From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 03:47:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.005958.15369@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.143936.21872@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

>>>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.

>Riiiiiiiight.  And if I replace the word "Automobile" with the word "Voiture"
>and the word "Computer" with the word "Ordinateur" and the verb "to be" with
>the word "etre," after a while you're not speaking English, even if the folks
>around you happen to understand you.

And what if you aren't?  In the rare cases where French and English do
equally well, who cares which one you use?  I'm sorry, I don't
understand your analogy.  Or, rather, I'm notsure what it's supposed to
be analogous to. 

>>>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

>That's utter BS.  People don't edit copy to make their work easier.  

Perhaps if you got someone to read to you, it would make *your* work
easier.  I didn't say that people edited copy to make their work easier;
I said that copy editors MADE RULES to make their work easier.  Style
sheets and the like.

>If they
>wanted to make their work easier, they wouldn't edit at all.  They edit 
>copy so that it reads well.

And they make rules to make the editing go easier.  Shall I repeat it
one more time?  

Once again: rules promulgated by copy editors are
generally not rules of
grammar, but rules of "house style" and standardized usage created for
the purpose of homogenizing the style of the writing produced by the
publisher they work for.  

Trust me on this one.  I've worked for copy editors, with copy editors,
and *as* a copy editor.  I have had my copy edited.  I have investigated
the ways in which these rules arise, and the reasons why they arose.

>>and to enforce a particular style acrossthe things they edit.

>Hardly.  Ever read a magazine the contents of what have been contributed by
>free-lance authors?  The style of any such periodical is not uniform.

Up to a certain point, it is.  Try a newspaper; editing is done on a
mass-production basis there, and requires more homogenization.  Besides,
haven't you ever heard the stories about Mr. Shawn?  Commas, that's,
whiches, and the like were *everything* to him.  Especially in the
casuals and non-fiction and reviews, of course, but also to some extent
in the fiction.

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

>Linguistics and good language skills have little to do with each
>other.  I've read plenty of papers by fine linguists that were very
>poorly written. 

Which proves what?  That linguists aren't good stylists, that's what.
But they are *very* good at describing grammars, and at telling grammar
from usage from style from quirk.

If you want to know what's grammatical, ask a linguist, who's studied
the matter, not a copy editor who has a rule of thumb for common issues
of usage and style.

>>>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.  

>Gee, Roger.  *Why* would it be a mistake?  If I wrote "Bear the stood on
>mountain the" instead of "The bear stood on the mountain," you'd understand
>it just fine.

After a long double-take, I would.  Actually, the scrambling would
impede my comprehension a good deal.  Try it sometime.  Set up a
comprehension test.  Read a paragraph aloud, and include one sentence
like that.  Ask questions about the paragraph afterward.  See if that
sentence got understood as well as the rest.  

>  How many people would have to do that before you'd suddenly
>admit that form to the canon of acceptable English?

A hell of a lot, and at least as many would have to understand it,
which, in most cases, they wouldn't.  Also, the fistfights that this
would cause on the way would make the whole experiment a costly
proposition.  

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

>I'm glad you're not running the school system.  

Why ?  Is it suddenly working or something?

>I guess we shouldn't teach
>score preparation to music students and we shouldn't teach mathematical 
>notation to engineers.  

Don't be silly.  Nowhere did I say we shouldn't teach students to
communicate.  But knowing what a limiting clause is has little to do
with effective communication.  Most people who communicate effectively
don't know what a limiting clause is.

>Just give 'em all the essentials to get by and forget about form.

What a stupid idea!  Do you suppose I'd ever suggest something like
that?  I haven't, you know.  

But the teaching of what you call "Grammar" -- or even the teaching of
real grammar -- has little to do with "form" in language, which amounts
to effective speaking and writing.  

Roger