We must stop correcting grammar

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Will Fly
Date: 09 Dec 17 - 08:43 AM

One of my favourite sites...

http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/gobbledygook-generator.html

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Dec 17 - 08:37 AM

Y'all are so right.

Vive la difference, indeed. With an accent on the e after the fs. I don't remember html either.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Dec 17 - 07:41 AM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 08 Dec 17 - 08:23 PM

We really need to give up on decimation.

Hear hear!
Let's go back to pounds shillings and pence :-)

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Mr Red
Date: 09 Dec 17 - 06:43 AM

from splitting infinitives

WOT? U spekin Latin or sumpin?

There are scholars far more erudite than I (or me), let us just say professors of English at Oxford University, who claim it is not possible to split an infinitive in English.

First find your infinitive.

Don't argue with me, I just use English to communicate. Take your grievance up with the professor.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Dec 17 - 05:56 AM

Lasagna can be given an evocative power beyond deliciousness depending on the writer. "Helena had given birth just last Tuesday to beautiful little Tiffany. Helena was in wonderful spirits but her vagina still looked like a punched lasagna."

You gonna finish that slice Steve?

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Will Fly
Date: 09 Dec 17 - 03:57 AM

And the enormity of typing on this feckin' iPad keypad is beyond me!

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Will Fly
Date: 09 Dec 17 - 03:55 AM

I quoted Orwell' essay earlier on because one of the points he makes is that people sometimes use words or phrases in order to sound more "impressive", rather than to sound simpler and clearer. They think words such as decimate and enormity are somehow more meaningful - even when they don't fully understand the

"The enormity of the task was beyond him" is used to mean "The huge size of the task was beyond him", when it actually means "The vile nature of the task was beyond him".

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: leeneia
Date: 08 Dec 17 - 09:44 PM

I agree, Steve. And I pity that poor lasagne. (I'm curious. Did you know how to spell 'lasagne' right off the bat, or did you have to look it up? I would have to look it up.)

Today I read a quotation that's right on point for this thread. I have to paraphrase:

People will forget what you did, and people will forget what you said. But people will always remember how you made them feel.
            ~ Maya Angelou

Those who feel free to make others feel small by correcting their usage should remember that.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 17 - 08:23 PM

We really need to give up on decimation. Even if the word hadn't acquired its modern usage, just think: no army these days ever kills one-tenth of its own soldiers. The word would retain some mystical, arcane, redundant meaning only and would probably die away. But we've hung on to it by giving it a meaning beyond its literal past. I think that's really good meself. Now excuse me as I'm just off into the kitchen to decimate that leftover slab of lasagne...

Good word!

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Dec 17 - 07:00 AM

Its a small change but we used to say "I read it -in- the newspaper", when newspapers had an inside, but technology has changed so we often say 'I read it -on- the Guardian, or on Brietbart' or whatever.

Its what is on (the screen) not what is in the screen.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Dec 17 - 06:32 AM

When I see a thread like this I think "OH good, here's a chance to learn about grammar". The topic of grammar quickly evolves into personal reprisals.

You see, my angular gyrus is not dedicated to language. Instead automatic language function does not exist for me. My workaround is to process information bilaterally and send information back and forth between hemispheres. This bicameral processing takes more time in real time speech but makes for more interesting writing. Some things get lost in the translation and that is mostly proper names. I don't know what's going on in the la Broca speech region in the frontal cortex, but being male and having only the left region as opposed women who have one on each side, may be respondsible for language difficulty.

This spectrum condition called dyslexia appears as soon as kindergarten or 1st grade. The strategies being taught to dyslexic children today are much different and detailed than my early methods.

Vivre l'differance.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 08 Dec 17 - 05:25 AM

'Pleonasm' had me rushing to look it up in an online medical dictionary...

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 17 - 05:01 AM

I put five pleonasms in my last post. What better way than by example! They're quite hard to entirely eliminate.

