If I were there, I wouldn't have done that

<b>Forum for the discussion of Applied Linguistics </b>

Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2

Stephen Jones
Posts: 1421
Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm

Post by Stephen Jones » Sat Dec 30, 2006 8:09 pm

The SOED gives the use of 'that' for descriptive clauseas as now being only informal or poetic. It gives examples of usage of both 'who' and 'which', and they do sound a little strange.

I don't think there is much spontaneous usage now of 'that' in descriptive clauses, and I think in most cases it would sound incorrect or stilted.

jotham
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:51 am

Post by jotham » Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:09 am

If you insist on serial commas, or on never using serial commas, then you simply confuse writers who see a disjunct betweeen what they read elsewhere and what is the house norm.
The serial (or Oxford) comma is a simple issue. Those who favor it say it always avoids confusion, even though that confusion might be rare. Those who don't use it — e.g., newspapers — merely want to save space. On the confusion issue, I'm sure you're familiar with the dedication that went thus: To my parents, Ayne Rand and God. This probably isn't confusing here if common sense rules, but in law documents or other informational texts, the serial comma couldn't hurt. It is, again, a mainly British-American difference. What you have to understand about Americans is that they are perfectionists. They aren't content with less than perfect. We are that way about our products, our services, and our medical profession. If there is a practice or behavior that produces even the slightest possibility of a less-than-stellar result, we snip it in the bud before it has a chance to bloom. One of our most important guiding principles of work goes thus: "Prevention is the best medicine." But again, it's a choice — you can be a serial killer or an Oxford dropout if you wish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma
http://www.protrainco.com/info/essays/serial-comma.htm
And seeing you think the rules are clear, which is it better to use to start a sentence, 'But' or 'However'?
There is nothing grammatically wrong with putting however at the beginning. It is stylistic. According to Bryan Garner, it is a lengthy word, so it seems to water down the impact of contrast a little bit, and seems to flow better in the middle. But is shorter, more direct, and thus more effective. But this argument could appeal to Americans more, who want the least ambiguity when talking. This author seems to like Garner's solution, or compromise, on the issue.
http://www.dianahacker.com/rules/subpag ... wever.html
Again, no one is forcing anyone to use this tool. It's like you discover all the curious different-size screws and nails in a carpenter's toolbag. You sit there, point and chortle at each and every one of them, and mock the expert carpenter that goes through the hassle of deciding. After all, you can use just any old nail or screw, which can, more or less, get the job done — every once in a while you need it. The carpenter might need them all day, though. Such choices may help the carpenter create products that last longer or work better, and is thus more efficient.
Last edited by jotham on Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

Stephen Jones
Posts: 1421
Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm

Post by Stephen Jones » Sun Dec 31, 2006 8:28 am

The serial (or Oxford) comma is a simple issue. Those who favor it say it always avoids confusion, even though that confusion might be rare. Those who don't use it---e.g., newspapers---merely want to save space.
Once again pseudo-justification. Do you seriously think the New York Times is worried by the space taken by a measly comma, whilst the Guardian and those papers that follow the Chicago Manual of Style or not.

This kind of thing shows what nonsense this talk about 'perfection' is. The situation, as we can see from this link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma
is that there are some guides that insist it is mandatory, others not mentioned such as the NYT that eschew it, and a certain noumber of more sensible ones who leave each occasion open to judgement.

What 'perfection', apart from a perfect mess, is it to have High and Junior High students told to never start a sentence with 'But' because of the No Inidital Co-ordinator rule, and then to tell them at Freshman Composition that they should not be using all these 'Howevers' to start a sentence but using 'But' instead.

The difference is not an American British one, though the British do seem less tolerant of this kind of nonsense than their transatlantic counterparts. It is simply that there is a class of people in the States who think that good writing consists in avoiding an arbitrary list, and that judgement has nothing to do with it. Fortunately, a large number of their compatriots have other ideas.

