OT: Grammar controversy

[JoePgh]

The next emerging grammatical super-question is whether right-thinking writers and grammarians should countenance the disappearance of "whom" from the spoken and written language.

There was a popular song a few decades ago entitled "Who Can I Turn To When Nobody Needs Me?". A prudish grammarian pointed out that "Who" in that sentence was incorrect; it should have been "Whom".

To which the singer replied, "Anyone who asks 'Whom can I turn to' ain't gonna have nobody to turn to!"

 

[Bigboote]

Whom Can I Turn To can enter the annals of popular music alongside the Gershwins’ I Have Rhythm, Sting’s If You Love Someone Set Him or Her Free, and Robert Johnson’s The Devil and I Blues.

 

[Plebe]

The issue is that a preposition must have an object, so it's best to come before its object. Few grammar rules are absolute, but well-educated folks tend to be sensitive to the manner in which they use language. Dangling your preposition can bother some fussbudgets or get you arrested on the subway.

It's unclear to me why this is deemed best in an abstract or general sense. These things are situational.

So by this stricture, when I address the fussbudgets (great word, by the way!), rather than asking, “Is this really worth fussing over?” I should say, “Is this something about which it is worthwhile to fuss?”

 

[MooseJaw]

I don't know about you, but my grammar was a lovely, dignified, elderly woman who never did anything controversial in her life.

Not controversial? she had kids, didn't she? Glad she did, without her no CL82 posts. Probably late but congratulations Grammer.

 

[Sifaka]

xxHaving argued the spacing following a period/full stop with one of my offsprung, (he advocates for a single space, I favor an elongated blank.) I waded through all of the CMOS Q&A. I lost some respect for the otherwise worthy Chicago Manual.

xxTheir reasoning for adopting a single space standard has two pillars: (1) everybody does it, and (2) it's harder to proofread to a double space standard. xxWhile those are reasonable concerns, they absolutely omit aesthetic considerations and fudge on the matter of legibility. The latter two considerations matter more to me than the first two, but I am a collector of “old” books and a former typographer and current reader of paper bound into binders' boards.

cxJust as with the so-called “rules“ of grammar that are not rules, these are simply stylistic preferences. To call a preference right or wrong is an act of supreme arrogance, akin to declaring that all religions other than one's own are wrong.

xxEdited to add: Should you wish to join my antediluvian style brigade, and place two ems before the initial word of a paragraph, (1) display the color palette, (2) choose white, (3) typle any two characters at random, (4) revert color to black.

 

[Sifaka]

The next emerging grammatical super-question is whether right-thinking writers and grammarians should countenance the disappearance of "whom" from the spoken and written language.

Having a British spouse leads me to consider yet another grammatical brouhaha: The unloved and oft' unseen subjunctive. The Brits waved goodbye to it for the most part a while back. Colonials such as ourselves are often the conservators of older linguistic forms, so American English maintains a few more uses of the subjunctive than British English. If I were a betting man, I would wager on the disappearance of the subjunctive on both sides of the puddle by the end of the century.

Note the final sentence, above. Condition contrary to fact calls for subjunctive, followed by conditional. If I were…vs. …If I was.

 

[Bigboote]

Note the final sentence, above. Condition contrary to fact calls for subjunctive, followed by conditional. If I were…vs. …If I was.

Frank Loesser knew that. Here's Curtis Fuller playing the tune from Guys and Dolls (by way of Miles Davis)

 

[Sifaka]

Musical subjunctives are nice, and if they have lyrics…

 

[Plebe]

xxHaving argued the spacing following a period/full stop with one of my offsprung, (he advocates for a single space, I favor an elongated blank.) I waded through all of the CMOS Q&A. I lost some respect for the otherwise worthy Chicago Manual.

xxTheir reasoning for adopting a single space standard has two pillars: (1) everybody does it, and (2) it's harder to proofread to a double space standard. xxWhile those are reasonable concerns, they absolutely omit aesthetic considerations and fudge on the matter of legibility. The latter two considerations matter more to me than the first two, but I am a collector of “old” books and a former typographer and current reader of paper bound into binders' boards.

And my respect for CMOS only increased; go figure. Aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder. I myself find an “em quad” or elongated space after punto y seguido to be gawdily unsightly.

Yet another fabulous Q&A for the hard-to-convince, courtesy of a typography expert:

One space between sentences | Butterick’s Practical Typography

Butterick’s Practical Typography

practicaltypography.com

 

[huskyd]

It's unclear to me why this is deemed best in an abstract or general sense. These things are situational.

So by this stricture, when I address the fussbudgets (great word, by the way!), rather than asking, “Is this really worth fussing over?” I should say, “Is this something about which it is worthwhile to fuss?”

No, it's not, you fussbudget.

 

[veivoli]

Musical subjunctives are nice, and if they have lyrics…

Not to mention the old song by "Trad": If I were a Blackbird.

 

[Jackcatscal]

It's unclear to me why this is deemed best in an abstract or general sense. These things are situational.

So by this stricture, when I address the fussbudgets (great word, by the way!), rather than asking, “Is this really worth fussing over?” I should say, “Is this something about which it is worthwhile to fuss?”

Fussbudget?

Balderdash!

 

[Sifaka]

Fussbudget?

Balderdash!

Balderdash?

Codswallop!

 

[veivoli]

If I may be permitted, allow me to temporarily swerve this thread towards basketball. Shock! Horror! Think of the children...

