
50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice - gnosis
http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497/
======
grellas
The author's obsession with panning S&W reminds me of crazy Joe Davolla in an
old Seinfeld episode ("Jerry, I've got a hair on my lip and you put it there"
or something to that effect).

For me, S&W was helpful in some ways but also led me to feel that I was in a
straight-jacket as I tried years ago to follow its prescriptions.

It is good to be simple, direct, brief, and clear. But simple, short, and
active can become simplistic, monotonic, and rigidly unnatural. A bad writer
may ignore good-writing rules, but an equally bad one will apply them one-
dimensionally in arty or mechanical fashion. A good writer will do neither.
Thus, while ill use of passive voice can lead to stylistic pomposity, a
categorical exclusion of passive voice can lead to a staccato and unnatural
style. The same can be said of any arbitrary attempt to use exclusively short
words or sentences. Attempting to follow S&W without thought can lead a writer
into this trap.

In my view, the best was to master English grammar is to master a highly
stylized (inflected) language such as Latin and to work backward from that to
the "analytic" rules that govern English. Anyone who does this will have a
much greater grasp of technical points of grammar than one gets through
memorizing a few prescriptive rules such as those found in S&W. Once the
deeper technical points are well-understood, one can "let them go" in
developing a natural writing style that nonetheless reflects a high degree of
excellence for having the technical mastery underlie it. This is akin to
learning to do algorithms after having mastered deep principles of
mathematics. With the deeper technical understanding, your work will be far
more robust than otherwise. All this is another way of saying that, to achieve
excellence in grammar as in anything else, there is no substitute for plain
hard work and perseverance.

If S&W has one primary fault, it lies in stating or implying (incorrectly)
that mastery of a few rules can provide a good shortcut to this goal.

~~~
jacobolus
> _The best was to master English grammar is to master a highly inflected
> language such as Latin and to work backward from that to the "analytic"
> rules that govern English._

I agree with everything you said until you got to here. There are reasons to
learn Latin, and it will certainly help for writing English, but putting the
time in to _master_ Latin is hardly the “best” way to _master_ English
grammar, which differs from Latin grammar in as many ways as it agrees. My
guess is that learning to read 3 or 4 other languages moderately fluently, or
just putting that time into careful analytic reading and writing in English
would be just as useful. (Of course, without evidence, both of our comments
here are speculative. I’d like to see some comparative studies – though to do
them properly would be difficult, so I’m not sure any have been done that
would really settle the matter.)

Personally, I think grammar is one of those subjects whose formal study should
be delayed as long as possible, assuming that students are spending time
reading and writing and carefully analyzing rhetoric and logic of what they
read and hear. The emphasis on tools over content, in language just as much as
in mathematics, has the potential to devalue creativity and engagement, and
lends itself to the kind of rote instruction that leaves humans bored out of
their skulls.

> _This is akin to learning to do algorithms after having mastered deep
> principles of mathematics._

Weak analogy. The particularities of Latin grammar are not of the same kind as
the “deep principles of mathematics.” Maybe studying syntax in a linguistics
course or two could be compared, but I still think it’s a stretch.

> _no substitute for plain hard work and perseverance._

With the rest of this paragraph out of the way, you’re right again with this
final statement, though it’s a bit of a platitude.

~~~
grellas
I think I did overstate the case for Latin in this context. It is _a_ good way
to help with English grammar, mainly because (in my view) it forces you to
think about and apply important grammatical principles in ways that a rules-
based approach to teaching English grammar often does not. But, point well
taken, it likely is not the best way to make use of one's limited time for
this purpose.

I like your other points about grammar as well - very thoughtful.

------
pushingbits
Previous discussion here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=557618>

------
RevRal
Some advice in S&W really confused me; like, on the word prestigious: "just
because it's in the dictionary doesn't mean you should use it."

