7 ms·

Strunk & White is, of course, nonsense and doesn't even follow its own made-up rules most of the time. See, e.g., http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=15509

Strunk & White is, of course, nonsense and doesn't even follow its own made-up rules most of the time. See, e.g., http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=15509 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=15509

ams6110 8y ago
> doesn't even follow its own made-up rules One must first know the rules, in order to break them. Strunk & White, introduced to me by my sophomore year high school English teacher, is the reason I enjoy writing at all. Prior to that, writing was a chore that I loathed. The Elements of Style is one of the few things from high school that I still remember specifically and, 35 years later, still use. To me it is the K&R manual for writing.
- _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
  But the point is not only are what Strunk & White talk about not rules followed by good writers, they're not rules that have anything to do with English in the first place. For instance, from my link: > Strunk makes are foolish assertions like that however in the sense "nevertheless" cannot be correctly used to begin a sentence Why is it that Strunk would assert this? On what basis? It's not rooted in any linguistic property of English. It's not even rooted in practices of respected writers. It's simply made-up, and about as reasonable as saying that one shouldn't begin sentences with words starting with 'Z'.
  - watwut 8y ago
    They are not supposed to be gramatical rules. They are supposed to be style rules that makes normal person write better and to teach you to think about writing. Of course it is made up. Style manuals are made up and not meant to be comprehensive list of everything possible.
    - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
      That still doesn't address my point. If these are not rules of English, then what are these (style) rules based on? What is the justification for not using however at the beginning of a non-dependent clause ('sentence')? If it's not actual rules of English grammar and also not what writers that are generally recognised as 'good' writers do, then what value could it have?
      - watwut 8y ago
        It makes texts easier to read. Grammar is not about readability nor meaning nor pleasure, it is purely about syntax. Analogy is that syntactically correct code does not imply maintainability nor means the code is pleasant to work with. Plenty of good writer followed those rules. Many of people break those rules and create completely crappy text. In here, few writers are cherry picked as examples why long sentences are fine - most of those sentences are for purely emotional hit and frankly, none of those sentences came across as somehow all that much awesome to me. They are the kind of sentences I normally glaze over. Really, James Joyce breaks those rules, is considered good writer, but the fact is that most readers suffer as they attempt to read it. Now, you can go on trying to simulate what he did, but readers will suffer. He had success with it, because he knew why is he breaking the rules and had elaborate system for it. You can have non-minimalist style and it can work well too. I think that simply in practice, people tend to use non-minimalist style when they don't know what they are doing and end up with long hard to understand texts. --------------------- However part says something different then you think. According to book, however may mean either "nevertheless" or "whatever way or to whatever extent". When however comes first, it means in whatever way or to whatever extent. So, the explanation is in how they understood the meaning of the word depending of where it is placed in 1918. And you can use it, if you use the word with proper meaning. Also, however is in chapter with following intro: "Many of the words and expressions here listed are not so much bad English as bad style, the commonplaces of careless writing. As illustrated under Feature, the proper correction is likely to be not the replacement of one word or set of words by another, but the replacement of vague generality by definite statement." Elements of style have explanations in it and is free on the internet.
svat 8y ago
Pullum (the author of the above) keeps criticizing Strunk's The Elements of Style (a style guide) for its rules not being rules of grammar, when the whole point of a style guide is to state opinions in cases where both alternatives are in fact grammatically correct, except that the author prefers one less. This activity of Pullum's is very strange, as he has written a book of grammar and is presumably capable of seeing that Strunk & White is not in the same category. And in fact many of the claims Pullum makes about Strunk & White do not hold up to the slightest scrutiny: take for example the case of “however” (that you quoted in a reply below): Pullum says > the grammatical claims Strunk makes are foolish assertions like that however in the sense "nevertheless" cannot be correctly used to begin a sentence… but in fact the section in which Strunk mentions this starts with “Many of the words and expressions here listed are not so much bad English as bad style, the commonplaces of careless writing” and if you look at the other examples it's abundantly clear that Strunk is not making grammatical claims as Pullum alleges. Longer answer of mine here: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/2909/what-s-purportedly-wrong-with-strunk-white-s-the-elements-of-style/3223#3223 https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/2909/what-s-purp...
- _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
  As a stylistic claim, their statement about however is also incorrect. They could have easily turned up examples of this exact use from well-regarded writers over the last few centuries. On what basis is using however at the beginning of a main clause with the sense of 'nevertheless' unclear or careless? A worse example of 'careless writing' is writing about things you don't actually have much idea about, but with an air of authority.
  - svat 8y ago
    Yes of course, for every single rule stated in any decent style guide, one can find examples of that rule being violated by well-regarded writers; often even the authors. That's what style guides are. What they contain are not "claims", but the authors' whimsical opinions, based on what they consider infelicitous in the writing they often encounter (in the case of Strunk, his students' essays). You could carry out this exact exercise with any style guide, even a bland and inoffensive one like the Chicago Manual of Style (which barely even gets into stylistic issues). The books to compare Strunk & White with are not grammar textbooks (I don't know why Pullum keeps doing this) but things like Steven Pinker's A Sense of Style or Ben Yagoda's The Sound on the Page or Zinsser's On Writing Well or Stephen King's On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft etc. I have said all this in the answer I linked to in the comment above (and comments on other answers at that question), so now I'll stop getting drawn into the same argument again. :-)

ams6110 8y ago

> doesn't even follow its own made-up rules One must first know the rules, in order to break them. Strunk & White, introduced to me by my sophomore year high school English teacher, is the reason I enjoy writing at all. Prior to that, writing was a chore that I loathed. The Elements of Style is one of the few things from high school that I still remember specifically and, 35 years later, still use. To me it is the K&R manual for writing.

