From: dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: "Get used to it."
Date: 6 Apr 92 13:01:00 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Apr6.004413.7593@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> userisra@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca (Mark Israel) writes:
>
>   What we conservative prescriptivists *do* say is that *some* language 
>changes are good (and ought to be encouraged), while *other* language 
>changes are bad (and out to be resisted).  *That* is a different 
>proposition entirely from the one you attribute to us.

I don't think so.  I just think that your *basis* for deciding which changes
are "good" and which are "bad" is somewhat arbitrary.  Personal aesthetics
are wonderful and necessary, but it's not very friendly to enforce them on
other people.

>In article <204357@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:

>> [...] it would still appear "abhominable" to someone who was familiar 
>> with the old version, wherein the Latin "ab hominem" still shows.
>
>   "Abominable" comes from the same root as "omen".  It has *nothing* to
>do with "ab hominem".  (Correct Latin would be "ab homine", anyway; you're
>thinking of "ad hominem", but "ab" takes the ablative.)  I knew this, and
>you didn't.  Before you call me ignorant, consider that datum.

I knew where "abominable" came from.  However, there was a time when many
speakers of Middle English did *not* know, and spelt it with an 'h', and
thought that it came from "ab homine" (sorry about the typo above).  These
people would have considered spelling it without the 'h' to be a "bad" change,
for reasons which were (by our lights) misguided.  But the sentiment would
have been there, which was the point of my comment.

>   I also had no trouble figuring out that the person who asked about
>"its" in sci.lang was talking about "its" as an analogue to "mine", not
>"its" as an analogue to "my".  You *did* have trouble.  Before you call
>me stupid, consider that datum.

I'll do a lot of things before I call *anyone* here stupid.  In fact, I 
can't foresee ever doing such a thing.

(As for the my/mine distinction, mea culpa.)

>   If you weren't going to call me either ignorant or stupid, please
>accept my apologies.

Accepted.

>> Even that most loathsome of constructions, "<sentence>: NOT!", may be 
>> with us forever.  Get used to it :-).
>                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>   Postfix "not" (which *I* happen to think is rather amusing, not
>loathsome) owes its current popularity to its use in the "Wayne's World" 
>sketches.  If a couple of actors can influence the language, then so can
>we.

Sure, if you manage to obtain repeated exposure to millions of admiring fans.
Until that happens, I'll put my money on Wayne and Garth.

Besides, unlike most areas of human endeavor, in language it is far easier
to create than to destroy.  Once the djinn is out of the bottle...

"If one mathematician/storyteller can influence the language..." is not an
adequate description of Lewis Carroll's role vs. yours or mine.

>   We conservative prescriptivists realise that our influence is limited,
>and that we often lose battles.  That will not prevent us from using what
>influence we have as we see fit.  Conservative prescriptivists aren't
>going to go away (least of all from alt.usage.english).  Get used to us
>(or unsubscribe).

I may do either.  I mostly popped in from sci.lang to follow a thread that
got started over there...

>   Would you tell a feminist:  "[Any sexist term whose use is diminishing]
>is here to stay.  Get used to it!"?   Would you tell a black person:
>"'Nigger' is here to stay.  Get used to it!"?  Would you tell a 
>homosexual:  "'Faggot' is here to stay.  Get used to it!"?

Would you pick a relevant example?

You seem to have deleted the part of my article where I distinguished 
between "good style" and "correct usage", and asserted my sympathy with
those who wish to preserve and promulgate the former.  I wouldn't tell
Mother Theresa to "get stuffed", either, but it would be impeccable usage.

Look, I wince as much as any of you when my colleagues use "input" as a verb,
or "data" as a singular noun, or (gack) "conferencing" as a gerund.  But I
consider those words to be "the front" in this battle; worrying about whether
"hopefully" should be allowed as a sentence modifier is like worrying about
whether the Normans should be allowed to take England.

>   Now, I can well understand that the battles *you* consider worth
>fighting are different from the battles *we* consider worth fighting.
>But if so, then WHY ARE YOU FIGHTING *US*?

I'm not.


-- 
           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
   Poetry is the synthesis of      | Is fit for treason, stratagems, and spoils
hyacinths  and biscuits. -Sandburg | 	Shakespeare, "Merchant of Venice", A.V
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english