Look at that! A split infinitive AND a pleonasm in just three words! Whaddam I like!

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 17 - 09:14 PM

Just look it up at 6am in the morning and you'll see it with your very own eyes. The final upshot will be that you'll hardly find a safe haven for your grammatical tautologies. You'd be better off listening to the recent news.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 07 Dec 17 - 08:38 PM

Pleonasm - never heard that word - looked it up. Can think of a few who fit that bill! No gonnae dae that - tell a'body wha disnae understand "pleonasm" - they can look it up an a'! Too many words there!

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 17 - 08:02 PM

"you've nailed it decisively."

Cheers, boobs, for giving us the perfect illustration of a pleonasm!

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 17 - 08:00 PM

Reflecting on my last post (before anyone else does, winking emojee), I think I'm referring not to the pomposity of those whose mastery of the language is such that they can use elegant yet rare constructions with ease, tripping them off the tongue with amazing elan, fluidity and consummate fluency (as that isn't pomposity at all), but to those who disdain common parlance (which is always the best of all) in favour of what they mistakenly regard as "clever talk" which, they think, will impress their readers so much as to have them dazzled into uncritical acclaim, sycophancy even. I'm talking not just about those insecure types who resort to office jargon but also people who seem unable to take the path of least resistance, always the best road to take in furtherance of one's English credentials. There is NEVER any need to resort to "prior to" or "alright" or "fraught with" or "albeit" or "razed to the ground." But do it if you want to. I may well think you're an idiot. I could well be right. But equally...

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: bobad
Date: 07 Dec 17 - 07:40 PM

Good work Doug, you've nailed it decisively.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 17 - 06:50 PM

Then challenge and defend the specific points I've "complained" about, Doug, as I appear to be the main target of your contumely, of your unseemly high dudgeon.

In fact, I don't complain about misuse, not really. Complaining would have got Canute nowhere, as he ably demonstrated to his naysayers. I simply remark on the loss of elegance and nuance and the smudging of meaning. Let's see you defending "prior to" over "before." I quote no rule, as there isn't one, but I do rail against pompous inelegance.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 07 Dec 17 - 05:52 PM

The article referred to in the opening post states that, in correcting grammar, a racist contributor to a web page " ...was using his education and his superior knowledge to put someone down and make them feel bad about themselves". The author then examined his own motives and realised that he was much the same:

"I wasn't trying to show people they were wrong, or using intelligent arguments to change their minds. I only wanted them to feel demeaned. I wanted to dominate them, and show that I was better than them"


I can see how the thread drifted from grammar to irritating phrases, expressions and tautology. However, arguing that a word "is plain ignorant, whether or not it's become 'standard English' " or that a commonly used expression "is ignorant because what you've done is copied what you've heard another ignoramus say without bothering to check what it means", seems to miss the whole point of the original article. Suggesting that those who use expressions that don't fit your own personal preference are "clumsy (though technically correct)" and, "as a result, you sound ugly, inelegant and ignorant and cause a raised eyebrow or two", is doing exactly what the article asks us not to do.

DC

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 17 - 05:31 PM

When Liverpool beat Spartak Moscow 7-0 in the Champions League last night I was literally over the moon.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Iains
Date: 07 Dec 17 - 01:11 PM

decimation

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: leeneia
Date: 07 Dec 17 - 11:49 AM

The logical thing is to avoid using either word (decimate or enormity) so as to communicate clearly and avoid hard feelings.

I do the same with "comprise." I avoid it.

(Come to think of it, I wonder if they guys in the togas ever actually managed to decimate a legion. Can we suppose that the big, brutal, barbaric legionnaires simply lined up to be counted and killed? I suspect this is another one of those bad things in history which never actually happened.)

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Will Fly
Date: 07 Dec 17 - 11:13 AM

Sorry Mrrzy, "decimate" has its origins from Ancient Rome - a particular punishment being the execution of every tenth person in a legion for failure, treason or other offences.

