From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Arguing about language
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 06:36:13 GMT



In article <1992Nov17.200903.3843@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.161732.2605@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>Yes, occasionally I say rude things around here.  But they're 
>>generally reactions to things *I* perceive as being far more rude:
>>calling people who use this or that idiom "ignorant" or "illiterate"
>>or "wrong" without any reason.  Talking about the terrible decline in
>>standards

>There are many who believe that there *has* been a decline in
>standards, and they are certainly entitled to that opinion.  They do

But *I* am also entitled to ask what those standards might be,
and how they know.  

And when there is a clear subtext to their assertions -- namely that
they are in tune with those old standards, and that they can identify
the barbarians by this or that shibboleth  [I know, I know] -- I
have no compunctions about pointing out their agenda.

>not have to cite chapter and verse from some "authority" to have that
>opinion, nor should their not doing so entitle them to a flame from
>you.

But if they use their argument as a stick to beat on some social
group they don't care much for -- as usually happens in such situations --
I shall stand up to defend people who are using the language as they
know how.  I shall also stand up to challenge the misinformation that
usually accompanies the "decline" arguments.  And if *I* have several
authorities on hand who present clear evidence *against* their unsopported
arguments, why not give them?  This is a discussion group, after all.

And I am also entitled to my fun.  The "Decline" arguments are always
with us, and always focus on this or that word or meaning.  And when
you look at the history of this argument, it gets pretty funny.  Words 
like donate, narrate, reliable, resurrect, greed, tireless, loan (as verb),
female, enviable -- all these were attacked with at least the venom 
we have seen spat at "pro-active" and "concertize" recently -- and
the misinformation in the arguments against these words was just 
the same sort.

[btw, that's the 19th-century list.  Swift got all het up about mob,
banter, bamboozle, ambassador, preliminaries, speculations, operations,
communication, and the modern vowelless pronunciation of the -ed suffix. 
And was *he* ever a careful writer!]

What's more, the "decline" argument always has a golden age a few years
back.  It's a little like end-times prophecies; didn't *you* get a 
chuckle out of the folks who claimed that this time it would be 
real on Oct. 28?  

Only they didn't go around insulting the way everyone else talks.  They
merely claimed that they'd get raptured.

>As I see it, the way one evaluates what is considered "good" english
>and what is not is to observe what careful speakers and writers
>*today* are doing.  

Right.  Now, do we agree on who's careful?  Also, do we distinguish 
written and spoken dialects?  I hope so.

>In that vain, 

It's not in vain, certainly!  8-)

>"most unique" would probably still
>lose out, as would "axe" and "less items" and a whole lot of others
>that you have at one time or another have claimed to be acceptable.

You still don't get it.  NO, THEY ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE IN FORMAL WRITTEN
PROSE.  I have never claimed otherwise.  Not for a moment.

But we don't always speak formal written prose.  We speak this or that
dialect -- always -- and in *some* settings, *some* situations, they
are perfectly acceptable.  

Andthe sum of the dialects is the language.  

>>>This was the reason I
>>>dropped the recent thread on "pro-active" and "impact"; I didn't 
>>>feel like responding to personal abuse and snide remarks.

>>Well, if I offended you I'm truly sorry.  But I'd like to
>>see those remarks again.  As I recall, the arguments against those
>>words involved things like "copywriters/politicians/marketing people
>>use these words so they must be bad."  

>Such an argument, though I don't agree with it, could be developed
>into something like "Politicians use the words so much that they lose
>their force and thus should be avoided."  Perfectly reasonable argument,

Not without a little evidence.

>though not one to which I would subscribe.

The overwhelming evidence against such processes (of overuse) makes 
the arguments for them less than reasonable in the final analysis.

>>I guess I *do* respond badly to such combinations of counterfactuality,
>>illogic, and sneering; why not consider what the words mean, how they
>>are and aren't used, and why they might have arisen in the first place?
>>Time and again, someone will post a peeve about this or that word, and
>>not even bother to ask or speculate on how the word might have arisen,
>>or why it's used.  I think we shouldn't skip that step.

>That step isn't nearly as important as that of evaluating what careful
>users of the language do today.

But we *know* they do a variety of things.  It's a tough job, doing
that evaluation.  (And I can't say I've seen you perform one around
here.)

>>>If you'll excuse me, I'm going shopping for some asbestos Fruit of
>>>the Looms.  With Roger around, it's best to be prepared for those
>>>below-the-belt flames, too.

>>No flames intended here or elsewhere.  If you have a specific posting
>>of mine you'd like to discuss, let me see it.  If I was rude, you'll
>>get an apology immediately.

>No flames intended, eh?  What a kind soul you must be.  Perhaps one day
>you'll learn that you can manage to *disagree* with someone's argument,
>or with someone's *reasoning* (or even the lack thereof, if that's how
>you choose to perceive it) without resulting to uncalled-for vulgarity
>and insolence.

Well, I usually get angry when the implications of the argument involve
*my* inferiority of linguistic use.  And since such arguments are
usually based on prejudice of the Edwin-Newmanesque sort, I don't
take them lying down.

Roger