From: dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "Get used to it."
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:26:33 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Apr9.150403.8109@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel) writes:
>In article <204603@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:
>
>> [...] maybe I didn't quite understand what you meant by "prescriptive".
>
>   A "prescriptive" grammarian is one who makes recommendations, as 
>opposed to a "descriptive" grammarian, who merely tries to record what
>is going on.

As I said earlier, this is a weaker sense of "prescriptive" than I'm used to,
and a weaker one than (say) Gary Merrill seems to be using.  He, for example,
speaks openly of "enforcement" of prescriptions as an inherent part of the
process.

[This is not intended to express an opinion one way or another about the
 views espoused by Mr. Merrill; I'm just pointing out an inconsistency in
 usage of the word "prescription" among the parties involved.]

>> [...] if you suggest that there is no correct *usage* of those all-too-
>> common English nouns, then I think you must be mistaken.  [...] usage 
>> is about how you use them, not whether you use them at all.  At least, 
>> that's what they always told me was the subject of questions about 
>> usage.  [...] if common usage :-) in this newsgroup is different, I'll 
>> go by that.
>
>   Yes, we do in this newsgroup consider certain individual words to be 
>undesirable usage, irregardless :-) of context.

But again you beg the question; "undesirable" is not the same as "incorrect".
Are certain words *incorrect* usage, regardless of context and form of the
utterance in which they occur?  I don't think so; if it's a word that people
use, then the way they use it is (by definition) correct usage.  Not proper
style, perhaps; not desirable speech, perhaps; correct usage nevertheless.

>> What teachers and editors enforce are the prescriptions of the 
>> prescriptivists.  The only people I know who *enforce* laws are police 
>> officers and jurists, but that doesn't absolve the legislature of all 
>> responsibility.
>
>   Bogus analogy.  Police and jurists don't choose which set of laws to
>enforce.  

If the Canadian criminal justice system justifies this naive optimism, you
are a lucky nation indeed.  Elsewhere in the world, this isn't true.  I'll
stick with the analogy.

>> Questions of usage, as opposed to questions of manners.
>
>   Suppose you have no personal distaste for "hopefully", but avoid it in
>order not to offend some of your readers?  Prescriptive questions of
>usage *are* questions of manners.

If I choose not to use "hopefully" in a sentence because it will distract or
offend the person I'm speaking to, that is not a choice of a correct usage
over an incorrect one.  It's the selection of one correct usage that best
suits the occasion over another which I have decided may not best suit that
occasion.  You might as well claim that a poet who chooses a weak rhyme when
there was a strong one available has made an error of usage.

>> I don't confuse not liking it with thinking it's bad for the language.
>
>   Do you like things that you *do* think are bad for the language?
>
>> I wouldn't like to lose all those loverly, quirky irregular verbs we 
>> have, either, but it would (probably) be good for the language.
>
>   Language serves many purposes, including poetry.  I doubt Esperanto
>poetry is as good as English poetry.

On what basis?  Esperanto poetry has access to devices not available in 
English, like the startling use of an unexpected affix/root combination in
order to achieve an odd connotation.  Of course, Esperanto poetry will sound
a lot different when read aloud, in its rhythms and sonorities, but that's
"different", not "worse".  Pick a natural language with a lower proportion 
of irregular verbs than English; do you claim their poetry isn't as good,
either?  What possible basis (other than sheer parochialism) could you have
for making such a claim?

Poets in every language take advantage of all the features of that language
in order to achieve desired effects.  The kind of ambiguity that the average
prescriptivist wishes to eradicate is a gold-mine for poets.  I think that
bringing up poets argues against prescriptivism, not for it.

>> If you're only making suggestions, and I'm only concerned with usage 
>> (and not style), then perhaps we can take off our gloves and part 
>> amicably.
>
>   Certainly!  Just retract your "Noble efforts? Please." and "Get used
>to it." statements and we can do just that.

Actually, you've been misquoting me all along.  My original sentence was
"Get used to it :-)."  Note the last word.  I had thought the smiley face
would be sufficient to convey the irony of the comment, although that was
probably overly optimistic, from what I've seen of this newsgroup.

-- 
          David M. Tate            |"The man who hath no music in himself
     dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu       | Nor is not moved by concord of sweet sound
  A poem should be dumb, / As old  | Is fit for treason, stratagems, and spoils
 medallions to the thumb.-MacLeish | 	Shakespeare, "Merchant of Venice", A.V
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.british