The two most recent posts at language log ( here and here) are about recent examples of two of the things that get people all hot under the collar - splitting infinitives (misplaced adverbs) and which/ that usage.

Fascinating. I think that people grasp these easily remembered but utterly incorrect rules of English grammar, simply because they are a short-circuiting of the complex process of writing elegant and efficient prose. I was interesting to find a pre-Fowler reference (Goold Brown) to the that-which shibboleth. Thanks, Bob.

Nice links, Bob. Of course, as we've talked here before, I completely agree with Language Log on this.

However, a matter that has been amusing me lately here is that linguists, for some reason, seem to think it is odd to have people who disagree with them. I've been convinced (mostly) in another thread by zmj and goofy that every single linguist known to man agrees on these types of questions (here it's about which/that and splitting infinitives; there's it's about numbers of words for snow in Inuit). However, particularly in this discussion, there are other experts in language than linguists, correct? I mean we have PhDs in English, literature, creative writing, and the like. I bet there are a few in these other categories who would disagree with all three of these issues.

I cannot even imagine thinking in my field of study that for every issue there aren't those who disagree. Heck, when I was a graduate student in SF, I dated (before I was married of course!) an herbal psychiatrist. I can only imagine some of the conversations between him and those who prescribe FDA approved psychiatric drugs.

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

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
I've been convinced (mostly) in another thread by zmj and goofy that every single linguist known to man agrees on these types of questions (here it's about which/that and splitting infinitives; there's it's about numbers of words for snow in Inuit).

Hold on, I never said that every linguist agreed on this (we were talking about the strong Sapir-Whorf hypothesis). I said I wasn't aware of any linguists who disagreed - but there might be some.

quote:

However, particularly in this discussion, there are other experts in language than linguists, correct? I mean we have PhDs in English, literature, creative writing, and the like. I bet there are a few in these other categories who would disagree with all three of these issues.

About the that/which rule... I understand that many people like the rule, think it should be followed, etc. That's fine. But that has nothing to do with the facts of English usage. I'm not surprised that people disagree about the rule, but I am surprised that people ignore the facts and claim that the rule is always followed by good writers.

Mark Halpern claims that Eskimo languages really do have more words for snow than other languages in his book Language and Human Nature. Looking at the preview on Google Books, it seems all he's done is ask some people who speak these languages for a list of words. He's not really talking about words, he's talking about "standard constructs" - "constructs... that can be used without improvisation, and with assurance that any member of that community will understand them clearly and immediately." He claims that Eskimo languages have more of these constructs than other languages, and he provides a list. But how does he know that any member of the community will understand these clearly and immediately? And why is auksalak more clear and immediate than melting snow for instance? His definition of "standard constructs" is too vague for me.

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

I've been convinced (mostly) [...] that every single linguist known to man agrees on these types of questions (here it's about which/that and splitting infinitives; there's it's about numbers of words for snow in Inuit). However, particularly in this discussion, there are other experts in language than linguists, correct? I mean we have PhDs in English, literature, creative writing, and the like. I bet there are a few in these other categories who would disagree with all three of these issues.

Well, linguistics is pretty much like other academic fields. There are plenty of issues which the disagree on and often quite strongly. There were at least two linguists who agreed on the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis, and they werer Benjamin Whorf and Edward Sapir. As for Inuit words for snow, there was a least one posting on Language Log that summarized the data by one Inuit linguist on a list of words for snow in Inuit. When it comes to questions of usage and grammar, though, most linguists would find it hard to refute the data gathered by linguists as it regards normative grammar rules like no split infinitives or the that-which rule. I'd like to make sure what it is exactly that descriptive linguists are saying that might not be obvious underneath the hyperbole of their arguments: descriptivist say that the only way to formulate the grammatical rules is to observe how language is used. Normative grammarians usually create their rules based on the opposite of this. That is, they tend to observe some usage which they do not like and then create a rule that disallows it. I am currently reading up on the history of the split infinitive rule, and here's what the grammarian George O. Curme has to say:

quote:

For centuries the to-infinitive and its modifiers have been developing into a distinct subordinate clause of a new type, which has been crowding more and more out of common use the older that-clause with a finite verb, so that the to-infinitive has acquired functions unknown to the simple infinitive. Today [1931] the infinitive clause introduced by to is a form of expression which is felt and used as a more convenient subordinate clause than the more formal clause introduced by that, followed by a subject and a finite verb. In a grammatical sense they are they are two expressions for the same thing. The to of the infinitive has become in all such abridged clauses a conjunction, so that we speak of a to-clause just as we speak of a that clause: "I am not eager to go" (or: that I should go).

Curme goes on for pages, citing examples from literature and arguing that splitting infinitives is basically a grammatical thing to do. Let's compare that with what Henry Alford says in the 19th century:

quote:

238. A correspondent states as his usage, and defends, the insertion of an adverb and the between the sign of the infinitive mood and the verb. He gives as an instance, "to scientifically illustrate." But surely this is a practice entirely unknown to English speakers and writers. It seems to me, that we ever regard the to of the infinitive as inseparable from its verb. And when we have a choice between two forms of expression, "scientifically to illustrate," and "to illustrate scientifically," there seems no good reason for flying in the face of common usage.

That's it. No citation from the literature. Curme cites two examples from 14th century late Middle English and tracks its use down through the ages. Alford baldly states " It seems to me, that we ever regard the to of the infinitive as inseparable from its verb." No proof, just his word against his anonymous correspondent's. When you point out to a peevologist examples from good writers down through the ages, they'll tell you that even good writers slip up and that we ought to be even more vigilant lest English wither and rot. Normative grammarians do not feel a need to check what their favorite authors have written to see if some construction exists. My favorite of these is that E B White did not seem to realize that he does not follow the that-which rule which he helped to imprint in so many generations of writers.

