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

[Bruce Byfield <bbyfield -at- axionet -dot- com>]

"Hart, Geoff" wrote:
> 
> 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%, 

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

These statements seem to contradict each other. If style is "applied
grammar," then the distinction between them isn't clear.

 
> 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. 

It's not just that different rules are used in different circumstances,
but that different sets of rules are used, and that some of these rules
are mutually contadictory. For example, since some people use a serial
comma and some don't, it's clear that at least two different standards
exist.

> Moreover, grammar describes the rules for pronoun usage, but not which
> pronoun to use; 

But one of the rules for pronoun usage is agreement. 

 
> 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". "

FYI- "ain't" is believed to have originated as a contraction of "am not"
and/or "are not." 

Also, in passing, I note that "ain't" is an example of a word that was
once acceptable in formal use, then became unacceptable.

> 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.

They only do so if you're trained to think that two negatives make a
positive in grammar, the same as they do in math. Until 18th century
grammarians thought that English should be more scientific, nobody had
this confusion. 


> <<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.

Allowing for the difference in our uses of "grammar" and "style," this
is what I just said.

> <<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. 

Actually, my definition is simply descriptive.

The question that you seem to be overlooking is where the idea of proper
grammar comes from. Virtually nobody speaks it, and only a few write it
with any degree of scrupulousness. So where does it come from?  

It can't be an unchanging tradition, because you can trace changes in
grammar books written several decades apart. So, a grammar book can only
represent what is considered correct in a fairly narrow space of time.
And it can't be contemporary, because it lags behind how speakers and
writers are currently using the language.

As for whose grammar: until  recently, only the educated elites had
access to the means of spreading their views, which makes the answer
self-evident. 

And, naturally, it reflects the lifes and preferences of those elites -
not as a conspiracy, but as a natural process (look, for example, at the
idea that two negatives in grammar makes a positive, which applies the
fascination with the scientific to language). These preconstructed
meanings constrain and condition the construction of meaning, although
they don't completely restrict it.

So, unless you want to argue that grammar is dictated by divine
revelation, I feel confident about my definition. I'm neither a
linguistic expert or an anthropologist (except to geeks), but, from
either viewpoint, my definition wouldn't be a radical one.

-- 
Bruce Byfield 604.421.7177 bbyfield -at- axionet -dot- com

"You know there ain't no kind of dream without some kind of debt
And I don't wanna go to bed, ain't nothin' happened yet."
- The Mollys, "I Don't Wanna Go to Bed"

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

*** 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.