=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  EDline Vol. 7, no. 71     (1 March 2002)

  Editorial mailing list (digest version)
  Published by the Electric Editors
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

  Contents:

         Q & A
  [2sz]  Mutating language
            [Offshoot of [2sx] Singular thoughts on nouns]

  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


---[2]-- Q & A --------------------------------------------------


** [2sz] Mutating language
            [Offshoot of [2sx] Singular thoughts on nouns]

         Date: Tues, 26 Feb 2002
         From: Michael Lewis, mlewis@brandle.com.au

Jane Lyle wrote:

> To those of us who live in a country where the plural is *not*
> normally used in this construction, it doesn't seem "sensible"
> at all. It seems to be exactly what it is: a matter of idiom.

Idiom? Or language? (I can't recall who said that the British and
Americans are two people divided by a common language; seems
pertinent to this whole thread!)

Similarly, many threads touch on what are seen to be issues of
grammar, but might more accurately be considered aspects of style
-- or, as with Burchfield's views on "ain't", of dialect or
sociolect. My favorite remains the old "split infinitive"
shibboleth; I will go to the barricades insisting that it's a
question of style, not grammar.


         ----------------------
         Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002
         From: Jane Lyle, jlyle@indiana.edu

I mean idiom in its primary sense: "The form of speech peculiar
or proper to a people or country; own language or tongue" (OED).
There are many differences between the various dialects of
English, sometimes even within a single country, region, or
state--yet there are few things that should be categorized as
"right" or "wrong" or "better" or "worse." They're just
different. And thank heavens for that! English would be a mighty
dull language otherwise. I just hope we can make and discuss
comparisons without making judgments.


         ----------------------
         Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002
         From: Michael Lewis, mlewis@brandle.com.au

Jane Lyle wrote:

> There are many differences between the various dialects of
> English ... yet there are few things that should be categorized
> as "right" or "wrong" or "better" or "worse." They're just
> different.

Oops. Point taken. And "Amen" to your final point. That's the
beauty of being a descriptivist rahter than a prescriptivist: you
can rejoince in the richness of variety, instead of bemoaning the
poverty of perceived error.

Still, I do have one fairly prescriptivist attitude. I define
"good" language as "effective" -- that is, the more closely the
reader's response matches the writer's intention, the better the
language. And, while I try to avoid describing an example of
language as right or wrong, I am more than willing to
characterise it as good or bad. (Assuming I know what the writer
was trying to achieve...)


         ----------------------
         Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002
         From: Peter Cousins, pcousins@tesco.net

Michael Lewis wrote:

> 'Still, I do have one fairly prescriptivist attitude. I define
> "good" language as "effective  . . . '

A merely 'descriptive' stance can lead to the denaturing of
language by reducing its effectiveness to express meaning. E.g.,
the tendency to use 'disinterested' to mean 'lacking interest'
and 'masterful' as a synonym for 'masterly'. The gene pool is not
the only one under threat.


         ----------------------
         Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002
         From: Iwan Thomas, iwan@frame.org.uk

Language, like the gene pool, is constantly mutating. New
coinages and new meanings for existing words arise continually.
"Natural selection" eventually, eliminates the less than worthy,
leaving those that serve a useful purpose. That's not to say,
however, that some judicious culling and selective breeding
cannot coax evolution in a more desirable direction ... (or is
this linguistic eugenics?)


         ----------------------
         Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002
         From: Eddie Kent, edlineek@aol.com

Michael Lewis writes: 

> I can't recall who said that the British and Americans are two
> people divided by a common language

GBS, surely. 


         ------------------------
         Date: Thurs, 28 Feb 2002
         From: Michael Lewis, mlewis@brandle.com.au

Eddie Kent wrote:

> > I can't recall who said that the British and Americans are
> > two people divided by a common language
>
> GBS, surely.

According to the fifth edition of the ODQ, although this
quotation is widely attributed to GBS, there's no trace of it in
his writings. Presumably, somebody looked. So the poor sod who
created this gem goes unrecognized...


  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  END OF EDline 7.71

  Admin page: < http://www.electriceditors.net/edline/admin.htm >

  ** The views expressed in this mailing list are strictly those
  of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect
  the views of the moderators or of the Electric Editors. **

  Articles (c) 2001, 2002, by individual contributors
  Design (c) 1996--2002 Iain Brown
  Compilation (c) 2002, Iain Brown / The Electric Editors
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=