Oh, okay. What? There are a lot of words in the dictionary. Is the advice that
the word is used _too_ much? If so, not very clear.

~~~
kw_
I haven't read S&W, but I have three main reasons for avoiding that word:

1) If it's really prestigious, I shouldn't have to mention that fact.

2) If I want you to think it's prestigious, I should show, not tell. It was
given 3 michelin stars and won best film at cannes, or whatever the case may
be.

3) It's possible that many from the target markets in Asia/Europe/etc won't
know what it means anyway. As such, I try not to use complex language unless
it's crucial to the message.

edit: not to mention, prestige is subjective. Some people think a glowing
writeup in a particular publication is prestigious. Others think it's noise.
It's hard to claim either group is wrong.

~~~
Goladus
_> 1) If it's really prestigious, I shouldn't have to mention that fact._

If the context for prestige is obvious but unfamiliar, for example if you are
telling a fictional story and establishing background, then we don't have to
assume prestige should be evident. Also, if the proper name of the subject is
unknown then it would be impossible for the prestige to be evident.

 _> 2) If I want you to think it's prestigious, I should show, not tell. It
was given 3 michelin stars and won best film at cannes, or whatever the case
may be._

The subject may not be so important that it deserves so much attention. If the
use of the word 'prestige' and its subject are secondary to the point of the
sentence or paragraph, elaborating may distract from the main point. Such is
the case with many abstract words that people interpret differently. If it's
the main point then I agree.

 _> edit: not to mention, prestige is subjective. Some people think a glowing
writeup in a particular publication is prestigious. Others think it's noise.
It's hard to claim either group is wrong._

Many abstract words are subjective. I think that finding the balance between
detail and abstraction is a core writing skill. Too much detail can be
tedious, condescending, unnecessary and can obscure or confuse the main point.
Too much abstraction and people will misunderstand the message without
realizing they've misunderstood the message.

~~~
kw_
I was answering solely for myself. I'm not an author.

The only time I really choose my words super-carefully is when I'm working on
promotional copy. So that's the angle that I approached it from.

~~~
Goladus
Sure, I just found your comments interesting and wanted to respond.

------
bdr
I recommend reading it anyway. It may not be the authority on grammar, but it
can teach you a lot about (surprise!) style.

------
cletus
Boy, that post sure could've used some headings or something to liven up what
is otherwise a monotonous, self-indulgent rant.

One thing one has to remember with grammar is that people can't even agree on
whether it's prescriptive or descriptive.

It still bugs the hell out of me when (North) Americans say "Will you write
me?" WRONG WRONG WRONG, at least in a prescriptive sense. In actual English it
is "Will you write TO me?". Note the difference:

\- Will you write me a letter? (indirect then direct object) \- Will you write
a letter to me (direct then indirect; uses the preposition "to"); \- Will you
write a letter to me? (indirect object only)

Only Americans (and possibly Canadians) do it.

The point is than in a purely prescriptive sense, that's wrong and most people
tend to argue that what they use is correct. Language and grammar evolves
giving far more credence to the descriptive view.

But I digress...

------
kqr2
The author of this essay is also the co-author of _The Cambridge Grammar of
the English Language_

<http://www.cambridge.org/uk/linguistics/cgel/>

Unfortunately, the author doesn't recommend a good alternative to Strunk &
White's _Elements of Style_.

~~~
houseabsolute
I think the last paragraph of the article demonstrates that he believes such a
thing does not exist.

~~~
gjm11
Elsewhere (on the excellent "Language Log" blog) he recommends two books: for
grammar/usage, the Merriam-Webster Concise Dictionary of English Usage; for
style, Joseph Williams's "Style: toward clarity and grace".

The first recommendation I ever saw for Williams's book, FWIW, was from
Richard Gabriel (founder of Lucid Inc., author of the paper commonly but
misleadingly known as "worse is better" and of "Patterns of Software", and
these days concentrating on poetry rather than software).

------
selven
One grammar question that I don't know the answer to. When you have a
statement using "than" (eg. A cow is bigger than an ant) using pronouns, what
case is the word after "than" supposed to go into.

