to the true niceties of the English language.
Joe said,
December 16, 2023 @ 10:47 am
It's actually been a big decade for prescription: style guides and a major swath of editors now recommend referring to people with their preferred pronouns, a specific form of nongendered personal pronoun usage (singular "they") has been brought well into the mainstream (not just for the descriptive reason that it's always been there, but also for the prescriptive reason that "he or she" sometimes isn't accurate), more comprehensive terms like "Latin@/Latinx/Latine" have also been added to the lexicon, terms like "cis-" and "transgender" have been so widely popularized (replacing something like "transsexual" or "crossdresser") that often they're shortened to just the prefixes, terms with unintentionally offensive connotations like "hysterical" and "insane" are being phased out, "people-first" language (e.g. "person with a disability" rather than "disabled person") has been phased in. Depending on your point of view this may be prescriptivism's power used for good rather than evil. But I'm not sure how much overlap there is between prescriptivists who want language to be more sensitive and accurate toward marginalized people and prescriptivists who really hate split infinitives or dangling modifiers.
JJM said,
December 16, 2023 @ 10:57 am
Joe: "It's actually been a big decade for prescription…"
I don't think the latest form of prescriptivism is really quite same thing as peeving. The former is consumed with the ideologically "correct" thing to say; the latter with the grammatically "correct".
It amuses me that so many in the field of linguistics today seem quite ready to approve – and indeed even encourage – ideologically prescriptive language.
rm said,
December 16, 2023 @ 10:59 am
In principle it makes sense to me that prescriptivist attitudes are dying. I understand and agree with many of the reasons.
But I also cannot stop noticing that wrong word errors and outright misspelling is everywhere, even from the most prestigious sources. A part of me is always screaming internally.
We know wrong word error is largely a product of spellcheck and autocomplete. But I also think many people only read the beginning (and maybe end) of long words, and do not see syllables. Both factors are needed for "definitely" to be spelled "defiantly."
Mark F. said,
December 16, 2023 @ 11:10 am
It's a sketch, not a skit. ;-)
Mark Liberman said,
December 16, 2023 @ 11:43 am
@Cervantes: "It probably has to do with the death of Edwin Newman, John Simon, and William Safire."
Also James Kilpatrick and others.
But peevianism survived the passing of older generations of peevologists — and in general, socio-cultural movements survive their apostles. So I feel that something has changed.
Scott P. said,
December 16, 2023 @ 11:55 am
If you were really sneaky, you would have said "I continue to find less instances of prescriptivist peeving…"
Mark Liberman said,
December 16, 2023 @ 12:04 pm
@Mark F.: "It's a sketch, not a skit. ;-)"
Thank you, vicar!
Current usage seems to allow both "sketch" and "skit" for short comedic scenes. As does the OED:
And Merriam-Webster brings the two together by defining "skit" as "a brief burlesque or comic sketch included in a dramatic performance (such as a revue)".
Stephen Goranson said,
December 16, 2023 @ 12:49 pm
They don't even know how to peeve properly, kids these days.
Y said,
December 16, 2023 @ 1:38 pm
To be pedantic, "What happened to all the, like, prescriptivists?" doesn't sound grammatical to me. I think like can't come in the middle of an intonational unit.
Daphne Preston-Kendal said,
December 16, 2023 @ 1:39 pm
To apply another form of prescriptivism, may I remark on a rare television show with a (basically) correctly-vested Anglican minister! Surplice and tippet would probably be most in order for a funeral, but I think Dearmer would probably have allowed a surplice and stole, in the appropriate colour for the season (Lent here, I assume).
Mark Liberman said,
December 16, 2023 @ 2:31 pm
@Y: "To be pedantic, "What happened to all the, like, prescriptivists?" doesn't sound grammatical to me. I think like can't come in the middle of an intonational unit."
Maybe for you? But from Muffy Siegel, "Like: The Discourse Particle and Semantics", Journal of Semantics 2002:
See also "Divine ambiguity", 1/4/20024.
Y said,
December 16, 2023 @ 2:46 pm
It's hard for me to judge Siegel's example without the intonation, but playing it in my head, I put a high tone after each "like". I can't do that easily with prescriptivists, because it starts with an unstressed syllable. If you used, say, linguists instead of prescriptivists, the sentence would appear more natural to me.
But, as you say, YMMV.
