xxxx questions answered November 2, 2006 9:39 AM Subscribe
First off, congratulations on 50000! Now, onto the pony. I'm wondering if the "Unanswered" tab could produce a little bit different of a result than it does now. Also, if we could get a little running total like "xxxx questions answered!"
no answers + no "best" answer + stumped tag = unanswered tab. That's my dream equation. I'd even be willing to bend on the no best answer idea.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:56 AM on November 2, 2006
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:56 AM on November 2, 2006
"Now, onto the pony."
*mounts the pony*
*realizes chrisroberts likely meant "Now, on to the pony"*
*dismounts*
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:57 AM on November 2, 2006
*mounts the pony*
*realizes chrisroberts likely meant "Now, on to the pony"*
*dismounts*
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:57 AM on November 2, 2006
*mounts the pony*
crash, this is just like a dream I had last night.
posted by cortex at 10:03 AM on November 2, 2006
crash, this is just like a dream I had last night.
posted by cortex at 10:03 AM on November 2, 2006
yeah, I'll add the stumped tag and maybe no best answers (dunno about that, since it'd be the majority of questions).
Keep in mind the tabs are really a first draft and there's still work to be done on them to refine them.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:06 AM on November 2, 2006
Keep in mind the tabs are really a first draft and there's still work to be done on them to refine them.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:06 AM on November 2, 2006
mr_crash_davis reminds me of that classic Infocom game, Grammatical Correctness.
posted by chrismear at 10:11 AM on November 2, 2006
posted by chrismear at 10:11 AM on November 2, 2006
(Less than 5 answers AND no best answer) OR stumped tag
posted by knave at 10:16 AM on November 2, 2006
posted by knave at 10:16 AM on November 2, 2006
I would have 50001
But yeah, it'd be like McMeFi - 99 Billion Answered!
posted by niles at 10:30 AM on November 2, 2006
But yeah, it'd be like McMeFi - 99 Billion Answered!
posted by niles at 10:30 AM on November 2, 2006
I'm pretty skeptical about the value of no-best-answer as a naive metric as well. If not for an aversion to tab bloat, I'd even say provide a separate tag for "unbestanswered".
Or, if you want to get really weird, maintain a list of Askers who have in fact provided a "best answer" to a question, and only diplay, in the Unanswered tab, the no-best-answer-yet questions asked by those registered best-answerers. That selects against questions not known to be likely to have potential best answers acknowledged.
posted by cortex at 11:06 AM on November 2, 2006
Or, if you want to get really weird, maintain a list of Askers who have in fact provided a "best answer" to a question, and only diplay, in the Unanswered tab, the no-best-answer-yet questions asked by those registered best-answerers. That selects against questions not known to be likely to have potential best answers acknowledged.
posted by cortex at 11:06 AM on November 2, 2006
yeah, I'll add the stumped tag and maybe no best answers (dunno about that, since it'd be the majority of questions).
What if you included all of those but sorted by number of answers (low to high) instead of by date?
Or you could generate daily nagging emails until the OP either tagged it "stumped" or marked a best answer.
posted by timeistight at 11:32 AM on November 2, 2006
What if you included all of those but sorted by number of answers (low to high) instead of by date?
Or you could generate daily nagging emails until the OP either tagged it "stumped" or marked a best answer.
posted by timeistight at 11:32 AM on November 2, 2006
I like the idea of 3 or less answers (i.e., not a full-blown discussion yet) with no best answer, or stumped. It'd serve the most useful purpose, which is filtering down to those questions that someone browsing AskMe might have something to add to.
posted by graymouser at 11:47 AM on November 2, 2006
posted by graymouser at 11:47 AM on November 2, 2006
Fewer is for items you can count. Less is for items you can't. You can't have fewer water in a glass. You can't have less glasses.
posted by klangklangston at 12:55 PM on November 2, 2006
posted by klangklangston at 12:55 PM on November 2, 2006
I fail to see the difference.
There is none, and less has been used with count nouns throughout the entire history of the English language. A sampling of OED cites:
posted by languagehat at 1:13 PM on November 2, 2006
There is none, and less has been used with count nouns throughout the entire history of the English language. A sampling of OED cites:
c888 K. ÆLFRED Boeth. xxxv. §5 [6] Swa mid læs worda swa mid ma, swæther we hit gereccan magon. ... 1579 LYLY Euphues To Gentl. Oxf. (Arb.) 208, I thinke there are few Vniuersities that haue lesse faultes than Oxford, many that haue more. ... 1874 Rep. Brit. Assoc. Adv. Sci. 1873 53 To return to the history of logarithmic tables to a less number of figures. 1904 Amer. Jrnl. Philol. XXV. 234 There might have been less barbed wire, less flaring flowers. 1971 Guardian 16 Dec. 16/1 The 47-page prospectus.. shows that there are less restrictions.. than is generally supposed.The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage says "less refers to quantity or amount among things that are measured and to number among things that are counted." But some people like being "correct" so much they try for it even when they're wrong.
posted by languagehat at 1:13 PM on November 2, 2006
On non-preview: sorry, klang, but you're wrong too. The evidence does not support your fervent belief.
posted by languagehat at 1:14 PM on November 2, 2006
posted by languagehat at 1:14 PM on November 2, 2006
I could do with fewer snarkiness around here.
posted by timeistight at 1:38 PM on November 2, 2006
posted by timeistight at 1:38 PM on November 2, 2006
I could do with greater snarkiness around here.
posted by chrisroberts at 1:41 PM on November 2, 2006
posted by chrisroberts at 1:41 PM on November 2, 2006
"and less has been used with count nouns throughout the entire history of the English language"
Yeah, but it could have been used incorrectly with count nouns throughout the entire history of the English language.
:)
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:51 PM on November 2, 2006
Yeah, but it could have been used incorrectly with count nouns throughout the entire history of the English language.
:)
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:51 PM on November 2, 2006
"On non-preview: sorry, klang, but you're wrong too. The evidence does not support your fervent belief."
