From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: "Grammar"
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 02:57:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.003302.10572@news.columbia.edu> gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.232516.13379@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

>>And yet: we're in a usage discussion group, where issues of formal
>>grammar are also raised.  Given the circumstance, the context, etc., I
>>think the appropriateness of lumping all the different issues together
>>under "grammar" is questionable.

>By you.  I don't question it.

Then justify it.  Especially in light of the specific choice of "usage"
for the name of this group.  

In colloquial speech, when such things are being referred to informally,
"Grammar" is indeed the word to use.  But we're trying to sort things
out, and around here I feel it obfuscates, especially when specific
issues of what usage, style, etc. are, and howthey relate to matters of
prescription and description, have been raised.

Besides, by calling colloquial usages "ungrammatical," you lump them in
with real errors such as the article-after example I gave.  There's
a clear difference in quality between the two -- i.e., one is a matter
of preference, one a structural universal -- and so this lumping
together serves only to obscure.  (It's also a good tool for
intimidation, of course.)

>>Why?  Is it not preferred?  I think you'll find many authorities
>>preferring it.  Is it prescribed or proscribed?  Not by me, not by most
>>prescriptive grammars worth their salt.  (This wrt '10 or less').  

>Most prescriptive grammars I've ever seen would proscribe less+countables
>or "me and my friends"+predicate.  

So cite them already!  This is at least my fifth request.

(If they don't allow "not a penny more, not a penny less," then they
need a new prescription.)

>>Now, having defined "grammar," you assume that "ungrammatical" has
>>certain meanings.  The AHD disagrees, and gives exactly two meanings, as
>>opposed to the 7 or 8 it has for "grammar": 

>>1. Not in accord with a normative prescriptive grammar.

>>2. Not in accord with any observable pattern of syntax in a language.

>RHD II defines "ungrammatical" as

>	grammatically incorrect or qwkward; not conforming to the
>	rules or principles of grammar or accepted usage.
>  			       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>That definition seems to be in accord with your earlier statement that
>many people in this newsgroup (myself included) use "grammar" to refer
>to accepted usage.

Indeed.  But I'd like to know just who's doing the accepting, and on
what grounds.  Turns out, it's like pulling teeth.

>>Now, "Me and my friends..." is not ungrammatical by meaning 2.  Meaning
>>1, however, allows one to say it's ungrammatical wrt a certain
>>prescriptive grammar.  

>I prefer the RHD II definition....more fitting of my use of the word
>"grammar."  Since I consider usage and grammar to be intertwined, 
>it becomes easy to cite sources that would render "10 or less" or
>"me and my friends...." ungrammatical.  Chicago, Little Brown, 
>Strunk & White, etc....

Chicago?  Really?  I can't find it.  Could you give page refs or
quotations for these points?  (More generally, Chicago ain't a usage
dictionary at all.)

As for Strunk and White, I'm not sure that it's a guide to "accepted
usage," but rather a guide to good style, which is not the same thing,
and NONE of our definitions are going to let you sneak style into
grammar.  

In any case, I like my prescriptions best when they come with some
justification.  Now, I happen to know the *history* of the less/fewer
distinction, in its outline, at least; and that, plus the
incontrovertible evidence that the distinction has always been widely
ignored, leads me to the conclusion that it's a stupid prescription
prescribed by stupid prescribers.  It serves no purpose, does not
reflect the actual usage of present or past, and occasinally obscures
the *real* distinctions that are *indeed* made in actual usage.

And when you get right down to it, that's how you determine "accepted"
usage: you go to those whose acceptance matters: the users.  Good
lexicographers and linguists and writers and critics have done this for
centuries when they wanted to know what was accepted.

>And yes, I know.  You're going to say, "those sources were written as
>style guides for formal writing."  Perhaps.  

Perhaps, nothing!

>But since those rules were
>constructed to give writers exhausting control over their words, I see
>no reason why not to include much of that clarity in spoken language.

Is that why those rules were constructed?  Care to show your work a
little?  Let's see a rule that was constructed for that purpose.  

(The less/fewer rule was promulgated by some pedagogues who couldn't
stand the thought of their being a choice of words in some situation.
It's so much easier to teach when there's no choice.  Alas, they didn't
pay enough attention to the subtleties of how the two words are actually
used, and tripped themselves up with a bogus rule -- but not bogus
enough to be rejected formally.  Informally, rejection by disuse has
been widespread.)

Now, you don't see why one shouldn't include "much of that clarity" in
spoken language.  Well, go right ahead.  I won't stop you.  If you feel
you're speaking more clearly, help yourself.

But don't you go telling other people that what they're doing is*wrong*!
That's preposterous.  

Especially with something as ssilly as less/fewer, when clarity is in
no wise compromised.  Not a bit.

>>That's all I want: tell us how you arrive at your standards, your norms,
>>your rules.  Cite an authority, and tell us what the authority has set
>>out to do.  Or provide your own arguments from evidence.

>We still decline pronouns in English.  "Me and my friends" violates that
>rule, rather blatently.  I see no benefit to violating that rule even in
>casual conversation, unless one *wants* to sound like a sixth grader.

Well, here's your standard, your norm: belittlement.  Lots of people who
aren't sixth-graders, and who don't sound like them, say that.  Not in
formal conversations, so much; not in boardrooms and seminar rooms.  But
in many other situations it's quite normal, and if you disagree, I
recommend a semester or two out in the real world, with your ears on.

Note that the argument from "extend much of that clarity" has suddenly
vanished, btw.  No loss of information, here, either. 

Note also that we're talking about a funny area of English: declension.
English inflects exactly six words between the subjective and objective:
they are all personal pronouns.  When a structure is limited to so few
words, and is somewhat at variance with the positional structure of the
rest of the language, there's bound to be variation and, in a
formal-speech sense, error.  To be sure, I wince when my colleague says
that in a meeting, too; but I frankly don't care if he says it on the
golf course or in the car.

Roger

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,sci.lang