4 ms·

As a linguist, it is absolutely not an issue of grammar. The grammar is 100% correct. Nit-picking over the so-called "correct" definition has nothing to do with

As a linguist, it is absolutely not an issue of grammar. The grammar is 100% correct. Nit-picking over the so-called "correct" definition has nothing to do with grammar. It is an issue of semantics, and a rather arbitrarily prescriptivist one at that. Actually, I'm not even sure I would say it's a semantic issue. Most speakers will easily understand the intended meaning.

tantalor 12y ago
Now we are arguing about the semantics of "grammar". How did we get here? :)
- pvarangot 12y ago
  By involving a linguist in a discussion about the best way to write something.
  - dbbolton 12y ago
    I did not argue that either way was better or worse.
    - pvarangot 12y ago
      Oh sorry, I just meant that since the people discussing had no formal knowledge about languages, grammar, semantics, etc... the only mention about any formal concepts about them would slide the discussion into the basics. I do agree with what you said.
- dbbolton 12y ago
  In normal conversation, grammar can have a more general meaning. But since everyone here wants to argue about precision and correctness, I thought I should at least level the playing field.
thisjepisje 12y ago
>As a linguist, it is absolutely not an issue of grammar. I keep seeing this construction a lot lately, but it always seems weird to me. Is it correct?
- dbbolton 12y ago
  There is an implied "it is my opinion that..." because I am stating my opinion. I think most people are able to pick up on that naturally, and I don't feel it necessary to spell it out. I am sure many here would argue that it doesn't adhere to their notion of correctness, however.
  - schoen 12y ago
    The issue here is the famous dangling modifier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangling_modifier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangling_modifier Even your implied "it is my opinion that" would still leave a dangling modifier (now the erroneous parse indicates that your opinion is a linguist, rather than the original erroneous parse suggesting that the usage is a linguist). Dangling modifiers are an interesting issue because one often has to go all the way up to the pragmatics level in order to resolve the indended meaning (in this case, who or what could be a linguist?). Of course, speakers are usually quite good at that, so the ambiguity is usually only noticed in writing (and then people disagree about how significant the ambiguity is).
    - dbbolton 12y ago
      The key defining feature (from a linguistics perspective) of a dangling modifier is ambiguity. I really don't see how my statement could have been misinterpreted, but I would be interested to hear alternate interpretations. Even with some ambiguity, a dangling modifier is not necessarily ungrammatical. Prescriptivists tend to have a much broader notion, however (e.g. the ongoing 'hopefully' controversy; apparently they consider it illogical when a speaker adverbially describes their feelings without doing so in an expressly grammatical context). If you really want to be correct, it's best to just do what other prescriptivists seem to believe is right and not think about it too much. Personally, I think making the sentence "grammatical" by expanding it (I am a linguist and my opinion is that...) seems rather unnatural. Along the same lines, the redditism "(Profession) here. (Opinion)." could also be excoriated by prescriptivists for being ungrammatical on the grounds that it is a sentence fragment, yet it gets the point across and I have yet to see anyone complain about it.
drcomputer 12y ago
Encyclopedias, dictionaries, and other types of reference materials often conform to a rigid and pedantically defined aesthetic. This aesthetic is more about context, appearance, intuition. Editing is an art form. Conveying meaning differs from conveying the intended meaning with clarity. When you have to say 'most people', we already have a problem. Reference material should refer. Leaving it up to intellectual interpretation is simply no good for material that is meant to record and preserve information. That said, this possibly has nothing to do with the difference between 'comprised of' and 'composed of'.
- cbd1984 12y ago
  > Encyclopedias, dictionaries, and other types of reference materials often conform to a rigid and pedantically defined aesthetic. This aesthetic is more about context, appearance, intuition. Editing is an art form. Right. That's called a "house style", which is not about correct or incorrect but rather about having a more-or-less arbitrary standard all writers must adhere to in order to make the final product more consistent.
pfultz2 12y ago
> As a linguist, it is absolutely not an issue of grammar. The grammar is 100% correct. Nit-picking over the so-called "correct" definition has nothing to do with grammar. This is true. Sentences without correct grammar are unparseable(like "he jumped didn't far"). A lot of people seem to confuse semantic or logic issues with grammar issues.

