Forum: Author Hangout

She falsifies her own claim. Interesting.

Language/grammar/spelling are defined by common usage.

If as she says, "graduated college" is twice as popular as the phrase "graduated from college", then "graduated college" is correct and the rules have changed.

If as she says, "graduated college" is twice as popular as the phrase "graduated from college", then "graduated college" is correct and the rules have changed.

If I understand the claim correctly, it was not that the usage without "from" is used twice as often universally - it's that it was used twice as often on Google.

Descriptive versus prescriptive grammar. To a descriptive grammarian, she falsified her claim; to a prescriptive grammarian, she didn't.

Prescriptive grammar does not exist. There is no entity with the authority to prescribe rules for language/spelling.

There is no entity with the authority to prescribe rules for language/spelling.

I seem to remember the French do. "France's highest authority on language, the Académie française". Other countries also have similar entities.

"List of language regulators
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a list of bodies that regulate standard languages, often called language academies. Language academies are motivated by, or closely associated with, linguistic purism and prestige, and typically publish prescriptive dictionaries,[1] which purport to officiate and prescribe the meaning of words and pronunciations. A language regulator may also have a more descriptive approach, however, while maintaining and promoting (but not imposing) a standard spelling. Many language academies are private institutions, although some are governmental bodies in different states, or enjoy some form of government-sanctioned status in one or more countries. There may also be multiple language academies attempting to regulate and codify the same language, sometimes based in different countries and sometimes influenced by political factors (see also: pluricentric language)."

I seem to remember the French do. "France's highest authority on language, the Académie française". Other countries also have similar entities.

The french claim to have such an agency, it's real practical authority over the French language is at best questionable.

In any case, no such entity exists at all for the English language, so it's not relevant to the present discussion.

In any case, no such entity exists at all for the English language, so it's not relevant to the present discussion.

"Who regulates English language?

The living speakers and writers of the English language own it collectively, and govern it by global, regional and local consensus. The living speakers and writers of the English language own it collectively, and govern it by global, regional and local consensus. That's about two billion people, all told."

English is used in a lot of countries that also have other official languages. The Philippines, India, there is a country in South America that used to be a British colony. The EU despite Brexit may still have English speakers so they have a language in common since there are so many European languages.

The living speakers and writers of the English language own it collectively, and govern it by global, regional and local consensus.

That is the definition of rules as description of the common usage and the opposite of prescriptive rules.

The existence of 'manuals of style' and grammar texts argues for the existence of a belief in prescriptive standards.

Belief in prescriptive standards is not equal to the existence of genuine prescriptive standards.

Also, "manuals of style" are recommendations, they are not prescriptive standards in any real sense.

A prescriptive standard presupposes not only the authority to prescribe a standard but the authority to enforce said standard.

Also, "manuals of style" are recommendations, they are not prescriptive standards in any real sense.

True. But if you choose to ignore the recommendations, you may find yourself on the unemployment line. That is "prescriptive" enough for me.

But if you choose to ignore the recommendations, you may find yourself on the unemployment line.

Only if your employer requires a specific manual of style. There are many and they don't agree on all issues.

Me, my day job isn't writing and I have no required manual of style.

There are a lot of people enforcing standards in everyday life.

Not on a language wide basis. And if you are doing that on Resumes on the basis of a particular style guide without giving applicants advance notice of what style guide to use, that is an asshole move.

Now two style guides may not be alike. May even be conflicting. But for a specific organization, their style guide is the law.

This is true, but that doesn't make for prescritive rules for the language as a whole.

That's what grammar books and the school system is for.

No, those are not prescritive rules. They are constantly playing catch-up maintaining descriptive rules(common usage).

Tell that to the student whose grade is marked down for writing "graduated high school."

A teacher's authority to enforce those rules does not extend beyond the classroom/class work.

You are confusing an authority to impose rules in a confined setting with the authority to prescribe rules for the language at large.

Sure, such authority can exist in specific settings for different reasons. No entity has authority to prescribe rules for the English language as a whole, not even if you limit it to formal writing.

The entity is the academic world, the educational institutions that write the grammar books and teach grammar.

That's a bully pulpit, not authority to prescribe rules.

Just like there isn't agreement between style guides I'd bet if you looked you would find that grammar text books by different authors don't agree on all the rules.

For the student, it's the teacher.
For the (traditional) author, it's the publisher/editor.
For an employee, it's the boss.

All of those authorities are limited and context specific. They have no authority over the language as a whole.

They also don't form a monolith in perfect agreement over what the rules are.

Or is it the reader voting you down because of grammar errors?

There's no singular authority who decides what 'history' is

Used to be "whoever won the war".
Now, the losers wait a generation or two and then rewrite the history books, and make the 'winners' the bad guys.

You'll find some differences in grammar books, I suspect. An example would be the Oxford Comma.

I think most mentioned it as optional, although they'd generally split on whether it was recommended or not. I think if there was a consensus, it was that it should only be used if not using it would be more confusing.

I think that depends on whether the grammar books are those nominated by those in charge of the syllabus, or the whole grammar book market ;-)

Even for those in charge of the syllabus it depends on how broadly you look.

In the US, that's generally local school boards, though in a few cases it may be the state education department. I would not be surprised at differences in the text books selected by Texas and California.

However, you are definitely going to find at least a few differences between US, UK, Canadian, and Australian grammar text books.

I wonder if that's true. Punctuation and spelling, yes. But grammar?

1. Punctuation would be covered in grammar text books.

2. As I understand it there are adjective order differences between the US and UK.

Can the majority of people be wrong about an issue of grammar?

The majority of people are typically wrong about most other things, so why not grammar?

The majority of people are typically wrong about most other things, so why not grammar?

I tend to agree with that, but if you're purely descriptive, the majority are always right or at least not wrong.

majority are always right or at least not wrong.

That sounds optimistic to me. We get to chose between Trump and Hillary in 2016. Our systems are set up so the majority doesn't get to make even close to the best possible decisions. Poly ticks, many bloodsucking insects.

She's saying the rules haven't changed. But more people are not following the rules than following them. That was a surprise to her.

Sorry, that does means the rules have changed.

I believe that just because everyone does it wrong doesn't make it right. In formal writing, anyway.

Common usage defines the rules. How everyone does it is correct as a matter of definition.

No, prescriptive rules do not exist, not even for formal writing, though I will agree that there is a different pool for "common usage" specific to formal writing.

If as she says, "graduated college" is twice as popular as the phrase "graduated from college", then

there's a lot of stupid people getting it wrong? Yeah.