It's not fervent. He asked what the difference was. I illustrated it for him. Unless you contend that there is no difference, in which case you're wrong and can take that up with nearly every professional style guide ever published.
Im in ur descriptivism editing all ur adjectives.
posted by klangklangston at 3:14 PM on November 2, 2006
It's not fervent. He asked what the difference was. I illustrated it for him. Unless you contend that there is no difference, in which case you're wrong and can take that up with nearly every professional style guide ever published.
Im in ur descriptivism editing all ur adjectives.
posted by klangklangston at 3:14 PM on November 2, 2006
IM IN UR... oh, never mind.
posted by blue_beetle at 3:39 PM on November 2, 2006
posted by blue_beetle at 3:39 PM on November 2, 2006
Who will unstump the stumped when the stumped has become unstumped?
posted by shoesfullofdust at 4:08 PM on November 2, 2006
posted by shoesfullofdust at 4:08 PM on November 2, 2006
Yeah, but it could have been used incorrectly with count nouns throughout the entire history of the English language.
Aye. I don't give a rat's patootie what the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage says, I'm going to continue to (mentally) slap people who use 'less' with countable nouns.
[/faux grammar outrage]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:20 PM on November 2, 2006
Aye. I don't give a rat's patootie what the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage says, I'm going to continue to (mentally) slap people who use 'less' with countable nouns.
[/faux grammar outrage]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:20 PM on November 2, 2006
I could care fewer.
posted by flabdablet at 7:24 PM on November 2, 2006
posted by flabdablet at 7:24 PM on November 2, 2006
Heed the answer to a single precious question and the correctness of your usage will never be in doubt.
That question is:
What Would David Foster Wallace Do?
(This is languagehat-as-editorhat's secret. Really. He'll be by any minute to verify.)
posted by Opus Dark at 10:02 PM on November 2, 2006
That question is:
What Would David Foster Wallace Do?
(This is languagehat-as-editorhat's secret. Really. He'll be by any minute to verify.)
posted by Opus Dark at 10:02 PM on November 2, 2006
What Would David Foster Wallace Do?
Footnote it to within an inch of its life.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:13 PM on November 2, 2006
Footnote it to within an inch of its life.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:13 PM on November 2, 2006
Footnote it to within an inch of its life.*
*But only if its life depended on it.
posted by Opus Dark at 10:19 PM on November 2, 2006
*But only if its life depended on it.
posted by Opus Dark at 10:19 PM on November 2, 2006
My vote is for less, by which I mean more few.
posted by trip and a half at 11:06 PM on November 2, 2006
posted by trip and a half at 11:06 PM on November 2, 2006
(<5 answers, no best answer marked ) OR "stumped" would work perfectly.
posted by blag at 2:44 AM on November 3, 2006
posted by blag at 2:44 AM on November 3, 2006
Yeah, but it could have been used incorrectly with count nouns throughout the entire history of the English language.
I'm assuming from the smiley this is a joke, but since people do make this argument seriously, I'll just point out for the peanut gallery that it's completely insane. Grammar is what native speakers actually say, not what self-appointed "grammarians" tell them to say. The only purpose of invented "rules" like "don't use less with count nouns" is to enable elitist assholes to put down people who didn't absorb the same bullshit at an impressionable age.
posted by languagehat at 5:32 AM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]
I'm assuming from the smiley this is a joke, but since people do make this argument seriously, I'll just point out for the peanut gallery that it's completely insane. Grammar is what native speakers actually say, not what self-appointed "grammarians" tell them to say. The only purpose of invented "rules" like "don't use less with count nouns" is to enable elitist assholes to put down people who didn't absorb the same bullshit at an impressionable age.
posted by languagehat at 5:32 AM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]
LH, as always, you are confusing two roles: that of the lexicographer, and that of the speaker. You're absolutely right about the lexicographer's mandate: descriptivism is her job. But private citizens are not bound by that mandate, and are fully justified in correcting the usage of others. We bear no responsibility to accept something as correct, just because a plurality of morons do it. Nittering ninnies like yourself, who squeal that we're wrong to say when something is wrong, are (a) ironically, saying we're doing something wrong, and (b) overstepping your self-proclaimed bounds.
Yours truly, an elitist asshole. Fuck right off.
posted by gleuschk at 6:42 AM on November 3, 2006
Yours truly, an elitist asshole. Fuck right off.
posted by gleuschk at 6:42 AM on November 3, 2006
One of The only purposes of invented "rules" like "don't use less with count nouns" is to enable elitist assholes those of us who happen to like the english language to put down try to influence people who didn't absorb the same bullshit such that the language evolves in a more elegant direction.
posted by peacay at 7:04 AM on November 3, 2006
posted by peacay at 7:04 AM on November 3, 2006
Grammar is what native speakers actually say
So there literally is no such thing as spelling words wrong, or using apostrophes incorrectly? Every time someone makes one of these 'mistakes', they're actually just evolving the language?
I love the idea of descriptivism from an academic perspective, but I just can't make it jibe with my day-to-day sense that there has to be a certain standard of correctness (or convention, if you like) to enable basic comprehension. Where do you draw the line?
posted by chrismear at 7:12 AM on November 3, 2006
So there literally is no such thing as spelling words wrong, or using apostrophes incorrectly? Every time someone makes one of these 'mistakes', they're actually just evolving the language?
I love the idea of descriptivism from an academic perspective, but I just can't make it jibe with my day-to-day sense that there has to be a certain standard of correctness (or convention, if you like) to enable basic comprehension. Where do you draw the line?
posted by chrismear at 7:12 AM on November 3, 2006
But private citizens are not bound by that mandate, and are fully justified in correcting the usage of others.
Justified in what way? If a majority have always used a word in a certain fashion, and you look and say, no, that has always been wrong—where is your footing?
There is a distinction here: saying that a word is, by some nebulous foot-stamping authority, wrong is not the same act as saying that said foot-stomping is wrong. One is a prescriptivist declaration about usage, the other is anti-prescriptive declaration about prescriptivist declarations.