As for other academics who deal with language, I have known my share of English majors (mainly literary criticism) who are ignorant of many of the distinctions of English grammar. They have their set of rules which they learned from miss Thistlebottom and damned your empiricism and evidence and all that bother ... While I am sure that medical professionals and academics have a whole bag of things they can disagree upon, you'd be hard put to find somebody who does not think that respiration in animals involves oxygen. We are really talking about something as elemental as elements in chemistry here.

I hear what you are saying, though there is one discrepancy. While goofy says in one breath,

quote:

Hold on, I never said that every linguist agreed on this (we were talking about the strong Sapir-Whorf hypothesis). I said I wasn't aware of any linguists who disagreed - but there might be some,

in the next he said, in the other thread that it would be like someone claiming that whales were fish. Similarly z said it would be like linguists claiming how the crystal theory can cure cancer or here like believing that respiration doesn't involve oxygen.

While I even agree with z and goofy and Bob on all of these issues, I just think there are language experts (I am giving up the word "linguist") who are on both sides of the fence. The debate should be based on evidence and healthy debate. For example, I love your comparison, z, between Curme and Alford. That's a cogent argument and should go a long way toward convincing the naysayers. However, the comparisons to whales and crystals and oxygen are more like the argument from scherfig in Language Log's article that Bob posted.

BTW, in that Language Log link, I particularly agreed with this person's (Spell Me Jeff) comment:

quote:

I become immediately suspicious when a claim is proffered that someone is "the finest writer of the English language ever . . . ," be it Orwell, Shakespeare, or even Hunter S. Thompson. How would you verify such a thing (if verification is even the beast I'm aiming at)? It's like saying blue is the best color. Anything that follows must be taken with a pinch of salt.

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

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
I hear what you are saying, though there is one discrepancy. While goofy says in one breath, "Hold on, I never said that every linguist agreed on this (we were talking about the strong Sapir-Whorf hypothesis). I said I wasn't aware of any linguists who disagreed - but there might be some," in the next he said, in the other thread that it would be like someone claiming that whales were fish.

No, two different things. I said that I wasn't aware of any linguists who supported the strong Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Then I said that to claim that Eskimo has X words for snow is as inaccurate as claiming that whales are fish. There's no discrepancy there (altho the sensibleness of what I said is another matter).

But...didn't Whorf and Sapir support the X words for snow (even though it seems the number was embellished over the years)? Or do I have that wrong?

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
But...didn't Whorf and Sapir support the X words for snow (even though it seems the number was embellished over the years)? Or do I have that wrong?

Yes, apparently Whorf did talk about it. But not everyone who spreads the Eskimo snow words meme uses it to argue for Sapir-Whorf, altho some do. The two issues are not necessarily connected. If Eskimo languages really did have an unusually large number of words for snow, it would not prove that language has a determining influence on perception or culture.

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

I would like to separate the discussion of (1) the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis from (2) the sort of nonsense that peevologists hurl at people. The former is a theory of sorts and should be testable, etc., and, I personally am not convinced. The latter has already been disproved to my satisfaction, but if you find one usage rule that is actually based on historical linguistic fact, I'd like to know what it is. In fact, descriptive linguists are usually described as being against language rules, but that is obviously false. One has only to read almost any work in historical comparative linguistics or synchronic grammatical theory to see that linguists not only believe that language is ruled based, but spend most of their time discerning just what those rules are. It's just that the only way to determine the rules is to observe how some group of people (say authors) use the language. Not by sitting in an armchair, staring at one's navel, and coming up with ad hoc "rules" that have nothing to do with the grammar of the language. That's why linguists like Pullum or Zwicky have even been able to name certain categories of fallacious argument that the peevologists use: e.g., the etymological fallacy, the recency fallacy, the argumentation from logic, or lying about statistics, etc. Sapir is the first to have writen about the number of words for snow in Inuit, and other linguists have pretty much discounted the number and the gist of.his argument, but I do not compare that with the likes of William Strunk, E B White, or Lynne Truss nattering on about something they don't know about, and obviously could not even be bothered to find out about. It is they who are spreading the crystals cause cancer like tales of grammar and grammatical rules, or the whales are fish. At times, I think that they are intentionally lying, but I am afraid they are just plain ignorant, and perhaps with a little education that can be made less ignorant, and I do have hope when a peevologist like Mr S. Fry can finally succumb to reason and stop peddling all this non-grammatical nonsense.

quote:

I would like to separate the discussion of (1) the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis from (2) the sort of nonsense that peevologists hurl at people.

Yes, they are separate discussions, and I am sorry for linking them together. Let's just keep this about the peevologists then.

quote:

but I do not compare that with the likes of William Strunk, E B White, or Lynne Truss nattering on about something they don't know about, and obviously could not even be bothered to find out about.

Because I adore E.B. White as a writer, I just can't link him to all of this, particularly since he didn't follow the same rules that he and Strunk wrote about. I don't know why he co-authored that book, but I can only believe his contribution addressed the helpful hints to writing that are included, since his writing is amazing. There is consensus, I think, that there is some good advice to writers in that book (though sometimes a bit vague, like "Omit needless words." It's just that the grammar, syntex, and punctuation misinformation overwhelm the whole book. It also has that black and white attitude that just doesn't exist in good writing.

Our editors just love it though. Recently I was proofing something for publication and found that a sentence ending with a preposition actually got passed our group of editors. I snickered and let it go through.