Scared vs. Scarred

[snoopercharmbrights]

... We have a comma to replace a period when we wish to continue. Why not with ! and ? ...

There is not "reason" why not. Language just is as it is, and mostly punctuation is likewise. When I have given an explanation for a present rule, it has usually really been an exposition of the history of its evolution rather than giving logical reasons. Who can say why all versions of English have a distinction between the definite article "the" and the indefinite "a" when the Japanese language manages perfectly well with neither?

 

[CopperSkink]

"What does 'no' mean?"

"to be, are, is, that kind of thing."

"Oh. How do you conjugate it?"

"I'm sorry?"

"How does it change according to the subject?"

"It doesn't."

"Oh. That seems kinda hard, doesn't it?"

"You spend five years learning how to conjucate one verb, now you complain about utter lack of conjucation being hard?"

Seven hundred and fifty thousand words in the English language (as of ten years ago at least), and it only seems to be getting less consistant as time goes by. I suggest we have another French revolution to fix the language system as was done with the counting system. Their new calander wasn't bad, either. I could use an extra week off at the end of the year.

 

[snoopercharmbrights]

... I suggest we have another French revolution to fix the language system ...

The French have had laws fixing the language for years, and a formal body, the Acadamie, to rule on all disputes and to fix the meanings of all words, and to decide which new words will be allowed.

All France waits with bated breath for the Acadamie to define the word "merde".

In normal everyday French it just does not work. They still say things like, "Ce weekend, apres le shopping, nous aurons un picnic ave des sandwich et le beefsteak," which horrifies the language purists.

Then there is the story of Voltaire and his ejection from the Acadamie over the definition of "anneau" (a ring) ...

 

[ishtat]

First, you never seem to understand that this is an American-based Web site and you continue to act like the only guidance is the British form. The Oxford dictionary is for the British market. You're in the miniority here, Elfin, so when there are differences between the two, we need to track down the system that we're using--and that the question is couched in. You never are able to manage that reality.

It might be worth remembering that we are all a minority here in that less than half the members of this site are American.

It might be more accurate to suggest SR that the Oxford is for the non-American English market though Australian English is diverging from it fairly rapidly. Published English conventions in India (which has more English speakers/writers than the USA) adhered until very recently even more strictly to English conventions than the English did, but that too is now changing.

 

[sr71plt]

It might be worth remembering that we are all a minority here in that less than half the members of this site are American.

It might be more accurate to suggest SR that the Oxford is for the non-American English market though Australian English is diverging from it fairly rapidly. Published English conventions in India (which has more English speakers/writers than the USA) adhered until very recently even more strictly to English conventions than the English did, but that too is now changing.

Which I do constantly (differentiating between British and American usage). A point, though, is that the British editors don't seem to reciprocate very often. They tend to provide only UK market advice, and whether or not American writers here are in some sort of minority, this is an American-based Web site, and American readers/writers are in a gigantic plurality here. That in itself is a reality to consider (not that many Brits will).

 

[snoopercharmbrights]

First, you never seem to understand that this is an American-based Web site and you continue to act like the only guidance is the British form. The Oxford dictionary is for the British market. You're in the miniority here, Elfin, so when there are differences between the two, we need to track down the system that we're using--and that the question is couched in. You never are able to manage that reality.

It might be worth remembering that we are all a minority here in that less than half the members of this site are American.

It might be more accurate to suggest SR that the Oxford is for the non-American English market though Australian English is diverging from it fairly rapidly. Published English conventions in India (which has more English speakers/writers than the USA) adhered until very recently even more strictly to English conventions than the English did, but that too is now changing.

I do offer UK advice, and where possible more general advice, but I find it more and more difficult to offer US advice, as many of the US writers on here seem to change the language arbitrarily to suit themselves.

A few recent examples are:
widespread use of the word "envisag";
widespread use of the word "imbed" and its associated participles;
total interchangeability of "infer" and "imply";
total interchangeability of "stared" and "starred";
...
I could go on for a long time with this list, but I'll spare you all the rest of my rant.

 

[sr71plt]

I do offer UK advice, and where possible more general advice, but I find it more and more difficult to offer US advice, as many of the US writers on here seem to change the language arbitrarily to suit themselves.

A few recent examples are:
widespread use of the word "envisag";
widespread use of the word "imbed" and its associated participles;
total interchangeability of "infer" and "imply";
total interchangeability of "stared" and "starred";
...
I could go on for a long time with this list, but I'll spare you all the rest of my rant.

