
Pedants' Favorite Grammar Rules are Probably Fake - mkr-hn
http://daily.jstor.org/grammar-rule-is-probably-fake/
======
Jun8
"These are “the modern truths about language: language changes constantly;
change is normal; spoken language is the language; correctness rests upon
usage; all usage is relative.”

There's of course truth to these statements, backed by a lot of linguistic
research. Yet one has to be careful so as not to lean too much the other way.
Using certain forms of language may be acceptable to your local peer group but
may be a marker that others pick up on and label you.

As for "all usage is relative": I think the points pg makes in his essay
"Taste for Makers"
([http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html))
are spot on (though he was talking in the context of art, beauty, and taste):

"Saying that taste is just personal preference is a good way to prevent
disputes. The trouble is, it's not true. You feel this when you start to
design things.

Whatever job people do, they naturally want to do better. Football players
like to win games. CEOs like to increase earnings. It's a matter of pride, and
a real pleasure, to get better at your job. But if your job is to design
things, and there is no such thing as beauty, then there is no way to get
better at your job. If taste is just personal preference, then everyone's is
already perfect: you like whatever you like, and that's it."

~~~
aaron-lebo
Taste _is_ entirely a personal preference. The trick is to get other people to
agree with your own. It's hard to look at the drastically different ideas of
what is "tasteful" across different cultures and believe that there's any such
thing as a universal view on it. We only have that mindset because
Western/American culture in particular has been promulgated across the world
and poeple in Hollywood or SV have chosen what is or isn't fine.

Also, who cares if people label you for your use of language. Those people can
get over themselves. Some of the linguistic tricks from those in the lowest
rungs of society now dominate our discourse and it's because they didn't care.

~~~
pdabbadabba
Well _you_ should care if you want to be hired, published, or generally taken
seriously in certain environments. (Note that speaking "proper" English is not
always what you want either; there are some social situations where other
dialects will get you farther -- and, of course, all of this also applies to
languages other than English.)

But I also take your point. The problem--as is often the case with various
forms of stereotyping--is that such preconceptions are simultaneously useful
as indicators about a person you are dealing with (such as level of
education), but also deserving of serious skepticism since they can have the
effect of disadvantaging certain groups, cause you to miss interesting
opportunities, and generally making life less interesting by enforcing a
stultifying uniformity.

~~~
tsotha
It's pretty normal to switch between styles of speech depending on the
situation. Word and grammar choices you use with a good friend are different
than those you'd use in a television interview are different than those you'd
use in court.

There are times in your life in which you need to speak with precision, and
that means using generally agreed upon grammar and vocabulary. There's no harm
in breaking those rules in everyday speech, but you should _know_ them.

------
felixhandte
This article does a very poor job of acknowledging and discussing the
distinction between prescriptive and descriptive linguistics.

In contrast, David Foster Wallace's essay "Authority and American Usage" (pdf:
[http://wilson.med.harvard.edu/nb204/AuthorityAndAmericanUsag...](http://wilson.med.harvard.edu/nb204/AuthorityAndAmericanUsage.pdf))
is an excellent, though lengthy, discussion of these issues. I can't recommend
it enough to anyone interested in these sorts of things.

~~~
nohat00
There is such a thing as linguistic prescription, but there isn't really such
a thing as "prescriptive linguistics". There are linguists, who study and
describe language, and then there are people who promulgate their opinions
about language. Opinion promulgators are not "prescriptive linguists" and what
they practice is not "prescriptive linguistics".

~~~
pavedwalden
Is this a meta-joke about pedants?

------
aaron-lebo
I used to be a pretty big pedant, then I took a semester of a lingusitcs
program and the point was hammered home that language really is relative.
Right/wrong has very little place in the topic.

I can't find the exact quote but in Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky makes some
statement about how the ability for any person to speak, use, invent, modify,
evolve language proves that everyone, not just a select few, are inherently
creative and intelligent. We just don't always harness it. Of course, there
are some limits to that statement (Chomsky would know that more than anyone
else), but it rings true.

The idioms and phrases that we deem correct today were incorrect at some point
in the past and there are phrases that sound wrong now which will be perfectly
natural in the future. Being a pedant is a waste of time, what's more: it
stifles creativity.

As a small example, I constantly see "bias" used in place of "biased" and
"dominate" used in place of "dominant" online, usually in discussions about
sports. I hate those uses every single time I see them (especially the latter
because the spelling/sounds don't even match), but I've come to realize that
language will often simplify itself and take shortcuts, and that may be what's
happening here.

What would be really interesting is to track the evolution of language, which
you could do online very well, even perhaps arriving to the origin of certain
words/phrases, etc.

It's really a fascinating topic if you can let your own bias get out of the
way.

