3 ms·
From thefreedictionary.com: "A normative or prescriptive set of rules setting forth the current standard of usage for pedagogical or reference purposes." That
by russell 17y ago
From thefreedictionary.com: "A normative or prescriptive set of rules setting forth the current standard of usage for pedagogical or reference purposes." That sure sounds like what the original article was talking about.
Some quibbles with Pullum's blog: than vs. then is not a spelling mistake. They are different words and the improper usage is a grammatical error as nearly everyone understands the meaning of grammar. "Less brains" vs. "fewer brains" is a stupid example. "Brains" means intelligence in that context. "Fewer intelligence" is silly.
Now, some of the original rules are purely matters of taste. I use lots of commas, But if you use "i.e", when you should use "e.g." then you come come off as sloppy.
The real problem with strict grammarians is that some of the rules were never normal usage (dont end a sentence with a preposition) and others fail to track the evolution of usage ("different from" vs. "different than").
- telemachos 17y agoThe real problem with strict grammarians is that some of the rules were never normal usage (dont end a sentence with a preposition) I would go even a bit further. The specific example you cite is a case where the rule not only doesn't follow normal usage for English, but derives from an entirely different language. The rule, like many others, comes from Latin usage. In English, as a Germanic language, it is not only common, but often correct and natural, to end a sentence with a preposition. There is a common tendency for adverb-verb groups in English to split and for the verb to move forward in the sentence as the preposition slides down to the end. As an example, think about how natural this sounds: I'll be right along after I finish writing this reply down. The rule was always complete crap. But it appealed to the sensibility of people who knew Latin and felt that applying its norms to English elevated them. It's a class thing, at some level, I suppose.
- sokoloff 17y agoI'll be right along after I finish writing this reply down It sounds not at all natural to me. Was it supposed to?
- telemachos 17y agoYup. It wasn't meant to be elegant, but "I'll be there after I write this down" is both natural and common and (the only thing that matters here) perfectly good English style and grammar.
- nagrom 17y ago"Ending sentences with a preposition is something with which I will not put" is a quote often attributed to Winston Churchill, but is probably incorrect: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill It's one of my favourite examples of the tortured tangle into which we twist the language occasionally, in order to comply with seemingly arbitrary grammar rules. However, I instinctively cringe when I see sentences that end with a preposition. I don't know whether this is learnt behaviour, but I really do find the constructions for which the preposition is accounted earlier in the phrase to be more elegant. The alternative to your example would be: I'll come (or arrive) after I have finished writing this reply. I'd argue that this sentence is less folksy, but forces you to be more precise about your intent and action. I often find that when writers resort to poor grammar because they lack the attention to detail to state exactly what they mean. This is especially true as we move to faster and faster paced methods of communication in which precision is often sacrificed for a speedy, less clear reply.