Mr Verb gets all grammatical on some linguo-peevologist's mistake (link).

quote:

If the Nitpickers League cares about standards, Mr. Pakenham-Walsh's membership card is in grave danger. If you google "subjective tense" you get mostly the expected thing, namely people using tense when they appear to mean mood, while simultaneously using subjective when they mean subjunctive. Some of these come from folks like Mr. P-W, that is from card-carrying peevologists. Hilariously, Safire let this go through.

Brought to our attention by the hod-carrying grammatologists at the [sic] Language Log (link). Many peevological fellow travelers pooh-pooh the correct use of grammatical terminology as being beside the point, but, really, if they can't be bothered to differ between tenses and moods why would I trust them to know their syntactic categories from a hole in the ground.

[Addendum: but wait, there's more: JJ Kilpatrick answers a high school freshman's question about the importance of grammar (link). The mind boggles. The linguists at Language log weigh in: first Mark Liberman (link) and (link), then Geoff Pullum (link), and finally Arnold Zwicky (link).]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

Kilpatrick's article makes no sense to me. I guess that's because I've been carrying too many hods and not learning the half million words devised for special occasions.

goofy, I read it again, and it still makes no sense. I get the vague sense that he's peeved about something or with somebody, but I can't tell from the prose what or whom.

And I thought I was picky about language and accuracy...

I have not yet clicked "SEND," but ...

quote:

To: kilpatjj@aol.com
From: The Word Craft Community
Subject: Your article WHY DO WE STUDY GRAMMAR
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Mr. Kilpatrick,

As you can see by reading the comments posted in our Forum, your article is getting publicity locally.
http://www.uexpress.com/coveringthecourts/?uc_full_date=20080323] LINK

You are cordially invited to join us http://wordcraft.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/15760252...231022135#7231022135

Comments?

,,, ... ... ...

PostScript .... I sent the message to Mr. Kilpatrick at 0816 HST today ...

I failed to point out how his association with us will undoubtedly gain him many points in International Prestige and Esteem. That goes without saying ... Maybe he can come to next Saturday's chat and explain ambiguities in his writing ...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jerry thomas,

Well, I've just concluded that it's very dangerous to voice one's opinion about grammar, uses of words, language, etc., online. Now I understand the lukewarm, at best, reaction to the Safire post I'd made.

The funny thing is, I don't see that kind of reaction in other disciplines. Perhaps it's because it's all about writing.

I rather liked Kilpatrick's answer.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
I rather liked Kilpatrick's answer.

Maybe you could explain it to us (and Pullum).

I rather liked Kilpatrick's answer.

Imagine that I wrote an article about how the common cold and the flu are caused not by viruses but by the moral turpitude of the sick person. The more ethically degenerate a person is, the more likely he is to exhibit the symptoms of a cold (and possibly other diseases). Now, if I went on the Oprah Show and told people about my cockamamie idea, doctors and other health industry professionals might react negatively. Imagine Tom Cruise delivering the keynote speech at a conference of psychiatrists, and it getting positive commentary in the various media. You think that might cause the professionals to bluster and spit?

I write about another of Kilpatrick's columns, where he complains about "burglarize", seeming to say that it serves no useful purpose already served by "burgle", a derivative of "burglar" from the 16th century. In fact, "burgle" is just as recent as "burglarize".

"Burgle" is more common over here in the UK than "burglarize". Some time back I acted rather sniffily in the forum about the longer form, assuming it was a fairly recent (unnecessary) invention, too. I was shot down in flames by another Wordcrafter (zmj?). I'm rather more careful nowadays, and try to check sources first.

Too funny, goofy. This is why the peevologists so annoy me: they more often than not know not whereof they write. They get their "facts" wrong. The -ar in burglar is not, as Killjoy suggests, the nominal agentive suffix -er (from Latin -or via French), but the standard infinitval ending of French verbs. I suppose the noun did not get verbed, as with some many others in English, because burglar seems so very much like an agentive noun. I think grammar mavens of KP's ilk are more dangerous to the language than a hundred and one ain'ts. There's always been a clic of usage pseudo-boffins who pooh-pooh verbs in -ize. I wrote a blog entry about how the verb jeoparize used to be a big concern during the 19th century word wars when it threatened to replace the older jeopard (link).

quote:

Maybe you could explain it to us (and Pullum).

I read through this whole thread first and then read the Kilpatrick link. I was prepared to be all judgmental and arrogant about it. Yet, I am sorry, guys, but I actually found it a little refreshing. It's all in what we focused on, I guess. I thought he was saying just what I've heard here. When you're in a more formal atmosphere, you should speak correctly. When not, speak how you'd like. At a job interview, it's probably not the right place to use slang or poor grammar. The same goes when writing an article for a professional journal or speaking in front of 1,000 of your colleagues. Makes sense to me.

