

Mistakes about grammar mistakes - alexandros
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2168

======
baddox
I would be interested to know the author's definition of grammar. He seems to
be using the common yet vague definition of grammar, something along the lines
of "the proper arrangement of words in a phrase or sentence." However, from a
critical/academic standpoint I always thought grammar was more general.
Wikipedia, m-w, and answers.com all allow for "grammar" encompassing
essentially all structural rules of a language, including semantics, syntax,
morphology, etc.

Also, I specifically disagree with his number 3. I have never heard or seen "I
can do that easy" in formal speech or prose. He seems to be arguing against
grammar Nazism, which I can agree with, but that doesn't mean that a perfectly
acceptable and understandable sentence may still be ungrammatical. "I can do
that easy" is ungrammatical.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
Bear in mind that descriptive grammarians determine what is and is not
grammatical based not on abstract principles of grammar, most of which
originate in the prescriptive tradition of the 18th and 19th centuries, but on
actual recorded use (i.e. in the same way that dictionaries determine the
meanings of words).

In other words, if there is a broad tradition of people saying and writing, "I
can do that easy", it is _de facto_ grammatically correct to do so.

~~~
Nwallins
> if there is a broad tradition of people saying and writing, "I can do that
> easy"

But is there? It sounds awful to my ears. Does this not just boil down to the
distinction between prescriptive vs descriptive camps?

I believe there is in fact a broad tradition of people saying "I be (going to
the store)", but I would say that usage of "be" is incorrect. As well with
"I'm gonna ..." or even "Ongonna ...". This type of language can certainly be
used "correctly" in prose, to add color and flavor, but I would never expect
to see it in a proper non-fiction context.

~~~
scott_s
If people say "I can do that easy," they draw out the "easy."

~~~
Nwallins
Shoot, even I can do that -- easy!

------
nazgulnarsil
Language isn't _proper_ or _improper_ , it is either precise or it isn't. it
is precise when it effectively conveys the information that the originator
intended to send. breaking grammatical rules can in certain circumstances
assist with this. but the vast majority of the time improper grammar impedes
understanding. the fact that this misunderstanding is often minor enough and
the type of mistake common enough that the reader can figure out what you mean
isn't a valid excuse.

~~~
TNO
[http://www.chaosscenario.com/main/2010/01/when-can-a-
comma-c...](http://www.chaosscenario.com/main/2010/01/when-can-a-comma-cost-
you-2-million.html)

------
russell
From thefreedictionary.com: "A normative or prescriptive set of rules setting
forth the current standard of usage for pedagogical or reference purposes."
That sure sounds like what the original article was talking about.

Some quibbles with Pullum's blog: than vs. then is not a spelling mistake.
They are different words and the improper usage is a grammatical error as
nearly everyone understands the meaning of grammar. "Less brains" vs. "fewer
brains" is a stupid example. "Brains" means intelligence in that context.
"Fewer intelligence" is silly.

Now, some of the original rules are purely matters of taste. I use lots of
commas, But if you use "i.e", when you should use "e.g." then you come come
off as sloppy.

The real problem with strict grammarians is that some of the rules were never
normal usage (dont end a sentence with a preposition) and others fail to track
the evolution of usage ("different from" vs. "different than").

~~~
telemachos
_The real problem with strict grammarians is that some of the rules were never
normal usage (dont end a sentence with a preposition)_

I would go even a bit further. The specific example you cite is a case where
the rule not only doesn't follow normal usage for English, but derives from an
entirely different language. The rule, like many others, comes from Latin
usage. In English, as a Germanic language, it is not only common, but often
correct and natural, to end a sentence with a preposition.

There is a common tendency for adverb-verb groups in English to split and for
the verb to move forward in the sentence as the preposition slides down to the
end. As an example, think about how natural this sounds: I'll be right along
after I finish writing this reply down.

The rule was always complete crap. But it appealed to the sensibility of
people who knew Latin and felt that applying its norms to English elevated
them. It's a class thing, at some level, I suppose.