Xtifr said,
December 16, 2023 @ 3:42 pm
As a Californian, "all the, like, prescriptivists" seems perfectly natural to me, Though I admit that it might seem bizarre to hear it in a Bronx or Estuary accent.
Randy Hudson said,
December 16, 2023 @ 3:59 pm
(From Daniel Dennett's book "From Bacteria to Bach and Back"):
Asked by a student for an example of infectious cultural junk that is hard to eradicate, I replied “Well, it’s like, when, like, you use a phrase which, like, isn’t really, like, doing any serious work, but, like, you go on, like, using it.” To which he replied, “I, like, understand the point, but I wanted, like, an example.”
Kaleberg said,
December 16, 2023 @ 11:23 pm
From Kurt Vonnegut's 1966 review of The Random House Dictionary of the English Language:
"Prescriptive, as nearly as I could tell, was like an honest cop, and descriptive was like a boozed-up war buddy from Mobile, Ala."
Julian said,
December 17, 2023 @ 3:05 am
@rm
"But I also cannot stop noticing that wrong word errors and outright misspelling is everywhere, even from the most prestigious sources."
You're making a metajoke here, right? Please tell me it's so.
Nat said,
December 17, 2023 @ 4:16 am
@ Philip Taylor
Traditionally, it should be "rosle model".
Philip Taylor said,
December 17, 2023 @ 5:41 am
Unthinkable, Nat — that would be like spelling Straße with two lower-case 's's rather than a single ß …
Robert T McQuaid said,
December 17, 2023 @ 8:12 am
As a teenager I was corrected repeatedly that contact is not a verb. I have never used it as a verb since. At least I do not try to inflict this nonsense on others.
bks said,
December 17, 2023 @ 8:26 am
They've moved on to arithmetic expressions, Mark:
https://maa.org/news/math-news/order-of-operations-ambiguity-causes-social-media-stir
Philip Taylor said,
December 17, 2023 @ 9:17 am
No ambiguity, surely, BKS, for those sufficiently old to remember "BODMAS" from their primary-school days.
Mark P said,
December 17, 2023 @ 10:13 am
@Philip Taylor — No ambiguity for my notation, since for 40 years any math expression I have written has been in a FORTRAN program, and I don’t want any surprises.
bks said,
December 17, 2023 @ 10:35 am
Plenty of ambiguity there, Philip! e.g. 10 – 2 + 5 = ?
Strictly adhering to BODMAS gives 3 (add before subtract, right?)
Current convention is more like L->R BO(D|M)(A|S) giving 13.
Philip Taylor said,
December 17, 2023 @ 11:20 am
So somebody introduced a new convention which contradicted BODMAS (a convention which has existed since at least 1945 [1]), and thereby introduced an ambiguity that did not previously exist. And now we have people stupid enough to follow that new convention, rather than consigning it to to the scrap-heap of half-baked ideas as it clearly deserves. Well, such people deserve all the ambiguity they have coming to them, IMHO.
[1] Talbot, A. E., Heat Engine Calculations for Those Engaged on Diesel, Petrol, Steam, and Marine Engines, Pitman, London 1945.
Michèle Sharik Pituley said,
December 17, 2023 @ 11:22 am
@Robert – Why would “contact” not be a verb? Examples:: I will contact you later. He contacted me earlier today.
Philip Taylor said,
December 17, 2023 @ 12:38 pm
Michèle — Not answering for Robert (of course) but his reason is almost certainly that "contact" has existed as a noun since at least 1626, while its use as a verb entered the English language perhaps as late as 1834. Thus those who are conservative in regard to linguistic innovation tend to regard such latecomers to the language as dubious at best. For myself, I have known "contact" as a verb for as long as I have been aware of language, so it does not raise any hackles on me, but I can understand why some might continue to treat it with suspicion if not with downright hostility.
Benjamin E. Orsatti said,
December 18, 2023 @ 9:41 am
Is there a "unified field theory" joining traditional and ideological prescriptivism(s)? Maybe not. Traditional prescriptivists try their darndest to slow the pace of language change so that effective communication may be preserved across time (i.e., preventing the "point" at which "Middle English" slides into incomprehensibility for the "Modern" reader from advancing further) and space (e.g., preserving intelligibility between speakers of, say, "Western Pennsylvania" English and "Western Australia" English). This is, arguably, a laudable endeavor.
