Re: describing the minority as literate is a circular argument?

[David Neeley <dbneeley -at- oddpost -dot- com>]

Bruce, 
  
Sorry, but I must disagree with several of what appear to be your central premises. Please note, though, that I agree with those who eschew personal attacks and I am only addressing what I believe to be some misconceptions as expressed in your arguments. 
  
However, let me also say that I have greatly enjoyed your writing--including the columns in Linux Journal. Judging by your writing on this list and by these articles, I would say you are well educated regarding grammar. I would also say you are (from these samples) a very competent communicator...but one whose "stylistic voice" I find not particularly distinctive. (I freely grant you likely have many other works in which this is not the case.) 
  
Now, the places where I believe you may have included some logical flaws in your argument: 
  
-----Original Message from Bruce Byfield bbyfield -at- axionet -dot- com-----

"...If being prescriptive had any effect on the natural ebb and flow of language, then surely 
there would be a known case or two? 

I'm not a professional linguist, so I can't say for sure that there isn't a 
case. That's  why I worded it the way I did; I was hoping that if someone knew 
of one, it would be mentioned. However, I do have enough background to say that 
groups like the French Academy have been notably unsuccessful in shaping a 
language." 
  
Sorry as I am that I am not familiar with the French Academy and its impact upon French, I am somewhat familiar with its Spanish equivalent, the Academia Real. One result of their work over many decades is that there is, in fact, a general agreement about what constitutes "good Spanish." This general agreement seems to hold quite well not only in Spain but throughout the Spanish-speaking world. 
  
In addition, I was struck by your phrase "...the natural ebb and flow of language." It is an accurate one, if you consider that to "ebb and flow" there is both a forward and a backward motion. Grammatically, this is certainly true...and by your "natural understanding" you seem to make a natural connection that not all linguistic change is desirable. 
  
"If there are any contrary examples (which I doubt), they are certainly 
rare. People change and improvise language to meet their needs, regardless of 
what the elite tell them they should be doing." 
  
This, I believe, is merely sophistry. From a linguistic standpoint, the "elite" are far more than some mythical group of wealthy individuals (pardon me if I am reading you wrongly!). Instead, it is also composed of writers and editors, teachers, and many others who appreciate language and seek to maintain its beauty and precision. 
  
Obviously, languages change with time. My thesis still is that these changes are best when they have time so that native speakers as a body can determine if they are worthwhile. Without the "proper language" folks, these changes would be much more rapid than they already are--and great mischief to any sort of general consensus as to meaning would result far more often than is presently the case. 
  
"In fact, a case could be made that being steeped in the standards of the elite 
tends to decrease linguistic creativity. Changes in a language tend to come from 
outside the elite. And, while mentioning Shakespeare in a discussion about 
language should probably be like calling your opponent a Nazi in any other 
Internet discussion (that is, grounds for instantly losing the argument), it may 
be worth noting that many words are used for the first time in his work, yet he 
was only indifferently educated. The same is true of Thomas Hardy." 
  
Here, I believe your particular bias against those whom you perceive as being "the elite" again shows up. One part of your confusion seems to stem from the difference between being educated and being schooled. From no standpoint, I believe, could it possibly be said that Shakespeare was "indifferently educated." In fact, if you are familiar with his work, he seemed remarkably well informed about the world outside his own vicinity. I'm afraid I am not so well informed regarding Thomas Hardy. 
  
There was a very seminal book published in 1968 by Ivan Illich called "Deschooling Society." That book pointed out very clearly that we have attached too much significance to being schooled as compared to being educated. I highly recommend it, if you are prepared for a very dense book that takes a considerable bit of fortitude to read and digest. During the final edit, in the Summer of 1968, I happened to be studying in Mexico at the school Mr. Illich founded and ran...and I was deeply impressed with many of his observations on the topic. 
  
"From what you write, you associate grammar and writing well so closely that you can't even 
consider the possibility that they could have a relation that is different from the one you assume. " 
  
Bruce, I beg your pardon, but you seem again to have a sort of "anti-grammar" bias. So far as I know, there is no one who suggests seriously that style is any less important than grammar. The only one arguing to the contrary seems to be you. 
  
I must side with the folks who believe that it is quite often the best stylists who are also fully cognizant of standard grammar. Just as Picasso was a highly competent, classically-trained artist fully capable of painting realistically before he began to assert his own artistic style, many of the best prose stylists develop a comprehensive knowledge of grammar to the point that they understand how to bend it in the pursuit of their intended effect. Similarly, many later "modern artists" who lack the technical ability also seem to lack the creative genius required to produce lasting work. 
  
"That's not my point. My point is that the grammar neurosis is so strong that 
even working professionals are far more interested in being grammatically 
correct than in writing technique." 
  
I do not know why you seem to protest so vociferously that this might be the case. Any mail list that attracts writers will have many members who care very much about language. It is often easier and more immediately satisfying to assert points of grammar than it is to speak in the more general terms necessary to meaningfully comment on matters of style. 
  
It is a logical leap beyond reason to assume from this fact that list members do not *care* about style or that any of us value grammatically correct structure more than we value style. Perhaps your confusion stems from the idea that many of us may grant an individual the full right to have his own style, and that matters of style beyond precision and clarity are more an individual concern and less open to argument. 
  
However, consider: technical writers are *not* primarily stylists. We are not paid to be. If we can express ideas with a true felicity that is all well and good; but first and foremost we must be accurate and communicate the needed information clearly and, one would hope, succinctly. 
  
You could argue, I suppose, that the methodology we might follow in constructing a technical document is, itself, a matter of style (and, indeed, I would agree with you on that). However, I would like here to make the distinction about style as being "beautifully crafted language" for the sake of the beauty or the individual voice. 
  
Further: we are often called upon to take over a body of documentation written by others. If they had matters of style (as in preferences including various grammatical choices that could all be considered correct) which we do not support, we are confronted with a decision: do we continue to update them using the same conventions, or do we go to the major labor of finding and "correcting" these instances? Usually, I suspect the appropriate answer is to continue the same methods so long as they do not harm meaning...for the readers will benefit from an internal consistency. 
  
If I have unfairly understood your position, I welcome you to enlighten me on list or off. 
  
Cordially, 
  
David 
  
  

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

ROBOHELP X5: Featuring Word 2003 support, Content Management, Multi-Author
support, PDF and XML support and much more!
TRY IT TODAY at http://www.macromedia.com/go/techwrl

WEBWORKS FINALDRAFT: New! Document review system for Word and FrameMaker
authors. Automatic browser-based drafts with unlimited reviewers. Full
online discussions -- no Web server needed! http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l 

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -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.