Is it always: I am bigger than him. I see him better than her. He does it
better than me.

Or is it: I am bigger than he. I see _him_ better than _her_ _He_ does it
better than _I_

The first one is way more common colloquially, but I see the second one used
in some formal styles. And it makes more sense too - it resolves the ambiguity
between "I see him better than her" [I see him better than she does] and "I
see him better than her" [he is more visible to me than she is].

~~~
psygnisfive
Pay no mind to the people who commented before me.

The phrase that follows the comparative preposition "than" is not necessarily
a reduced clause. It's actually almost always a simple noun phrase, taking the
default accusative case.

"I am taller than him" is Standard American. If you were to say "I am taller
than he" you'll sound like a twat.

Doesn't make sense? So what. Language isn't about making sense, it's about
getting points across. There's plenty more in English that's even more
confusing (exceptional case marking? oh yeah, baby, figure that one out).

Hell, even if it WERE a reduced relative clause there are plausible reasons
why it could still be "him", namely, "nominative" and "accusative" are
structural case, not semantic case, so they get assigned depending on the
assignee's position in the sentence structure, and you could easily reduce a
clause and, in doing so, put its subject into precisely the structure
necessary for accusative case.

~~~
kelnos
As an alternative to poor grammar _and_ sounding like a twat, one might simply
say, "I am taller than he is." Sure, it's an extra word, but it's both correct
_and_ sounds natural.

I struggle with that occasionally. Using "him" in that sentence would make me
die a little inside, but I also don't want to sound like a prick.

~~~
psygnisfive
Speaking of comparatives, a fellow grad student here at the University of
Maryland is working on a phenomena called the comparative illusion, which
involve sentences like the following:

More people have been to Russia than I have.

Think about that one for a bit. LL did a post on it, btw:
[http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000860.h...](http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000860.html)

------
andrewcooke
is it just me, or is the author of that article trying too hard? there's the
conspicuously correct use of a semicolon; long but perfectly structured
sentence with many subclauses (followed by a short sentence for contrast);
etc.

i agree with the author's general comments (although I haven't read "that
book"), and i am sure there's nothing incorrect in what he's written. but it's
not a comfortable, relaxed piece of writing, is it?

(edit: rereading that i realised i never made my point. which is that this
happens a lot. it seems to be very hard for people to write well about grammar
- they always end up writing something that feels "overworked".)

~~~
Afton
This is because if you make the slightest deviation from 'correct grammar' in
a piece about grammar, you'll be attacked mercilessly. Every word, every
m-dash, requires an unshakable argument for its correctness in that context.

Pity really, but as long as it's cheap and easy to attack anything with a
whiff of hypocrisy...

~~~
Semiapies
Well, when you're _making_ that sort of accusation of hypocrisy, you're best
off trying to avoid it.

------
jeromec
If we're asking questions here... If a group was going into a restaurant, but
saw it was dirty would it be "they changed their mind" or "they changed their
minds"?

~~~
assemble
It would be: they changed their minds.

Why? "they" refers to the group members, because "they" is a plural pronoun.

"It changed its mind" would be how you could write the first phrase. In this
phrase, "it", a singular pronoun, would refer to the group.

~~~
jeromec
Got it, thanks. What about if it read "but everybody changed their mind" or
would it be minds?

~~~
assemble
Technically, everybody takes a singular verb. Try replacing it with "every
single body" or "every person".

The main ambiquity in the phrase is that 'their' isn't -technically- correct
as a gender neutral third person possessive pronoun, despite its common usage
in that form. (Say -that- five times fast!) If you replace 'their' with 'his
or her', the agreement makes much more sense:

    
    
        Everybody changed his or her mind.
    

Personally, I would just rewrite it completely:

    
    
        They all changed their minds.
    