But whatever...

When I first starting posting here, I was probably more a prescriptivist, though I didn't even know the term for it. If you recall, I used to recommend Strunk and White to my students. This site has turned me around, and I've become more a descriptivist (if that's the opposite). The peevologists or prescriptivists, like Lynne Truss, drive me nuts. However, now, as I read more Blogs and the like, I see the same sort of attitude on the descriptivist side. The "I am the real linguist, and you're just some grammar maven" attitude. Weird.

Of course I am firmly in the descriptivist side of the argument, but I do enjoy authors like Safire. I don't know much about Kilpatrick and probably don't much care for him.

As for your example, z, well...you are correct, physicians and researchers would go ballistic if Cruise appeared at a psychiatry conference. But we weren't talking about a conference, now, were we. My point was that I don't see that many posts having fun with a point of view that people in other professions don't agree with. Heaven knows I don't read every Blog there is (since just in the UK there are 300 some thousand!), so I suppose I've just missed it. I guess my preference for a response would be a factual based email, letter, or other mode of communication. But we're all different.

[And, for the record, I thought long and hard before posting that comment about Kilpatrick because I knew that you'd not agree with me...and you are the experts. I have never asserted that I am an expert in words, language, and surely not linguistics, here.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
However, now, as I read more Blogs and the like, I see the same sort of attitude on the descriptivist side. The "I am the real linguist, and you're just some grammar maven" attitude. Weird.

Well, people who call themselves grammar mavens are usually not linguists, so that seems fair. We all have opinions about language, of course - how could we not, we all use it. I just wish people who express their opinions on language and want to be listened to would make sure their opinions are informed. For instance, Kilpatrick doesn't like the word "burglarize". Fine, there are words I don't like either. But it seems that he made up a story about how the word was created to replace "burgle", when he could have looked it up and found out that was not the case.

I think, in the case of "burglarize", people may be being a bit unfair to Kilpatrick. I'm not going to suggest that "burgle" is an earlier form as I know it wasn't but if you don't know it's an easy mistake to make. As arnie suggested "burgle" is much the commoner form over here in the UK - to the extent that you would only ever hear "burglarize" as a humourous usage.
Before I knew anything about words and language I would have assumed that "burglar" had been formed from "burgle" rather than the other way round and that "burglarize" was an American elaboration. Of course I know better now.

I'm not defending this faux-etymology, just suggesting that we all have things we believe that aren't necessarily true and that when you believe something it's very easy to forget to check it.

I doubt that Kilpatrick "made up" the story deliberately to support his view. He just repeated something that he already believed to be true without checking it first and I'll bet there's no one (here or anywhere else) that hasn't done that from time to time.

(Irrelevant really, but as a Brit I don't like "burglarize" either. I know it's illogical but it just sounds wrong to us.)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

I decided to go back and read Kilpatrick's article again because, I confess, that while I saw plenty of things wrong with it the first time, it didn't offend me nearly as much as it seems to have offended others.

Let's break it down and examine it.

The opening three paragraphs we can dispense with as they are merely setting up the question. That is adequately stated in the heading. Then we have a bizarre analogy about driving to Portland in a bikini. As metaphors go it's a pretty strange one and certainly not one that I'd choose but he's only guilty here of a rubbish metaphor that says nothing at all to answer the question.

The next paragraph may be poorly expressed (even offensively, if you happen to be a hod carrier) but the intent is clearly to be humorous and it seems to me that all it is saying is that, largely uncontentious surely, different people in different situations speak with different registers. On it's own the paragraph, if anything, seems to be coming down in favour of non-standard dialects.

The next paragraph certainly ruffled a few feathers – mine included – in that, by and large, it's nonsense. But, if we ignore all the stuff about numbers of words used and our great good fortune in being born English-speakers, then all it seems to be saying is that it's better to write clearly than to not write clearly, and that use of a standard grammatical variant helps that. Surely there's nothing massively contentious about that either, is there?

Onwards then to the comparison with algebra. Once again we have an inappropriate comparison. (And this time, as a mathematician, I object. An elegant mathematical proof is as beautiful a thing as an elegant sonnet.) But the meat of the paragraph is that we are free to write in whatever way we choose and that the supposed "rules" are no such thing. Now that may be arguable by some but we're all good card-carrying descriptivists here and we say that kind of thing all the time. (Though we may make the point more eloquently.)

The penultimate paragraph is rather muddled as initially it seems to be at odds with the previous sentiment in suggesting that professional writers have to abide by the very rules he has just denied the existence of. I'd suggest that once again he's guilty of nothing more than a good intent that's not very well expressed. The paragraph can be summed up in the perfectly sound advice to write with your audience in mind. Take any kind of writing course and this is practically certain to be the first thing they will tell you.