Can anyone explain why commentators have dropped the "up" from "lay-up"? We now have players making or, too frequently, missing "lays".

The second is the disappearance of the set shot, where a player shoots with their feet on the floor. It seems that they are all called jump shots, even if the height of the jump is zero. To see a true jump shot look no further than Paige who jumps high and releases the ball above head height. Stewie also has a great, real, jump shot that is almost unguardable for mere humans.

I know the language evolves, but these have me scratching my head!

 

[temery]

Fussbudget?

Balderdash!

And poppycock, my grandmother's favorite.

 

[fomalhaut]

By the end of the century, English is likely to lose the accusative (already less than 10 pronouns), subjunctive (already mostly vanished
except was/were), and the apostrophe.

The split infinitive rule is nonsense, an attempt to apply Latin grammar (where the infinitive is one word) to English.

Some of what look like sentence-ending prepositions are actually part of compound verbs: "I asked him to come back."

 

[veivoli]

By the end of the century, English is likely to lose the accusative (already less than 10 pronouns), subjunctive (already mostly vanished
except was/were), and the apostrophe.

The split infinitive rule is nonsense, an attempt to apply Latin grammar (where the infinitive is one word) to English.

Some of what look like sentence-ending prepositions are actually part of compound verbs: "I asked him to come back."

And the rule that it should be "fewer than 10 pronouns" as the pronouns are countable, with less being for non-countable?

And let's not start on the subjunctive! Oh, rats... It was already discussed above. And I think I put in my 2 cents' worth

 

[Plebe]

By the end of the century, English is likely to lose the accusative (already less than 10 pronouns), subjunctive (already mostly vanished
except was/were), and the apostrophe.

By the accusative pronouns you mean that “me”, ”him”, ”us” etc. are forecast for extinction? Which pronouns would take their place, the nominative?

 

[Sifaka]

Some of what look like sentence-ending prepositions are actually part of compound verbs: "I asked him to come back."

We agree, though our nomenclature varies. I would say phrasal verbs instead of compound verbs. They are the same thing with different labels.

A phrasal verb, for those who give a damn, yeah, both of you, includes a verb and one or more particles. Take, for example, Rocky's motto, “Don't look up!”. Look is the verb, and up is the particle, though it can be an adverb, an adjective, or a preposition in other circumstances.

If some grumpy fuddy duddy complains that the motto ends a sentence with a preposition, do what Rocky (@RockyMTblue2) does. Ignore them. You may also wish to suggest that they do (note the subjunctive there) something anatomically difficult. Finally, please tell them to learn a little bit about grammar. For a coda, ask what authority they wish to cite when declaring something to be against the “rules”. Who are the rulemakers, and why are they so ignorant?

The so-called rule makers are buffoons we may look down on. “Look down on” is a phrasal verb. Feel free to use it in a sentence: Lovers of prescriptive grammar and proscriptive grammar are folks we look down on. Clowns who inveigh against terminal prepositions are the sort of pompous turkeys we don't have to put up with.

{/rant}

 

[CL82]

And poppycock, my grandmother's favorite.

Was her nickname for your grandfather "Poppy"?

 

[fomalhaut]

By the accusative pronouns you mean that “me”, ”him”, ”us” etc. are forecast for extinction? Which pronouns would take their place, the nominative?

Yes. English long ago abandoned the accusative form of nouns. Many people don't bother to use whom, and the other personal pronouns are likely to eventually follow. English largely uses word order where other languages use case markings: "I gave John the book", where syntax puts John in dative and book in accusative.

 

[fomalhaut]

The distinction between less and fewer is entirely artificial and most languages don't recognize it.

 

[Plebe]

Yes. English long ago abandoned the accusative form of nouns. Many people don't bother to use whom, and the other personal pronouns are likely to eventually follow. English largely uses word order where other languages use case markings: "I gave John the book", where syntax puts John in dative and book in accusative.

So we will soon be saying, “He gave I the book” and “Don't talk to I like that”? Interesting. I'd argue this is different than the atrophy of “whom” but who's to say.

 

[Lafayette]

The distinction between less and fewer is entirely artificial and most languages don't recognize it.

Artifical is highly subjective in this context as fewer is for countables, while less is for uncountables.

 

[Sifaka]

“Fewer versus less is a debate in English grammar about the appropriate use of these two determiners. Linguistic prescriptivists usually say that fewer and not less should be used with countable nouns,[2] and that less should be used only with uncountable nouns. This distinction was first tentatively suggested by the grammarian Robert Baker in 1770,[3][1] and it was eventually presented as a rule by many grammarians since then.[a] However, modern linguistics has shown that idiomatic past and current usage consists of the word less with both countable nouns and uncountable nouns so that the traditional rule for the use of the word fewer stands, but not the traditional rule for the use of the word less.[3] As Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage explains, "Less refers to quantity or amount among things that are measured and to number among things that are counted."

The Cambridge Guide to English Usage notes that the "pressure to substitute fewer for less seems to have developed out of all proportion to the ambiguity it may provide in noun phrases like less promising results". It describes conformance with this pressure as a shibboleth and the choice "between the more formal fewer and the more spontaneous less" as a stylistic choice.” “

source:

Fewer versus less - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

As with many so-called rules, if enough self-styled experts proclaim loudly for a long while, and ignore the way native speakers actually use the language, we have these debates.