If everybody does it, it is correct. No matter how it chafes you or flies against your practical instincts. To say otherwise is to presume a direct line to the Language God.
posted by cortex at 7:12 AM on November 3, 2006
Justified in what way? If a majority have always used a word in a certain fashion, and you look and say, no, that has always been wrong—where is your footing?
There is a distinction here: saying that a word is, by some nebulous foot-stamping authority, wrong is not the same act as saying that said foot-stomping is wrong. One is a prescriptivist declaration about usage, the other is anti-prescriptive declaration about prescriptivist declarations.
If everybody does it, it is correct. No matter how it chafes you or flies against your practical instincts. To say otherwise is to presume a direct line to the Language God.
posted by cortex at 7:12 AM on November 3, 2006
So there literally is no such thing as spelling words wrong, or using apostrophes incorrectly?
There is no such thing as an absolute correct usage of spelling or apostrophes or whatever. We can reasonably say that "asshol" is a misspelling, but if in fifty years people have adopted "asshol" as an alternate or even replacement spelling for "asshole", then, no, it's not wrong anymore—it's accepted usage.
That doesn't mean you can't observe and correct within the scope of contemporary usage, but to claim that you are doing anything other than reacting within that context is silly. In the long run, popular is right, period.
posted by cortex at 7:14 AM on November 3, 2006
There is no such thing as an absolute correct usage of spelling or apostrophes or whatever. We can reasonably say that "asshol" is a misspelling, but if in fifty years people have adopted "asshol" as an alternate or even replacement spelling for "asshole", then, no, it's not wrong anymore—it's accepted usage.
That doesn't mean you can't observe and correct within the scope of contemporary usage, but to claim that you are doing anything other than reacting within that context is silly. In the long run, popular is right, period.
posted by cortex at 7:14 AM on November 3, 2006
Alot of what you say makes sense.
posted by flabdablet at 7:24 AM on November 3, 2006
posted by flabdablet at 7:24 AM on November 3, 2006
Yours truly, an elitist asshole.
Well, you got that part right.
posted by knave at 7:30 AM on November 3, 2006
Well, you got that part right.
posted by knave at 7:30 AM on November 3, 2006
Also, coming from a mathematics and computer science background, I happen to use phrases like "less than" a lot. It would take a serious amount of convincing for you to tell me it's incorrect to use "less than" in the context I used it above (that is, specifying an algorithm).
posted by knave at 7:33 AM on November 3, 2006
posted by knave at 7:33 AM on November 3, 2006
What peacay said (when you finally manage to parse it) is okay by me—I well and truly dig the desire to promote elegance in language. The problem is that the folks wandering around with the rulers are, by and large, not explaining that they prefer a given usage for stated, subjective reasons—they're saying "nuh-uh! Me right, you wrong! Because!"
posted by cortex at 7:41 AM on November 3, 2006
posted by cortex at 7:41 AM on November 3, 2006
Also, coming from a mathematics and computer science background, I happen to use phrases like "less than" a lot.
This is an excuse? We share a background: I am a mathematician (in addition to my sideline in assholery). So, for example, I can tell the difference between "for x less than 5" and "there are fewer than 5 brain cells".
posted by gleuschk at 7:52 AM on November 3, 2006
This is an excuse? We share a background: I am a mathematician (in addition to my sideline in assholery). So, for example, I can tell the difference between "for x less than 5" and "there are fewer than 5 brain cells".
posted by gleuschk at 7:52 AM on November 3, 2006
Ooh, bonus quiz:
Less than Jake
or
Fewer than Jake
???
posted by cortex at 8:00 AM on November 3, 2006
Less than Jake
or
Fewer than Jake
???
posted by cortex at 8:00 AM on November 3, 2006
Fuck right off.
My, people get touchy about their pretend rules!
OK, let's separate some issues:
enable basic comprehension
This is probably the most commonly given reason, and it's certainly the most easily dismissed. I find it hard to believe even the people who use it take it seriously. Nobody in their right mind would claim that saying "less than five" rather than "fewer than five," or "to boldly go" rather than "to go boldly," or whatever shibboleth is in the crosshairs at the moment, impedes basic comprehension. Once in a great while I run across a sentence in a news story or a blog entry that I have to go back and reread to figure out; the fault is never with one of these pretend rules but rather with simple bad writing. It's a common misunderstanding (or lie, depending on the complainer) that descriptivists "don't believe in good or bad use of language." Of course we do; we just don't believe it has anything to do with your pretend rules, and furthermore, focusing on pretend rules makes it more rather than less likely that actual bad writing will slip under the radar. I've seen a lot more sentences ruined by ill-advised attempts to avoid a split infinitive than by an actual split infinitive (with which, just so we're clear, there's nothing wrong anyway).
more elegant
This is a genuine concern, and some of the shibboleths (for instance, not starting sentences with "However") seem to be motivated by it. But it's tricky, because "elegant" is easily confused with "conforming to pretend rules"; in other words, if someone says "less than five" and you can't claim it impedes basic comprehension, you claim it's not "elegant," when what you really mean is "I don't like it." So although I do believe in the concept of elegance in language and admire language used elegantly, I pretty much reflexively dismiss claims about elegance wielded by prescriptivists, just as I dismiss claims about morality wielded by people to whom "immoral" means "against the rules of my religion."
So there literally is no such thing as spelling words wrong, or using apostrophes incorrectly?
This is another common misunderstanding. Grammar and spelling/punctuation are entirely different creatures. Grammar is the inherent rules of a language; all languages have grammar, whether they're written down or not, and all native speakers use the (real) rules of grammar correctly (in their dialect, which may not be the standard dialect). Spelling and punctuation, obviously, exist only in written languages, and they are arbitrary, not innate: a language can be written in any number of different ways, and all of them are equally valid, although by no means are they equally sensible or easy to use. Chinese speakers, for example, would be much better off if their language was written with an alphabet or syllabary; learning the complex system of characters that is actually used wastes tremendous amounts of time and energy that could be spent studying physics or making out behind the gym. Turkish speakers are lucky; their writing system almost perfectly reflects the spoken language, so they rarely have to think how to write a word. English is in between: the underlying system is rational (an alphabet in which letters represent sounds), but it's gotten so elaborated over the years by sound change, borrowing, inertia, and caprice that we have something called a "spelling bee" that few other languages have or can even make sense of. Once printers started standardizing English spelling a few centuries ago, we started having to "look words up" in a dictionary to find out the correct spelling, and here "correct" simply means "the arbitrary, agreed-on spelling" because spelling, unlike grammar, is arbitrary. The same is true of punctuation, except punctuation is harder to "look up," so it's often used wrongly (i.e., not according to the rules of the applicable style guide), and copyeditors like myself are enabled to make a living.