tantalor 12y ago

Now we are arguing about the semantics of "grammar". How did we get here? :)

pvarangot 12y ago
By involving a linguist in a discussion about the best way to write something.
- dbbolton 12y ago
  I did not argue that either way was better or worse.
  - pvarangot 12y ago
    Oh sorry, I just meant that since the people discussing had no formal knowledge about languages, grammar, semantics, etc... the only mention about any formal concepts about them would slide the discussion into the basics. I do agree with what you said.
dbbolton 12y ago
In normal conversation, grammar can have a more general meaning. But since everyone here wants to argue about precision and correctness, I thought I should at least level the playing field.

thisjepisje 12y ago

>As a linguist, it is absolutely not an issue of grammar. I keep seeing this construction a lot lately, but it always seems weird to me. Is it correct?

dbbolton 12y ago
There is an implied "it is my opinion that..." because I am stating my opinion. I think most people are able to pick up on that naturally, and I don't feel it necessary to spell it out. I am sure many here would argue that it doesn't adhere to their notion of correctness, however.
- schoen 12y ago
  The issue here is the famous dangling modifier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangling_modifier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangling_modifier Even your implied "it is my opinion that" would still leave a dangling modifier (now the erroneous parse indicates that your opinion is a linguist, rather than the original erroneous parse suggesting that the usage is a linguist). Dangling modifiers are an interesting issue because one often has to go all the way up to the pragmatics level in order to resolve the indended meaning (in this case, who or what could be a linguist?). Of course, speakers are usually quite good at that, so the ambiguity is usually only noticed in writing (and then people disagree about how significant the ambiguity is).
  - dbbolton 12y ago
    The key defining feature (from a linguistics perspective) of a dangling modifier is ambiguity. I really don't see how my statement could have been misinterpreted, but I would be interested to hear alternate interpretations. Even with some ambiguity, a dangling modifier is not necessarily ungrammatical. Prescriptivists tend to have a much broader notion, however (e.g. the ongoing 'hopefully' controversy; apparently they consider it illogical when a speaker adverbially describes their feelings without doing so in an expressly grammatical context). If you really want to be correct, it's best to just do what other prescriptivists seem to believe is right and not think about it too much. Personally, I think making the sentence "grammatical" by expanding it (I am a linguist and my opinion is that...) seems rather unnatural. Along the same lines, the redditism "(Profession) here. (Opinion)." could also be excoriated by prescriptivists for being ungrammatical on the grounds that it is a sentence fragment, yet it gets the point across and I have yet to see anyone complain about it.

drcomputer 12y ago

Encyclopedias, dictionaries, and other types of reference materials often conform to a rigid and pedantically defined aesthetic. This aesthetic is more about context, appearance, intuition. Editing is an art form. Conveying meaning differs from conveying the intended meaning with clarity. When you have to say 'most people', we already have a problem. Reference material should refer. Leaving it up to intellectual interpretation is simply no good for material that is meant to record and preserve information. That said, this possibly has nothing to do with the difference between 'comprised of' and 'composed of'.

cbd1984 12y ago
> Encyclopedias, dictionaries, and other types of reference materials often conform to a rigid and pedantically defined aesthetic. This aesthetic is more about context, appearance, intuition. Editing is an art form. Right. That's called a "house style", which is not about correct or incorrect but rather about having a more-or-less arbitrary standard all writers must adhere to in order to make the final product more consistent.

pfultz2 12y ago

> As a linguist, it is absolutely not an issue of grammar. The grammar is 100% correct. Nit-picking over the so-called "correct" definition has nothing to do with grammar. This is true. Sentences without correct grammar are unparseable(like "he jumped didn't far"). A lot of people seem to confuse semantic or logic issues with grammar issues.