Ideological prescriptivism uses language either as an opportunity to clothe the speaker with the linguistic garments of popular vxrtue or as a "tell", indicating an elevated risk of Wrongthink that is unacceptable to those who see all of society as a power struggle between the oppressor and the oppressed, and who have apparently been conceded power over language at a meeting mostof us hadn't been invited to. This is not only scary in a "torches-and-pitchforks" sort of way, but it can actually be physically dangerous if wielded by the sorts of people who believe that words themselves can be "violent", thereby morally justifying the hearer thereof to react with actual, physical, violence. In a less extreme form, it only destroys people's livelihoods and reputations.
David Marjanović said,
December 18, 2023 @ 2:38 pm
I'm not sure I can follow you. "Defiantly" is the autoincorrect form of "definately", an extremely common misspelling of "definitely", which in turn seems to be triggered by the combination of 1) the ability of English to spell /ə/ any which way and 2) a emerging as the default spelling of /ə/ (if /ə/ is misspelled, it's more often misspelled as a than as anything else).
David Marjanović said,
December 18, 2023 @ 2:39 pm
…and the much greater frequency of -ate than -ite must also be a factor here.
Michèle Sharik Pituley said,
December 18, 2023 @ 4:05 pm
@Philip — thank you! I had no idea that was controversial at all! TIL, as the kids say these days.
Hmm, what would take the place of "contact" in my example sentences? "I will contact you later. He contacted me earlier today."
Philip Taylor said,
December 19, 2023 @ 5:44 am
My honest answer is "I don’t know", Michèle, but I’m pretty sure that it wasn’t "reach out" ! It is possible that the abstraction did not exist at that time, and more concrete terms were used such as "write to me" or "send an envoy", the number of ways of "contacting" someone at that time being pretty limited … I don’t, unfortunately, have any dictionaries that date from the period in question.
Philip Taylor said,
December 19, 2023 @ 6:07 am
Or even, perhaps, "let me know", as in (e.g.,) "please let me know by any means possible if you are still alive and safe".
Peter Taylor said,
December 19, 2023 @ 8:56 am
@Philip Taylor, the period in question is the 1920s. The OED's earlier citations are for "contact" in the sense of physically touching rather: its earliest citation in the sense of communication is from 1927 (although it's an instance of peeving, and I haven't tried to trace back the date of the "offending" text since I assume the OED editors would have attempted that).
KevinM said,
December 19, 2023 @ 10:33 am
Geezer here. I was taught that "contact" (verb) was substandard. Likewise, "loan" (verb), as opposed to "lend." Both usages, I think, were scorned by academics because they originated in (horrors!) the business world, with an undertone of Babbitry. I recall that "contact," in particular, was held up to ridicule by means of an exemplar from a book of sample business letters, intended for the guidance of secretaries who presumably would read it simply because they wanted to do their job well. Peeving, yes, but obnoxious snobbery as well.
Rodger Cunningham said,
December 19, 2023 @ 11:17 am
I was taught that "contact" (verb) should be "make contact with." And yes, that "loan" was a NOUN NOUN NOUN.
Philip Taylor said,
December 19, 2023 @ 1:12 pm
What about "gift", Rodger ? Were you also taught that "gift" was a noun ? I have always regarded it as such, and have found myself mentally recoiling from its use as a verb, but the OED suggests that "gift, vb." has been attested since the 17th century or earlier ("The friendes that were together met He gyfted them richely with right good speede").
Chas Belov said,
December 20, 2023 @ 3:20 am
Hmmm, "What happened to all the, like, prescriptivists?" also sounds off to me, although not horribly so. Longtime Californian but grew up back east.
But "What, like, happened to all the prescriptivists?" sounds right to me.
Chas Belov said,
December 20, 2023 @ 3:21 am
For the record, I do use insertive "like" now and then.
Jarek Weckwerth said,
December 20, 2023 @ 5:54 am
@ David Majranović 2) a emerging as the default spelling of /ə/ (if /ə/ is misspelled, it's more often misspelled as a than as anything else). If you have a citation for this, I would be really grateful if you could share it!
Jarek Weckwerth said,
December 20, 2023 @ 5:57 am
And sorry for the typo in the name. 100% bona fide ;)
Rodger said,
December 20, 2023 @ 11:47 am
Philip Taylor: "Gift" as verb still looks odd to me, but I have to recognize that it reflects a semantic distinction.