As for me, I never stop working.
Each year around this time I like to make resolutions about...guess what? Copyediting. I like to ask myself what I can be less of a hard-ass about, whether the year that's gone by has pushed us culturally closer to accepting formerly taboo constructs and, if so, to review what the arguments are, either for or against them. Each year I strive to add a new word to my mini style guide that goes against W11 or Chicago. Because language is usage as much as it is grammar. Will this be the year of "goodbye" (W11 still says it should be "good-bye")? Maybe so!
Someone brought a website to my attention, and I'd like to share it with you and hopefully spark some discussion.
While I love the clever and irreverent writing style employed by the author, I don't happen to agree that these are the twenty most controversial rules in the grammar world, not least of which because very few of them are about grammar, or the technical aspects of what makes a language function, have meaning, or make sense. Many of them are about usage, or the informal agreements we share about what words mean or about what kinds of utterances are acceptable under what conditions.
Item #3, Double Negatives, is about grammar, for example. And I disagree that they can ever be grammatically correct, unless what you mean to say is something positive. They are mini logic problems, and logic always has a right answer.
The sentence "I don't have nothing for you" effectively means "I have something for you." And that is rarely what a speaker intends.
Let's break it down:
1. I don't have nothing for you.
2. It is not the case that I have nothing for you.
3. ~ (I have nothing for you.)
4. ~ (It is not the case that I have something for you.)
5. ~[~(I have something for you.)]
6. ~ ~ I have something for you.
THEREFORE
7. I have something for you.
6→7 because ~ ~ P≡P.
Meanwhile, item #17, about the correct spelling of e-mail, is more about usage. Increasingly you will see "email" used in print despite it not being endorsed by the dictionary of record. I'm not sure I'll ever accept "email," mostly because it looks like a Frenchman's name and linguistically asks to be pronounced "eh-MAYL." I have no problem with "eBooks," however, because this type of midcap style has been cemented by eBay and iPad and we know how to say those words. Perhaps instead the time has come to start a campaign for "eMail."
Anyway, there's a bunch of interesting stuff here. I hope you'll chime in with a comment to let me know your thoughts. Maybe one of you will be the catalyst for a new resolution.
Love,
Your Copyeditor
Posts
I agree that they're definitely not the definitive top twenty controversies--though I think when he was talking about "the grammar world" he was talking about the people who are a wee bit obsessed with grammar, not really the controversies themselves. Either way, it was an entertaining article--thanks for the link!
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with you about double negatives, though. In language, multiple negatives are pretty standard for expressing a negative thought.
When the intent is a positive statement--or some form of hedging (e.g. He's not unfair), the second negative is modifying the first in some way--and to an extent can be treated as a logic puzzle. But when the intent is a negative statement, the second negative is acting as an intensifier. Which is why "I don't have nothing" is a more definitive, or stronger, statement than "I don't have anything."
So I'm not sure they're grammatically incorrect. They can be freaking confusing, though, which is why I try to avoid them.
(Word Verification: Allyh)
I may be revealing myself as a neophyte here, but in addition to agreeing with the previous commenter that that list definitely doesn't seem to be, in my estimation, the top 20 controversies in English grammar, I also think the author used a lousy example when discussing the Oxford comma.
ReplyDeleteI'm friends with plenty of grammarians, and while they (and I) all certainly have preferences regarding the use of a final comma, I've never really had a heated argument about it, and I can argue about just about anything.
But the specific sentence example used to illustrate the comma, "I want to thank may parents, John and Lisa," has a different meaning if you use the Oxford comma than it has when you don't. Without the comma, the sentence implies that John and Lisa are the names of the speaker's parents whereas when the comma is employed "I'd like to thank my parents, John, and Lisa," the impression is that the speaker would like to thank John and Lisa IN ADDITION TO his/her parents.
Every example I've ever seen in debates regarding the Oxford comma have included lists of similar items, whether its a list of people or items to pick up at the grocery store. "Get milk, eggs and cheese" means the same thing as "Get milk, eggs, and cheese." "...my parents, John and Lisa," are two people, while "my parents, John, and Lisa," could be two, but it could also be four.
Am I wrong? Can this be a learning moment for me?
Word verification="schlaphr"
I consider my use of the English language mediocre at best. I enjoyed your article - the link was superfluous.
ReplyDeleteI will immediately begin injecting a capitol M in eMail.
Sarah
I am glad I found you and shall come back again and I shall (note shall not will) immediately change my spelling of email to eMail. Actually looking at it I prefer it that way.
ReplyDeleteI also hate double negatives. I don't hear it as often here as I used to in London where I grew up but it is one thing that really grates.
And irregardless is a real pet hate. I used to work with a fellow who used it all the time. Ugh! It just isn't English. Regardless says it all - in spite of drawbacks, heedless etc. What does the ir add to the word?
Thanks for an entertaining post.
Unrelated, but I vote that you add complement and compliment to the mini style guide! I correct those all the time as a copyeditor.
ReplyDeleteWord verification = vernses
Why not choose a common cause that ALL fans of clear language can unite behind? Let's grab some pitchforks and go after the idiots who think that an apostrophe needs to appear every time the letter "s" is used in a sentence.
ReplyDeleteThat's what I think we should be doing in the new year.
word verification: orplogen
I'd love to nominate you for a Versatile Blogger Award...in fact, I think I shall!
ReplyDeleteIs it odd that I follow the double-negative thing and 100% agree with you? I don't not means I do to me and seems quite obvious. Of course, I did take Sentential Logic in college and loved it.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, I think using double-negatives boils down to who your audience is. If you're writing for the geeky type, they'll get the double-negative = positive thing off the bat. If you're writing for those humanities majors, so to speak, maybe they won't...