You left out what is done with "impact."

The U.S. writing authorities haven't changed anything at all like this. You are posting about individuals whose "authorities" are personal whim and ignorance, not the authorities provided by the publishing industry. And Americans are no more prone to this than any other nationality.

I know some Brits who are virtually illiterate. (Have you actually been to London lately?) So, what's the nationality relevance of this rant?

I just see it as another example of "we were once THE empire" snobbery.

 

[PacoFear]

...many of the US writers on here seem to change the language arbitrarily to suit themselves.

A few recent examples are:
widespread use of the word "envisag";
widespread use of the word "imbed" and its associated participles;
total interchangeability of "infer" and "imply";
total interchangeability of "stared" and "starred";
...
I could go on for a long time with this list, but I'll spare you all the rest of my rant.

Oh puhleeze Snooper, there are plenty of folks with a poor grasp of English. Geography has little to do with it. I've read poorly written things from both sides of The Pond and each of Her Majesty's assorted ex-colonies.

For what it's worth, as a literate U.S. resident, one literate enough to shrink from the dubious 'American' label, I also bristle at the language errors you rattled off, Snoop.

IMHO, the problem with writing is that a fair percentage of folks (regardless of their global position) can't be bothered learning the rules first. They're so eager to "express themselves" they just park their asses in front of a computer and start mashing words together with their fingers crossed. Dear god in heaven, what other hobbies are begun this way? If they were painting or working clay or hunting or scuba diving or just about anything else they'd take a lesson or at least do a bit of reading beforehand.

The noun writing doesn't instill the urge for rigor because it's so pedestrian. We write grocery lists too. I think we need a new verb. How about authoring? Or storying? Something to make people pause for a millisecond and say to themselves "Hey maybe I should look into this a bit first."

Eh crud, now I've ranted too. rolleyes: at self.)

 

[elfin_odalisque]

The French have had laws fixing the language for years, and a formal body, the Acadamie, to rule on all disputes and to fix the meanings of all words, and to decide which new words will be allowed.

Snooper, there are no language fixing laws in France and never have been. That only happens in Quebec (part of the free America?). The Academie Francaise is derided and government, business, publishing and the general public ignore it. It hasn't published a complete new edition of its dictionary since 1935.

The French happily eat their 'hot-dogs' whilst the Quebecois munch on their 'chiens-chaud'.

The AF is one of four academies in the 'Institute de France', government funded, so therefore 'official' but completely toothless - packed with egos that make Scouries look like a shrinking violet.

As in the anglophone world, commercial dictionaries log the changes in the language. 'Le Robert' and 'Larousse' now accept that President Sarkozy is now "bling-bling".

Grammar and style is dictated by Grevisse, a Belgian source, and the best French grammar and spell checking software is Canadian, 'Antidote'.

I agree that the US predominance of readers on the site must make British writers consider whether using 'knickers' or 'arse' is appropriate if they want a pink H, but sr is a tad heavy-handed when he waves the CMS about like Mein Kampf.

It might be more accurate to suggest SR that the Oxford is for the non-American English market though Australian English is diverging from it fairly rapidly.

No, ishtat, as part of the American market I love my NOAD (new Oxford American Dictionary). There is also an Australian one.

Oxford University Press has established a global platform and now offers sites dedicated to UK english, US english and world english. I got lambasted for quoting a grammar point from the US site, which just shows how prejudices can dull the brain.

OUP is not too hot on US style but pretty good on grammar and spelling. The US sites are too insular for my work.

 

[sr71plt]

The US sites are too insular for my work.

Ah, a new excuse for the "All talk, no walk" laziness.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Ah, a new excuse for the "All talk, no walk" laziness.

No, I work in several parts of the world and perhaps I have a less jingoistic view of US supremacy than you.

Can I send you the Beijing style manual so you can adapt to the future. Be real, you are an anachronism in the modern world.

 

[sr71plt]

No, I work in several parts of the world and perhaps I have a less jingoistic view of US supremacy than you.

Obviously you don't read in on the forum much. I've LIVED in several parts of the world--for extended periods--and I frequently speak out against provincialism (including U.S.) here--this time it was about British snobbery (for no particular reason other than not having entered the 20th, let alone the 21st century).

As usual you are steaming along without a clue about what you are talking about.

It remains that you give largely crappy "this is how we do it" guidance to writers here on the basis of not actually doing it yourself.