Nittering ninnies like yourself, who squeal that we're wrong to say when something is wrong
1) When you're wrong, as you are here, you'll get told you're wrong. Take it like a man.
2) That wasn't very elegantly put.
If anyone's interested, there's a thoughtful discussion by Mark Liberman (our own myl) at Language Log.
posted by languagehat at 8:46 AM on November 3, 2006
My, people get touchy about their pretend rules!
OK, let's separate some issues:
enable basic comprehension
This is probably the most commonly given reason, and it's certainly the most easily dismissed. I find it hard to believe even the people who use it take it seriously. Nobody in their right mind would claim that saying "less than five" rather than "fewer than five," or "to boldly go" rather than "to go boldly," or whatever shibboleth is in the crosshairs at the moment, impedes basic comprehension. Once in a great while I run across a sentence in a news story or a blog entry that I have to go back and reread to figure out; the fault is never with one of these pretend rules but rather with simple bad writing. It's a common misunderstanding (or lie, depending on the complainer) that descriptivists "don't believe in good or bad use of language." Of course we do; we just don't believe it has anything to do with your pretend rules, and furthermore, focusing on pretend rules makes it more rather than less likely that actual bad writing will slip under the radar. I've seen a lot more sentences ruined by ill-advised attempts to avoid a split infinitive than by an actual split infinitive (with which, just so we're clear, there's nothing wrong anyway).
more elegant
This is a genuine concern, and some of the shibboleths (for instance, not starting sentences with "However") seem to be motivated by it. But it's tricky, because "elegant" is easily confused with "conforming to pretend rules"; in other words, if someone says "less than five" and you can't claim it impedes basic comprehension, you claim it's not "elegant," when what you really mean is "I don't like it." So although I do believe in the concept of elegance in language and admire language used elegantly, I pretty much reflexively dismiss claims about elegance wielded by prescriptivists, just as I dismiss claims about morality wielded by people to whom "immoral" means "against the rules of my religion."
So there literally is no such thing as spelling words wrong, or using apostrophes incorrectly?
This is another common misunderstanding. Grammar and spelling/punctuation are entirely different creatures. Grammar is the inherent rules of a language; all languages have grammar, whether they're written down or not, and all native speakers use the (real) rules of grammar correctly (in their dialect, which may not be the standard dialect). Spelling and punctuation, obviously, exist only in written languages, and they are arbitrary, not innate: a language can be written in any number of different ways, and all of them are equally valid, although by no means are they equally sensible or easy to use. Chinese speakers, for example, would be much better off if their language was written with an alphabet or syllabary; learning the complex system of characters that is actually used wastes tremendous amounts of time and energy that could be spent studying physics or making out behind the gym. Turkish speakers are lucky; their writing system almost perfectly reflects the spoken language, so they rarely have to think how to write a word. English is in between: the underlying system is rational (an alphabet in which letters represent sounds), but it's gotten so elaborated over the years by sound change, borrowing, inertia, and caprice that we have something called a "spelling bee" that few other languages have or can even make sense of. Once printers started standardizing English spelling a few centuries ago, we started having to "look words up" in a dictionary to find out the correct spelling, and here "correct" simply means "the arbitrary, agreed-on spelling" because spelling, unlike grammar, is arbitrary. The same is true of punctuation, except punctuation is harder to "look up," so it's often used wrongly (i.e., not according to the rules of the applicable style guide), and copyeditors like myself are enabled to make a living.
Nittering ninnies like yourself, who squeal that we're wrong to say when something is wrong
1) When you're wrong, as you are here, you'll get told you're wrong. Take it like a man.
2) That wasn't very elegantly put.
If anyone's interested, there's a thoughtful discussion by Mark Liberman (our own myl) at Language Log.
posted by languagehat at 8:46 AM on November 3, 2006
Fuck right off.
My, people get touchy about their pretend rules!
I was not the first in this thread to call someone an asshole. Nor shall I be the last, I presume, but I'll get my licks in. Asshole.
posted by gleuschk at 9:44 AM on November 3, 2006
My, people get touchy about their pretend rules!
I was not the first in this thread to call someone an asshole. Nor shall I be the last, I presume, but I'll get my licks in. Asshole.
posted by gleuschk at 9:44 AM on November 3, 2006
See, I completely understand and pretty much agree with everything you've said. But still, when I hear people say "should of" instead of "should have", I want to wring their necks.
Why is my urge to maintain a grammar that is stable and relatively logical somehow less valid than other people's desire to not be bothered about learning the established conventions of our language? Or are we just speaking different dialects?
posted by chrismear at 9:48 AM on November 3, 2006
Why is my urge to maintain a grammar that is stable and relatively logical somehow less valid than other people's desire to not be bothered about learning the established conventions of our language? Or are we just speaking different dialects?
posted by chrismear at 9:48 AM on November 3, 2006
"The only purpose of invented "rules" like "don't use less with count nouns" is to enable elitist assholes to put down people who didn't absorb the same bullshit at an impressionable age."
Or clarity, especially when words are limited.
Further, if you want to wave your linguistic dick about, recognize that rules of grammar do delineate different forms of the same language, and that those different forms do impart meaning to the reader (about such things as intented audience and tone). Therefore, if you read linguistic rules as being presented as a shorthand for "proper in the context of professional writing" or "proper in the context of Chicano in-group discussion," there very much IS a correct and incorrect sense, especially when considering more formal uses of language.
