Job Discussion Forums

[Henry_Cowell]

Yet again the Endangered and Protected "Canadian Bear" offers no compelling evidence or reasoning -- except for intuition and the approval of viewpoints that coincide with her/his own. Should the bear post such antiquated and idiosyncratic ideas about grammar and usage on the Applied Linguistics forum, he would receive no end of responses that are much better informed, reasoned and written than her/his own.

[Plan B]

[bearcanada]

Dear Plan B;

Sorry if I appeared to come on too strongly. I wasn't trying to start a war.

However, it's not easy to have a discussion if you don't stay put. I responded to specific comments in your post:
1) You seemed to have quoted from sources verbatim without attribution. I thought you should have identified the sources.
2) You said "a lot of" was more appropriate than "many". I disagreed.
3) You said "many" was "strictly speaking" and "the most formal context" of English. I disagreed and thought your point facetious. I believe it's everyday English and that "lots" and "a lot of" and "lotsa" are more casual than that.
4) I have reread the second paragraph you quoted and I still think it's nonsense. It seems to have been written by someone who didn't have a clear understanding of what he was trying to say, and succeeded.

Those were my points. They were not a personal attack but responses to things you stated as fact. You ignored them, quoted more sources and threw in a few insults for good measure. What are we discussing?

Certainly there are dictionaries and reputable sources that condone usages of almost anything. I think that means only that rules are not fixed and opinions vary.

Yesterday I was disappointed to receive an email from a man whose opinion I respect (an English professor at a university) in which he said that he didn't consider important the distinction between 'shall' and 'will'. He said he used 'will' for both words, i.e., no difference in meaning and no use for 'shall', and quoted a prominent source (Merriam Webster) to back his position.

But it simply is not true to say there is no difference in the meanings of these words, and the fact that many (even most) people, including Merriam Webster, consider them the same does not make them the same.
I shall drown. No one will help me.
I will drown. No one shall help me.
There is indeed a genuine distinction there and I would be sorry to lose it.

I am not afraid of the "prestigious writers in the field of grammar" and I don't think I have to bow to Webster and eliminate the word from my vocabulary just because they say many or most people (maybe from laziness) no longer bother distinguishing between two useful words. The real point is that Webster (and my professor friend) can swear the distinction is unimportant to most people, but they can't tell me there is no difference in the meanings. The professor clearly understands the distinction when I use the words with him; he simply no longer cares.

Back to our 'lots' and 'many'. Your sources may accurately reflect the opinion of a majority, but not all. There are people who consider the use of 'lots' to be ok for casual everyday conversation but a bit careless and even sloppy for written text or other-than-casual speech. When you use 'lots of', what are you trying to say? You must be trying to say, 'many'. I still can't see why you want to argue so strongly that the former is more "appropriate" than the latter. It's a once-useful word that became misunderstood slang and then worked its way into common speech.

And I still think that for you to argue that 'many' is "strictly speaking" and "the most formal context" is just plain silly. We aren't talking about big or obscure words or saying things like, "Thou shalt" to impress the rabble. 'Many' is about as simple and plain a word as we could find. To promote it to 'formal' and use 'lots' as standard is to lower the standards bar more than I believe is appropriate.

We already have far too many English words being badly misused by people (the majority, the common people, AND some dictionaries) who don't understand the exact meaning or spelling, and who don't much care. So now we have 'expresso' coffee, 'gender' instead of 'sex', 'criteria' as singular, 'continuums' instead of 'continua', 'distinterested' instead of God only knows what, and so on. We have 'could of', 'should of' and 'would of' from those who probably don't read very much and rely on the sound of the expression to guide their spelling. We have 'epitome', which means 'the most representative sample' being used to mean 'the pinnacle' - the highest form.

I so often see the expressions, 'quantum leap', 'orders of magnitude' and 'exponential' used in the exact opposite sense of their real meanings. A 'quantum leap' is an abrupt change in state and is almost immeasurably small, but it is commonly used to mean 'a great leap forward'. An 'order of magnitude' is 1,000% but it's commonly used to mean as little as 10%. 'Exponential' means raising by exponents - squaring, cubing, etc., but it's in our common vocabulary as meaning 'big' or 'fast' progress.

