Cato's Grammar Grumble

[Opus106]

...just not the tidy, mathematical sort.

Of course. And for the reasons stated, I also agree with Cato that English is not alone in this. Although the extent to which it makes even native speakers commit errors (be it in pronunciation or grammar; the reasons for this thread) and some of the ambiguities in sentence structures which, in my view, sets it apart from the few other languages with which I'm familiar (not counting the children/students and non-native speakers who are learning those).

Given the diversity among the members of this board, I'd like to know if there are Grammar Grumblers in other languages as well (IRL, on the webz, anywhere).

[Gurn Blanston]

Of course. And for the reasons stated, I also agree with Cato that English is not alone in this. Although the extent to which it makes even native speakers commit errors (be it in pronunciation or grammar; the reasons for this thread) and some of the ambiguities in sentence structures which, in my view, sets it apart from the few other languages with which I'm familiar (not counting the children/students and non-native speakers who are learning those).

Given the diversity among the members of this board, I'd like to know if there are Grammar Grumblers in other languages as well (IRL, on the webz, anywhere).

I don't think that native speakers are entitled to the same license which is granted to second-language persons. At least I can apply that to people with even a rudimentary formal education. I think (and possibly this is Cato's thesis in a nutshell) that it denotes laziness and lack of intellectual rigor when people won't take the time, at least in a more formal context, to frame their thoughts properly. Plus, it places the listener/reader in the position of carrying the burden of making the speaker's ideas intelligible. We all speak English, why should I have to translate your thoughts?  (It goes without saying that the lack of impersonal pronouns in our language makes this entire argument seem to be directed at you, Navneeth, when nothing could be further from the truth. )

[petrarch]

Given the diversity among the members of this board, I'd like to know if there are Grammar Grumblers in other languages as well (IRL, on the webz, anywhere).

I'm one, be it in my native language or any that I write or speak, English included; I absolutely hate orthographical errors (they have a habit of jumping from the page and looking like a sore thereafter) and poor grammar. In my mind, they denote sloppiness and laziness.

[Opus106]

I think (and possibly this is Cato's thesis in a nutshell) that it denotes laziness and lack of intellectual rigor when people won't take the time, at least in a more formal context, to frame their thoughts properly.

My (largely unsubstantiated ) argument being that the language, in its present state, is prone to abuse due to laziness. Or to put it in another way, the other languages don't offer as much leeway for such abuse.

[Concord]

And you have instinctively steered to using a plural form of the verb for a noun singular in form, but for a collection of individuals: The family ask . . . .

There's no hard and fast rule regarding use of plural verbs for collective nouns. The British tend to use it more than we do. AP style requires the singular, i.e., the family asks, and recommends consitency with prnouns and such, so that the family would ask that its privacy be respected. This can lead to some awkward constructions, esp. with small groups like couples or trios. (Is a couple really an it?) In cases where we're writing about a singular group but want to use plural pronouns, we have to add a plural subject,  such as "members of the committee."

[Karl Henning]

There's no hard and fast rule regarding use of plural verbs for collective nouns.

Spot on!

Reminds me of my favorite among Geo Orwell's Rules for Writers: "Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous."

[Concord]

Reminds me of my favorite among Geo Orwell's Rules for Writers: "Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous."

I disagree with Orwell's absolute prohibition on the phrase "to serve as," as in "Truman served as president from 1945 to 1953." He would prefer a simple "was." For the most part, so do I, but getting so put out about a phrase simply because it uses two words instead of one strikes me as over the top. Oooo, two words instead of one: bad little boy.

"Serve as" is also useful when the thing being talked about is being employed in some way other than its original purpose, such as, "In my study, the window sill serves as a bookshelf." This is the best way to make the point. To say, as Orwell would suggest, "In my study, the window sill is a bookshelf" is unclear and ambiguous. I might have taken an old bookshelf and refashioned it as a window sill. It might or might not have books on it.

[Cato]

... I think (and possibly this is Cato's thesis in a nutshell) that it denotes laziness and lack of intellectual rigor when people won't take the time, at least in a more formal context, to frame their thoughts properly. Plus, it places the listener/reader in the position of carrying the burden of making the speaker's ideas intelligible. We all speak English, why should I have to translate your thoughts? 

