Over at the ever excellent Language Log, Geoffrey Pullum has a post about Wonderful Christmastime.

The line he has a problem with is the main chorus

"Simply having a wonderful Christmastime".

His objection is that it only makes sense if "simply" is an adverb modifying "wonderful" whereas its sentence placement has it modifying "having".

I disagree with him.
Mayby it's a British/American thing but I have always hear this line as an ellipsis for

"We are simply having a wonderful Christmastime."

"Simply" in this placement is perfectly commonplace in UK English meaning something like "this and no more".

I understand the line as meaning "We are having a wonderful Christmastime, and that's all we need.

In fact the suggested placement of "We are having a simply wonderful..." sounds decidedly old-fashioned to me.
Comments are, as usual, closed at Language Log so I thought I'd see what people here think.

It sounds fine to me, and I'd take it just as you do, Bob. I find it a bit amusing that, with all their discussion (I am trying to be politically correct because I know everyone here very much admires Language Log...including me) about prescriptivism, sometimes they seem enter the gray areas themselves.

For me, "Simply having a wonderful Christmas" carries a slight sense of limitation, as would "just". In other words, all we are doing now is having wonderful Christmas - we are not having a wonderful Christmas and getting on the fixing that hole in the roof at the same time. Simply is modifying "having".

But used to modify "wonderful" it would emphasise, rather than limit. It is "simply wonderful" means it is especially wonderful - more so than usual.

I agree with the others, and see nothing wrong with "simply" in that position. Prof. Pullum may be barking up the wrong tree here.

Kalleh, I don't think any descriptivists would deny that some constructions are just plain wrong.

I find it a bit amusing that, with all their discussion (I am trying to be politically correct because I know everyone here very much admires Language Log ... including me) about prescriptivism, sometimes they seem enter the gray areas themselves.

Sure, people make mistakes all the time when speaking or writing. It's not being a prescriptivist to point out or correct these errors. It's another thing to say that "between X, Y, and Z" or using "decimate" as a synonym for "annihilate" is wrong because of some factoids outside the language. Descriptivism simply put says that to adequately describe a language, you have to observe people using it and describe that usage. It's as though there were two schools of biology wherein one set described how certain birds behaved, while the other group spent most of their time not observing the birds' actual behavior, but rather how the birds ought to behave.

The thing that sets off most linguists when faced with self-appointed and -anointed guardians of the language is how little the latter know or care about the structure and the history of the language they're supposedly guarding.

Pullum has examples from the Wall Street Journal corpus, where "simply" modifies verbs and means "nothing more than". He is saying it doesn't mean "nothing more than" in this song. I see his point.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
sometimes they seem enter the gray areas themselves.

I don't know what you mean.

It seems fairly common to me. I see nothing wrong with it.

Google News: simply having, Jan 1, 1800 – Dec 31, 1900

Google Books: simply having

Google books Ngrams Viewer: simply having

I don't think the issue is whether it is used. The issue is what it means.

And I don't think Paul McCartney would have meant "a simply wonderful time" because that usage is almost never heard in modern British English whereas the "just" meaning in "I'm simply having..." is heard all the time and is the meaning I have always assumed.

Incidentally Pullum says that it bugs him and makes his teeth itch, that "simply" doesn't sit comfortably as a modifier for "having".
Seems quite a strong reaction to debating the meaning of a lyric in a pretty average pop song to me, but, hey, as he says, YMMV.

Neither the addendum about knowing what it means but thinking it is "straining" to mean something else, nor the second half of the post where he presents his evidence, was there when I posted. It stopped straight after the comment about the words "not sitting comfortably together".
Nevertheless, even with the additional explanation, I still think he's wrong because nowadays you are only likely to hear the meaning he thinks it's straining for in BBC period dramas.

(I am glad I posted here rather than emailing him, though - I'd hate to ruin his Christmas Spirit. )

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

Ah, but arnie and z, I just don't think there is an "error" here (or "wrong" or "mistake" as you each said)...at least any more than the "that" and "which" or ending sentences with prepositions or other Strunk and White scenarios. That's where we disagree.

I truly respect Language Log, and have said so many times here. I constantly recommend them to linguaphiles. However, there are times, such as this one, when I think they go over to the prescriptivism side a bit. So do I and so do many here. It's not a big deal. And I still think they are amazing and will always continue to read them. They just aren't perfect. Is anyone?

I just don't think there is an "error" here (or "wrong" or "mistake" as you each said)...at least any more than the "that" and "which" or ending sentences with prepositions or other Strunk and White scenarios. That's where we disagree.

Oh, I wasn't referring to sentence in the opening post of this thread. I haven't read Pullum's post. I have noticed that Pullum can be quite dogmatic about the rightness and wrongness of things in a text. I suspect he's talking about his own ideolect. He is British you know although he lived and worked in the States for a longish time. He's back in the UK now as far as I know.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
They just aren't perfect.

Everyone is prescriptive. Everyone has their own preferences about what sounds good and bad. That's normal, I think. IMO the problem is when you don't justify your preference with evidence. Or you call people ignorant of the language if they don't agree with you.

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

quote:

Or you call people ignorant of the language if they don't agree with you.

I've noticed that every one of you is at odds with my simple ways.

quote:

He's back in the UK now as far as I know.

A post he made the next day was about the latest James Bond movie, and he mentioned that he was at Brown University, Providence, RI.

quote:

IMO the problem is when you don't justify your preference with evidence.

goofy, did you think he justified his view with evidence?

As for Pullum, this link shows that he has been a visiting professor at Brown, but that will end in December, and the he will be Professor in General Linguistics at the University of Edinburgh from January through June.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:

quote:

IMO the problem is when you don't justify your preference with evidence.

goofy, did you think he justified his view with evidence?

I think he did. But I'd like to revise my statement: you don't need to provide evidence to justify your personal preferences. I can't explain why I like certain words or kinds of writing, and I don't think I need to. What I object to is prescriptivists who want everyone else to conform to their personal preferences, or who, as zmj says, don't know or care about the structure and history of the language they're supposedly defending.

I can understand not needing evidence or rationale for liking certain words or kinds of writing. But I guess you should have some cogent explanation when you say something is wrong. So I agree with what you are saying, goofy, though I am not sure Pullum did that. Again, this is a really tiny criticism.