There is a further point you may be ignoring. Words have precise meanings. They have all existed and were in common use at one time because those meanings and distinctions were useful. "Shall" and "will" have quite useful differences related to determination and intention, and it is so nice to be able to express the precise intent when necessary.

Part of the reason I philosophically object to your position is that adopting the "common" usage of words will impoverish our language over time, as it is already doing. Today everyone says 'bravery' and, if they want to appear intelligent, they might use 'courage' or 'valour'. But these words do not carry the same meaning. They are used interchangeably by people who are too lazy to learn the difference between them, and dictionaries and sources who are eager to appear 'current' will condone this sloppiness. I don't want to encourage that, and I don't think English teachers anywhere should give in easily to this.

Many teenagers (a lot) who speak to me say, "Hey dude!". What would you have me do? Since the 'majority' seem to use this expression instead of, "Good morning" or "Hello", should I now greet my acquaintances (including you) in the same manner? If you don't mind, I'd rather not. Your "lots of" is a bit closer to "Hey dude" than to "Good morning".

Cheers,


Disclaimer:
"Do not eat. Non-flammable. Not for use by children under 3. Do not leave in direct sunlight. May cause headache if worn instead of hat. Colors may vary. Batteries not included." (Courtesy of DOS)

[Henry_Cowell]

Plan B,

Note that this thread is titled "Question for the grammar experts." However, our Canadian Endangered Bear has shown that he isn't an expert. In fact, he has demonstrated that he has contempt for what grammarians really do (which is to explain how native speakers of a language construct meaningful messages). He seems to think that grammar comes BEFORE language use rather than the other way 'round. This is equivalent to saying that music theory must govern what composers do with sound.

He probably hasn't had much of a formal education in linguistics, and he'll just drag you around in circles of his own making. Better just to ignore him. He tends to send angry PMs if he feels he's been insulted. I will henceforth ignore him. I really will! Even the angry PMs.

[bearcanada]

Henry, this is the private message to which you refer:

(Quote) OK Henry, you've taken all your shots, made your attacks and established your overall superiority. Now drop it. You're deliberately creating an ongoing conflict without benefit to anyone, and you're destroying a good grammar thread in which people are interested. Grow up or go somewhere else.(Endquote)

I sent it to you in an attempt to dissuade you from your habit of spoiling good threads by posting gratuitous insults and exhibiting childish and even stupid behaviour. It was done as a private message because I didn't want to embarrass you or the other readers by posting it publicly.

[Henry_Cowell]

And this was my very polite response to the angry Canadian Endangered Bear's PM:

Please understand that these are not attacks. They are critiques of your own very idiosyncratic interpretations of standard English grammar rules.

[Midlothian Mapleheart]

Edited to remove offensive content.

Middy

[Henry_Cowell]

Well said, Middy!

[Mysterious Mark]

Henry, I made a reference to my age group to counter the stereotype you're so intent on perpetuating, namely that anyone who stands up for maintaining grammatical standards is an old fart who desperately wants to talk to God and the Queen.

What constitutes everyday conversation is a good question. If you might say "Yo wassup, long time no see, let's go down to Shanghai and get trashed!" with your friends, does that justify teaching it to students who are still new to the language and have different priorities anyway? If you do teach that kind of everyday conversation, they'll probably think it's how they're supposed to speak, and they might be confused by people who say things like "Hello, how are you? I haven't seen you for a long time. Would you like to go to Shanghai and spend the weekend there?" or whatever. Of course they can say hi instead of hello. They don't need to say "I bring you greetings and good tidings. How is your state of health? Would you like to travel to the City on the Sea and pass the time in a joyful manner?" We could go at this for a long time.

