<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Language Mavens</title>
	<atom:link href="http://wongablog.co.uk/2008/01/24/language-mavens/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://wongablog.co.uk/2008/01/24/language-mavens/</link>
	<description>like balloons, but with dancing</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 06:20:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Rob T.</title>
		<link>http://wongablog.co.uk/2008/01/24/language-mavens/comment-page-1/#comment-4954</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob T.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:33:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wongablog.co.uk/2008/01/24/language-mavens/#comment-4954</guid>
		<description>Ugh, bad proofreading in my prior post. My apologies for the obvious goofs, which don&#039;t exactly bolster my case!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ugh, bad proofreading in my prior post. My apologies for the obvious goofs, which don&#8217;t exactly bolster my case!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob T.</title>
		<link>http://wongablog.co.uk/2008/01/24/language-mavens/comment-page-1/#comment-4955</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob T.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:31:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wongablog.co.uk/2008/01/24/language-mavens/#comment-4955</guid>
		<description>The absurdly convoluted and politically motivated &quot;arguments&quot; of descriptive linguists such as Edmonds are no less arbitrary and lacking in logic than the examples they claim to debunk. You yourself react positively to them former&#039;s arguments on an emotional level; therefore, they must be &quot;right&quot;, and the &quot;evil&quot; prescriptivists must wrong. That&#039;s really all there is to the matter. Trust me: Logic has little to do with descriptivism.

What you and so many others who applaud descriptivists&#039; positions fail to realize is that many so-called prescriptive rules are not &quot;rules&quot; at all, but are merely *stylistic suggestions*. There is, for instance, no &quot;rule&quot; against splitting an infinitive, nor has there ever been. There has merely been a suggestion that split infinitives are inelegant and unnecessary (I happen to agree).

The descriptivists, filled with resentment (were their knuckles rapped by grammarian nuns too often when they were children, I wonder, and is descriptive linguistics their form of revenge?) and an inexplicable emotional rage (witness Pinker&#039;s far-from-logical *ad hominem* remarks about John Simon, for instance), have created a straw man with their ridiculous confusion of style manuals with prescriptive grammar books. The fact that their favorite *bete noire*, Strunk and White&#039;s *Elements of Style*, even explicitly contains the word *style* in its title says all that needs to be said about the intellectual honesty and competence of many descriptive linguists.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The absurdly convoluted and politically motivated &#8220;arguments&#8221; of descriptive linguists such as Edmonds are no less arbitrary and lacking in logic than the examples they claim to debunk. You yourself react positively to them former&#8217;s arguments on an emotional level; therefore, they must be &#8220;right&#8221;, and the &#8220;evil&#8221; prescriptivists must wrong. That&#8217;s really all there is to the matter. Trust me: Logic has little to do with descriptivism.</p>
<p>What you and so many others who applaud descriptivists&#8217; positions fail to realize is that many so-called prescriptive rules are not &#8220;rules&#8221; at all, but are merely *stylistic suggestions*. There is, for instance, no &#8220;rule&#8221; against splitting an infinitive, nor has there ever been. There has merely been a suggestion that split infinitives are inelegant and unnecessary (I happen to agree).</p>
<p>The descriptivists, filled with resentment (were their knuckles rapped by grammarian nuns too often when they were children, I wonder, and is descriptive linguistics their form of revenge?) and an inexplicable emotional rage (witness Pinker&#8217;s far-from-logical *ad hominem* remarks about John Simon, for instance), have created a straw man with their ridiculous confusion of style manuals with prescriptive grammar books. The fact that their favorite *bete noire*, Strunk and White&#8217;s *Elements of Style*, even explicitly contains the word *style* in its title says all that needs to be said about the intellectual honesty and competence of many descriptive linguists.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Integrating commonly misspelled words &#124; wongaBlog</title>
		<link>http://wongablog.co.uk/2008/01/24/language-mavens/comment-page-1/#comment-4953</link>
		<dc:creator>Integrating commonly misspelled words &#124; wongaBlog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 23:31:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wongablog.co.uk/2008/01/24/language-mavens/#comment-4953</guid>
		<description>[...] - breaking the &#8216;rules&#8217; makes things less clear. But split infinitives, or endless arguments over the perfectly clear &#8216;you and me should go spelunking&#8217;? [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] &#8211; breaking the &#8216;rules&#8217; makes things less clear. But split infinitives, or endless arguments over the perfectly clear &#8216;you and me should go spelunking&#8217;? [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Skuds</title>
		<link>http://wongablog.co.uk/2008/01/24/language-mavens/comment-page-1/#comment-4950</link>
		<dc:creator>Skuds</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:40:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wongablog.co.uk/2008/01/24/language-mavens/#comment-4950</guid>
		<description>You write that &quot;Nobody says ‘Give I a chance’ or ‘Me is leaving’&quot;

