Tag Archives: prescriptivism

The weaponization of grammar

I’ve published another article on BBC.com. This one is about something that we all have to deal with and many of us participate in: the treatment of “bad grammar” as evidence of intellectual and moral deficiency. I read quite a few “grammar guide” books for this, and there’s a lot more I could have written… but I had to fit it in 1200 words. So it’s not too long to read!

Why all English speakers worry about slipping up

 

Advertisements

Famous quotes that break “rules”

I expected my latest article for TheWeek.com to generate some reaction in the comments, and I was not disappointed. Not that I wrote it just to troll people, but when you venture into certain territory…

The idea behind the article was to look at some famous quotes – sayings that are well known and often said – that break rules that are often learned in schools at about the same time as the quotes are. And then, of course, to look at whether those rules are really rules or not. But I didn’t explain that in an introduction. I just dove right in (or, if you’re a hoary prescriptivist, dived right in). Which may not have been the best idea, since – in combination with an eye-catching but slightly misleading headline (I don’t write the headlines, by the way, but I do get to see them in advance and could always suggest a change) – this approach provoked a variety of reactions in the comments section.

Here, for better or worse, is a link to the article:

9 famous quotes that are (technically) grammatically incorrect

And feel free to tell me what you think!

enormity

Ah, now, here’s a word that illustrates of the enormity of the prescriptivist’s task. After all, if one is going to appeal to the gilded usage of our superior forebears, exactly which forebears were superior? If a word shifted usage over time, how do we decide which time period’s usage to cleave to? With many prescriptivists, it would seem that the real answer is “whichever one will allow me to declare the most current users wrong.”

Does that seem iniquitous? Well, that’s why I used the term enormity. You see, while sorting out shifts of meaning over time may seem an enormous task, I really meant to say that the prescriptivist’s task is atrocious, heinous, wicked. So all you prescriptivists out there who are getting out your tut-tutting fingers, ready to say “Eee! Norm! I spy an itty bitty little brain here!”: gotcha.

Yes, there are many people out there who will insist that enormity can only refer to an act of especial wickedness, some heinous atrocity; the quality of massiveness, they explain, has another word: enormousness.

Well, yes, there is enormousness, but there is also on the other side atrocity and several others that do not smack so strongly of a different word as to be generally misleading. And it also happens that those others do not have several good reasons to mean “enormousness”.

Where, in fact, does enormity come from? The same Latin source as enormous, unsurprisingly: Latin enormis, “out of the normal” or “immense”, from e(x) “out of” plus norma, which means just what it looks like it means – “norm, pattern” – and also “mason’s square”.

Enormous entered English in the 1500s meaning “deviant, extravagant” and also “monstrous, abnormally wicked” (a more specific sense of the basic meaning) and “of exceptionally large size”. Only the last meaning survived.

Enormity, for its part, arrived in English around the same time (or even a bit earlier, as enormous was preceded by enorm meaning the same things) and meant, yes, “irregularity, abnormality, extravagance” and “great wickedness, monstrous offence”. By the 1700s it was being used to mean “excessive magnitude”. So aha! you may say. The size sense came later!

Well, yea and nay. Remember that the size thing is part of the original Latin meaning. But there’s one more word to look at: enormousness. It appeared in English in the 1600s meaning “immorality, gross wickedness”; later, in the 1800s, it came to have the sense “excessive magnitude”. So enormousness is even newer to the sense than enormity – and has a greater claim to meaning “great wickedness” exclusively, if we want to go by historical priority.

But, now, the protest may be made, “Perhaps the source may suggest magnitude, but ‘gross wickedness’ is what the word has come to mean, so the ‘excess magnitude’ sense is wrong.” Well, the protest may be made if you want to go hunting and shoot your dog, that is. You can’t really say “People who use it that way are wrong because people don’t use it that way.” The fact is that they do, as demonstrated by the insistent corrections, which would be unnecessary if they didn’t. Current dictionaries reflect this usage as well.