My major point here is that some people want to turn deviations into norms too soon - eating the fruit before it's ripe, and telling everyone else it's ripe because you like the way it tastes. Of course it's inevitable that some deviations will become norms, but the closer our norms are, the less problematic our deviations are, and if we encourage the reckless acceleration of the process, we'll be working against the goal of English helping to bring people together and facilitate all kinds of useful communication, which includes a lot more than hanging out with your friends. So I wouldn't teach lotsa, lossa, lotta, would of, woulda, wooda, and so on, except as things to be aware of.

And I'm not sure if I read you correctly, but I shouldn't have to point out to you or anyone else that we're in a cafe, not a symposium.

[Henry_Cowell]

[bearcanada]

Middy, the opening comments in your last post made me laugh because the first thing I thought of was the social changes related to contemporary music. I think every generation of parents despises the music listened to by their children. Elvis and Buddy Holly were "jungle music" fit only for "back alleys and bad girls". But later, how could anyone want to listen to that "dirty" hard rock by the Stones instead of the nice, clean rock-n-roll like that of Elvis and Buddy Holly? I believe these too have all "failed to stem the tide of barbaric" usage.

And of course you are correct in your proscriptive/descriptive comment; it's merely one manifestation of the conservative/liberal (small 'c', small 'l') continuum. Some of us are eager for change, others less so. But I really do agree with Mark that some of us want to pick the fruit before it's ripe, just because we personally like the taste. (Mark, your phrasing is so elegant. I'm envious and wish I had your gift for words.)

However, Middy, I believe your comments reflect another social tide, one with the same small 'c' and 'l' protagonists but which I view with more alarm than music and grammar. I refer to the removal of standards, generally.

There was a time not very long ago when these grammar debates for e.g. did not exist in appreciable quantity. There were rules, and people generally knew what those were. And dictionaries tended to be more uniform in proscribing casual or slang speech. There were right and wrong, not in grammar but in human behaviour, and people generally knew those differences too. In a trend that began back in the late 60s, we are losing all of this. We seem to be moving rapidly from a world of sharp contrasts (black and white) to something more multi-hued.

Our standards and judgements about "right" and "wrong" are changing noticeably. It really wasn't very long ago that a Monica Lewinsky would have been forced to hide in shame for the rest of her life; today she's a popular icon and earns real money for appearances. However you value this social change, it is not a small one. We entered a time of "if it feels good, do it", and we haven't looked back to see the roots we've left nor to picture where our path will lead us.

There is a general atmosphere of permissiveness pervading our Western culture, giving us the freedom to behave in ways that others might consider unacceptable or deficient in self-control. Today we have much more liberty to act without social hindrance, and I think this is reflected in your attitude toward language. I am not suggesting you are 'wrong' or your attitude inappropriate, but merely that you seem to be a product of your time.

Tempus fugits, and we aren't going to change that, but in the broadest sense it does worry me that a lack of standards, of "right" and "wrong" if you will, in any area including society as a whole, can lead us only to some kind of stagnant pool of nonsense.

We very much need 'official' guidelines and conductors, and sometimes restraints. Without them, that pool of nosense can easily become an obscenity. Think of the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq where so many people were beaten and tortured to death. One marine testified that the code of conduct for his unit was, "no deaths, but break as many bones as you want". Their excuse (to the US Senate committee) was that they didn't know what was permissible under the Geneva Conventions. You could scarcely find a more clear abrogation of the concepts of right and wrong. There have always been atrocities of course, but none that have so publicly annulled the basic sense of appropriate human conduct.

I think the increasingly liberal attitude toward our language is a part of all this. However, since you gave me a chuckle I'll return the favour. I usually check word meanings in 8 or 10 different dictionaries to broaden my understanding of a word, but my two favourites are Webster's 1828 and 1913 editions. They're both available online and, interestingly, the earlier of the two appears to be the more current with today's usages.

Lastly, we've had posts on this thread suggesting that in fact there is no norm for language, there are no standards, and anything with a 'should' attached is an attempt to impose one's personal standards on others, dishonestly and in violation of moral law. I have occasionally been criticised for precisely this, and that's unfair because they aren't my standards; I obtain them from a higher source. God doesn't speak only to George Bush.