jotham
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:51 am

Post by jotham » Tue Jan 02, 2007 5:25 am

Do you seriously think the New York Times is worried by the space taken by a measly comma, whilst the Guardian and those papers that follow the Chicago Manual of Style or not.
Yes, I do — on the American side. I'm not speaking for British newspapers, who may do it for theoretic principles instead of practical ones — or simply because it is predominantly British. The New York Times and all of our other newspapers follow, more or less, all the other writing rules you think silly, including the that rule; it wouldn't make sense for them to suddenly grow principled over something inconsequential as serial commas. It's practical. They'll do anything to save space. (Maybe one more reason to prefer that to which — but I doubt it.)
Does the Guardian follow Chicago Manual Style? That sounds preposterous for them to be following an American style, including serial commas. Are you sure about that? I'm a skeptic. They have their own style guide; and if they do serial commas, they are probably following the Oxford style — if they are following anything. But the wikipedia link indicates that they don't observe serial commas.
...there are some guides that insist it is mandatory, others not mentioned such as the NYT that eschew it
The NYT is included. The AP style is mentioned, and that is followed by all our journals. It is the only American authority that is against serial commas. All other American authorities insist on it, since the early 1900s. An American would use serial commas unless writing for newspapers.
British academians are notorious for ignoring even the basic rules on commas and other punctuation everyone agrees on. It's silly to be going on about the excessive carefulness of serial commas in the light of this; that should be the least of your concerns. Concentration would be better spent being careful about the basics. Attempting to address the problem, a British writer, Lynne Truss, wrote a book encouraging better punctuation; but the book itself is full of punctuation mistakes — even by British standards — which is characteristic of British books and writing. (I suppose British newspapars and novels get them right more often).
http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/ ... rbo_books1
On a similar note, it's more important to be careful and strict with commas on the that/which question — which doesn't happen a lot in British writing — before criticizing Americans for being too strict or careful about the which.
Also, I though linguists were more concerned about spoken speech than about written conventions and punctuation trifles.
I'll address the but and however later.
Last edited by jotham on Fri Aug 10, 2007 12:03 pm, edited 3 times in total.

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:42 am

All other American authorities insist on it, since the early 1900s.
OT: Is that use of "since" accepted by American authorities?

jotham
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:51 am

Post by jotham » Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:48 am

Ha, ha. Welcome back Metal. I don't think this is American. No, you caught me in error. I don't pretend to be an expert, but I'm learning, and I admire the experts. It should be: "Americans insist on it, and have been insisting on it since..." Whew, so much wordier. Might just need to be recast.

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Tue Jan 02, 2007 8:50 am

jotham wrote: It should be: "Americans insist on it, and have been insisting on it since..." Whew, so much wordier. Might just need to be recast.
Why not "Americans have insisted on it since...."?

When you say "I don't pretend to be an expert", does it mean that you are a NNES?

jotham
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:51 am

Post by jotham » Tue Jan 02, 2007 9:23 am

I think you're right. Another topic we can have is the subtlety between the progressive and present perfect. I always gravitate towards the progressive for some reason: "I have been playing the piano for 20 years" instead of "I have played the piano for 20 years." I asked grammarians and they say the present perfect is sufficient. But no, your option avoids wordiness and recasting. But maybe I was wanting to better emphasize or contrast that it is happening not only in the present but also in the past.
Is there something I said or is there a way I write that makes you think I am a NNES? I am a native English speaker. I have been interested in foreign languages since fourth grade.

Stephen Jones
Posts: 1421
Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm

Post by Stephen Jones » Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:38 am

Menand's review of Truss is basically trash. He invents a set of rules for the use of commas and semi-colons and then complains Truss doesn't follow his eclectic litany.

JuanTwoThree
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
Location: Spain

Post by JuanTwoThree » Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:52 pm


jotham
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:51 am

Post by jotham » Tue Jan 02, 2007 2:14 pm

Stephen Jones wrote:Menand's review of Truss is basically trash. He invents a set of rules for the use of commas and semi-colons and then complains Truss doesn't follow his eclectic litany.
Wow — are you saying that not only is the which unimportant, but even the commas to set apart restrictive and non-restrictive phrases? This usage of commas wasn't invented by Menard; it's also British and was even before Menard was born. But never mind that — does none of this matter? Surely there must be some basic standard that even scientists have. But I could be kidding myself. So it is safe to say now that linguists concern themselves also with punctuation (or lack thereof) in written forms? I'm just learning here.
That article had an acerbic tone that was meant for an American audience. It would have been written differently had the audience been British. I only cited it as evidence of what I was saying. I wasn't trying to convey the attitude that went with it. And I hope I don't myself. I was under the impression that British academics, and even linguists, see the importance of that comma, even if they forget to do it themselves. If I am wrong, then I'm really surprised.
Last edited by jotham on Fri Aug 10, 2007 12:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Metamorfose
Posts: 345
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 2:21 pm
Location: Brazil

Post by Metamorfose » Tue Jan 02, 2007 3:32 pm

So it is safe to say now that linguists concern themselves also with punctuation (or lack thereof) in written forms?
The practionner linguist can if they want. What matters is that one collects all available data, and analyse them and try to see whether there is a pattern and how it works, based on a population or sample of the population, them they call tell the grammarian that "people in X region use the comma like this, but people in region Y use it like that". What Stephen is trying to say (If I got him right) is that language needs a scientifical approach like any other area of human knowledge, what determines the use or lack of the comma, which and the like should be based on real usage by real people and not according to some grammarians' whim, like the one in the past (I fail to remember his name now) that thought English should work like Latin because Latin was the language in the mainstream at that period.