_emacsomancer_ 8y ago
But the point is not only are what Strunk & White talk about not rules followed by good writers, they're not rules that have anything to do with English in the first place. For instance, from my link: > Strunk makes are foolish assertions like that however in the sense "nevertheless" cannot be correctly used to begin a sentence Why is it that Strunk would assert this? On what basis? It's not rooted in any linguistic property of English. It's not even rooted in practices of respected writers. It's simply made-up, and about as reasonable as saying that one shouldn't begin sentences with words starting with 'Z'.
- watwut 8y ago
  They are not supposed to be gramatical rules. They are supposed to be style rules that makes normal person write better and to teach you to think about writing. Of course it is made up. Style manuals are made up and not meant to be comprehensive list of everything possible.
  - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
    That still doesn't address my point. If these are not rules of English, then what are these (style) rules based on? What is the justification for not using however at the beginning of a non-dependent clause ('sentence')? If it's not actual rules of English grammar and also not what writers that are generally recognised as 'good' writers do, then what value could it have?
    - watwut 8y ago
      It makes texts easier to read. Grammar is not about readability nor meaning nor pleasure, it is purely about syntax. Analogy is that syntactically correct code does not imply maintainability nor means the code is pleasant to work with. Plenty of good writer followed those rules. Many of people break those rules and create completely crappy text. In here, few writers are cherry picked as examples why long sentences are fine - most of those sentences are for purely emotional hit and frankly, none of those sentences came across as somehow all that much awesome to me. They are the kind of sentences I normally glaze over. Really, James Joyce breaks those rules, is considered good writer, but the fact is that most readers suffer as they attempt to read it. Now, you can go on trying to simulate what he did, but readers will suffer. He had success with it, because he knew why is he breaking the rules and had elaborate system for it. You can have non-minimalist style and it can work well too. I think that simply in practice, people tend to use non-minimalist style when they don't know what they are doing and end up with long hard to understand texts. --------------------- However part says something different then you think. According to book, however may mean either "nevertheless" or "whatever way or to whatever extent". When however comes first, it means in whatever way or to whatever extent. So, the explanation is in how they understood the meaning of the word depending of where it is placed in 1918. And you can use it, if you use the word with proper meaning. Also, however is in chapter with following intro: "Many of the words and expressions here listed are not so much bad English as bad style, the commonplaces of careless writing. As illustrated under Feature, the proper correction is likely to be not the replacement of one word or set of words by another, but the replacement of vague generality by definite statement." Elements of style have explanations in it and is free on the internet.

svat 8y ago

Pullum (the author of the above) keeps criticizing Strunk's The Elements of Style (a style guide) for its rules not being rules of grammar, when the whole point of a style guide is to state opinions in cases where both alternatives are in fact grammatically correct, except that the author prefers one less. This activity of Pullum's is very strange, as he has written a book of grammar and is presumably capable of seeing that Strunk & White is not in the same category. And in fact many of the claims Pullum makes about Strunk & White do not hold up to the slightest scrutiny: take for example the case of “however” (that you quoted in a reply below): Pullum says > the grammatical claims Strunk makes are foolish assertions like that however in the sense "nevertheless" cannot be correctly used to begin a sentence… but in fact the section in which Strunk mentions this starts with “Many of the words and expressions here listed are not so much bad English as bad style, the commonplaces of careless writing” and if you look at the other examples it's abundantly clear that Strunk is not making grammatical claims as Pullum alleges. Longer answer of mine here: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/2909/what-s-purportedly-wrong-with-strunk-white-s-the-elements-of-style/3223#3223 https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/2909/what-s-purp...

_emacsomancer_ 8y ago
As a stylistic claim, their statement about however is also incorrect. They could have easily turned up examples of this exact use from well-regarded writers over the last few centuries. On what basis is using however at the beginning of a main clause with the sense of 'nevertheless' unclear or careless? A worse example of 'careless writing' is writing about things you don't actually have much idea about, but with an air of authority.
- svat 8y ago
  Yes of course, for every single rule stated in any decent style guide, one can find examples of that rule being violated by well-regarded writers; often even the authors. That's what style guides are. What they contain are not "claims", but the authors' whimsical opinions, based on what they consider infelicitous in the writing they often encounter (in the case of Strunk, his students' essays). You could carry out this exact exercise with any style guide, even a bland and inoffensive one like the Chicago Manual of Style (which barely even gets into stylistic issues). The books to compare Strunk & White with are not grammar textbooks (I don't know why Pullum keeps doing this) but things like Steven Pinker's A Sense of Style or Ben Yagoda's The Sound on the Page or Zinsser's On Writing Well or Stephen King's On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft etc. I have said all this in the answer I linked to in the comment above (and comments on other answers at that question), so now I'll stop getting drawn into the same argument again. :-)