~~~
sokoloff
_I'll be right along after I finish writing this reply down_

It sounds not at all natural to me. Was it supposed to?

~~~
telemachos
Yup. It wasn't meant to be elegant, but "I'll be there after I write this
down" is both natural and common and (the only thing that matters here)
perfectly good English style and grammar.

------
RK
Maybe I only notice because my parents pounded the difference between less and
fewer into my head when I was growing up, but... It seems like speakers of
American English have simply forgotten that "fewer" exists.

~~~
nollidge
Is that bad?

~~~
nagrom
Yes, it is bad. The distinction between less and fewer can aid interpretation
of a sentence, especially in spoken language.

Consider: "I have less chocolate" vs "I have fewer chocolates"

In the first case, even if you don't hear the correct ending to the word
chocolate, it is clear that you are talking about an amorphous mass of
chocolate. In the second case, it is clear that you have distinct chocolates.

Natural language works on multiple redundancy, expecting some wastage as the
information is conveyed. Any common mistake that detracts from the precision
with which you can express yourself is a bad thing.

------
lssndrdn
I always thought that the Strunk and White was about style - it's up to the
reader to decide whether it's good advice or not - but to call it clueless is
just wrong. My English improved a lot after reading that book.

~~~
electromagnetic
Style, frequently, should be personal and 'learning' it often betrays the
original writers intent. However, you're right. Strunkn and White were
writing, primarily, about style and in such it is more akin to a recipe book
for writing rather than it is a dictionary for spelling. If the book helps you
in one specific area that you yourself desired to change, then it's likely
been beneficial.

Having said that, Strunk and White's book is an abomination of self-
contradiction. I can tell by your writing, albeit only a small snippet, that
you don't follow their teachings religiously (as some do; IE the Grammar
Nazi's - a little knowledge is a dangerous thing). You use your own style for
parenthesise (dashes rather than commas), likely one you picked up and liked,
and one the Elements of Style suggests is wrong (at least from as much as I've
managed to read of the text).

------
raffi
This blog post struck me as venemous link bait. Sad to see such a thing on the
Language Log.

------
jsulak
I wrote about this kind of thing a while back (about some different "rules'):
[http://www.wordsinboxes.com/2008/07/splitting-grammatical-
ha...](http://www.wordsinboxes.com/2008/07/splitting-grammatical-hairs.html)

~~~
jrockway
Good post. I think too many people think that the simplified English they
learn in first grade is the same English they should use once they are adults.
(I know first grade is where I heard "never begin a sentence with 'and' or
'but'", anyway. The other rules were introduced at a similar time. I ignored
them then and my grades suffered as a result. But of course, now I get paid to
write, and nobody tells me which words I can start a sentence with. LOL.)

~~~
eru
Indeed. Though you shouldn't end a paragraph with LOL. (Or start it with, or
put it anywhere.)

~~~
jrockway
LOL.

(I only say that because I did.)

------
RyanMcGreal
This was a fun read. Yet:

> A guy who writes _I could of been a contender_ can't spell, sure, he knows
> how to say grammatically that he could've been a contender (and who knows,
> perhaps in some realm other than writing he could've been).

Is it just me, or is this sentence ungrammatical?

~~~
briansmith
I believe it is just a simple typo. He meant to have "but" before "he knows."

~~~
electromagnetic
Agreed, it sounds like he mistakenly let the 'but' go silent because of a
comma, however when the comma is part of a parenthesis (the 'sure') this rule
doesn't apply. He could have resolved it with any of the following:

can't spell, sure. He knows

can't spell, sure; he knows

can't spell, sure, but he knows

It requires that _extra_ pause that the parenthesis removed. How he wrote it
should read more akin to this:

can't spell (sure) he knows

A parenthesis can, usually, be removed without an effect on the readability of
the sentence, as the 'usually' in this sentence can. However, his can't
because the two ends around the parenthesis aren't contiguous. I'd let this
pass to a simple case of writing fast and being unable to catch the error on a
proof read (if he did one). I've worked as a writer, and I can say honestly
that it's surprisingly easy to miss errors when you know _exactly what you
mean_ and hence why all good authors have good editors between their
manuscript and the book you buy.

