From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "Grammar"
Date: 23 Aug 92 00:16:20 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Aug22.044931.9218@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.065611.26367@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU 
>(Roger Lustig) writes:

>>>The underlying meaning is: "I'm not spending a penny more money, and
>>>I'm not spending a penny less money."  In the "10 items or less" bit,
>>>the only thing under discussion is the quantity of items.

>>Why? Why can't it be "stuff"?  "how much stuff do you have in your
>>basket?" "Eight items."  If "dollars" can turn into "money," then
>>"items" can turn into "stuff."

>Because in the discussion of how much you're spending, the important
>issue is how much *money* you're spending, not how many pennies, so the
>use of pennies is just a way to quantify the uncountable.  A penny less
>money, a drop less water, etc.

"The important issue" is not how we determine the usage of this word or
that.  (Besides, the important issue at the checkout is how much stuff
you have...)

>However, in the "10 items or less" sign, what is being discussed is the
>exact number of items, not the amount of "stuff" as you put it.  The
>sign doesn't mean to imply "10 items or less stuff," but rather "10 items,
>or fewer than 10 items."  Two fewer items, one fewer penny, etc.

10 items, no more, no less. 

One less penny, if you ask around, btw.  Very few people actually say
"one fewer penny" -- and many ofthe prescriptive types have noted this.

>>"Six is one less than seven."

>In this case, the numbers six and seven aren't the referents of "less"

No?  Explain.

>>"complete this in 25 words or less."

>>Put "fewer" in those sentences and you have stilted sentences that are
>>*not* in common use.  People just don't say that sort of thing.

>Sure they do.  "Fewer than 25 words" is used quite a bit.

I didn't say "fewer than 25."  I said "25 or less."  And the evidence is
out there in the usage surveys and everywhere else: people just don't
say that.

>>>And "less items" doesn't work.

>>(Actually, it does, and vast numbers of people say it, but we'll let it
>>pass for now, even though I've cited an authority for its correctness
>>and standardness...)

>Funny how you're not arguing for correctness and standardness when several
>messages back you were browbeating anyone who even suggested such a thing.

I've *always* argued for correctness and standardness.  I've just
accompanied those arguments with an insistence on reasonable definitions
of those things.  Specifically, I have asked for situation-dependent,
dialect-dependent definitions of correctness, and usage-based defnitions
of "Standard."

>>Uh, what?  I can deal with it just fine!  If you tell me that something
>>is standard and correct, and I ask you to tell me why, and you can cite
>>neither evidence nor authority, then I can deal with it instantly: by
>>pointing out that you're blowing smoke.  You wave your hands and insist
>>on distinctions and standards and "accepted usage" and correctness and
>>propriety, but when it comes time to tell me *why* these things are what
>>you say, all of a sudden the line goes dead.

>Perhaps you didn't manage to read my last few messages.  I listed several
>sources.  Upon my doing so, you just trudged out the "oh no, that isn't
>grammar, that's usage" business again.

You named three sources, and since retracted one.  I've actually *cited*
a few, and will post several more when I get a chance.

>>Indeed, S&W does make usage prescriptions.  Many of them are at variance
>>with actual usage, and even with most other prescriptions.  (e.g.,
>>"different than.")

>I consider "different than" to be in the same camp as "should of."  You

Then you have no standards at all, because it's not only utterly,
totally, completely standard, and has been for a long time, but there
are places where you *have* to use it.  

>differ from something.  It may be at variance with your actual usage
>though.

And with most everybody else's, including that of some noted linguistic
reactionaries.  You differ from something, but that has nothing to do
with being different than something else.  (From is fine there, too, but
is problematic when yu have to add a "that which" after "from."  Many
writers and speakers long ago decided that this was too much of a pain
in the ass.)  

Different, though a positive, is used as a comparative.  That's life,
that's English.  

>>This is where all the trouble starts: when people start bludgeoning
>>speakers of everyday English for not hewing to S&W's rules for formal
>>expository prose.

>I still don't see the benefit of *not* speaking or writing well as much
>as possible.

Good point, but you've left out the same step as you always do:
demonstrating that S&W's strictures are in some Platonic or functional
way "better."  Until you can do that, don't say "as well as possible"
and think that it's an automatic justification of any one usage guide,
or all of them, or even of a single point in one.  

Give me some *reasons.*  

>  Your argument seems to be, "Well, people do it, and it's
>documented, so it must be okay."

I've stated my argument a hundred times.  That is not it.  

My argument runs more like this:
--people who, by universal agreement, write good English, do it.
--It's documented that such people have done it for a long time.
--Lots of other people do it.
--Communication is not hampered by their doing it.
--Any reasonable standard of correct usage accepts such a thing as
correct.
--Fiat is not how you make or change language.

>>>>Now, I happen to know the *history* of the less/fewer distinction.

>>>Wow.  That doesn't mean that you suddenly have some sort of monopoly on
>>>stating that it's "correct usage," which is how this whole thing started.

>>Nor did I state that, so don't go putting silly words in my mouth.

>You did indeed.  Go back to the first message in this thread and you'll
>see that you described "10 items or less" as correct usage, to which I
>replied "NOT!"

