Only greengrocers' are allowed to sell banana's - at todays prices.
Less and fewer
I was not saying that the examples were alike, merely that simply because a lot of people say something does not make it correct.
I believe it is important to try and be correct. I don't agree with pandering to ignorance, populism and the lowest common denominator by accepting everything whether good or bad as equally valid.
Another example, around here a lot of people will say "Where do you live to?" or "Where is that to?" instead of "Where do you live?" or "Where is that?" but we don't start saying that it is an equally correct way of speaking.
I believe it is important to try and be correct. I don't agree with pandering to ignorance, populism and the lowest common denominator by accepting everything whether good or bad as equally valid.
Another example, around here a lot of people will say "Where do you live to?" or "Where is that to?" instead of "Where do you live?" or "Where is that?" but we don't start saying that it is an equally correct way of speaking.
Even Microsoft agrees with the less and fewer rule it seems, if one writes "less" where it should be "fewer" the spell checker picks this up in Word.
Which begs the question: who sets the rules for what is correct and what isn't? But we've assed that ad nauseum. Believe me, no one will ever agree on this issue, which is at the heart of so many of the debates here.
It doesn't really matter who sets the rules, simply that they exist as a standard to follow.
Who set the standard metre or kilogramme? It doesn't really matter as long as we know what they are and follow the same standard rather than all having our own interpretation of what a metre or kilogramme might be.
Who set the standard metre or kilogramme? It doesn't really matter as long as we know what they are and follow the same standard rather than all having our own interpretation of what a metre or kilogramme might be.
The standard for metre and kg is quite a different issue to the one of language. The standards demanded for measures will always be greater because objectivity is critical in science.
Language is more of an abstract art; it has never been an exact science.
Language is more of an abstract art; it has never been an exact science.
"Another example, around here a lot of people will say "Where do you live to?" or "Where is that to?" instead of "Where do you live?" or "Where is that?" but we don't start saying that it is an equally correct way of speaking."
I've never heard of that before.
I've never heard of that before.
"Where are you to?" and "Where do you live to?" etc are very common in the dialect spoken in south west England.
I still believe it is best to stick to the standard and accepted grammar as this is the purpose of a standard language. It also appears ignorant to use incorrect grammar.
I still believe it is best to stick to the standard and accepted grammar as this is the purpose of a standard language. It also appears ignorant to use incorrect grammar.
>>I still believe it is best to stick to the standard and accepted grammar as this is the purpose of a standard language. It also appears ignorant to use incorrect grammar.<<
"Ignorant" to just whom, and in what context to begin with?
"Ignorant" to just whom, and in what context to begin with?
It appears ignorant to me, and those who use correct grammar. I find it particularly offensive in contexts such as signs at supermarkets etc where I'd expect better.
If I came up with a sentence such as "I is correcter, my English is gooder than she's" perhaps you would think similar if you knew I was a native English speaker and not someone learning the language.
If I came up with a sentence such as "I is correcter, my English is gooder than she's" perhaps you would think similar if you knew I was a native English speaker and not someone learning the language.
If lots of native speakers did that, it would be correct. It wouldn't be if just a few native speakers said it, or however many non-natives did.
>>If I came up with a sentence such as "I is correcter, my English is gooder than she's" perhaps you would think similar if you knew I was a native English speaker and not someone learning the language.<<
The superlative "gooder" is not natively used in the English dialect in this area, but if you did show me some dialect in which some form equivalent to it is natively used, then I would say that it is not incorrect *within the context of that dialect*.
As for "correcter", it is something that I would definitely say in my everyday speech, even though it is not something I would generally use in formal writing myself. And since such is a native usage, one cannot speak of it as being "incorrect", as much as it might not be *standard* per se.
As for "she's", such does not sound like a native usage to me at all, simply because not only would one not see such (in at least any dialect I know of) in the place of "hers", but also one would generally not find it as something resulting from some larger coordinate construction in practice, due to the "default" case in English today not being the nominative but rather the common/oblique/whatever. However, you might dig up some dialect somewhere which may actually use the nominative for pronouns in coordinate constructions to which the genitive clitic is subsequently applied, so my statement above about it likely not being found as part of a coordinate construction is not definitive in nature.
That said, the thing is that you seem quite ignorant of what the terms "correct" and "incorrect" actually mean, at least within linguistic terms. If you *do* know what such means linguistically, then you are just yet another prescriptivist who is not simply taking prescriptivist positions out of ignorance of how language really works, which means that I should not be giving your words the least bit of credence here to begin with.
The superlative "gooder" is not natively used in the English dialect in this area, but if you did show me some dialect in which some form equivalent to it is natively used, then I would say that it is not incorrect *within the context of that dialect*.
As for "correcter", it is something that I would definitely say in my everyday speech, even though it is not something I would generally use in formal writing myself. And since such is a native usage, one cannot speak of it as being "incorrect", as much as it might not be *standard* per se.
As for "she's", such does not sound like a native usage to me at all, simply because not only would one not see such (in at least any dialect I know of) in the place of "hers", but also one would generally not find it as something resulting from some larger coordinate construction in practice, due to the "default" case in English today not being the nominative but rather the common/oblique/whatever. However, you might dig up some dialect somewhere which may actually use the nominative for pronouns in coordinate constructions to which the genitive clitic is subsequently applied, so my statement above about it likely not being found as part of a coordinate construction is not definitive in nature.
That said, the thing is that you seem quite ignorant of what the terms "correct" and "incorrect" actually mean, at least within linguistic terms. If you *do* know what such means linguistically, then you are just yet another prescriptivist who is not simply taking prescriptivist positions out of ignorance of how language really works, which means that I should not be giving your words the least bit of credence here to begin with.
