From: mikulska@astro.Princeton.EDU (Margaret Mikulska)
Subject: fewer thoughts/less text
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: rules, rules, rules
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 03:49:30 GMT

This fascinating discussion on less vs. fewer, I vs. me, correctness vs.
being "ungrammatical" boils down, for the most part, to one basic point:
it is easier to follow rules than to think and exercise judgement.

Now, I'm not against rules and I certainly don't promote anarchy.  In
most situations in life there is a certain code of behavior, certain set
of rules, to be followed _in_this_ situation or context.  Thus we have,
for instance, the notion of good manners; we also have certain (more or
less formalized) rules as to what style of language should be used in a
given situation.  I have no problem with the fact that a different
language should be used at a formal faculty meeting, in a
research paper, or in an informal get-together (perhaps of the same
academicians who just left a formal meeting or wrote the research
papers), not to mention several other classes and groups of people. 

What _is_ troubling, however, is the fanaticism with which some people
here promote the idea of _one_single_ standard of usage, any variance
from which is automatically regarded as an evidence of the speaker's or
writer's illiteracy, ignorance, or even stupidity.  I'm not sure who is
more ignorant: those who deviate, under certain circumstances, from 
certain formal rules, or those who are apparently not aware of the
variety of situations in which we find ourselves in life.

If we are to take seriously some of those fanatics, the rules of English
grammar and usage were engraved in stone once forever, and presumably,
they form an appendix to the Ten Commandments.  It's a pity that these
people don't seem to be aware of many disagreements among language
experts; and if they are aware of this fact, the discussion becomes a
"my expert is better than your expert" duel.  The very fact that even
the language experts disagree on many points should suggest to any
thinking person that the issue of correctness is not as simple as one
might wish.  It is hard to understand how certain people claim to know 
for sure what is "correct English" if language experts can't agree on 
this issue.

It's worth noting at this point that up to Shakespeare's time (approx.)
"grammar" in English meant "Latin grammar": for many centuries there was
no notion of "English grammar".  And of course, it's no wonder that the
first English grammar books - and in fact, subsequent ones as well -
were based on textbooks teaching Latin grammar.  English being quite
different from Latin, it's no wonder that several rules still taught in
schools, although applicable to Latin, make no sense in English; and yet
many people insist on adhering to them.

The idea of having a single, untouchable set of rules is very appealing:
when in doubt, one can always look up the one and only authority on
grammar and usage; the outcome is always "correct" or "incorrect".  It's
so frighteningly simple.  No doubts, no thinking, no taking the context
into account.  As a bonus, one can also take a cheap shot and label the
other person "illiterate".

The idea that "correctness" may actually change from context to context
is less appealing.  With it, the speaker or writer, as the case may be,
has to think, evaluate, and decide whether a given language construct is
appropriate _in_this_context_; before this is done, s/he also has to
judge _what_, exactly, situation s/he is in.  And all this is simply more
difficult for many people than looking up a rule in a book.

In short, I regard this fanatic search for The Rules of English to be an
evidence of insecurity and laziness.  Insecurity, because admitting that
rules (or, I would rather say, expected sets of behavior) change
depending on context requires making decisions.  Intellectual laziness,
because for the same reason as above one is required to think and
judge.

Language is _flexible_.  Any tool used for communication between people
has to be flexible, exactly because there are so many different
situations and contexts we find ourselves in, and because we interact
with people from all walks of life and having various backgrounds.  It
just won't do to tell all people whose usage is different from ours that
they are "ignorant of correct English"; we have to accept that in most
cases they speak a different dialect/variant/whatever of English.

On the other hand, as a means for communication, language can't be
entirely arbitrary.  That's why within given groups of people there
are certain expectations regarding the usage of words.
There is a certain uniformity (which I wouldn't, however, call a
"standard") of usage among people from the same group.  It would be a
fallacy, however, to single out one group and declare its dialect as
"correct" in any absolute sense.


-Margaret
mikulska@astro.princeton.edu

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english