~~~
Tenhundfeld
A Way with Words is a fantastic podcast, also aired on many NPR stations.
Definitely check it out if this topic interests you.
[http://www.waywordradio.org/](http://www.waywordradio.org/)

They usually have a segment about tracking the origins of certain
words/phrases, often to a regional dialect. And they have segments about pet
peeves or settling grammar disputes, e.g., between spouses.

Listening to the show has helped my pedantic tendencies. I still think it's
important to know the current established, mainstream grammar rules and
vocabulary, but it's also important to understand that language is always
evolving and highly dependent upon context.

------
sweezyjeezy
My pedantry is involuntary, these rules were drilled into me as a kid. When I
see a mistake my eye gets snagged on it, as if I were running and stumbled
over - it's annoying. So this article doesn't help me much personally.

~~~
Swizec
Which, is often on purpose. Sometimes I want you to. Trip.

~~~
tsotha
Which is fine, as long as it's deliberate.

------
scotchmi_st
I would say that unless you know the rules (imaginary or real), it's not
possible to break them in a way that is interesting. A programming example:
PEP 8 makes no difference to whether or not your Python code will run. You can
quite happily code all day without knowing anything about it. There are also
plenty of times when you shouldn't follow it religiously. But without reading
it and taking on board what it means, people will find reading your code more
tiresome, and you won't know when to break the rules in a way that's helpful
or interesting for the reader. The same, I believe, applies to English
grammar.

~~~
bjt
I see a few distinctions between code and prose.

Code is written with two kinds of readers in mind: the computer and other
humans. Prose is written just for humans.

With code, there is a very precise set of rules determining whether the code
will be readable by a computer. There is no correspondingly precise set of
rules for understandability by humans.

I can see the analogy between PEP 8 and grammar rules, but I think there's an
important distinction in the provenance of those rules. PEP 8 is a formal
proposal adopted by the BDFL. There is no mechanism for submitting or
approving formal proposals for English grammar rules. So the spoken language
is always the authority on what's correct and what isn't.

~~~
scotchmi_st
> Code is written with two kinds of readers in mind: the computer and other
> humans. Prose is written just for humans.

I don't think the fact that code is also meant to be read by a computer is
relevant in this context. But let's take another example if that doesn't work
for you: the novel Trainspotting by Irvine Welsh. It's written in a phonetic
Edinburgh style. By 'normal' english standards, it doesn't make any sense. If
someone was to write in the same style way without any knowledge of English
grammar and spelling, you would just assume they couldn't spell. But that's
why, in the context of a novel written by a talented author, it's actually a
great bit of prose. I could give thousands of other examples.

------
barteklev
The topic is complex. Author is right that law/science/anything-orginated
standard of language is a trap and misunderstanding. On the other hand this
can be easly interpreted as "we can speak just as we want".

As a language freak (and polyglot by the way) I have found out that one should
develop his own language and in fact he/she's gonna do it anyway, the only
choise - consciously or not. I've choosen to constantly improve my language
and I like this decision, I've seen how big is language's influence on
speaker. It's just like an operating system for computer.

On the other hand if you want communicate efficiently you must accept the fact
that everybody have own word meanings and speak a little differently and you
should adapt to it. Another thing is relation language-subconsciousness, I
belive there's very broad influence. Those factors that make caring about
language worth. By the way conforming national standard is not the best way:
"who's language - he/she rules", so if you want to rule, you need your
personal.

As usual, we need to find the golden mean.

------
lexcorvus
If enough people make the same error, especially if they're sufficiently high-
status, eventually it becomes standard usage. But there's a transitional
period during which those who care about clear communication are
understandably disturbed by the mistake. E.g., the usage "I'm going to lay
down" is wrong, but it's common even among educated speakers. (In this context
"lay" requires an object; the right usage is "I'm going to _lie_ down" or,
more poetically, "I'm going to lay myself down.") Shall we simply lay
down—sorry, _lie_ down—and accept such linguistic shifts, or shall we rage
against the dying of the lie, er, light?

