Two recommendations

dick · Joined: 22 Mar 2007 Posts: 2254

Both appear in today's Guardian. The first is Emma Brockes' blog, entitled
"From Franzen to Fieri," a discussion of reviews which are uncommonly good putdowns. The second appears in the "Most viewed" section (#4) entitled "YourinAmerica," a commentary on grammar police and the English
language.

Before I'm chastised, I've tried several times to copy and paste the URL's for articles. As soon as I click on the Edit menu to do so, the selection device disappears and I get nothing when I try to paste.

maggie b. · Joined: 23 Mar 2007 Posts: 2252

Here they are:

From Franzen to Fieri: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/emma-brockes-blog/2012/nov/28/franzen-fieri-five-rules-review-takedown

Your in America :http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/28/your-in-america-grammar-fascists

maggie b.
_________________
http://maggiebbooksandteas.blogspot.com
She is too fond of books and it has turned her brain. - Louisa May Alcott

maggie b. · Joined: 23 Mar 2007 Posts: 2252

I found Your in America really interesting. I think she has a valid point about "englishes". Also, I'll be honest, I hate grammar police. If I understand you, I'm good with whatever you've said. Technology is changing how we view language. We need to accept that and move on.
_________________
http://maggiebbooksandteas.blogspot.com
She is too fond of books and it has turned her brain. - Louisa May Alcott

veasleyd1 · Joined: 02 Dec 2007 Posts: 2064

"If I understand you" are very crucial words in regard to grammar. I recently read a book in which there are two sentences in which, I fear, the author omitted the word "not." I will admit that the word is small, so perhaps the author considered it insignificant. However, without "not" the two sentences in question make no sense whatsoever in the context of the preceding and succeeding paragraphs.

dick · Joined: 22 Mar 2007 Posts: 2254

@maggieb: I'm not sure what you meant by "if I understand you." I wasn't trying to make a point by referring board members to the article. I just thought it fit with several threads about errors that have cropped up lately. I'd probably fall into the ranks of the grammar police with ease.

maggie b. · Joined: 23 Mar 2007 Posts: 2252

dick:

I should have said "If I understand what is being said I am good with whatever grammar is used to say it." I wasn't referring to any particular "you" but a general you. Sorry for the confusion.

maggie b.
_________________
http://maggiebbooksandteas.blogspot.com
She is too fond of books and it has turned her brain. - Louisa May Alcott

Eliza · Joined: 21 Aug 2011 Posts: 714

I have a different take about living language that involves more than just change: literacy. Has anyone read "How the Irish Saved Civilization"?

I don't think all changes are equal. I'm of the school that more attention paid to language usage improves clarity of thought as well as communication, not what the article said: "...you can't 'preserve' a language without killing it." I think literacy has to be maintained to keep language working well.

I also think the article is also off about Shakespeare, the beginning of modern English and change. IOW, having more acronyms on the Web and more chatting can result in speed and more, not necessarily better communication.

"Print capitalism"???

dick · Joined: 22 Mar 2007 Posts: 2254

@maggieb: Thanks for the clarification.

@eliza: Some of the more familiar acronyms are useful: ROFLMAO, IMO, TSTL, HEA, etc. But a great number of them make my brain whirl while I figure out what they mean and/or misfigure what they mean. For the most part, though, I agree that communication suffers when correctness falters, usually from inattention--I hope--rather than ineptitude. At the same time, some of the englishes, as the author of the article put it, have enriched English, although I don't think that's what the author meant to say. There is a brevity and clarity of meaning in, for example, /macho/ that benefits English.

Eliza · Joined: 21 Aug 2011 Posts: 714

dick · Joined: 22 Mar 2007 Posts: 2254

I guess because "that" can function as a substantive in independent clauses, using it as a substitute for "who" or "whom" in dependents where the reference is a person doesn't trouble me too much, for the function remains much the same as using "that" as a demonstrative. In some cases, it simply doesn't work, but that's usually depends on the meaning of the sentence in which it's included. The last clause in the preceding sentence is a good example. I would probably, had I first written "depends on the meaning of the sentence that it's included in" have revised to use "which" rather than "that" in order to shift the preposition. I think the same about using "that" to refer to an entire previous sentence; sometimes it works; often it doesn't.

Eliza · Joined: 21 Aug 2011 Posts: 714

Same topic (Your in America), different article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/caps-lock-and-load-on-twitter/2012/12/09/c1ca09cc-3fbb-11e2-bca3-aadc9b7e29c5_story.html?hpid=z4

dick · Joined: 22 Mar 2007 Posts: 2254

I don't suppose tweet-talk, tweet-spell is having an effect on standard English in the present era, but I'm not so sure about its effect in the future. My grandchildren all tweet and use the same spellings on their cell-phones as they do on twitter--and those spellings are execrable. I have, in fact, stated that I will not respond to their cell-phone messages if the words are mis-spelled or in twitter-speak. The problem is, I think, that they become so accustomed to that kind of communication(?) that they truly don't think to use correct or standard English. Habit has a powerful effect on standard English, in my thinking. Will that habit carry over into adulthood? I don't know, but fear that it might. Am I extrapolating from an insufficient sample? Who knows.