Date:    Fri, 24 Apr 1998 11:05:42 -0400
<br>From:    Gregory {Greg} Downing <gd2[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]IS2.NYU.EDU>
<br>Subject: Writing prescriptions (Was Re: (In)flammable; Re: Other X's Than Y)
<br>
<br>At 10:40 AM 4/21/98, creswell[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]crown.NET wrote:
<br>>A fully and completely consistent descriptivist attude _does_ account for what
<br>>Greg refers to as the "prescriptivist" decisions that humans make in planning
<br>>and uttering speech. Good dictionary definitions report on the results of
<br> those
<br>>"prescriptivist" decisions made by humans in their speech and writing.
<br>>
<br>>I think, however, that it confuses the issue to refer to such decisions as
<br>>"prescriptivist."  I prefer to reserve the term _prescriptive_ to refer to
<br>>injunctions by "experts," not to decisions made by speakers/writers.
<br>>
<br>
<br>Sorry not to have gotten back about this topic earlier; it's "that time" in
<br>the semester.
<br>
<br>Your first para. is quite unexceptionable, and exactly what I had in mind in
<br>sending the post to which you are responding.
<br>
<br>Your second para. is a tougher nut to crack. How is it that the definitions
<br>of "[putative] expert," "speaker," and "writer" are set up in such a way as
<br>to exclude the first category from the other two? If "[putatively] expert"
<br>speakers/writers are being defined as somehow distinct from all other
<br>speakers/writers, and only the [putative] experts' prescriptivisms are being
<br>viewed as illegitimate, it seems that some speakers/writers are more equal
<br>than others. Obviously, the grounds for this differential treatment could
<br>not be a general desire to take a fully inclusive, empirical approach to
<br>human linguistic behavior. One wonders if it might not have to do with
<br>professional rivalry between two groups having different approaches to
<br>language-study. Not being a member of either camp, and having learned a good
<br>deal from both camps, I don't have strong side-taking feelings about this
<br>rivalry. But I also don't feel compelled to knuckle under to either side.
<br>I'd prefer to observe them both in a more genuinely empirical fashion, and
<br>see what can be learned from inferring rather than rooting.
<br>
<br>
<br>At 13:12:22 4/21/98, "Donald M. Lance" <engdl[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]SHOWME.MISSOURI.EDU> wrote:
<br>>Tom Creswell's comments on prescriptivism were good.  Prescriptivism isn't
<br>>all bad; it's actually what we all operate with much of the time, in
<br>>language as well as in other activities.
<br>>
<br>
<br>Right, but if we want to think about these matters clearly, two related
<br>criteria that we should bear in mind are consistency and cohesion.
<br>
<br>
<br>>At 11:25 PM 4/23/98, "Donald M. Lance" <engdl[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]SHOWME.MISSOURI.EDU> wrote:
<br>>>>If I understand your posting, your "other X's other than Y's" is your
<br>>>>"correction."  I say "other X's than Y's" and consider your construction
<br>>>>to have an unnecessary redundancy.
<br>>>>
<br>>>>As I asked before: Geek grammar rules?
<br>>>>
<br>
<br>I think I'd probably agree on the subject at hand: you can say "other x's
<br>than y" or "x's other than y," but why would you need to repeat the "other"?
<br>However, to use the phrase "unnecessary redundancy" without explanation or
<br>nuance is to be prescriptivist, right? So I'm back to my consistency
<br>problem. A claim that usage as it actually happens is the only valid
<br>criterion for what language is makes it impossible to talk about errors in
<br>usage -- other than inconsistenly.
<br>
<br>Of course, if enough people all started making this doubled-other "mistake,"
<br>we could easily call it yet another example of the status of natural
<br>language as not absolutely logical, in any formal, quasi-mathematical sense.
<br>Or, more generously, we could call the duplicated "other" emphatic
<br>reduplication or the like, as people do with double negatives in English
<br>when they become common enough in practice.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>>By the way, we vets say you've misspelled fubar.
<br>>>>
<br>>>>
<br>
<br>See above comments about dealing consistently with prespcriptivism.
<br>
<br>
<br>>>(I had intended the msg with single < > to go to ads-l, but Andrea has her
<br>>>e-mail set up so that replies go to her rather than to ads-l.)
<br>>>
<br>
<br>You also mentioned this about another post maybe four days back. You have to
<br>look at the to-address before hitting send. As on many many lists, some
<br>posters' e-mails will generate a reply to the list, and other posters'
<br>e-mails will generate a personal reply. For example, Tom Cresswell's posts
<br>to ADS-L also generate personal replies, on my end anyway. I'm not sure if
<br>individual posters would even be aware of this issue with regard to their
<br>own posts, let alone being able to do something about it themselves. It may
<br>have something to do with how their email system interfaces with the ADS
<br>listserv program. However, maybe someone on this list has more technically
<br>sound advice. In the meanwhile, it's easy enough to check and change the
<br>address if necessary. I've seen people who don't check to-addresses send
<br>very embarrassing private messages to large lists.
<br>
<br>Greg Downing/NYU, at greg.downing[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]nyu.edu or gd2[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]is2.nyu.edu
<br>