From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 14:39:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.042528.23333@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.162744.10677@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

>>But about 99% of language is learned via the spoken path; and that's how
>>ecsetera gets into the language, along with thousands of other changes
>>in pronunciation.  

>>And it makes no difference at all to the language.

>Maybe not, but it does make a difference to those who use the language.

Less than you'd think; after all, you've absorbed linguistic change in
your lifetime, often without even noticing it.

>Most people expect that the language as written will bear some relation
>to how it is spoken.  

English is, to put it mildly, a poor place to make such an argument.
It's not, like, *phonetic* or anything...

>If I write "asterisk" and decide to pronounce it
>"saterisk" for no reason other than that it's comfortable to say, it
>doesn't assume validity because I add it to my idiolect.  

When the people you're speaking with understand you, then it *has*
assumed validity.

>Believe it or
>not, there are standards in a language of what's right and what's wrong.

Do tell.  Where do these standards come from? Who determines right and
wrong?  How can we tell?  Are these standards universal, or limited to
some situations?  

Specifically, are they actually issues of dialect and, within dialect,
of *style*?

>We have copy editors, spell checkers, and english teachers for this reason.

All of whom are generally utterly ignorant of the structure, history,
and processes of language change.  Copy editors make rules, to be sure;
but they do so in order to make their work easier, and to enforce a
particular style acrossthe things they edit.  This may be a good thing,
but it has nothing to do with the language -- or with correct speaking
and writing in general.

As for English teachers, their job is generally to teach children to
write in a way that is considered correct.  This does nto mean, however
,that the rules they promulgate are in fact the rules of English
grammar: they are, instead, tools for *producing* correct sentences.
And English teacher may advise you not to end a sentence with a
preposition, or to avoid splitting infinitives or to use "none"with thte
singular, but these things are *not,* in fact, aspects of English
grammar.  They have always been done, and done by the best speakers and
writers in the language, and are ultimately matters of style.

Grammar, usage, and style are three different things.  Don't confuse
them.

>>Yeesh!  What are *you* liberated from? Manners?  Sorry, but that is not
>>only snotty in the extreme, but dead wrong.  Lots of very educated,
>>thoughtful people use the same pronunciations you purport to use  as a
>>shibboleth.  

>Someone told me that Websters Ninth Collegiate states that the pronunciation
>"Liberry" is heard from many college professors.  If so, I would speculate
>on the credentials of the college at which they are employed or the ones that
>they attended.

Was it *raining* snot this morning?  

Just what gives you the authority to criticize people's pronunciation?
Pronunciation changes over time; your speech would have been quite
offensive to many people even 50 years ago.  If the first 'r' in
'library' is disappearing, well, that's the way it goes.  Pronunciation
shift has not killed the language so far: on the contrary, it has kept
it alive and helped it flourish.

>Most people assume that those who graduate from insitutions of higher learning
>have some conception of how standard English is supposed to sound.

Grammarians, on the other hand, have actually bothered to study the
matter at hand, instead of assuming that their having grown up
speakingthe language, plus their secondary school diploma, somewho
made them instant experts in a complicated area of linguistics.  

And their study leadsthem -- invariably, I might add -- to the discovery
that "standard" pronunciation is a chimera.  California pronunciation is
quite different from that of New York -- in boardrooms and seminars, as
well as in bars.  In England, many words are accented on a different
syllable.  What's standard? What's correct?

>>Now, I ask you: what obligation do we have to some imagined "standard"
>>form of the language?  Should we stop doing all the natural speaking we
>>do, just because the "Standard" might be violated?  This is carrying the
>>spirit of FORTRAN a bit far.  

>Psychologists tell us that a child's communications skills are in place by
>age 5, and after that, even if left alone, the child will develop usable
>communications skills no matter what you do.  If what you say is so, if
>standards are so unimportant, why bother teaching grammar?

Good question.  

On the other hand, you haven't yet addressed a question of grammar,
either.  You've been talking about pronunciation and style, mainly.

Children do learn grammar naturally.  Ever heard a 5-year-old place the
article after the noun?  Can't be done.  That *would* be a mistake, and
nobody makes it.  

But most  of the things you seem to want to teach aren't grammatical
issues at all, and the ones that are, are in fact structural problems
with the language itself (e.g., the generic singular, certain
pluralization rules, pronoun inflections).  And inventing a rule
(usually by analogy to Latin grammar) has never yet succeeded in
resolving a single one of those questions.

Why teach grammar?  Good question.  Shakespeare did just fine without
it.  So did the writers of the KJV.

>There are still some people left who care about the integrity of the
>language we speak.  

There are those who have searched for that "integrity" and have come to
the conclusion that it is mainly a tool for ridiculing those for whom
one already has contempt.  Those people are called "linguists".

>Some folks think that "liberry" is wrong becuase we
>don't have a silent "r" in the relevant phoneme.  

We do now.  What about it?  We used to pronounce the 'b' in 'subtle,'
too.  Oh, the horror; oh, hte erosion of standards.

>Sadly, the number of people with such concern for the language is decreasing.

Why sadly?  What have they ever contributed to the language?  At best
they are a bunch of pathetic Canutes; at worst they terrorize others
with their ignorance.

Roger

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,sci.lang