Cheers,


Disclaimer:
"Do not eat. Not for use by children under 3. Do not leave in direct sunlight. May cause headache if worn instead of hat. Colors may vary. Batteries not included." (Courtesy of DOS)

[Mysterious Mark]

[bearcanada]

Henry, I think Mark has a headache so I am taking the liberty of replying in his behalf to your questions.

Q 1) Deviations?
Yes. You have a firm grasp of the obvious.

Q 2) From what, exactly?
Well, good manners comes to mind in your case, but I think we were talking about standards of language.

Q 3) From your own ideas of what is "standard" at any given moment.(?)
Yup.

Q 4) Is there a single "norm"?
Absolutely. And Merriam-Webster defines it as follows: "a real-valued nonnegative function defined on a vector space and satisfying the conditions that the function is zero if and only if the vector is zero, the function of the product of a scalar and a vector is equal to the product of the absolute value of the scalar and the function of the vector, and the function of the sum of two vectors is less than or equal to the sum of the functions of the two vectors, specifically, the square root of the sum of the squares of the absolute values of the elements of a matrix or of the components of a vector b, and the greatest distance between two successive points of a set of points that partition an interval into smaller intervals"

Q 5) Where is that single norm to be found ..........?
In a Norm Depository, naturally. The one for the US is in the main public library in Terre Haute, Indiana. The Mother of them all is in the UK of course, in the pavilion at Brighton-on-the-sea. The one for Australia and New Zealand was accidentally destroyed during a fist-fight in the House of Commons in Canberra when the Minister of Finance took umbrage at a suggestion from the opposition that he was incompetent, and beat the offending MP senseless with it. South Africa used to have a Standards Register, but the depository was unfortunately located in an orchard and the Register was eaten by a goat. The one for Canada is my office, in the third drawer from the left in my credenza.

The one for Antigua is located in the courthouse in Barbuda. The Cayman Islands and St. Kitts & Nevis share one with St. Lucia, and it's in the little pink house on Ashwood Lane near the intersection with Abbot's Cliff Road. The one for the Virgin Islands is on a boat in Smuggler's Cove because it's too big to take up space on shore. The one for India, Pakistan and Bangladesh is located in Guwahati Jalandhar Chengalpattu, on the main road right next to that funny little statue of Harry Krishna.

The other places don't have one of their own, so they use mine.


Disclaimer:
"Do not eat. Not for use by children under 3. Do not leave in direct sunlight. May cause headache if worn instead of hat. Colors may vary. Batteries not included." (Courtesy of DOS)

[Henry_Cowell]

bearcanada,

Isn't it therefore strange that you have some real howlers on your own Web site? What norms are you following there?

[bearcanada]

Henry, I missed one of your earlier contributions to our grammar discussion.

P 1) Note that this thread is titled "Question for the grammar experts."
Correct. And your presence here is an indication of ....?

P 2) However, our Canadian Endangered Bear has shown that he isn't an expert.
Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery.

P 3) In fact, he has demonstrated that he has contempt for what grammarians really do ...
OK, that's going too far. We'll have to speak to him about that.

P 4) He seems to think that grammar comes BEFORE language use rather than the other way 'round.
Well, no wonder he's endangered. knows everbody before grammar use comes .

P 5) This is equivalent to saying that music theory must govern what composers do with sound.
Actually, it's not equivalent. You got yourself confused, misunderstood your own analogy, and messed up the example. Maybe don't smoke while you're typing. But in fact music theory does govern what musicians do with sound. That's why we call it 'music' and not 'noise'.

P 6) He probably hasn't had much of a formal education in linguistics.
Or anything else, I'll bet.

P 7) (H)e'll just drag you around in circles of his own making.
Confidentially, I prefer to have my victims make their own circles. It's exhausting enough just dragging them around; I don't want to do the architecture too.

P 8) Better just to ignore him.
Didn't seem to work with other people I know.

P 9) He tends to send angry PMs if he feels he's been insulted.
Probably drools, too.

P 10) I will henceforth ignore him.
I wish.