English is fun!

~~~
elblanco
And you can get wonderfully creative with something like

"The group changed its mind"

and

"The group changed their minds"

depending on the meaning you want the statement to have. Are you emphasizing
the concept of "group-think" or the independent conclusions of the
individuals?

It's more poetic than

"The members of the group changed their minds".

or

"Each group member changed his or her mind".

But at least you get a ridiculous bag of options for a single sentence.

~~~
jeromec
I see, thanks!

------
mhb
"Do not explain too much."

------
diN0bot
what i've always wondered is how to handle apostrophes, parentheses and
punctuation. it's not what is Right, it's what will look right to the
audience.

i love "hello world." ??

i love programs (especially hello world). ??

~~~
RevRal
If you're serious, which is likely since the internet is worldwide, I have
some advice that can help you get started. Also, I'm going to believe that
your lack of capitals is a conscious choice. A method of saving time... over
time.

Besides apostrophes, commas, and question marks, I have always considered
special punctuation as a kind of cheat. If you're using special punctuation,
there is almost always a more eloquent way of articulating your
sentence/thought.

One exercise I have employed, when organizing my writing, has been to write
without punctuation and in lines, every thought on a new line. Like a poem.
Punctuation is essentially there to separate these thoughts, so you can start
by adding the periods, then arranging your thoughts into a paragraph.

Use of special punctuation, in my opinion, is mostly a means of controlling
rhythm. And the ability to ease into the rhythm of writing is largely
dependent on a reader's, or writer's, familiarity with the language.

So, I would focus on periods and commas first, until you have a good
familiarity with the language. That is my advice to you.

~~~
etfb
"If you're using special punctuation, there is almost always a more eloquent
way of articulating your sentence/thought."

Thank you. You've just fixed my writing style. I owe you a large drink.

(No, seriously. I use semi-colons, colons and em-dashes -- pretentious and
pedantic though they be; fun though it be to be better educated than my
audience -- entirely too often: see? With the above quotation in my arsenal, I
shall cease forthwith. Consider me indebted to you for any clarity I may thus
gain.)

~~~
gjm11
Some time ago I noticed that I was using too many parentheses, and adopted a
rule that every time I notice myself writing parentheses I stop and consider
(1) whether I can just delete them or replace them with commas and (2) whether
I can get rid of them in some other way. I find that maybe 90% of the time
this leads to an improvement. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that the
same applies to other relatively unusual kinds of punctuation.

Remark 1: "sentence/thought" contains "special punctuation" and is indeed
improved by substituting "sentence or thought".

Remark 2: my parenthesis-removal rule turns out not to work very well for
programming :-).

~~~
nfnaaron
"Some time ago I noticed that I was using too many parentheses, ... (1) ...
(2) ..."

When I try to eliminate parentheses and similar parentheticals, I write
separate sentences if possible.

~~~
gjm11
Ho ho. Entirely different sort of parentheses, of course. But yes, the
sentence might have been improved by splitting it up so that it didn't need
numbering. [EDITED after looking again at what I wrote before, to add:] Or
just by removing the numbers.

~~~
nfnaaron
Oh ... Sorry, but I was absolutely _not_ critiquing your sentence. I
specifically was not objecting to your use of parenthesized numbering.

I was trying to jump off from your solution to reducing parentheses, to say
how I handle the same problem.

In an informal setting like this, I see no problem at all with casual or bumpy
grammar.

My apologies, I should have included the text of your points in the quote.

------
elblanco
I've long thought that this book was a subtle attempt at humor.

------
BearOfNH
Good article but he digs too deep. I would be happier if students just learned
to use "should have", not "should of", and related constructs. This seems
prevalent even among the college-educated these days.

Does a programmer's spelling and grammar correlate with the quality of
his[/her] code?

~~~
stcredzero
I've found that it doesn't correlate with their analytical ability or ability
to architect a clean system. But it does affect the readability of their code.

~~~
DannoHung
I would imagine that vocabulary would have a greater effect than their
spelling or grammar.

~~~
stcredzero
It's more general English Language writing ability. This tends to be
correlated with spelling and grammar.

