Talk:English usage controversies

message: A distinction needs to be made between disputed usage and incorrect usage. In the case of the double copula, it's simply incorrect. Does any source say otherwise?81.157.63.47 (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes: , , , , and , though some of those consider it correct only in a non-standard register or in a more specific grammatical context. -- Beland (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it back to the list of examples. -- Beland (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Double copulae

message: I took the "Double modal" out of the list of examples, justifying the edit with 
: " Double modals are not generally regarded as ungrammatical. See citation in Double modal article. If you want to claim that there's a dispute over that, please cite it."
It has been reverted back and forth several times, here are the various comments:
* TJRC undid, with: ""not regarded as correct grammar", "Nonstandard" per Double modal and its references"
*99.163.50.12 re-did, with: "This article is about disputes, not "nonstandards". If everyone agrees it's nonstandard, there's no dispute, is there?"
* Weasel Fetlocks re-undid, with: "double modal is widely used & also widely regarded as ungrammatical - I.E. its usage is disputed."
*99.163.50.12 re-did, with: "'widely regarded as ungrammatical' - cite that. The Double Modal article doesn't say that, quite the contrary."
* TJRC re-undid, with: "'generally not regarded as correct grammar'" [as stated in Double modal]
OK, so, let's do this here instead of in an ever-lengthening list of edit summaries.
Statements in support of removing "Double modals" as a construction of English under dispute:
# At first, I thought that the Double Modal article said "These kind of double modal phrases are generally not regarded as incorrect grammar", followed by cautions. Well, I admit, I read it wrong. It does indeed say "generally not regarded as correct grammar", after all. OK, neverminding the hilarity of the author who wrote "These kind...", which I think we all can agree isn't Disputed English but is just wrong, I still maintain that no evidence has been provided supporting the statement that "These kind [much less any other kind] of double modal phrases are generally not regarded as correct grammar". The citation provided, http://www.bartleby.com/68/3/2003.html, which I do accept as a respectable source, only recommends that one not use them except in the most informal of situations, and only spoken ones at that. The reason for that recommendation is that the specific examples given are regionalisms. It doesn't say "Double modals in general...", nor even "These examples in particular...", "...are regarded by at least some authorities as ungrammatical and wrong in English". See Shibboleth. 
# The Double Modal article very clearly contains examples of double modal construction of the kind not limited to regional dialects, and these double modal constructions are not among those perceived as ignorant or incorrect ("might be able to"). Since double modal constructions exist which are not disputed, double modals as an all-encompassing category should not be said in this article to be disputed, even if there are specific examples ("might could") which repulse some listeners. Double modals on the whole are clearly not in dispute as to their correctness.
# As I requested, citation should be provided of English-language authorities or references stating that Double modals in general, or even specific double-modal phrases, are in dispute or incorrect, if this is to be included in this article. So far, no citations have been provided, and there are demonstrable contradictions to the claim.
Statements in support of including double modals in this article:
#"Nonstandard as per Double modal and its references." I respond: Nonstandard isn't the same as "disputed", not by a long shot. We will need a citation that says "incorrect" or "not universally regarded as correct". "My nana taught me" won't count, and neither will a Wikipedia article - though the references of one might, if they're proper. In this case, the indicated reference does not support the claim - in either article.
#"double modal is widely used & also widely regarded as ungrammatical - I.E. its usage is disputed." Regarded as ungrammatical, or disputed, by what authority? The "wide regard" of some population of English speakers, even if that were citable as fact, would not constitute an authority. I am as aware of this wide regard as anyone else is, but it doesn't mean it's right. See Split infinitive. As a matter of style or register, one may wish to avoid such construction, but such avoidance can hardly be justified as a strict matter of grammar.
#"'generally not regarded as correct grammar'" [as stated in Double modal]. The current state of the Double modal article does not count as a reference, because the claim that's being made is not cited. The citation that's offered there doesn't state what the article says it does. There's also a huge difference between the "general regard" of speakers of English and that of scholars of English, so, if this is to justify the reversions, a reference which is a little more authoritative than "generally everybody I know".
My main objection is to the categorization of double modals on the whole as disputed. If there is a specific phrase or construction which actually IS disputed (a scenario which I expect is a more likely one), then let's by all means include it as one example of disputed English which happens to be a double modal, not as an example that all double modals are disputed. And let's not forget the citations. And those citations should say that there's a dispute, not that it's incorrect. Meanwhile, I have made a change to the article which I hope is satisfactory to all concerned while the rest of this is worked out. Thanks for participating, --99.163.50.12 (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To me it's obvious that many speakers have double modals as part of their grammar, while most speakers (myself included) consider them to be ungrammatical; hence, it's a matter of dispute. I do agree that we should have references — we should always have references — but I disagree with you on two points. First of all, you seem to feel that this must be removed until references are added; I disagree. I think that we should let obvious statements stand, while seeking references for them, and I believe that these statements are obvious. At the very least, when a clear and strong majority of editors support the statement, they should be given a reasonable amount of time to find references, rather than being forced to engage in a series of reverts simply to keep the information from disappearing into the bowels of the edit history. Second of all, I disagree with your statement that “those citations should say that there's a dispute, not that it's incorrect”; I don't see why that's necessary. —RuakhTALK 01:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