Anyone who takes "it's done this way on Lit." writing advice without checking on who actually has written for Lit. submissions isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Obviously you don't read in on the forum much. I've LIVED in several parts of the world--for extended periods--and I frequently speak out against provincialism (including U.S.) here--this time it was about British snobbery (for no particular reason other than not having entered the 20th, let alone the 21st century).

As usual you are steaming along without a clue about what you are talking about.

It remains that you give largely crappy "this is how we do it" guidance to writers here on the basis of not actually doing it yourself.

Anyone who takes "it's done this way on Lit." writing advice without checking on who actually has written for Lit. submissions isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier.

At least, unlike you, I give writers the respect of reading their stories before laying down the law and whilst I would not give advice on how to climb the NYT best sellers list, I give better advice on how to climb the Lit greasy pole than you do.

 

[sr71plt]

At least, unlike you, I give writers the respect of reading their stories before laying down the law and whilst I would not give advice on how to climb the NYT best sellers list, I give better advice on how to climb the Lit greasy pole than you do.

I'm sure you believe that. That's part of what makes you so dangerous here to the writers. And it's the reason I bounce down on your inanities so hard.

Once again, folks, check out the posters giving you writing advice as best you can.

 

[PacoFear]

I want to contribute something constructive to the fray but I'm too damn busy snickering like a schoolboy at e_o's invocation of a "greasy pole" metaphor.

C'mon elfin, surely you're willing to concede that SR is more knowledgeable on the subject of greasy poles.

 

[sr71plt]

I want to contribute something constructive to the fray but I'm too damn busy snickering like a schoolboy at e_o's invocation of a "greasy pole" metaphor.

C'mon elfin, surely you're willing to concede that SR is more knowledgeable on the subject of greasy poles.

Yeah, I thought that was rather amusing too.

But it certainly illustrates how tuned out she is.

 

[colddiesel]

I have read this thread with some bemusement. English is a living, changing language therefore its conventions will tend to vary in time and place.

The stoush between Elfin and SR is a woeful waste of intellect, it reminds me of what Johnson said about determining the precedence of louse or flea. The difference between Elfin and SR is that one is merely pedantic wheras the other is a pedantic asshole, however, reference to the CMS may not resolve the issue.

Incidentally in France it is now a great honour to be made a member of the Academie and membership is reserved for mediocrities. It is a much greater honour to be a writer of great merit and not be invited to be a member. A wonderfully Gallic conclusion.

 

[sr71plt]

Nice sniping, CD. But could you point out what on this thread I've been pedantic about? Or like Elfin, when I quoted what Harry Shaw on an issue, did you read so fast--and with such nonobjectivity--that you thought I was posting my own opinion?

 

[elfin_odalisque]

I want to contribute something constructive to the fray but I'm too damn busy snickering like a schoolboy at e_o's invocation of a "greasy pole" metaphor.

C'mon elfin, surely you're willing to concede that SR is more knowledgeable on the subject of greasy poles.

*cough* *splutter*

Damn, I need a new keyboard now - and a lie down to clear disturbing mental images.

Taking foot out of mouth, thanks Paco and I willingly concede to sr on that one.

colddiesel, I am touched by the compliment. I am assuming you meant it in the pedagogic sense as 'teacher'. Despite his quaint, gruff old ways, I have a suspicion sr thinks of me in that way too.

 

[sr71plt]

*cough* *splutter*

Damn, I need a new keyboard now - and a lie down to clear disturbing mental images.

Taking foot out of mouth, thanks Paco and I willingly concede to sr on that one.

colddiesel, I am touched by the compliment. I am assuming you meant it in the pedagogic sense as 'teacher'. Despite his quaint, gruff old ways, I have a suspicion sr thinks of me in that way too.

Well, no. I see you as a half-baked menace to writers. Truly. If I didn't, I wouldn't bother to respond to your inanities at all.

That you are in lallaland can be easily discerned alone by your constant misunderstanding/misrepresentation of what others have posted. Like with CD meant by "pedantic," for instance.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Well, no. I see you as a half-baked menace to writers. Truly. If I didn't, I wouldn't bother to respond to your inanities at all.

That you are in lallaland can be easily discerned alone by your constant misunderstanding/misrepresentation of what others have posted. Like with CD meant by "pedantic," for instance.

I see you haven't got as far as "S" for satire in the CMS's referral to Webster's.

Anally retentive doesn't sit well with Paco's frame of mind but, really sr, you beggar belief sometimes.