Re: Usage "types of car"

[Chris Kowalchuk <chris -at- BDK -dot- NET>]

Richard,

This may be a leaky corner of the grammer, but when writers make
decisions about whether to "go with the flow," they must attempt to
assess whether the "leak" is likely to become a stream that will lead to
a better, more navigable channel, or whether it is just a problem that
ought to be patched up. I do not question that, from a linguistic point
of view, we cannot reasonably establish a rule that describes standard
usage for the case we are considering here. I would argue, however, that
the leak in this case, is more of a problem than a new course. If the
best argument you can make for a particular usage is that you think it
sounds better, or worse, you have found a cognate that "sort of looks
like the same thing" so you want to derive a rule from it with no
consideration for the logic of the sentence, then you do not have a very
good case for change.

What is the reason for saying something such as "types of cars,"
especially in technical writing, which is supposed to be precise? I
don't even allow it as standard usage. I think it is at best one
possible variant of standard usage, and an uninformed one at that. I
don't think, then, that a writer is justified in using it just because
somebody, somewhere, might say it that way. In case of doubt, why not go
with what is more logical?

I find it odd to be on this side of the argument. Usually I am fine with
language shift--don't mind prepositions at the end of sentences, for
example. My sense here is that we are not dealing with a case of
language shift so much as sloppy versus careful language. The latter
case, in my opinion, is not always merely a conservative view of the
former.

As for Strunk and White, some of their advice might be a tad dated, but
I wouldn't consider any of it to be bad.

Chris Kowalchuk


 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=