I grant you the original word has now more or less a historical meaning, as opposed to its modern usage.

Another word used wrongly, even by people who should know better, is "enormity" - whose correct meaning is something of extreme seriousness or wrongness. But people use it to mean something large - confusing it with enormous.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 17 - 10:07 AM

Moggy?

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 07 Dec 17 - 09:42 AM

I like that word... It sounds good and strong..

It is a single word with two completely different meanings, one very nice, and the other usually a tory...

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 17 - 09:35 AM

Seeing as it is a thread about the use of English, PFR, I think the term "over sophisticated pompous windbag" could easliy be cut down to one simple Anglo-saxon word. :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 07 Dec 17 - 09:29 AM

I sooner put up with a good interesting person's fallible use of language,
than any amount of over sophisticated pompous windbags...

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Dec 17 - 08:53 AM

From: Mrrzy - PM
Date: 07 Dec 17 - 08:30 AM
Decimate is 9/10, not 1/10, dead. One-tenth survive.
My latest peeve just happened again, when did all NPR announcers start saying Coming up in 1 minutes from now? Hey people, it's either in 10 mn or 10 mn from now.
My dad used to talk about the Department of Redundancy Department...

Your meaning of 'decimate' is its modern usage. It has changed.

decimate
verb

verb: decimate; 3rd person present: decimates; past tense: decimated; past participle: decimated; gerund or present participle: decimating

kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of.
"the inhabitants of the country had been decimated"

drastically reduce the strength or effectiveness of (something).
"public transport has been decimated"

(historical)
kill one in every ten of (a group of people, originally a mutinous Roman legion) as a punishment for the whole group.
"the man who is to determine whether it be necessary to decimate a large body of mutineers"

With Coming up in 1 minutes from now? my objection would be using a plural noun for 1 minute. I also shudder when I hear the expression "one pence".

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Dec 17 - 08:30 AM

Decimate is 9/10, not 1/10, dead. One-tenth survive.

My latest peeve just happened again, when did all NPR announcers start saying Coming up in 1 minutes from now? Hey people, it's either in 10 mn or 10 mn from now.

My dad used to talk about the Department of Redundancy Department...

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Dec 17 - 06:56 AM

I have often wondered about the speech and writing of people who are not dyslexic. Do they consciously write from a set of rules or is it an automatic process?

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 17 - 06:44 AM

Exactly! I can't help thinking that "razed to the ground" had "to the ground" added by the newsreader to "help" the audience to understand what she was on about. Had she said that the houses were razed, maybe she'd thought that half the people listening would start searching in the sky for for flying houses. It would have been far more "helpful" just to say "burned down!" "Razed" is one of those words that works better written down.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 17 - 06:31 AM

Aaaarrrrggghhhhh! Sorry I started this thread. One point that comes out of it though and underlines a point I have been trying to make for years on here. There are groups of people who have difficulty understanding each other. As grammar is supposed to be about clear communication it is a related topic. Unless we use very formal and precise language there will always be room for misinterpretation. At times this could be on purpose but I think it is generally accidental.

I have no problem at all in understanding Steve's point that it is not always a question of right or wrong but of elegance, economy of language or taste. To take the point in question, it was started by a report that some houses had been 'razed to the ground' in the California fires. We all understand what it means but would it not have been simpler just to say they had burned down?

Just my 2p.