José

jotham
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:51 am

Post by jotham » Tue Jan 02, 2007 4:19 pm

Okay, I got your point, and agree with it — more when it comes to speaking. But to take that same philosophy to writing, writers would have to become experts at and copy how common people write — and that's it. Imagine if opera singers, who require special training, took that advice, or pop singers like Mariah Carey — her audience would never be treated to outrageously high notes ever again, since common people just don't do that in the shower and couldn't even if, out of the blue, they dared try, or at least not as pretty as she does. And that isn't an insult to common people; they usually know they have limitations without training whether it deals with commas or pitch. Without training, they can't be experts in every field of endeavor simply by virtue of just being born — certainly not in singing, and not, I would suggest, in writing as well. When it comes to writing, I would think that instead of what common people actually write, it is what helps them maximally comprehend and what various techniques create certain reactions that should be the main concern and focus of study. The writer can then use all available techniques and principles that the common people of the age grasp and predictably react to in order to get the point across in the most lucid or entertaining manner using the concurrent customs as understood by the populace of the time. Science should find out what common people understand and how they react (which evolve as well) rather than what they actually write out of ignorance. But then, that isn't the job of science; science observes actualities and their history. Can science determine how to facilitate maximal comprehension or various reactions, lucidity, effectiveness, or entertainment value? Probably not; only the artist can try. Are lucidity, effectiveness, and all these subjectives to be abandoned, ignored, or deemed non-existent just because science doesn't figure into it and we're left with no choice but to rely on instincts, and particularly those of artists? Is science supposed to take care of all concerns? I think there is a need for both sides.
I also get your point about Latin, and I'm pretty sure that is all in the past; there aren't grammarians today who hold on to those rules, which criticized split infinitives and hanging prepositions in the 1800s. But grammar is hardly alone in historical oddities and ideas; all fields of study have operated at different levels of naivity when knowledge was less.
Last edited by jotham on Fri Aug 10, 2007 12:29 pm, edited 5 times in total.

jotham
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:51 am

Post by jotham » Wed Jan 03, 2007 5:32 am

What 'perfection', apart from a perfect mess, is it to have High and Junior High students told to never start a sentence with 'But' because of the No Inidital Co-ordinator rule, and then to tell them at Freshman Composition that they should not be using all these 'Howevers' to start a sentence but using 'But' instead.
The rule you stated above does not exist today among grammarians. It may have been a rule in the 1800s — I doubt that it was a rule anytime though. Today, it is definitely a myth that grammarians equally criticize. (They've never espoused it from what I know.) Bryan Garner says that and or but begins around 8.75% of the sentences written by "first-rate writers," and the same figure for reputable magazines. Charles Allen Lloyd says "As in the case of the superstition about the prepositional ending, no textbook supports it, but apparently about half of our teachers of English go out of their way to handicap their pupils by inculcating it." That was 1934, but these days, those teachers are definitely fewer if not extinct. Nothing gets past you, and you astutely saw the inconsistency that grammarians have long talked and written about.
One reason the rule may have come about is because of unthinking teachers who tried to encourage junior-high or high-school students to combine thoughts in a coherent sentence instead of little choppy sentences — which is a noble lesson. But, as this and the next sentence illustrate, we should never say never. And we could also avoid always.
Linguists should familiarize themselves with what exactly mainstream grammarians believe or teach. Too many linguists are uninformed about these things and then use these examples incorrectly as an argument to bolster their assertions about grammarians. Garner lists eleven of these superstitions, which are commonly, but falsely, imputed to grammarians.
Last edited by jotham on Fri Aug 10, 2007 12:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Wed Jan 03, 2007 7:09 am

jotham wrote: Is there something I said or is there a way I write that makes you think I am a NNES?
A few things, yes.

For example:
I asked grammarians and they say the present perfect is sufficient.

Post Reply