From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: "Grammar"
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 04:48:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.025717.2319@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>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.

But Roger, from what I've read, *you* are the only one arguing for a 
distinction between a formal notion of "grammar" and the definition that
is in common use.  

>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

That's a matter of opinion.  To some, the use of "me am here" is just as
'bad' as saying "1/3 less calories"

>>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.)

That's specious.  "not a penny more, not a penny less" doesn't prove
a damn thing.  The "more" and "less" do not refer to the penny, but
to the uncountable of which the penny is a unit, namely money.  
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.  And "less
items" doesn't work.

>>	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.

Turns out that you can't deal with the notion that there isn't an 
academic standard to appeal to on this.  My saying "I've gotten to
like Broccoli" would be hopelessly ungrammatical in the United Kingdom.
So, given an American and a Brit in the same room, the only standard
is the English that they've learned.

>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.  

Strunk & White may spend a lot of time on style, but many of its points
are actually points of usage.

>In any case, I like my prescriptions best when they come with some
>justification.  

Yes, but as style varies from regions, heck, between idiolects, a blanket
appeal to some higher power isn't always terribly useful.

>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.
It may be correct usage for you, but for the people making the correction,
and for a lot of others, less+countable is simply *wrong*.

>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

Couldn've fooled me.  Believe it or not, but many people still use the 
less/fewer distinction.  You're free to ignore it in your writing, however.

>the *real* distinctions that are *indeed* made in actual usage.

Whose actual usage?  I make a *real* distinction between countables
and collectives. 

>And when you get right down to it, that's how you determine "accepted"
>usage: you go to those whose acceptance matters: the users.

Precisely.  Lots of users still make the distinction, and there's no reason
for them to stop.

>  Good
>lexicographers and linguists and writers and critics have done this for
>centuries when they wanted to know what was accepted.

Indeed they do, and that's why the less/fewer rule still exists in so
many style/grammar books, such as the ones I cited.

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

If you ever edit my copy, I'm certain you'll put big red deletion marks
through all my fewers and replace them wiith lesses.  And if I ever edit
yours, be assured that every less+countable will be globally replaced
with a countable.  One of the purposes of editing is to correct grammatical
errors, and as far as I'm concerned, less+countable is still an error.

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

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

>>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. 

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

>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.

As if I haven't heard that error enough in life already.

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

SO WHAT?  What difference does it make if there's no loss of information?
I could say "Je suis ici" or "hic sum" to you, and there would be no loss
of information.  I could say "here be me" or "me is here" and there'd be 
no loss of information.  That doesn't mean that any of them is proper 
English.

>To be sure, I wince when my colleague says
>that in a meeting, too;

Gee, Roger.  Why?  No loss of information.  As you said in a previous
post, "Isn't that what matters?" 

>but I frankly don't care if he says it on the
>golf course or in the car.

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


--
Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings 
gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu       to be seriously considered as a means of 
N2GPZ in ham radio circles        communication. The device is inherently of
72355,1226 on CI$                 no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english