From: userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "Get used to it."
Date: 8 Apr 92 03:24:57 GMT
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Originator: lnds@medievil.biochem.ualberta.ca

In article <204469@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:

> I just think that your *basis* for deciding which changes are "good" 
> and which are "bad" is somewhat arbitrary.

   Well, if you have any suggestions on how we might make prescription
less arbitrary (without scrapping it altogether), I'm listening.

> Personal aesthetics are wonderful and necessary, but it's not very 
> friendly to enforce them on other people.

   Whom, exactly, are you accusing of "enforcing" personal aesthetics?
The only people I know who *enforce* language rules are teachers and
editors, and they usually enforce *consensus* aesthetics, not personal
aesthetics.  I *recommend* certain things (to those who are interested),
but I sure as heck don't *enforce* them!

>>> it would still appear "abhominable" to someone who was familiar 
>>> with the old version, wherein the Latin "ab homine" still shows.
>
> I knew where "abominable" came from.

   Then I prescribe that you rewrite your sentence above.  "Still shows"
implies that it was there to begin with.

> But the sentiment would have been there, which was the point of my 
> comment.

   *What* was your point?  The futility of it?  Many similar etymological
re-spellings became what are now the standard spellings, so they weren't
futile at all.

>> If a couple of actors can influence the language, then so can we.
>
> Sure, if you manage to obtain repeated exposure to millions of admiring
> fans.

   I didn't say we had *as much* influence as Wayne and Garth.  I said we
had *some*.

> Besides, unlike most areas of human endeavor, in language it is far 
> easier to create than to destroy.  Once the djinn is out of the 
> bottle...

   I agree.

>> Would you tell a feminist:  "[Any sexist term whose use is diminishing]
>> is here to stay.  Get used to it!"?   Would you tell a black person:
>> "'Nigger' is here to stay.  Get used to it!"?  Would you tell a 
>> homosexual:  "'Faggot' is here to stay.  Get used to it!"?
>
> Would you pick a relevant example?

   Relevant to what?  

   The above examples are relevant to the question:  "Should language
ever be prescribed?" 

   They are also relevant to the question:  "Is 'Get used to it!' an
appropriate attitude to take every time someone else fights a battle that
*you* happen to consider not worth fighting"?

> You seem to have deleted the part of my article where I distinguished 
> between "good style" and "correct usage",

   Sounds like a semantic distinction to me.

> I wouldn't tell Mother Theresa to "get stuffed", either, but it would 
> be impeccable usage.

   "Get stuffed!" is certainly idiomatic.  It's also grammatically correct
(although it puzzles me somewhat semantically).

   But if someone *else* told Mother Theresa to "get stuffed", and she
indicated that she didn't appreciate that sort of language, would you
accuse her of being "not very friendly" and "enforcing her personal 
aesthetics on other people"?

> Look, I wince as much as any of you when my colleagues use "input" as a
> verb, or "data" as a singular noun, or (gack) "conferencing" as a 
> gerund.

   I don't wince.  Singular "data" has been with us about as long as 
passive "hopefully".  (It was used by Winston Churchill.)  Your criteria
seem as arbitrary as mine.

   How would you rewrite the following sentences?

"I input 'Helo there, world' to my spelling checker; when it flagged 
'Helo', I put in the missing 'l'."

"I conferred with my sysadmin about the best teleconferencing software
to get."   

> But I consider those words to be "the front" in this battle; worrying 
> about whether "hopefully" should be allowed as a sentence modifier is 
> like worrying about whether the Normans should be allowed to take 
> England.

   I too regard "hopefully" as a lost cause.  But when I see a debate
about it, I may nonetheless mention that I consider it to have been a
change for the worse.  If I see a debate about Normans, I may contribute
to that, too.

>> Now, I can well understand that the battles *you* consider worth
>> fighting are different from the battles *we* consider worth fighting.
>> But if so, then WHY ARE YOU FIGHTING *US*?
>
> I'm not.

   You're responding to our prescriptions by calling us "not very 
friendly" and unrealistic.  I consider that fighting.

userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca		Mark Israel
Instinctive grammatical moralizer.
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:3102 soc.culture.african:1890 soc.culture.african.american:4629