The last paragraph I must admit I can't work out at all. Apart from the inconsistent question and answer form of the opening sentences it makes the bizarre assertion that has/had follows a "pattern of irregularity" which would only be true if he could provide some other verbs that have the pattern. (I can't think of any.) And to finish there is the little "English is the greatest" jingoistic flourish. OK I admit this paragraph makes no sense but one paragraph does not an article make.

So to sum up, in the briefest possible form, what has he actually said in the article?

1. different people in different situations speak with different registers

2. it's better to write clearly than to not write clearly

3. we are free to write in whatever way we choose and the supposed "rules" are no such thing

4. write with your audience in mind

It seems to me that he is guilty of only two things.

1. not answering the question and

2. not taking his own advice – the writing isn't clear, and doesn't have the audience in mind.

I don't think the article is any good but I'm not convinced that it deserves all the scorn that has been poured on it either.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
The next paragraph certainly ruffled a few feathers – mine included – in that, by and large, it's nonsense. But, if we ignore all the stuff about numbers of words used and our great good fortune in being born English-speakers, then all it seems to be saying is that it's better to write clearly than to not write clearly, and that use of a standard grammatical variant helps that. Surely there's nothing massively contentious about that either, is there?

I would disagree with this. I'm not sure that standard written English has much to do with clarity. I can understand things perfectly well that are written in other dialects. And I'm not sure he means a standard grammatical variant when he writes "the rules of grammar"; I think he means prescriptive grammar, which certainly has nothing to do with clarity.

quote:

1. not answering the question and

This is really important. A student asked a supposed expert why we should study grammar, and he didn't answer. What is this going to make her think about language experts now?

I'm not sure that I was all that clear myself there.
I meant that there's nothing very contentious about it being better to write clearly than not.

And I do, though probably not for the reasons that Mr Kilpatrick does, think that use of a standard grammatical variant is better in writing

If someone sent me a covering letter with a CV that said "I iz big time experienced in dat job wot you is advertised", I'd have no trouble understanding it but I wouldn't give him the job. This of course is a matter of register - but that was point number 1.

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
I meant that there's nothing very contentious about it being better to write clearly than not.

Oh ok. I'd agree with that!

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
I'm not defending this faux-etymology, just suggesting that we all have things we believe that aren't necessarily true and that when you believe something it's very easy to forget to check it.

That's certainly true. I am pretty sensitive to small mistakes like this. On the other hand, this the sort of mistake, caused by not checking something that can be easily checked, is one that popular writers on language often make. The other thing I meant by uninformed opinions are more general assertions about language made without evidence - for instance: the English language is in decline, nonstandard dialects are bad, good grammar = clear communication, etc.

Agreed on all points there.

The whole controversy hinges on the meaning of "Study grammar."

Some say it means, "Strictly Memorize and Strictly Follow the Rules of Syntax that my friends and I accept ..." If you don't do this, you will be judged a bad person deserving of severe punishment.

Others say "Study Grammar" means it would be a good idea for you to read up in Linguistics, Phonology, Semantics, History of Language, Rhetoric, und so weiter.

I might not have defended Kilpatrick so readily ("refreshing") had I known more about his other writing. Goofy, I read the apostrophe article on your Blog, and that one was definitely overboard. I suspect you and z were coming from knowing more about him.

I guess I did think he answered the question, though.

My post on the apostrophe has little to do with Kilpatrick, really. I just took his weird statement about how English started going to the dogs 500 years ago, and then, pretending I was a rabid defender of "good grammar", tried to imagine why that would be. I ended up in outer space.

Ahm, er, wouldn't this be the same James J Kilpatrick whose mug one watched weekly on the "Point/ Counterpoint" segment of "60 Minutes" throughout the 1970's? Apparently his feather-ruffling ways come through nearly as strongly in the print medium. As I recall, it was the late Tom Snyder in early SNL years whose memorable riff on Kilpatrick-to-Shana Alexander, directed to Jane Curtin, always began: "Jane, you ignorant slut."

The very same.
Long after his views on English and grammar are forgotten, he will be remembered as the father of screaming-head journalism.
But it was the still-living Dan Aykroyd, not Tom Snyder, who created the tagline that perfectly summarizes cable news.

His latest column begins:

quote:

DEFENDING THE DOODAD ON THE LAMB CHOP

Old wives have a lot to answer for. Such as that opening sentence.
You will have noticed that the sentence ended with a preposition.

Wait, what? "chop" is a preposition?

I rather suspect that he means "for".

:-|