text: By the way, part of the issue here seems to be a matter of definition; see http://www.bartleby.com/68/18/3918.html for the definition of "modal" n. that most of the editors here are using, and notice that it doesn't include "be able to". If you feel that the statement needs to be modified to clarify the definition it's using, or even to use different (less ambiguous) terminology, I think that's fine; but this difference in definition is not a reason to remove the statement. —RuakhTALK 01:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many reversions over "Double modal" 

message: Should the usage of "none" as a singular or plural be included?
Many people insist that "none" must go with a singular verb, however plural verbs have been used with "none" in texts such as the King James Bible.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadpotatoes (talk • contribs) 14:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  None 

message: This article is one of those that ties together many articles helping wandering readers to find related articles and, as many others, it is in a messy state. English words with uncommon properties was deleted having fallen in utter disrepair, so it is possible to loose lengthy and old articles, I hope this does not happen here. Despite the above, I arbitrarily think that in the list dangling participles and gerunds preceded by objective pronouns should be added as they are quite important. --Squidonius (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dangling participles and gerunds preceded by objective pronouns 

message: The lede should clarify whether these are disputes between reliable sources on English or simply between average English speakers. For example, is there really a dispute between reliable sources on English on whether it is incorrect to use a conjunction such as "and" or "but" at the beginning of a sentence?  
Given that some of these disputes may not actually be between reliable sources, I suggest that these "disputes" should be sourced. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For that example, there's a reference on Conjunction (grammar), documenting a dispute between the Chicago Manual of Style and K-12 teachers.  (And see reply generally in the next section.) -- Beland (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede and citations 

message: This is a terrible article. The idea of "disputed" grammar is not even sourced. If it was, it would help steer the article. If the dispute is between reliable sources, the "disputes" then would juxtapose ideas between reliable sources. If the "disputes" are between non-reliable sources ... well, that's more challenging to source, but it could be done through reliable secondary sources. Yet, that would also focus the article. 
Finally, it looks like WP:OR throughout. If no one finds a notable source to define the article's title soon, I'll recommend this be deleted or merged. If a source is found, we should be able to narrow the scope of the article and remove some of the original research. Airborne84 (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If I remember correctly, there's a chapter on grammar disputes and the proscriptivist-descriptivist conflict in The Language Instinct, and various controversies are also covered in Eats, Shoots & Leaves.  I agree some of the general claims need to be better referenced; these are at least a start.  The individual controversies are better referenced in the individual articles, such as Conjunction (grammar), Split infinitive, and Preposition stranding.  I agree those should be propagated here.  They document that sometimes there are in fact conflicts between textbooks, style guides that are widely used, or used by respected publications; sometimes the conflict is between professional publications and what is taught in K-12 education.  I think the textbooks and style guides are what you mean by "reliable sources", though that's not what I would call them, since there is no single correct English grammar about which they can reliably report.  Certainly even if professional style guides all agree, it would still be interesting to document in this article that a significant percentage of speakers considers a certain construction in a formal register incorrect and a significant percentage consider it correct.  And ideally we'd have some source that can point to a reliable survey, or at least an expert or forum that hears people argue both sides. -- Beland (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are we doing here? 

message: Pardon my being so blunt, but the list of "controversies" is - erm, I don't know - pretty dodgy? (ok, the first few are anyway, I didn't get very far yet...), and the citations (again, those I've seen) are laughable. I realise the discussion above is related to this topic in a certain manner (as is that on the article referenced for merger), but I don't have time to go through that right now. I promise I will read it before touching the article or making any concrete suggestions though :) ! 37.209.42.230 (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erm... questionable (that is "fragwürdiger" :P)  article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on English usage controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060707151608/http://www.scholars.nus.edu.sg:80/post/india/hohenthal/9.2.html to http://www.scholars.nus.edu.sg/post/india/hohenthal/9.2.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: diff @Chas. Caltrop: What, specifically, do you consider to be original research in the lead? In particular, what assertions in the lead are OR, not sourced in the body of the article? Just plain Bill (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: OR in the lead?

message: In received English, the sentence "George and I went to the shops" would be correct because if I were to remove the words "George and", the sentence would still make sense. Mr anonymous username (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Me vs I content 

message: "A man does not go to war to get killed, but they do get killed". That's not a singular they, it's a generalization on the previous sentence. ie. "A man does not go to war to get killed, but [men that go to war] do get killed." 2601:84:8A01:A4B0:256D:2419:320B:F4E (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I replaced it with clearer examples. Botterweg14 (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The example for singular 'they' is bad 

message: This section shouldn't exist. It is not, to my knowledge, used by native speakers of any dialect (and the section doesn't claim it is). If we were to list every construction that any non-native speaker of English may use, we would have an infinitely long list. Moreover, I don't know of any sources (and none have been given), prescriptivist or descriptivist. which regard this as an acceptable or correct usage.
Unless a source claiming it's used by natives is provided, this section does not belong here. 94.241.72.241 (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the link on the citation. It does seem to imply that it is used. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "open/close to denote turn on/turn off"