DtG

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 17 - 06:29 AM

No, Nigel. "Level" does not carry the same connotation of destruction as "raze,' neither does it bear the same stigma of cliched usage as "razed to the ground." I could level a site by removing material, by redistributing material to fill hollows and eliminate high spots or by demolishing the buildings on it then steamrollering the whole lot to flatten it. "Raze" is a gorgeously economical word with little scope for variance. "Level" can mean several different things, though with a similar goal, and can usefully be helped along its way via supporting words. Relax and enjoy the lingo, Nigel, and stop worrying.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Dec 17 - 06:18 AM

Steve.
I see that you've managed to ignore the fact that your comment "The word raze means to level a building right to the ground" misuses 'level' in the same way you claim others are misusing 'raze'.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Iains
Date: 07 Dec 17 - 06:16 AM

For stevie blunder:

Subject: RE: BS: Use of the English language
From: Iains - PM
Date: 08 Oct 17 - 03:40 AM

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 17 - 06:15 AM

I tried to correct myself there but my post hung. I meant "self-proclaimed."

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Iains
Date: 07 Dec 17 - 05:58 AM

Glad you see that the "cap fits". Is that conceit, or what?

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 17 - 05:49 AM

Thing is, Iains, if enough people over sufficient time use a word or phrase in a particular way then it becomes, with a shrug from the dictionary writers, standard English. But that doesn't mean it suddenly becomes beautiful and elegant English. Just think. Raze gives us razor. "To the ground" is fine if you really want to use it. But, to me, it implies that the person using the term, sadly, hasn't given thought as to the origin and connections of this slightly unusual, very useful and economical word. "Raze to the ground" is a pleonasm, no less than "the rain will have cleared by 6am in the morning." It also, subliminally, invites ridicule by dint of its paradoxical allusion to something being raised down instead of up.

I hate "fraught with" but the fight with that is long lost.

And never try to correct any of us ever again, Iains, until you have learned that "self-appointed" is hyphenated.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 17 - 05:08 AM

Seeing as no one else seems to have looked at the Orwell essay that Will mentioned I will provide a quote from it

Bad writers, and especially scientific, political, and sociological writers, are nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones

Razed falls into this category.

DtG

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Iains
Date: 07 Dec 17 - 05:00 AM

Most times I have seen "razed" used it has been "as razed to the ground".

The same phrase is used by many dictionaries as an example of the use of the word. I take the view that the dictionary explanation and example of usage are far far superior to any contrary views expressed here, especially by our resident self proclaimed polymath.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 17 - 04:37 AM

Level in the context of "raze" means to make level with the ground, to leave no stone on stone if you want to get all poetic about it, though no doubt a pedant examining the scene, finding one or two stones still atop other stones, might complain that the destruction was not total enough to warrant "raze." Enjoy the language, Nigel. Revel in its poetry and, every now and then, when you feel like it, put up a little fight to preserve its nuance and colour. And stop worrying.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Dec 17 - 03:33 AM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 06 Dec 17 - 02:02 PM
The word raze means to level a building right to the ground. As you can't partially raze it (as it wouldn't then be levelled), to say that it's been razed to the ground is a pleonasm. Other examples of pleonasms would be to say I'll meet you at 9am in the morning, I feel surrounded on all sides, he reverted back to type, I'll be receiving a free gift. "The building was razed" is complete, elegant and beautiful, unless it's your building and you didn't want it razed.

Foundations and cellars don't count, Nigel. They are below ground. Razing means to level, not to hollow out.

Steve, You're not just arguing with the OED, you're arguing with yourself.
An earlier definition you gave said: "Razed" means totally destroyed, smashed to the ground
Totally destroyed cannot mean partially destroyed, so when discussing buildings the difference between 'razed to the ground' and 'totally destroyed' rests with what remains below ground.

In saying "The word raze means to level a building right to the ground" are you using the same 'level' of tautology that you're complaining about?