It seems to be the current fad to rail against "prescriptivism" but a standard language requires prescription if it is to stay standard. By "correct", I mean standard English, whether that is the British/international standard, the United States standard or any other national standard form of the language.
I get the impression that the hostility towards prescription has its roots in the horror some have for the idea that one thing (whether grammatical, behavioural, artistic etc) is better than another or that one thing should be encouraged and another should be discouraged. I see it as a type of gellatinous libertarianism that cringes at the thought of anyone having the "right" to tell anyone else how to use English.
We need prescription to maintain the standard language; if we abandon presciption we abandon the standard. A standard language exists for purposes of clarity. The less/fewer rule might seem trivial, but if we permit anything and everything simply because it is widespread (often as a result of shrinking from "prescriptivism" in correcting errors) then the end result will be a linguistic equivalent of the infamous pile of bricks or a cow hacked in half as being accepted as equals of the Mona Lisa. That would be a sad result in terms of the clarity, intelligibility and beauty of the English language.
I get the impression that the hostility towards prescription has its roots in the horror some have for the idea that one thing (whether grammatical, behavioural, artistic etc) is better than another or that one thing should be encouraged and another should be discouraged. I see it as a type of gellatinous libertarianism that cringes at the thought of anyone having the "right" to tell anyone else how to use English.
We need prescription to maintain the standard language; if we abandon presciption we abandon the standard. A standard language exists for purposes of clarity. The less/fewer rule might seem trivial, but if we permit anything and everything simply because it is widespread (often as a result of shrinking from "prescriptivism" in correcting errors) then the end result will be a linguistic equivalent of the infamous pile of bricks or a cow hacked in half as being accepted as equals of the Mona Lisa. That would be a sad result in terms of the clarity, intelligibility and beauty of the English language.
>>It seems to be the current fad to rail against "prescriptivism" but a standard language requires prescription if it is to stay standard. By "correct", I mean standard English, whether that is the British/international standard, the United States standard or any other national standard form of the language.<<
Sorry, but supporting descriptivism (and thus opposing prescriptivism) is a fundamental part of linguistics, and is a "fad" in no fashion with respect to such.
As for standard language forms, I see no real reason to keep them so myself. One must consider that General American did not exist as such prior to the end of WW2 (which is not that long ago, all things considered), and when you speak of some "British/international standard", I assume you mean Received Pronunciation, which is not international to begin with, and furthermore is only used in practice by a small section of English society today as well. In addition, even when people claim of speaking "General American", such is really just being used as a catch-all term to refer to a quite wide range of North American English dialects.
If you are speaking instead of literary language standards, that is another matter, but at least I myself am not concerned with matters concerning literary usage here.
>>I get the impression that the hostility towards prescription has its roots in the horror some have for the idea that one thing (whether grammatical, behavioural, artistic etc) is better than another or that one thing should be encouraged and another should be discouraged. I see it as a type of gellatinous libertarianism that cringes at the thought of anyone having the "right" to tell anyone else how to use English.<<
Go back to what I said about descriptivism being the standard practice in linguistics (basically since linguistics became something that could be called a science). One can only call non-native usages in any language "incorrect", besides mistakes that speakers will correct themselves if they catch them, which are another matter.
>>We need prescription to maintain the standard language; if we abandon presciption we abandon the standard. A standard language exists for purposes of clarity. The less/fewer rule might seem trivial, but if we permit anything and everything simply because it is widespread (often as a result of shrinking from "prescriptivism" in correcting errors) then the end result will be a linguistic equivalent of the infamous pile of bricks or a cow hacked in half as being accepted as equals of the Mona Lisa. That would be a sad result in terms of the clarity, intelligibility and beauty of the English language.<<
Go back to what I said about General American and Received Pronunciation. They really have far less significance than one might think.
Sorry, but supporting descriptivism (and thus opposing prescriptivism) is a fundamental part of linguistics, and is a "fad" in no fashion with respect to such.
As for standard language forms, I see no real reason to keep them so myself. One must consider that General American did not exist as such prior to the end of WW2 (which is not that long ago, all things considered), and when you speak of some "British/international standard", I assume you mean Received Pronunciation, which is not international to begin with, and furthermore is only used in practice by a small section of English society today as well. In addition, even when people claim of speaking "General American", such is really just being used as a catch-all term to refer to a quite wide range of North American English dialects.
If you are speaking instead of literary language standards, that is another matter, but at least I myself am not concerned with matters concerning literary usage here.
>>I get the impression that the hostility towards prescription has its roots in the horror some have for the idea that one thing (whether grammatical, behavioural, artistic etc) is better than another or that one thing should be encouraged and another should be discouraged. I see it as a type of gellatinous libertarianism that cringes at the thought of anyone having the "right" to tell anyone else how to use English.<<
Go back to what I said about descriptivism being the standard practice in linguistics (basically since linguistics became something that could be called a science). One can only call non-native usages in any language "incorrect", besides mistakes that speakers will correct themselves if they catch them, which are another matter.
>>We need prescription to maintain the standard language; if we abandon presciption we abandon the standard. A standard language exists for purposes of clarity. The less/fewer rule might seem trivial, but if we permit anything and everything simply because it is widespread (often as a result of shrinking from "prescriptivism" in correcting errors) then the end result will be a linguistic equivalent of the infamous pile of bricks or a cow hacked in half as being accepted as equals of the Mona Lisa. That would be a sad result in terms of the clarity, intelligibility and beauty of the English language.<<
Go back to what I said about General American and Received Pronunciation. They really have far less significance than one might think.