Gurn is quite right: one of my favorite stupidities from the 1960's-1970's was the line: "I think you know what I'm trying to say."

But what if I don't?   

It is frustrating listening to the struggles of some young (and middle-aged) people - some supposedly educated - uhhing, y'knowing, kinda-liking, sorta-liking, or just liking ( in every other sense except actually liking something), while stopping and stuttering more than a Chevy Vega, and never actually completing a sentence or a coherent thought.

You should hear the parents of some of my students!      0:)

Speech classes - or at least "public speaking" as part of an English curriculum - seem to have fallen by the graveyard of grammar.  All kinds of money for extra Math tutoring, but little to none for the mastery of the language.

[Karl Henning]

I disagree with Orwell's absolute prohibition on the phrase "to serve as," as in "Truman served as president from 1945 to 1953." He would prefer a simple "was."

I agree with you; I find the distinction useful between the person, and the office.

(Of course, Orwell got things wrong. Most of us do.)

[Ten thumbs]

So, here's a question: did they hold each other's hands or hold each other's hand? Sometimes the plural looks right to me, other times the singular. Or is it one of those cases where there is no rule and you go with personal preference? I lean toward singular, since only one hand of each is invovled, but 've seen the "each other's" construction both ways.

If you untwist the sentence, the singular is definitiely correct, as in "Each held the other's hand," but that's the only alternative construction I can think of, and in this case both the subject and the object are singalar, whereas in the first instance the subject ("They") is plural as well.

Discuss.

I would suggest that 'holding each other's hands' implies they were facing each other and both hands were in contact.
Otherwise 'they held hands' is much more logical, or, if you like, 'they were walking hand in hand'.
'Holding each other's hand' sounds as though they've just had a nasty accident with a meat cleaver.

I can't find any examples of 'it's' as a possessive in past writings, although it's possible.
I have a facsimile of the 1874 edition of Phantasmion and Sarah Coleridge definitely uses 'its'.

[Karl Henning]

Gurn is quite right: one of my favorite stupidities from the 1960's-1970's was the line: "I think you know what I'm trying to say"

So very much from that era to ... admire! ; )

[Florestan]

All kinds of money for extra Math tutoring, but little to none for the mastery of the language.

Mr. Gradgrind has won the day, hasn't he? 

[Concord]

Otherwise 'they held hands' is much more logical, or, if you like, 'they were walking hand in hand'.

Probably would be better, but it doesn't answer the question about the "each other" construction. Forget about hands. It could apply to anything: They washed each other's car, or they washed each other's cars. They watched each other's back, or they watched each other's backs. 

[eyeresist]

I disagree with Orwell's absolute prohibition on the phrase "to serve as," as in "Truman served as president from 1945 to 1953." He would prefer a simple "was." For the most part, so do I, but getting so put out about a phrase simply because it uses two words instead of one strikes me as over the top. Oooo, two words instead of one: bad little boy.

Well, at the time the expression may have been a neologism.
I think Orwell was worried about people using expressions without thought for their meaning (and as a substitute for thought) - cliches, in other words. One I particularly hate is "for all intents and purposes". Such a strange, clunky, pretentious and anachronistic phrase.

[The Six]

Gurn is quite right: one of my favorite stupidities from the 1960's-1970's

I've never seen the need to put apostrophes after numbers like that.

[Ten thumbs]

I've never seen the need to put apostrophes after numbers like that.

It's something to do with those turkey's in the butcher's window.

[Concord]

Well, at the time the expression may have been a neologism.

A language lives on neologisms.

[Concord]

Gurn is quite right: one of my favorite stupidities from the 1960's-1970's was the line: "I think you know what I'm trying to say."0

Was this a real thing? I remember it only from Steve Martin's standup routine, that same one that included the line, "Let's face it: some people have a way with words, and other people ... uh ... um ... oh, not have way, I guess."

[DavidRoss]

In

Probably would be better, but it doesn't answer the question about the "each other" construction. Forget about hands. It could apply to anything: They washed each other's car, or they washed each other's cars. They watched each other's back, or they watched each other's backs. 

In school long ago I learned to say "one another's," but hardly regard "each other's" as a hanging offense.

[Concord]

In In school long ago I learned to say "one another's," but hardly regard "each other's" as a hanging offense.

That's not the question ...