------
vincentbarr
What does this say for the GMAT? The test has two categories: verbal and
quantitative. 35% of Verbal questions fall into a category called 'Sentence
Correction', which test grammar. Many correct answers to these questions are
hotly-debated and often in contradiction to current style guides.

Perhaps, there is some value in segmenting test-takers in their ability to
learn and apply an arbitrary set of rules in place of their own. But, perhaps
not.

------
elchief
From Archer:

"I need a lead-acid battery, fifty units of plasma, some bolt cutters, and
something called a - Defrimbulator?"

"That's a made-up word."

"They're all made up."

~~~
tormeh
Also "what are we gonna do with literally, not figuratively, a ton of
cocaine?"

------
wrsh07
Despite this, it's still valuable to be able to speak with precision when
necessary. The same is true of speaking concisely.

~~~
zeroBanna1spec
Sure, but is there a point to all those boring English classes?

I need to speak in a clear way for others to understand me. That may not mean
speaking how my English teachers in public school expected me to.

It's like starting a company. You have an idea, a product, but you have to
build custom scaffolding, engineering, human resources. Whatever. There may be
some common patterns/idioms one can rely on for guidance, but you'll rarely
ever cling to them religiously.

Which is, IMO (though backed by academic research as well), where a lot of
this pedantry originates. Humans and their long history of forcing our
personal notions of right/wrong on each other.

It's ideas like this article, and this ensuing discussion that prop up my hope
that we'll maybe, possibly, start realizing it's bullshit. Instead of saying
"Hey, do it my way." we'll start asking how we can be of use.

------
Zigurd
The proof is in the pudding, which begs a large question that's growing like
Topsy.

Now I need to take a shower.

------
hnal943
Eh, if language is primarily about communication, there are many benefits to
standardization. It feels like a cop-out to just say that everyone gets to
make up their own rules of grammar. People also used to make up their own
spellings, but standardizing increased the efficacy of communication.

~~~
mkr-hn
I have never seen a situation where using a less common spelling or grammar
was more distracting than the pedantic tangent it produced.

~~~
dingaling
I've experienced confusion reading corporate documents which contained poor
grammar or orthography.

As an example of the latter, based loosely on a real example:

    
    
      It is preferred to take the server to run-level 1 then to reboot.
    

So, I telinit 1 followed by shutdown -r now ...?

In operational-readiness documents there really must not be any leeway for
confusion or ambiguity, yet I've encountered many such examples. The usual
retort of 'language evolves!' doesn't hold true in circumstances where a
common, unequivocal meaning is required.

You'd think programmers would be aware of that, writing strictly-defined
grammar all day long!

~~~
rayiner
That's a fantastic example, thank you.

------
melling
Anyways... most people ignore them.

------
Uhhrrr
If they really believed this the title would be, "Fake Probably Is Grammar
Rule Your Favorite".

~~~
mkr-hn
English sentence construction flexibility is super. You can invent a
construction to fit your point (and nothing else), but that doesn't mean there
are hard rules.

------
russelluresti
This article is definitely useful for the HN community.

...

</sarcasm>

~~~
noarchy
I genuinely think it is useful to have articles like this on HN. We do have
our share of pedants, and many with comments that do nothing but correct
someone's grammar or spelling. I suppose a debate can be had over how useful
any of that is. Is it worth shutting down or diverting a discussion due to
things like grammar?

~~~
russelluresti
Sure, every community has pedants, but HN is supposed to be for news that
relates to startups, technology, and web/software development. There are a ton
of other sites and communities where articles like this belong - reddit, digg,
etc., HN just shouldn't be one of them. Would you post this article on a web-
development-based subreddit?

But hating "grammar nazis" is something everyone loves to do, and feeling
mentally superior is something that the HN community loves to feel, so
articles like this get up-votes while people who want to stay on-topic get
down-votes.

But, oh well, just another step towards the degradation of this community and
its content. NBD.

------
gergles
I'm amazed that even (pseudo-)academic articles now have clickbait titles.