I realize that the context of website discussion doesn't lend itself to standing on formality, but often the correctors note informal language because it's harder to write in a formal manner than an informal one, and sloppy habits (especially sloppiness unintentionally used) can impact clarity and comprehension.
Further, while you stand on spelling being arbitrary, you fail to note that grammar is essentially arbitrary as well. There isn't any functional advantage, really, in the language placing the verb prior to the noun or vice versa. The only real value of rules of grammar is knowing what's expected in a certain context (aside from the self-evident benefit of studying their taxonomy academically).
But I also realize that this is one of your pet rants and that it brings you great joy to call other people assholes over it, even though you both know these counter-points and have hashed this out over and over. Please keep ascribing ill motives to people on websites and grandstanding. Because clearly your expertise on the subject will prevent you from ever being percieved as an elitist asshole over it, and that's as good an excuse as any to thunder from the mount, right?
posted by klangklangston at 9:51 AM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]
Or clarity, especially when words are limited.
Further, if you want to wave your linguistic dick about, recognize that rules of grammar do delineate different forms of the same language, and that those different forms do impart meaning to the reader (about such things as intented audience and tone). Therefore, if you read linguistic rules as being presented as a shorthand for "proper in the context of professional writing" or "proper in the context of Chicano in-group discussion," there very much IS a correct and incorrect sense, especially when considering more formal uses of language.
I realize that the context of website discussion doesn't lend itself to standing on formality, but often the correctors note informal language because it's harder to write in a formal manner than an informal one, and sloppy habits (especially sloppiness unintentionally used) can impact clarity and comprehension.
Further, while you stand on spelling being arbitrary, you fail to note that grammar is essentially arbitrary as well. There isn't any functional advantage, really, in the language placing the verb prior to the noun or vice versa. The only real value of rules of grammar is knowing what's expected in a certain context (aside from the self-evident benefit of studying their taxonomy academically).
But I also realize that this is one of your pet rants and that it brings you great joy to call other people assholes over it, even though you both know these counter-points and have hashed this out over and over. Please keep ascribing ill motives to people on websites and grandstanding. Because clearly your expertise on the subject will prevent you from ever being percieved as an elitist asshole over it, and that's as good an excuse as any to thunder from the mount, right?
posted by klangklangston at 9:51 AM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]
See, I completely understand and pretty much agree with everything you've said. But still, when I hear people say "should of" instead of "should have", I want to wring their necks.
I hear you. I'm the same way, except with me it's "may have" used where I would say "might have." "If he'd run faster, he may have caught the ball"—no, no, no! It's might have, dammit! But there's no contradiction here, any more than there is between accepting intellectually that we all have a special relationship with our own family or the pop music of our early teens and feeling viscerally that our kid or that great single we heard when we were 13 really is the greatest thing in the whole world. We're not robots or computers, we're humans, with emotions that aren't even in shouting distance of our reasoning capability. I'm not asking people not to have emotional reactions to language use (which would be hopeless), I'm asking them to recognize the fact that the reactions are emotional and not treat them as if they were rational. In other words, my not liking "may have" and your not liking "should of" is parallel to our not liking fish or hockey (or whatever you don't like), not to our knowing the earth revolves around the sun or Washington is the capital of the U.S.
Why is my urge to maintain a grammar that is stable and relatively logical somehow less valid than other people's desire to not be bothered about learning the established conventions of our language?
Look at the terms you're using: "stable and relatively logical" versus "desire to not be bothered." Don't you see that that's like asking:
Why is my urge to maintain a diet that is tasty and relatively logical somehow less valid...
Or:
Why is my urge to watch a sport that is enjoyable and relatively logical somehow less valid...
when what you really mean is "why doesn't everyone dislike fish or hockey as much as I do?" You're using loaded terms and making the question impossible to answer. If you ask instead:
Why is my urge to maintain a pattern of language use that I grew up with and am comfortable with somehow less valid than other people's urge to maintain a pattern of language use that they grew up with and are comfortable with?
the answer is clearly "It's not, and neither is theirs."
As for you, klangy:
rules of grammar do delineate different forms of the same language
Yes they do, different and equally valid forms. Black English, for instance, has a distinction between present progressive (He workin') and habitual present (He be workin' Tuesdays all month). Neither of those sentences is grammatical in standard English; both are grammatical in Black English, and the distinction is clearly a sensible and useful one.
Now, Black English is not as acceptable as standard English in many situations, for reasons that have nothing to do with linguistics or logic and everything to do with racism and social stratification. No descriptivist (outside of your friendly neighborhood straw man) would tell a black kid "Forget that white talk, your English is just as good, so stick with it"; that would be irresponsible. What needs to be said is something like "Your English is just as good as standard English from a scientific point of view, but society isn't scientific, and if you want to get ahead and wind up with a decent job, you'll need to adapt to the standard variety when you're in work-related situations." And then you teach them all the standard rules, with the explanation that these rules are as arbitrary as wearing socks that match or not wearing a hat in church, but people expect you to follow them. See the difference between that approach and "You don't talk correctly, so you're dumb"?
it brings you great joy to call other people assholes over it
No, actually, it doesn't, and I haven't called anyone here an asshole (despite what gleuschk obviously thinks). I try not to make unnecessarily harsh assumptions about the people I'm talking with. What I said was "...to enable elitist assholes to put down people who didn't absorb the same bullshit at an impressionable age." It's the putting-down part that makes someone an asshole in my view; it's merely misguided to say "the rules Miss Klinglebottom taught me in fourth grade are eternal truths," but it's assholish to say "you don't follow Miss K's rules, so you're an idiot and I don't have to take you seriously." See the difference?