But, ah, linguistic proscriptions are like thought viruses. Once someone says “You can’t use that word that way!” it seems to stick in the mind. Perhaps it’s because language functions by dividing up reality into more and more little bits to mix and match, and another restriction equals another division. Or perhaps it’s just that people are more attuned to “thou shalt not” rules than to “thou mayest” rules. And, indeed, a certain amount of precision in language is a good thing – I, too, inveigh on occasion against unnecessarily sloppy usage of words. But there’s a difference between trying to keep the sense of a word from being bleached beyond usefulness and militating against an established sense of a word mainly with the effect of trumping others. I’m all for maximizing the expressive potential of the language – and not using it as some status-focused gotcha game. (Yes, I said “gotcha” above. It was to put the shoe on the other foot.)

And what would I do with enormity? Well, as a word taster, I would taste it and, having tasted it, spit it into the spittoon handily provided, just as wine tasters may do with wine. Its form clearly conduces to one sense while it has another meaning still in use that some hold is the only correct meaning. It is simply too hot to the tongue, I would say; leave it out of your recipes. If you find that it tastes a bit like ignore me, so much the better. A pity; it skips off the tongue more nicely than enormousness, I think – a better rhythm, a lighter touch, if perhaps less massive-feeling. But do you truly wish to be faced with the enormity of the prescriptivist position?

Thanks to Alan Yoshioka for suggesting (some time ago) enormity.

For anyone who hadn’t noticed…

…I am not a prescriptivist grammar Nazi and I don’t think the language is going to hell in a handbasket.

I had thought that this was fairly obvious, but I guess that some of the things I say may lead one to that conclusion if one does not have the context of my other opinions. I shall have to be careful to be clearer.

I mention this just because I had a debate with a fellow editor recently, my side of which I revised a little and posted here as “Streamkeepers of the language.” I’ve just found out that said fellow editor characterized that debate as “a lengthy debate with a fellow editor who feels very strongly that the English language is going to hell in a handbasket.”

Oh dear. The fact that I disagree with people who are trying to exert certain influences over certain usages, and that I wish to encourage others to resist those influences, does not mean that I think English is going to hell in a handbasket. Apparently this is less obvious than I thought it was.

Just to make sure anyone who is interested can know what my positions on language and language change are, here are some particularly germane posts:

For an in-depth exploration and appreciation of language change, check out “An Appreciation of English: A language in motion.”

For a detailed explanation of register, which is the question of different levels of English usage for different situations, go to “What flavour of English do you want?

For good ammunition against people who complain that the language is going to hell and who want to impose prescriptivist rule, read “When an ‘error’ isn’t.”

There’s plenty more where that comes from, of course, including salvos against grammar Nazis at “A new way to be a complete loser,” “For a thousand years it’s good English, then it’s a comma splice?“, and “Fulford fulminates – pfui!” among others.

I hope that sets the record straight.

Overwrought about overweight

Overweight, known to most of us as an adjective, also has a medical use as a noun to refer to the condition of having a body mass index of at least 25 (above normal) but below 30 (obese). I don’t altogether enjoy that usage, aesthetically, but I recognize why it’s used.

A fellow editor mentioned needing to stifle a scream whenever seeing overweight as a noun and having to let it stand. Stifle a scream? Continue reading

When an “error” isn’t

This is the text of a presentation I made to the Toronto branch of the Editors’ Association of Canada, Sept. 24, 2007. Certain parts were sung; you can guess which.

It ain’t necessarily so, no,
it ain’t necessarily so,
the things Strunk and White
want to tell you are right,
it just ain’t necessarily so.

Getting pissed off about grammatical errors is a favourite activity of a surprisingly large portion of English speakers. Continue reading

on editing versus linguistics

In one of his always good salvos against prescriptivism on Language Log, Arnold Zwicky happened to mention me (see Recency). In apparent reference to an editorial policy I had mentioned having against “X times X-er” statements (e.g., 5 times larger, 8 times smaller), as well as to comments by others who were opposed to the usage, he responded, “Yet I’ve never stopped asking, ‘Why don’t you understand the clear meaning of what people are saying?'”

The following was my response, which I think is worth setting forth as a statement of the different pragmatics governing editing and linguistics: Continue reading