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 17 - 07:57 PM

You're getting very defensive, Raedwulf old chap. In hundreds of posts on dozens of threads that have touched on grammar and the use of English on Mudcat, my line has always been that the way we use our language is just about the most democratic phenomenon there is. The people decide, by using English the way they want to use English, how English evolves. It doesn't cost money to use English the way you want it, and the bigwigs are always in the minority. Eton, royal palaces, the BBC and guardians-of-language gurus notwithstanding, the masses will decide how English should be used, and the self-appointed rule-makers always fail, and rightly so. I rail against rules and ridicule people who adhere to predigested notions such as split infinitives and the like. I've even posted a set of around three dozen spoof rules of English that are just about as iconoclastic as it gets. However, there's a difference between celebrating the evolution of English and tolerating the ignorance-led loss of elegance and nuance. "Irregardless" is plain ignorant, whether or not it's become "standard English." "Razed to the ground" is ignorant because what you've done is copied what you've heard another ignoramus say without bothering to check what it means. "Prior to" is ugly and always unnecessary. None of it is wrong, as there are no rules, but you can be ugly-sounding and ignorant without actually being wrong. You can stand your ground and get all indignant when someone rails against your clumsy (though technically correct) use of language, and good for you if you do. But don't blame me if, as a result, you sound ugly, inelegant and ignorant and cause a raised eyebrow or two. I did try to tell you.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Raedwulf
Date: 06 Dec 17 - 07:00 PM

Who says I've "forgotten" anything? Should I suggest that you've forgotten that language is mutable & evolves? If the likes of Oxford aren't arbiters, who is? You? I think not. So there are no arbiters, language is mutable, and the OED is about as good as it gets as a reference. A book defining the use of a language is a fossil the moment it is published (I've many books about words & their use), because it is already out of date. I don't like much of the modern evolution of English, but in 50 years we both will be fossils too, and the language will still be evolving. So much for either of us!

By the way, yes, I do use "irregardless" sometimes. I am well aware that the ir- prefix is a negative (vice 'irregular'), but in the colloquial 'irregardless' it's an intensifier - "regardless, only more so". Which is an expression I don't doubt you will also instantly hate & will take issue with. But that's how & when I (rarely) use it.

English is wonderfully flexible. It doesn't fit into a straitjacket. You can either accept that, or fight it & lose. Pedantry is a process of painting oneself into a corner, all the time yelling "Don't step on my wet paint". Not a practice I intend to indulge in. I know what "raze" means. Its usage is more flexible than you are willing to accept. Hard luck. You can rail against it as much as you want. It isn't "wrong", language changes, you are not the judge of what is right & wrong.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 17 - 05:19 PM

And a "figure of speech" it definitely is not. Dearie me.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 17 - 05:17 PM

Raedwulf, you appear to have forgotten that the job of dictionaries is to reflect, not to judge. A dictionary can declare that a term has become so commonly used that it's become "standard." But that doesn't mean that those of us who want to preserve nuance have to accept it. You are perfectly free to use the word "irregardless." It's a word because people use it as a word. But it isn't a word you'll ever hear me using. Hopefully, you neither. Your dictionary doesn't say that "razed to the ground" is "fine." It says that the term is in common use and, non-judgementally, calls it standard English. But dictionaries are never arbiters. That isn't their job. Worth remembering by those whose last resort is to a book that is merely the work of a fallible human replete with his own idiosyncrasies. I've explained what "raze" means. Why not do as I did - resort not just to dictionaries (I did) but also to books specialising in the use of English (I have four). Not one supports your defence of the deliberate degradation of a perfectly good word.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Dec 17 - 05:09 PM

and gives the ultimate derivation as a Latin verb 'to scrape'

Read Orwell's essay to see his opinion of why this is important.

DtG

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Raedwulf
Date: 06 Dec 17 - 03:40 PM

You're arguing with the OED, Steve. It's a figure of speech. It may be that it's a clarification (if you take Nigel's view). It may be that it's simply an extra emphasis; an intensifier, a doubling up, call it how you will; which isn't that uncommon in English. And that is one of the reasons why we have such a rich & many-coloured language. But, when it comes down to it, I'll trust to the OED more than to you. They say razed to the ground is fine.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 06 Dec 17 - 02:50 PM

oh drat those < / i >... the little awkward buggers..