Snore.  I didn't state that I had a monopoly.  Of course I stated that
"10 items or less" was correct usage, and I presented examples and
authorities and definitions of correctness.

>>Knowing the history of the distinction *does* tell me one thing: no
>>writer or speaker ever worried about it until some 19th century
>>schoolmasters *invented* the distinction out of a simple fear of
>>alternatives, i.e., they wanted to be able to teach that one word

>And prior to Johnson, people spelled words however they wanted to
>and no one complained.  Would you rather we all go back to spelling
>things however we'd like?

Huh? Johnson didn't do much to standardize spelling, for one thing.  

This had been happening ever since printing came to be, and increased
with the increase in the number of books.  

Why?  Because wild variants of spelling hampered communication.

But the "less/fewer" rule was invented, not in response to a need to
standardize, but in response to predagogical laziness.  Nobody who
used the language felt the need for the rule; it was made by people who
wanted to use a simpler *grammar book.*

>>So why should I let myself be jerked around by the laziness of a 19th
>>century schoolmaster, especially since the rule has never really taken
>>hold in common speech, and is also disregarded quite a bit in the
>>written language?

>The Andrew Jackson approach to language.  

BZZZT!  Your equating spelling standardization with grammar
standardization is specious, as pointed out above.  

>The point is that these rules
>are *not* disregarded by a good number of people who put effort into
>their language.

And *are* disregarded by a good number of the same type of people.  Give
'em an E for effort, but don't let them take on airs about "correctness"
unless they can explain themselves.  

WHY do we need the distinction?  What does it buy us?

>>Am I?  Or will "educated" people (i.e., those who learned a rule in
>>school) groan and moan and call me "illiterate" and "uneducated" and
>>"Barbaric"?  I seem to recall people going to complain to supermarket
>>managers and 1-800 operators about the usage on signs and paper bags.
>>Clearly the people being complained to were *not* free to use it, and
>>THAT, my friend, is where I came in.

>What, you think that by not *liking* the standard, you're going to get
>people to stop concerning themselves with it?

WHAT STANDARD?  You ahven't shown me it *is* a standard, certainly not
one that was determined by anything but fiat.

>>I don't know about Little/Brown, but I do know that Strunk&White (the
>>third one you cited) is not particularly linguistically informed, and
>>does *not* reflect actual usage in many of its prescriptions.  Again,
>>it's a book for those writing formal, expository prose.

>>>One of the purposes of editing is to correct grammatical
>>>errors, and as far as I'm concerned, less+countable is still an error.

>>Good luck getting a job as an editor with that attitude.

>I've gotten quite a number of them, though it isn't my main field.

Tehy asked you about "less" in your interview?

>>>Clarity isn't compromised when you say "me am here."  It's perfectly
>>>clear who's here.

>>Plenty of things *are* disrupted, though, such as the flow of
>>communication.  People will stop listening to what you say next, because
>>they'll havesuch a hard time believeing what they heard before.

>And some have a hard time believing that ad copywriters would put
>"1/3 less calories" on a packaging.

Only because schoolteachers nagged *them* about it.  Nobody had to teach
me in school that "me am here" is wrong.  

When I look back on all the crap I learned in high school...

>>>Hardly.  The point is that most people have been cured of that error by
>>>the time they're out of sixth grade.

>>Most people?  Naaah.  I hear it all the time.  Perhaps not most people
>>in Morningside Heights.

>Hopefully not most people in Princeton, NJ either.

Well, at least *one* of the usages the usage nags complain about is OK
with you...8-)

>>What other reasons do you have for complaining?  Why bother with the
>>"error" argument if the error makes no difference?  "Me and Paul will
>>win 'em all" caused nobody any problems, except for a few English
>>teachers who keeled over and thus missed a terrific World Series.  "Me
>>am here" disrupts the flow of communication by being terribly
>>nonstandard in a way that the previous example does not.  It's incorrect
>>in a way that the other sentence is not.

>To many, "me and paul...." is just as nonstandard as "me am here." 

What's their definition of "nonstandard," then? I'd like to hear it.  If
it classes those two things together, it's not very subtle.

>Same error.

Oh, no.  *Quite* different.  The separation of subject from verb matters
quite a bit, linguistically speaking.

>>Neither sentence is part of the written or formal-speech dialect.

>>>I could say "Je suis ici" or "hic sum" to you, and there would be no loss
>>>of information.

>>To me, yes.  (Actually, you'd get a funny look with the Latin, since it
>>means "I am this," but that's OK.  I'm sure you meant to type "Adsum".)

>My Latin is 4 years rusty, though as I recall, "hic" (with the long mark)
>also means here, but we'll save that for alt.usage.latin.

(  "Adsum" would be proper *usage.*)

>>>"me and my friends..." doesn't gain any more correctness on the golf
>>>course than it does in the seminar room.

>>Wrong.  Dead wrong.  So wrong you're not in the ballpark.

>Maybe not in yours.  To many, "me and my friends" is not in the ballpark.

Yet they can never seem to *define* their ballpark consistently.

>By the way, you're mixing metaphors....golf and baseball. :-)

I love it when that happens.

Roger
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english