21–30 of 64 posts
Nothing but a pile of linguistic ignorance and the authors’ weird peeves. See http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/LandOfTheFree.pdf
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for this. Even if some don't agree with this, it does in my opinion show that it can be rather silly to treat any style guide as authorative. Especially an old one, in a world where there are considered to be multiple types of English. A bit of a rant maybe, but this stems from having wasted hours on a discussion on whether or not a comma is mandatory after a certain construct, and 'Elements of Style' was bein…
> On that subject: as a non-native speaker I always wondered if there actually is a grammar (not syle) guide which is considered authorative, as there is for other languages? No living language has a fully authoritative grammar book, as the grammar of living languages is discovered, not prescribed. That's a part of what linguists do, after all, and they have plenty of debates over precisely how to do it. The overly-s…
Nothing but a pile of linguistic ignorance and the authors’ weird peeves. See http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/LandOfTheFree.pdf
I was expecting something a bit more comprehensive and damning after the link… but if one of the most objectionable and controversial claims in the book is about adverbs modifying “unique” I think I’ll continue to recommend elements of style.
Why should one use a book on English grammar that can't correctly identify English grammar in the first place?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> On that subject: as a non-native speaker I always wondered if there actually is a grammar (not syle) guide which is considered authorative, as there is for other languages? No living language has a fully authoritative grammar book, as the grammar of living languages is discovered, not prescribed. That's a part of what linguists do, after all, and they have plenty of debates over precisely how to do it. The overly-s…
As a French native, born and living in France, I can guarantee you that "a fully authoritative grammar book" backed by a public institution can be a think. Really, here even orthographic errors is supposed to be deemed as a "fault" for which you should feel very ashamed. All that with a large set of inconsistent rules, all having exceptions.
Nothing but a pile of linguistic ignorance and the authors’ weird peeves. See http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/LandOfTheFree.pdf
Thanks for this. Even if some don't agree with this, it does in my opinion show that it can be rather silly to treat any style guide as authorative. Especially an old one, in a world where there are considered to be multiple types of English. A bit of a rant maybe, but this stems from having wasted hours on a discussion on whether or not a comma is mandatory after a certain construct, and 'Elements of Style' was bein…
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_King%27s_English
Just a small sample:
"The 'split' infinitive has taken such hold upon the consciences of journalists that, instead of warning the novice against splitting his infinitives, we must warn him against the curious superstition that the splitting or not splitting makes the difference between a good and a bad writer."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> On that subject: as a non-native speaker I always wondered if there actually is a grammar (not syle) guide which is considered authorative, as there is for other languages? No living language has a fully authoritative grammar book, as the grammar of living languages is discovered, not prescribed. That's a part of what linguists do, after all, and they have plenty of debates over precisely how to do it. The overly-s…
As a French native, born and living in France, I can guarantee you that "a fully authoritative grammar book" backed by a public institution can be a think. Really, here even orthographic errors is supposed to be deemed as a "fault" for which you should feel very ashamed. All that with a large set of inconsistent rules, all having exceptions.
I got this on Kindle as preparation for starting my first novel. I found it interesting and informative, even though most of the rules in it I reckon are better followed via acquired intuition (i.e. reading a lot) than studying them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was expecting something a bit more comprehensive and damning after the link… but if one of the most objectionable and controversial claims in the book is about adverbs modifying “unique” I think I’ll continue to recommend elements of style.
For me, the most damning thing about the book is the invective against the passive. The book opens with use of the passive voice, its authors apparently unaware how idiomatic its use is in certain circumstances. It introduces the passive voice with a sentence that is in the passive voice but is so independently clunky that an astute reader would wonder "no, wait, why would anyone attempt the passive?" It then goes th…
Out of curiosity I googled "we intend this book" and people do seem to use that wording sometimes in introducing their books. Why don't Strunk and White do that?
Nothing but a pile of linguistic ignorance and the authors’ weird peeves. See http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/LandOfTheFree.pdf
I was expecting something a bit more comprehensive and damning after the link… but if one of the most objectionable and controversial claims in the book is about adverbs modifying “unique” I think I’ll continue to recommend elements of style.