As for my alleged elitism or sense of superiority: for the thousandth time, I am not an expert and I do not feel I'm superior to anyone else because I took a few linguistics courses. It's very frustrating to me to constantly have to go over this stuff; I'd much rather be discussing jazz or baseball or poetry. It just happens that ignorance about language is so widespread that I'm in the position of a time traveler in the Middle Ages trying to convince people that bleeding isn't a useful cure-all. No, really, it doesn't help people, in fact it often hurts them. No, I'm not a doctor, I just happen to know this because where I'm from, it's long been proven and it's common knowledge. Yes, I know, your grandfather was bled and your father was bled and you were bled and you're fit as a fiddle, but... Now, there's no call for that kind of language, I'm not putting you down, I'm just trying to tell you... OK, never mind then.
Believe me, I'd like nothing better than for everyone to get a real language course in elementary school that would inoculate them against all this nonsense, so that if someone spouted off about "fewer" and "less" in a MeFi thread they'd be roundly mocked just as if they'd said God told them to post about mushrooms, and we could all get on with our lives. But most people are still in the premodern era when it comes to language, so I sit here forlornly typing, waiting for the millennium to start properly, knock knock knockin' on heaven's door.
posted by languagehat at 10:49 AM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]
I hear you. I'm the same way, except with me it's "may have" used where I would say "might have." "If he'd run faster, he may have caught the ball"—no, no, no! It's might have, dammit! But there's no contradiction here, any more than there is between accepting intellectually that we all have a special relationship with our own family or the pop music of our early teens and feeling viscerally that our kid or that great single we heard when we were 13 really is the greatest thing in the whole world. We're not robots or computers, we're humans, with emotions that aren't even in shouting distance of our reasoning capability. I'm not asking people not to have emotional reactions to language use (which would be hopeless), I'm asking them to recognize the fact that the reactions are emotional and not treat them as if they were rational. In other words, my not liking "may have" and your not liking "should of" is parallel to our not liking fish or hockey (or whatever you don't like), not to our knowing the earth revolves around the sun or Washington is the capital of the U.S.
Why is my urge to maintain a grammar that is stable and relatively logical somehow less valid than other people's desire to not be bothered about learning the established conventions of our language?
Look at the terms you're using: "stable and relatively logical" versus "desire to not be bothered." Don't you see that that's like asking:
Why is my urge to maintain a diet that is tasty and relatively logical somehow less valid...
Or:
Why is my urge to watch a sport that is enjoyable and relatively logical somehow less valid...
when what you really mean is "why doesn't everyone dislike fish or hockey as much as I do?" You're using loaded terms and making the question impossible to answer. If you ask instead:
Why is my urge to maintain a pattern of language use that I grew up with and am comfortable with somehow less valid than other people's urge to maintain a pattern of language use that they grew up with and are comfortable with?
the answer is clearly "It's not, and neither is theirs."
As for you, klangy:
rules of grammar do delineate different forms of the same language
Yes they do, different and equally valid forms. Black English, for instance, has a distinction between present progressive (He workin') and habitual present (He be workin' Tuesdays all month). Neither of those sentences is grammatical in standard English; both are grammatical in Black English, and the distinction is clearly a sensible and useful one.
Now, Black English is not as acceptable as standard English in many situations, for reasons that have nothing to do with linguistics or logic and everything to do with racism and social stratification. No descriptivist (outside of your friendly neighborhood straw man) would tell a black kid "Forget that white talk, your English is just as good, so stick with it"; that would be irresponsible. What needs to be said is something like "Your English is just as good as standard English from a scientific point of view, but society isn't scientific, and if you want to get ahead and wind up with a decent job, you'll need to adapt to the standard variety when you're in work-related situations." And then you teach them all the standard rules, with the explanation that these rules are as arbitrary as wearing socks that match or not wearing a hat in church, but people expect you to follow them. See the difference between that approach and "You don't talk correctly, so you're dumb"?
it brings you great joy to call other people assholes over it
No, actually, it doesn't, and I haven't called anyone here an asshole (despite what gleuschk obviously thinks). I try not to make unnecessarily harsh assumptions about the people I'm talking with. What I said was "...to enable elitist assholes to put down people who didn't absorb the same bullshit at an impressionable age." It's the putting-down part that makes someone an asshole in my view; it's merely misguided to say "the rules Miss Klinglebottom taught me in fourth grade are eternal truths," but it's assholish to say "you don't follow Miss K's rules, so you're an idiot and I don't have to take you seriously." See the difference?
As for my alleged elitism or sense of superiority: for the thousandth time, I am not an expert and I do not feel I'm superior to anyone else because I took a few linguistics courses. It's very frustrating to me to constantly have to go over this stuff; I'd much rather be discussing jazz or baseball or poetry. It just happens that ignorance about language is so widespread that I'm in the position of a time traveler in the Middle Ages trying to convince people that bleeding isn't a useful cure-all. No, really, it doesn't help people, in fact it often hurts them. No, I'm not a doctor, I just happen to know this because where I'm from, it's long been proven and it's common knowledge. Yes, I know, your grandfather was bled and your father was bled and you were bled and you're fit as a fiddle, but... Now, there's no call for that kind of language, I'm not putting you down, I'm just trying to tell you... OK, never mind then.
Believe me, I'd like nothing better than for everyone to get a real language course in elementary school that would inoculate them against all this nonsense, so that if someone spouted off about "fewer" and "less" in a MeFi thread they'd be roundly mocked just as if they'd said God told them to post about mushrooms, and we could all get on with our lives. But most people are still in the premodern era when it comes to language, so I sit here forlornly typing, waiting for the millennium to start properly, knock knock knockin' on heaven's door.
posted by languagehat at 10:49 AM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]
But it's tricky, because "elegant" is easily confused with "conforming to pretend rules"
Identifying said confusion being itself a troublesome and subjective art. Which I think is a significant root of heated arguments on this subject between otherwise smart, reasonable people.
Elegance is nice. Rules are nice. For a lot of folks of varying geekish persuasions, discerning and applying and noting/explaning exceptions to rules is a regular and satisfying form of play, even. But playing with the perceived current status quo of language is different from assuming the authority to declare language fixed to whatever specific ruleset you've adopted.