To which I reply...  Jar Jar Binks!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You write that &#8220;Nobody says ‘Give I a chance’ or ‘Me is leaving’&#8221;</p>
<p>To which I reply&#8230;  Jar Jar Binks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://wongablog.co.uk/2008/01/24/language-mavens/comment-page-1/#comment-4952</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:45:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wongablog.co.uk/2008/01/24/language-mavens/#comment-4952</guid>
		<description>Lynsey - sounds good!

Skuds - that&#039;s true, yeah - I&#039;m sure I&#039;ll continue trying to say &#039;Bob and me&#039; &#039;correctly&#039; for that reason. Apparently the French language authorities make regular stern pronouncements, all of which are cheerfully ignored by the French public :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lynsey &#8211; sounds good!</p>
<p>Skuds &#8211; that&#8217;s true, yeah &#8211; I&#8217;m sure I&#8217;ll continue trying to say &#8216;Bob and me&#8217; &#8216;correctly&#8217; for that reason. Apparently the French language authorities make regular stern pronouncements, all of which are cheerfully ignored by the French public <img src='http://wongablog.co.uk/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Skuds</title>
		<link>http://wongablog.co.uk/2008/01/24/language-mavens/comment-page-1/#comment-4951</link>
		<dc:creator>Skuds</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:12:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wongablog.co.uk/2008/01/24/language-mavens/#comment-4951</guid>
		<description>I stumbled across an example of prose made excruciatingly clumsy by an writer in the Observer doing contortions to avoid splitting an infinitive in a story about repairing the Commonwealth Institute.... “They want a firm sensitively to restore the site…”

Anyway, while agree with the sentiments of what you are quoting, there is one thing to remember: all language is a tool for communicating.  Teenage txt slang or leetspeak might look stupid to someone like me, but they enable two teenagers to communicate what they want perfectly - with the bonus for them that a lot of others won&#039;t follow it.  Where you have to be careful is in making sure your choice to break rules does not communicate the wrong thing.

You might think you are communicating the fact that you have such a deep understanding of the rules that you know when and how to break them for maximum effect, but do it in a job application and the message received might be that you don&#039;t know the rules, and it might be received by someone who thinks that is important.  I&#039;m just trying to imagine someone writing a loan application in the style of James Joyce :-)

At least we are not as bad as the French who try to enforce proper grammar by law!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I stumbled across an example of prose made excruciatingly clumsy by an writer in the Observer doing contortions to avoid splitting an infinitive in a story about repairing the Commonwealth Institute&#8230;. “They want a firm sensitively to restore the site…”</p>
<p>Anyway, while agree with the sentiments of what you are quoting, there is one thing to remember: all language is a tool for communicating.  Teenage txt slang or leetspeak might look stupid to someone like me, but they enable two teenagers to communicate what they want perfectly &#8211; with the bonus for them that a lot of others won&#8217;t follow it.  Where you have to be careful is in making sure your choice to break rules does not communicate the wrong thing.</p>
<p>You might think you are communicating the fact that you have such a deep understanding of the rules that you know when and how to break them for maximum effect, but do it in a job application and the message received might be that you don&#8217;t know the rules, and it might be received by someone who thinks that is important.  I&#8217;m just trying to imagine someone writing a loan application in the style of James Joyce <img src='http://wongablog.co.uk/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>At least we are not as bad as the French who try to enforce proper grammar by law!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lynsey</title>
		<link>http://wongablog.co.uk/2008/01/24/language-mavens/comment-page-1/#comment-4949</link>
		<dc:creator>Lynsey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:24:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wongablog.co.uk/2008/01/24/language-mavens/#comment-4949</guid>
		<description>I have an interesting book on &#039;dying&#039; languages in Europe if you want to borrow it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have an interesting book on &#8216;dying&#8217; languages in Europe if you want to borrow it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
