Rule about not using possessive? (Take III, and out)

["Hart, Geoff" <Geoff-H -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA>]

Bruce Byfield continues:

<<The problem is also that the distinction between grammar and style is not
very clear in practice.>>

It's perfectly clear. Pick up a university-level grammar text and compare it
with other similar texts; the overlap is generally close to 100%, and the
cases of non-overlap most likely indicate changing patterns of language use.
Grammar guides make no recommendations on sentence length and other aspects
traditionally considered elements of style.

<<Many of the things you call style seem to me to be in a gray area between
style and grammar; they are so widely used that they often seem like parts
of grammar, although they still have some element of personal choice in
them.>>

That's not surprising, since as I've noted, style is only applied grammar.

<<What your view doesn't take into account is that contextual variations do
not necessarily draw on the same grammatical rules. There may be a core of
rules that most variations use, but there can also be some major
differences. For example, while commas are generally used to indicate pauses
in a sentence, there are several different sets of rules about when to use
them - which is why so many first year students are confused by them.>>

But they do draw on the same rules: grammarians don't insist that all rules
be applied in all situations, but rather that each situation follows one or
more of the relevant rules. (Since the rules rarely contradict each other,
it's not a case of choosing which of two contradictory rules you wish to
apply.) This is similar to the difference between engineering and science:
scientists clearly specify how the world works, and engineers decide which
of those rules to apply in a specific application. The engineers can't
ignore or redefine any of the rules related to their specific product, but
(for example) they don't have to worry about the rules that don't apply: a
computer engineer doesn't have to apply the laws of hydraulics if there are
no hydraulics in the computer they're creating.

<<As for your statement that "you can't arbitrarily redefine verb accord and
still call the result grammatical," isn't that what is being done when
"they" is suggested as a non-sexist impersonal pronoun? :-). Maybe an
individual can't redefine, but groups can and frequently do.>>

No, that's not what's being done. "They" has been used correctly as a
singular pronoun for about as long as modern English has been around.
Moreover, grammar describes the rules for pronoun usage, but not which
pronoun to use; for example, you can use "he", "him", Geoff, or "the guy
writing this message" in different context, and grammar only tells you how
to use that word or phrase, not which one to use. Groups can certainly
redefine the rules, but that redefinition must be broadly accepted before
the grammar rules change. If everyone except editors refuses to make the
distinction between its and it's, then we editors will have to change our
practices to reflect that change, but until that's the majority opinion, we
don't make that change.

<<Consider why you state that "it ain't so" is "not a grammatical
statement." The reason is that the educated elite of two centuries ago
decreed that a double negative was incorrect, and that is what you've
learned.>>

Not at all. "Ain't so" is not a double negative; it's merely an informal
variant on "isn't so" or "aren't so". "Ain't not so" would be a double
negative.

<<Yet, if you go back a couple of centuries further you'll find double
negatives in widespread use.>>

You'll find them in widespread use today, and more than a few centuries ago
too, but not because they're a useful form of expression: rather, it's
because if everyone wrote and communicated clearly, there'd be no need for
editors. Most people don't, so editors exist--it's also why our profession
exists, because if everyone communicated well, anyone could be a technical
writer. The problem with a double negative is not that they are inelegant:
it's that they most often communicate the opposite meaning that the author
intended. Where this style is used correctly and clearly, it's not a
grammatical problem.

<<If a construction is widely used and understood, then in a purely
descriptive sense, it should be considered
grammatical.>>

Nope. It's still a matter of style--and more specifically, of usage. In
fact, the reason it's widely used and understood is that it follows the
rules of grammar the users have learned. Techwr-l tie-in: When something
becomes accepted usage in a discourse community, you have to acknowledge
that usage.

<<Although I'm fluent in the language of the educated elite, I don't see any
reason except habit for making it the correct form of English.>>

One simple reason: because as soon as enough words and rules become open to
interpretation, it rapidly becomes impossible for two people to communicate.
You end up with dialects of a language that differ so much in their form
that two people with nominally the same language can no longer communicate
reliably. Compare American and International sign language for example
(details in a recent issue of _Scientific American_): their grammars are
strongly similar, but how those grammars are applied (style, format, usage)
are different enough to make the two languages incompatible.

<<Probably, a bit of prescriptive grammar is useful so that we can
communicate, but, when a rule is widely ignored,
upholding it starts to seem ridiculous, and it needs to be changed, or at
least modified. In practice, that is what tends to happen.>>

I don't pretend that grammar is akin to the laws of nature; rather, it
reflects the principles that underlie prevailing usage. The editor's role is
to keep authors using the rules that reflect prevailing usage, and when
those rules change, to acknowledge the change. My favorite quote on this
subject concludes this message. The goal is clarity of meaning; grammar is
the tool for achieving that clarity; grammar "rules" describe how to use
those tools; style determines which of the rules to use.

<<As I've said before on this list, proper grammar is simply the grammar of
the educated from a couple of decades ago. It's useful as a loose standard,
but it tends to ignore modern issues in the language. It certainly shouldn't
straitjacket anyone.>>

And that's simply incorrect; you're redefining the word to suit your
prejudices. Grammar codifies the rules by which people construct meaning
from words; it does not dictate the process of constructing meaning. When
those rules change, grammar must change to remain up to date. Strike III and
I'm out... final word is yours!

--Geoff Hart, FERIC
580 boul. St-Jean, Pointe-Claire, Quebec H9R 3J9
geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca 

"In words, as fashions, the same rule will hold,//Alike fantastic if too new
or old://Be not the first by whom the new are tried,//Nor yet the last to
lay the old aside."--Alexander Pope

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

*** Deva(tm) Tools for Dreamweaver and Deva(tm) Search ***
Build Contents, Indexes, and Search for Web Sites and Help Systems
Available now at http://www.devahelp.com or info -at- devahelp -dot- com

TECH*COMM 2001 Conference, July 15-18 in Washington, DC
The Help Technology Conference, August 21-24 in Boston, MA
Details and online registration at http://www.SolutionsEvents.com


---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit 
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.