Language behaves according to some sort of biologically-supported system—our brains are clearly wired, in some way or another, to support it—but natural lanuage does not have a discernable, static ruleset. Language as used by human speakers and writers is a collaborative, dynamic collection of customs; those customs change through use by humans; and the belief of any one person at any point in time that the set of customs they grew up with are anything but a partial historical snapshot is flawed.
So anyone operating off that flawed belief and being pushy about it is being a little bit of an ass, I think. That's not to say there isn't value in exploring those various snapshots; and not say there isn't some value (comminicative, aesthetic, etc) in trying to regularize language usage in specific contexts—but at the core there's a certain unpleasant arrogance in assuming that you've got good reason to tell someone else that their snapshot is wrong.
posted by cortex at 11:02 AM on November 3, 2006
Identifying said confusion being itself a troublesome and subjective art. Which I think is a significant root of heated arguments on this subject between otherwise smart, reasonable people.
Elegance is nice. Rules are nice. For a lot of folks of varying geekish persuasions, discerning and applying and noting/explaning exceptions to rules is a regular and satisfying form of play, even. But playing with the perceived current status quo of language is different from assuming the authority to declare language fixed to whatever specific ruleset you've adopted.
Language behaves according to some sort of biologically-supported system—our brains are clearly wired, in some way or another, to support it—but natural lanuage does not have a discernable, static ruleset. Language as used by human speakers and writers is a collaborative, dynamic collection of customs; those customs change through use by humans; and the belief of any one person at any point in time that the set of customs they grew up with are anything but a partial historical snapshot is flawed.
So anyone operating off that flawed belief and being pushy about it is being a little bit of an ass, I think. That's not to say there isn't value in exploring those various snapshots; and not say there isn't some value (comminicative, aesthetic, etc) in trying to regularize language usage in specific contexts—but at the core there's a certain unpleasant arrogance in assuming that you've got good reason to tell someone else that their snapshot is wrong.
posted by cortex at 11:02 AM on November 3, 2006
Well said, cortex. I hope anyone who considers me unbearably arrogant, pretentious, or just too damn long-winded will be convinced by your succinct statement.
posted by languagehat at 11:09 AM on November 3, 2006
posted by languagehat at 11:09 AM on November 3, 2006
Of course, talking about "fewer water in the glass" still sounds wrong to me (a native speaker of English), even as I'm ambivalent about "fewer than five glasses of water" versus "less than five glasses of water." (As a self-aware aside, I do expect that I'd be more likely to say "less than five" than I would to write it, but that gets back to the whole context thing.)
My point being that, according to the innate rules of contemporary English grammar as I inuitively understand them, "fewer" and "less" aren't completely interchangeable, and perhaps languagehat's original assertion ("There is [no difference]") should be modified slightly. It seems to work much better to substitute less for fewer than the other way around, at least in the sentences I can think of off the top of my head.
posted by nickmark at 11:45 AM on November 3, 2006
My point being that, according to the innate rules of contemporary English grammar as I inuitively understand them, "fewer" and "less" aren't completely interchangeable, and perhaps languagehat's original assertion ("There is [no difference]") should be modified slightly. It seems to work much better to substitute less for fewer than the other way around, at least in the sentences I can think of off the top of my head.
posted by nickmark at 11:45 AM on November 3, 2006
"Now, Black English is not as acceptable as standard English in many situations, for reasons that have nothing to do with linguistics or logic and everything to do with racism and social stratification."
I know what you're getting at here, and though I might quibble with your seeming equation of racism with social stratification as both negatives (in-group bonding, my nigga), I generally agree. But coming as someone who was raised in a predominantly African-American environment, I can see reorienting one's use of language to comply with standard rules, no matter how ultimately arbitrary they are, as something with real value, and I see what I perceive as a knee-jerk condemnation with brimstone and oaths as being both without nuance and unnecessary. And I'd further posit that both the idea of a "Standard English," no matter how fuzzy and mutable the actual boundaries, and non-"standard" language are valuable in and of themselves due to the utility that they offer.
And again, I'm not going to stand on less or fewer on a web forum, but I will say that as someone who gets paid to write and who gets paid occassionally to correct others' writing, I don't mind being corrected myself. I find it incredibly easy to slip into non-standard English, and that can cost me money.
Thus, in total, the objection to your fuckwitted pronouncement, The only people who ever correct others are elitist assholes. And I suppose all I was hoping for was a realization that your venom was bombast.
posted by klangklangston at 11:48 AM on November 3, 2006
I know what you're getting at here, and though I might quibble with your seeming equation of racism with social stratification as both negatives (in-group bonding, my nigga), I generally agree. But coming as someone who was raised in a predominantly African-American environment, I can see reorienting one's use of language to comply with standard rules, no matter how ultimately arbitrary they are, as something with real value, and I see what I perceive as a knee-jerk condemnation with brimstone and oaths as being both without nuance and unnecessary. And I'd further posit that both the idea of a "Standard English," no matter how fuzzy and mutable the actual boundaries, and non-"standard" language are valuable in and of themselves due to the utility that they offer.
And again, I'm not going to stand on less or fewer on a web forum, but I will say that as someone who gets paid to write and who gets paid occassionally to correct others' writing, I don't mind being corrected myself. I find it incredibly easy to slip into non-standard English, and that can cost me money.
Thus, in total, the objection to your fuckwitted pronouncement, The only people who ever correct others are elitist assholes. And I suppose all I was hoping for was a realization that your venom was bombast.
posted by klangklangston at 11:48 AM on November 3, 2006
What Would David Foster Wallace Do?
I like DFW (well...his nonfiction) but I'm going to take a moment to share with you my pet peeve about his language use, drawing two tangential elements in this thread together. I took my copy of "Brief Interviews With Hideous Men" down off the shelf to find an example of the phenomenon, turned it to a random page, and lo! Here there be an instance.
Page 116: "And X's encounters with is father-in-law himself, whenever X now accompanies his wife on her ceaseless visits to the old man's sickroom in his (i.e. the old mans's) and his wife's opulent neoromanesque home across town..."
