Search Results
April 21, 2010 @ 9:53 am
· Filed under relative clauses, Semantics, Syntax, Writing
When I give lectures on why you should not listen to prescriptivists' dimwitted prattle about the wrongness of constructions that are fully grammatical and always were, people sometimes ask me what I would regard as bad grammar, as if such cases were going to be hard to find. So occasionally I note down striking cases […]
Permalink
April 5, 2010 @ 10:45 am
· Filed under Announcements, Prescriptivist poppycock, Usage advice
I've simply had it with all the people who keep telling me that they revere The Elements of Style because it's such a nice little book and helped them so much with their writing when they were in college that they carry it everywhere they go and give it to all their students or hand […]
Permalink
March 8, 2010 @ 11:12 am
· Filed under Errors, Language teaching and learning, Usage advice
The Apple is a site "where teachers meet and learn". It has a page where teachers can supposedly learn from "11 Grammar Mistakes to Avoid". And guess what: as Steve Jones has pointed out to Language Log, not a single one of these alleged grammar mistakes is both (a) genuinely relevant to English grammar and […]
Permalink
February 7, 2010 @ 10:32 am
· Filed under Changing times
Sticking a label on a manila file of household papers this morning I noticed that the instructions on the sheet of labels said "Insert opposite end into typewriter." It wasn't so much the ridiculous controllingness that made me smile (the labels had no header strip, so they were symmetrical, and it would make absolutely no […]
Permalink
January 27, 2010 @ 1:55 pm
· Filed under Quizzes
What do support poles, staff positions, battery terminals, army encampments, blog articles, earring stems, trading stations, and snail mail have in common with billboard advertising, accounts recording, making bail, and assigning diplomats?
Permalink
December 17, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
· Filed under This blogging life
Following up on my recent "annals of spam" posting, Ernie Limperis has written me about a different sort of scam, involving a site that seems to be using a sophisticated robot to generate "personal" web pages, filling standard templates with text lifted from Wiki and other sources, photos from Google and videos from Youtube. The pages contain […]
Permalink
December 16, 2009 @ 12:15 pm
· Filed under Language and the law
Thanks to reader DS, following up on this morning's post on the Philadelphia Newspapers' bankruptcy case ("The indubitable equivalent of such claims"), I now know which commas were at stake, and why. The critical commas were these, in 1129(b)(2)(A)(ii) of Chapter 11, subchapter II, of U.S. Code Title 11: (ii) for the sale, subject to […]
Permalink
December 2, 2009 @ 10:24 am
· Filed under Syntax
James Taranto starts out his latest Best of the Web column with some clever wordplay, based on the status of English as a semi-negative-concord language ("He Hasn't Accomplished Nothing", 12/1/2009): Slate's Jacob Weisberg doesn't think Barack Obama has accomplished nothing, and Weisberg ain't usin' no bad grammar neither. Weisberg disputes the "conventional wisdom about Obama"–to […]
Permalink
November 10, 2009 @ 9:25 pm
· Filed under Prescriptivist poppycock, Variation
Reader David Landfair writes to ask about someone vs. somebody (and, by extension, other indefinite pronouns in -one vs. -body): A friend was looking over something I'd drafted this morning and corrected "there's somebody here" to "there's someone here," citing a "rule" that someone is subjective case like he/she/who, while somebody is its objective case correlate. He […]
Permalink
August 27, 2009 @ 4:58 am
· Filed under Psychology of language
For the last dozen years, it's been known that young people who follow the stylistic advice of Strunk & White are more likely to get Alzheimer's disease when they get old. Well, at least, in a cohort of nuns, Low idea density and low grammatical complexity in autobiographies written in early life were associated with […]
Permalink
August 3, 2009 @ 11:17 am
· Filed under Language and politics, Prescriptivist poppycock, singular "they"
A nice example of the way singular they works was overlooked (like health care, the economy, and everything else in the past week of "racial politics") during the brouhaha over President Obama's press conference remarks about the arrest in Cambridge, Massachusetts of Professor Henry Louis Gates. Obama said: . . . the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting […]
Permalink
July 24, 2009 @ 8:07 am
· Filed under Prescriptivist poppycock
Back on June 6, in his post "Drinking the Strunkian Kool-Aid: victims of page 18", Geoff Pullum wrote: I am not a style doctor or writing adviser, and (unlike Strunk and White) I don't think everyone should write like me. My interest here is solely in the fact that we need an explanation for the […]
Permalink
June 23, 2009 @ 1:54 am
· Filed under Language and politics
A political reporter remarked on BBC Radio 4 this morning that the 157th speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, elected last night, is much hated by many members of his own party (the Conservatives). Among other things, when they are giving speeches he sometimes mutters under his breath and "corrects their grammar." Not […]
Permalink