h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Challenge to Gnomon: post a definition of a noun that I agree with()

Doesn't that make your being a 'stickler' rather redundant then? If you don't have any agreed-upon basic grammar rules what can you possibly be disagreeing over?

Oh, we agree on 90%.BUT the discrepancies are what have kept us on this thread for over five years.:

(process check)

Are we talking about a prescriptive or a descriptive grammar?

Some people are, like, 'Rules is rules' and I'm, like, 'Whatever!'

Ah well, I was having one of my periodic 'Wish I understood something about grammar' bouts (often brought on when I don't understand the terminology used in this conversation). I'm over it now, carry on as you were

The very basic has to be prescriptive (IM(not very)HO) but you get into description with the first complete utterance
e.g. to speak of something happening in the future, one possibility is to use "shall" or "will" followed by the base verb. I think Gnomon and I disagree about the rules for what to use where, but I hope we wouldn't come up with "I will drown and nobody shall save me," unless bent on self-destruction.

Hmmm. Maybe what Kelli needs is a guide to the basic parts of speech? Clearly she is a perfectly competent user of English. She understands grammar and uses it instinctively. Almost by definion, she is unlikely ever to speak an ungrammatical sentence. However, she feels needs the vocabulary to understand why she sometimes falls foul of the pedants. Somewhat ironic, because doubtless the pedants would argue that 'proper' grammar is essential to clear communication.

(It sometimes is - but more often, as in shall vs will, it's merely stylistic affectation)

It sounds to me as though you're just short of the metalanguage, Kelli. You really only need it if you earn a living teaching Grammar.
You only really need it if you earn a living teaching Grammar. You really need it only if you earn a living teaching Grammar.

Philosophically and grammatically my hero is Wittgenstein. He investigated the whole concept of rules and rule-following, in all fields and not just grammar; but grammar is a very fertile field for such questions. On the one hand the rules are needed for comprehension; on the other they have to be flexible, we're creative.

I like to think of punctuation rules and some grammatical rules on the analogy of print design. The requirements are that the painted sign or printed page should be legible, unambiguous (unless the ambiguity is part of your message) and consistent (unless inconsistency is one of your design features). If a sign contains no letters that could be confused with each other, the design can be that bit looser.

Similarly for a piece of writing, or a body of writing (such as Edited Guides). Consistency is perhaps as important as correctness.

The big thing Wittgenstein tells us about rules is, there can't be a rule for how to follow rules. It is a creative thing; some time or other an application will arise that will have to be decided on the spot: how does the rule apply here?

And for that reason, logic is not the only arbiter, and precedent, personality, consensus all play their part.

>>However, she feels needs the vocabulary to understand why she sometimes falls foul of the pedants. Somewhat ironic, because doubtless the pedants would argue that 'proper' grammar is essential to clear communication.

Edward, did you deliberately make a grammatical mistake in that (first) sentence to prove the point that we could all understand it anyway?

Whoops - lots of posts there while I was busy gyring and gimbling in the wabe, as inspired by a post about a page and a half back.

Punctuation of speech was something we learned with very strict rules at school, and I can still remember them as they were basically simple and logical. They are in fact, exactly those set out in the Writing Guidelines as quoted by Gnomon above.

The 'single' quotes bug me, too, Edward. It's just that they collide with some GuideML and HTML tags, so that's why they prefer you to use them here. All the same it is not easy when you've been typing "'s for 30 years with the ring finger of the left hand. It's hard to start thinking about something you haven't had to think about for decades.

People here sometimes seem to think that I am an ultra-conservative grammarian stickler. At this point I would like to state that I am not, but am definitely on the side of "everything goes - as long as you can understand what is meant". And "to break a rule, you have to have mastered the rule in the first place".

*takes ringside seat for the "Definition of a noun" debate*

Regarding full stops, I tend to view them as end-of sentence markers, and treat them as bracketing some cluster of speech with the opening capital letter. Interleaving with the bracketing effect of quotation marks wouldn't feel quite right.
Though I doubt I'd normally *end* a regular sentence with a quote terribly often, I'd be tempted to have a full stop after the double quote, and possibly one before it if it seemed necessary.

Since it's quite possible to say:

Fred told me: "That bridge looks dangerous.", and so I didn't cross it.
It doesn't seem that
Fred told me: "That bridge is dangerous."
would be properly terminated.

Potholer said:


Fred told me: "That bridge looks dangerous.", and so I didn't cross it.

I think that sentence is far too punctuated! Although what Fred said was a full sentence, there is really no need for a full stop at the end of. It would be quite sufficient to say:

Fred told me "That bridge looks dangerous", and so I didn't cross it.

The Fred told me with no punctuation marks in between looks a bit confusing to be honest and e e cummings is not dead

"Each of us must, in our own way, come to realise that hateful Pretention, aka 'Fashion' with all its insinuendo and dark complexities, is to be avoided at every turn. "
~jwf~

For a reason which I cannot quite understand that reminded me of Peter Sellers' "Party Political Speech". If you haven't heard it, there is a portion at:
http://www.musicoutfitter.com/store/item/724382778127/acelebrationofsellersthecomedy.html
It doesn't really do justice to the masterpiece of circumlocution attributed to Max Schreiner, but I can't find the text anywhere.

Way back, long time ago, like yesterday, plaguesville said:

>> ...usage is, I feel, pretentious. (And I know about pretentiousness. )...<<

So in addition to other current arguements going on, when I saw 'pretentiousness' I was compelled to once again raise the general question of these '-nessies'.

I can't honestly tell if 'p' was having me on or if he would actually use a word like 'pretentiousness'. Yes, I saw his <> smiley after the word, but in truth I have been noticing more and more Brit speakers and writers using words like 'pretentiousness' and 'apprehensiveness' instead of perfectly good words like 'pretention' and 'apprehension'.

Seeing it only in print and being far from any immediate currency of local Brit conversations it is hard to discern when a tongue is in a cheek or if in fact a new wave of change really has fallen upon the language in all it gloriousness.

So I am seriously asking, have all these monstrous '-nessies' woken like krakens from the depths of the abstractiveness for the greater gloriosity? Or is there really some new sense of 'degree' that distinguishes 'apprehension' from 'apprehensiveness' and 'pretention' from 'pretentiousness'?

Inquiring mines wanna know,
~jwf~

Oops,
Sorry! Didn't realise things had moved on so far.
Note to self:
It would be advisable to:
check progress before posting, and
avoid "passive sentence" construction, and
make it clear that when I refer to "prententiousness" I am indicating a style not a person (apart from me, obviously).


Was there an "Observer Book of English Grammar", W ?

"Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin,"
with 'pretentiousness'and 'pretention'
My choice of "pretentiousness" was deliberate. Possibly unwise, obviously confusing, but deliberate.
As I recall, 'pretentiousness' comes from the French "prétentieux" which means "precious" in the sense of "affectation" of language, style ...
'pretention' comes from "prétendre" - to claim as in "the Young Pretender" (not to be confused with "Oh, yes! I'm the great pret - e - ender" which, for students of kettles of fish, is an entirely different one).

I shall have to find my semantic hat before setting off on a general tour of the land of "-sion and -ness". I suspect that many will be interchangeable and depend on personal choice.

Hi ~jwf~. 'Pretentiousness' is a fairly normal word in everyday English. I've never heard of 'pretention'.

<>

Which is the aim of writing non-fiction: what it is all about!