Regarding italicized portion: Jesus Christ, David. If the subject of your pronoun isn't clear from context, the thing to do is to rewrite the sentence, not to put in a parenthetical to explain who you want the subject to be. These pronoun-explanatory parentheticals are absolutely epidemic in his writing, and every time I see one, I want to scream, "HIRE AN EDITOR WITH ENOUGH STONES TO MAKE YOU CUT IT OUT!"
amirite? Thanks for listening.
posted by Kwine at 12:46 PM on November 3, 2006
I like DFW (well...his nonfiction) but I'm going to take a moment to share with you my pet peeve about his language use, drawing two tangential elements in this thread together. I took my copy of "Brief Interviews With Hideous Men" down off the shelf to find an example of the phenomenon, turned it to a random page, and lo! Here there be an instance.
Page 116: "And X's encounters with is father-in-law himself, whenever X now accompanies his wife on her ceaseless visits to the old man's sickroom in his (i.e. the old mans's) and his wife's opulent neoromanesque home across town..."
Regarding italicized portion: Jesus Christ, David. If the subject of your pronoun isn't clear from context, the thing to do is to rewrite the sentence, not to put in a parenthetical to explain who you want the subject to be. These pronoun-explanatory parentheticals are absolutely epidemic in his writing, and every time I see one, I want to scream, "HIRE AN EDITOR WITH ENOUGH STONES TO MAKE YOU CUT IT OUT!"
amirite? Thanks for listening.
posted by Kwine at 12:46 PM on November 3, 2006
Regarding italicized portion: Jesus Christ, David. If the subject of your pronoun isn't clear from context, the thing to do is to rewrite the sentence, not to put in a parenthetical to explain who you want the subject to be.
Meh. Style choice. Unless you're suggesting that Wallace doesn't realize that he could reword the sentences, you're just exerting your own style preferences.
Not that you don't know that, granted, but as long as we're dissecting kvetches and all...
posted by cortex at 1:09 PM on November 3, 2006
Meh. Style choice. Unless you're suggesting that Wallace doesn't realize that he could reword the sentences, you're just exerting your own style preferences.
Not that you don't know that, granted, but as long as we're dissecting kvetches and all...
posted by cortex at 1:09 PM on November 3, 2006
PISTOLS AT DAWN, SIR.
I guess, but my preferences are bestest!
posted by Kwine at 1:15 PM on November 3, 2006
I guess, but my preferences are bestest!
posted by Kwine at 1:15 PM on November 3, 2006
Of course, talking about "fewer water in the glass" still sounds wrong to me (a native speaker of English)
Yeah, it is wrong.
My point being that, according to the innate rules of contemporary English grammar as I inuitively understand them, "fewer" and "less" aren't completely interchangeable, and perhaps languagehat's original assertion ("There is [no difference]") should be modified slightly.
Yeah, you're absolutely right, and I hereby whack myself with a red-hot skillet. What I meant, of course (and what I hope people understood by it) was "less can be used with count nouns, just as fewer can." But it only goes one way. They are not interchangeable. Sorry about that!
seeming equation of racism with social stratification as both negatives
Not sure what you're getting at, but by "social stratification" I mean "some people being on top of the pecking order and others at the bottom," which in my view is a negative.
I see what I perceive as a knee-jerk condemnation with brimstone and oaths as being both without nuance and unnecessary
I've bolded the relevant part here. What you perceive is not my problem; I have never issued "knee-jerk condemnations with brimstone and oaths" of anything except elitist condemnation of others for not measuring up to arbitrary standards, and I don't imagine you have a problem with such condemnation, given what I know of your political leanings.
I'd further posit that both the idea of a "Standard English," no matter how fuzzy and mutable the actual boundaries, and non-"standard" language are valuable in and of themselves due to the utility that they offer.
I entirely agree. As far as I can see, we have no quarrel except for the straw man you've set up in my place ("what I perceive"). Damn, you're as hard to mollify today as EB at his pissiest. (And frankly, you're the last person I would have expected to see complaining about vigorous discourse. Well, not the last, maybe, but you know what I mean.)
posted by languagehat at 1:22 PM on November 3, 2006
Yeah, it is wrong.
My point being that, according to the innate rules of contemporary English grammar as I inuitively understand them, "fewer" and "less" aren't completely interchangeable, and perhaps languagehat's original assertion ("There is [no difference]") should be modified slightly.
Yeah, you're absolutely right, and I hereby whack myself with a red-hot skillet. What I meant, of course (and what I hope people understood by it) was "less can be used with count nouns, just as fewer can." But it only goes one way. They are not interchangeable. Sorry about that!
seeming equation of racism with social stratification as both negatives
Not sure what you're getting at, but by "social stratification" I mean "some people being on top of the pecking order and others at the bottom," which in my view is a negative.
I see what I perceive as a knee-jerk condemnation with brimstone and oaths as being both without nuance and unnecessary
I've bolded the relevant part here. What you perceive is not my problem; I have never issued "knee-jerk condemnations with brimstone and oaths" of anything except elitist condemnation of others for not measuring up to arbitrary standards, and I don't imagine you have a problem with such condemnation, given what I know of your political leanings.
I'd further posit that both the idea of a "Standard English," no matter how fuzzy and mutable the actual boundaries, and non-"standard" language are valuable in and of themselves due to the utility that they offer.
I entirely agree. As far as I can see, we have no quarrel except for the straw man you've set up in my place ("what I perceive"). Damn, you're as hard to mollify today as EB at his pissiest. (And frankly, you're the last person I would have expected to see complaining about vigorous discourse. Well, not the last, maybe, but you know what I mean.)
posted by languagehat at 1:22 PM on November 3, 2006
I dunno about you folks, but I'm still in a slappin' mood.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:25 PM on November 3, 2006
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:25 PM on November 3, 2006
He be slappin' here all week.
posted by flabdablet at 8:52 PM on November 3, 2006
posted by flabdablet at 8:52 PM on November 3, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
As for the running total, would it be feasible to show a little counter of the number of threads currently marked with a "Best Answer" showing the number of questions AskMe has properly answered? Thanks!
posted by chrisroberts at 9:39 AM on November 2, 2006