"Yet it is perfectly safe to assert that there is one department of human instruction undertaken with more thoughtless self-confidence or with less appreciation of the necessity of that preliminary equipment which consists in making one's self reasonably familiar with words and constructions as employed in the classics of our tongue. As a consequence the course commonly followed had been attended with some most astounding results. There is not a single great author in our literature in whose works numerous errors have not been pointed out or thought to be pointed out. They are charged with violating rules involving the purity if not the permanence of the language. A somewhat depressing inference follows from the situation thus revealed. The ability to write English correctly does not belong to the great masters of our speech. It is limited to obscure men who have devoted themselves to the task of showing how far these vaunted writers have fallen short of the ideas of linguistic propriety entertained by their unrecognized betters. As a result of these critical crusades there is no escape from the dismal conclusion that the correct use of language is not to be found in the authors whom every one reads with pleasure, but is an accomplishment reserved for those whom nobody can succeed in reading at all.

"The very statement of such a condition of things carries with it the condemnation of the processes by which it has been brought about. Not that it is the intention to maintain here that the great writer cannot fall into error. That he does so is certain. It happens, indeed, far less frequently than is commonly asserted. Still, there is no doubt that through haste or heedlessness or even pure ignorance the most scrupulous is sometimes betrayed into language of doubtful propriety. Here, of course, is meant not the disregard of the numerous observances and restrictions which every callow student of speech thinks it is his duty to set up, but the commission of errors which would be looked upon as errors by the whole body of cultivated men and would be acknowledged as such by the author himself the instant his attention was called to them. Even he who strives with the utmost solicitude for what he deems correctness of expression will be more fortunate than most if some lapse into which he has been betrayed never reveals itself to him until what he has written has been enshrined in the immutability of print.

"There is nothing, indeed, to give the great author absolutely complete possession of all the facts of language—which are in truth infinite—any more than the facts of any other branch of knowledge. Mistakes accordingly must occur."

[Thomas R. Lounsbury. 1908. The Standard of USage in English. pp.135ff.]

There's an old saying: Those who can, do; those who can't, teach.

Pace Bob, Doad, et al!

... and, those who can't teach, teach gym.

No, no, z. Those who can't teach become education consultants.

quote:

There is not a single great author in our literature in whose works numerous errors have not been pointed out or thought to be pointed out. The ability to write English correctly does not belong to the great masters of our speech. It is limited to obscure men who have devoted themselves to the task of showing how far these vaunted writers have fallen short of the ideas of linguistic propriety entertained by their unrecognized betters.

A great and luminous author has better things to worry about that finding all his slips of the pen. That's for the editors and the korinthenkackers.

Zmj, what a wonderful quote. This board has really helped me to put all those "rules" in perspective, though I just wish I'd been enlightened earlier. I cannot tell you how many students I've recommended Strunk and White to. (Curses! Ending a sentence with a preposition!) However, in all fairness, the students I recommended it to probably could benefit. Still, I believe I was a bit of a prescriptivist.

quote:

It is limited to obscure men who have devoted themselves to the task of showing how far these vaunted writers have fallen short of the ideas of linguistic propriety entertained by their unrecognized betters.

This says it all.

My problem is that I write a lot, and in our organization our editors are prescriptivists. They will turn their noses up and say, "Your sentence is in the passive voice. Of course, they will have sources, like Strunk and White, to support them on that. I must refer them to Wordcraft!

quote:

"Your sentence is in the passive voice. Of course, they will have sources, like Strunk and White, to support them on that. I must refer them to Wordcraft!

Refer them to me. I, like many UK users of English, consider that the use of the passive voice is to be applauded in many cases. When it is considered necessary to ensure that an assertion is kept distant from the asserter, then the use of the passive voice fulfills that purpose in an exemplary way.

It is to be recommended that those who eschew the passive voice become familiar with its unique virtues prior to their criticising it for its presumed vices.

It is further recommended that those who cite sources that might be considered dubious, be asked to quote them accurately and in full. It will then frequently be found that their understanding of the "rules" is faulty.