One of the things that was interesting in the book was about the dialects of African Americans and how it’s not merely a “corruption” of English as some might assume, but has it’s own unique, complex and even rigid grammar.

He also discusses the origins of language, and how grammar (not a specific grammar, but the frame work of grammar) is innate in children when they are born.

Most languages do have a standard form, and as remarkably comprehensible as far-flung speakers of English are to one another compared to other languages, we should aspire to a standard so it remains so.

As for pedantry, Churchill said it best: “That’s not the sort of English up with which I will put.” Still, I must admit I look down on people who answer “Good” when I ask how they do.

(Though I see Mortis beat me to it.)

A linguistic pedant is like somebody who, 3 minutes into a game of Calvinball, writes down all the rules as of that moment; and then whines every time one of the rules he wrote isn’t followed to the “t” later on.

I do agree with your assessment. The only issue I have is that not every situation is a game of Calvinball!

An email, an IM chat, even most blog posts — and especially comments and mailing list entries — almost always fall into the “Calvinball” category, unless they are professional emails, chats, posts, etc., then my personal opinion is that one should avoid leet-speak, texting slang, and at least attempt to be grammatical.

If one claims to be a professional writer, one should show some pride and write professionally. This means to pick some level of quality above “I can figure out what the person is trying to get across”, preferably in the realm of “cracked someone’s published style guide and followed at least part of it some of the time”, and looked up spellings they weren’t certain of.

For example: My local newspaper carries both AP newswire stories and the home-grown variety. It is painfully obvious which stories came from the AP wire without checking the byline, because it is clear that someone ran it through a spellchecker and proofread them for homonyms and “wrong word” problems. The local stories look like rejects from 8th grade creative writing class assignments. They’re rarely proofread, are rife with spelling and grammar errors, are hard to read, and follow no particular style.

This is not a case of pedantry. This is frustration. The local news is impossible to read, because the reporters are barely able to write it so it can be understood.

Where no pretense of professional status is claimed, let the Calvinball game commence! But when the author claims to be a professional, and demands the perquisites of that position, the responsibilities must also be assumed.

Lastly, the biggest problem with this balls to the walls approach is that there really is improper usage. The word dinner does not mean the third meal of the day, and merely because 99% of the English speaking world may think it is by now, that is not what it should mean. I do not care what one insists on calling it because it is senseless and debilitates the strength of the language. It does not improve nor deepen understanding, but rather this transmogrification makes it so that the 100% who could before understand what supper meant when talking with each other are misunderstood by the some 1% actually speaking in the proper manner. I will not apologize for having most of my dinners as lunch and most of my third meals as suppers (though it is not consistent, of course!)

You wrote: ”I also hate the [insert word-filter challenging adjective here] at the marketing department behind the most funnest waste of disposable income. Pointless neologism are for fun, not profit!”

Let me use plain words: What the fuck does that mean?

So you’d be happy when I call the local dogs ‘deer’, call my pork chop ‘venison’ and refer to a bowl of porridge as ‘meat’? Because those are examples of once-accepted meanings. Is there a moment in time when English was perfected? If you’re speaking a different language than 99% of English speakers, you’re not speaking English. You’re speaking an archaic variant.

I agree with your points. There is a fine line between accepting some ‘organic’ mutations in language and give lazy writers/speakers an excuse to dodge criticism (My first language is also French. We can be pretty zealous about language… ;) ).

I see Stephen Fry’s point and can’t argue that some language nazis take it too far and can be extremely annoying. I usually don’t bother correcting people because I know it is not welcome. That said, I would be embracing his point more eagerly if horrendous language skills wouldn’t be so omnipresent and overlooked.

I know internet is not the best place to find stellar standards of writing, but I am shocked daily by finding more and more butchered words and oddball ‘styles’ (Like people forgoing all capital letters: It can be design-savvy in a brand name logo but it makes reading an entire paragraph or blog post very cumbersome). It is also seeping into newspaper articles and supposedly ‘professional’ publications.

I think there is a key difference between evolution of language and its very decay. The problem is that while Stephen has the wit and experience to make that distinction, many simply have no care at all about language and literacy or their basic rules.

Sure, pedantry and language snobbery stink. But I think that right now, people relaxing the rules- or just plain massacring their respective languages- greatly outnumber zealous linguists.

The dead make rules, and I obey.
I, too, shall be dead some day.

I pray you, for my own pain s sake,
Break the rules that I shall make !

–Mary Davies

All I can add is that I loved the homage to that quote in the movie “Beavis and Butt-head Do America”.

“He was the fella… uh… off in whose shed they were whacking!” (Or words roughly to that effect.)

Oh and for Secondary Orality (a term for the oral nature of online text language) to function, who knows? I’ve never thought about it.

Perhaps the same as for logocentric language but the desire for a clarity is frequently cited by language users. Not only that but there are frequent misunderstandings in online communication. I think we are still just babies in the online language realm.

Classes have never been and never will be monolithic. They’re fractured within, between and over all the ‘standard’ layers (working, lower, middle, upper and their gradations). People have always and will always group together around their class identity, but that might well be something that doesn’t fit the monolithic definition. Class is not the one and only reified abstract around which groups form.

If a particular region’s people feel themselves to be separate from the rest of a country, expect those elements – idioms, accent, humour, sports clubs, etc – that define them as different to become stronger, more accented or at least more strongly associated and supported by that region (and those outside of it)… The same could be said for other types of associations, like Happy Mutants, for example.

I know quite a number of the rules for “correct” English, and I break most of them quite happily. My take on English is that there isn’t 1 right way to use the language, but rather that the way you use the language is determined by the group of people you are talking to. It was nice to hear Fry takes a similar stance. I tell the students in my class that they way they use language should conform to the rules stated by the community they are part of. I also tell them that if they use texting language, I won’t understand it because I’m not fluent in it and so their message won’t be communicated.

I’m with Lizardman – it seems that most people who ardently hold onto the rules use those rules as a way to discriminate against others. Of course not everyone does this, but it seems that most of the people that I’ve met who are pedantic use it primarily for that purpose.

I wish that more people had fun with English; it’s incredibly fun and pliable. It’s why I’ve spent so much time studying it.

“Beg the question” suddenly means “Begs [me] to ask a different question.
“Unique” no longer is.
“Comprise” just means “compose”
“Literally” isn’t.
“Tow the line” appears out of nowhere (well, OK, from more idiots who never saw the actual idiom in print and don’t know jack about its origin).
“Consensus” just means uniformity — when it’s not being cheerfully misspelled as ‘concensus.’

And there’s a whole list of new, ‘duplicate’ words which seem to have taken the place of perfectly decent words
commentor–>commentator
normalcy–>normality

You might like to use the Twain story about the failure of communication between a miner and a preacher. I had success with it when talking to my classes about diction and vocabulary. It’s one of his best California tales and makes a good point about the primacy of using language to be understood.

BTW: I think we should adopt the word “scunt” to our linguistic bosom.

I have to note something I noticed when I moved from a city where French and English are spoken fluently, to a mostly English-speaking city, and back again. I seem to be less irritated by errors in either language if I am in an environment of “linguistic acceptance”, where all the speakers realize that they have different proficiencies.

Interesting stuff.

…when language goes horribly wrong