Begging the question

[A18]

Yes. Sadly, illiterates seem to be well on their way to stamping out its traditional meaning.

Then what will we call the fallacy? "Petitio principii"? Abhorrent.

[Mint]

Yes. Sadly, illiterates seem to be well on their way to stamping out its traditional meaning.

[MODU]

Not as much as people who swap the correct use of "anymore" and "nowadays."

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

"Same difference" is a funny one.

[specific_name]

No. Their are far worst grammatical atrocities.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No. Their are far worst grammatical atrocities.

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

The one that bugs me most is "I could care less." I mean a second grader could point out the grammatical incorrectness there.

[Nym90]

Not as much as people who swap the correct use of "anymore" and "nowadays."

I hate the fact that people don't use proper grammar nowadays.

*ducks*

[Nym90]

No. Their are far worst grammatical atrocities.

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

The one that bugs me most is "I could care less." I mean a second grader could point out the grammatical incorrectness there.

Yeah, that's a bad one. Another annoyance of mine is how "unthaw" and "thaw" mean the same thing. Even dictionary.com agrees on this one....I always assumed this was just people being ignorant, but apparently I was wrong.

[minionofmidas]

Learn something new every day. Stupid expression for that, though.

[Platypus]

"Same difference" is a funny one.

It's also a cultural institution in Australia. It can be made sense of and is useful...although it's always 'same diff', which I suppose doesnt really make for good grammar.

[JohnFKennedy]

No. Their are far worst grammatical atrocities.

Is that meant to be ironic?

As to the original question, I view language as a means of communication; provided those I am attempting to communicate with understand what I mean then it has fulfilled its purpose. Language is constantly changing and evolving and providing it still fulfils that function which it is meant to, it does not bother me.

Would you be similarly annoyed if I used the word 'nuisance' to mean anything other than 'Injury, hurt, harm' which was its original meaning? Or perhaps awful to mean anything other than 'awe-inspiring'? Perhaps these are just primitive meanings. By primitive, of course, I mean that which it meant in the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: 'An ancestor or progenitor; a predecessor' rather than its earlier meaning of 'A firstborn child or animal' or its ecclesiastical meaning (the 'Primitive Church). I certainly don't mean to suggest that these words are all 'uncivilized' as primitive has come to mean now. Apologies for the indulgence of my personal views. And by indulgence, I don't mean the 'remission of the punishment which is still due to sin after sacramental absolution, this remission being valid in the court of conscience and before God, and being made by an application of the treasure of the Church on the part of a lawful superior’ as the word indulgence first appears in the English language, but the meaning it soon took on as well and that we are all familiar with.

What is the difference between these words and those you flag up? All words are temporal, ('Lasting or existing only for a time; passing, temporary' - from the fourteenth-century) or at least their meanings are.

[12th Doctor]

No. Their are far worst grammatical atrocities.

Grammar is an artificial concept, and one that is of little use to anyone.

Language changes all the time, when a language ceases to change, it is dead.  Deal with it.

[Platypus]

No. Their are far worst grammatical atrocities.

Is that meant to be ironic?

As to the original question, I view language as a means of communication; provided those I am attempting to communicate with understand what I mean then it has fulfilled its purpose. Language is constantly changing and evolving and providing it still fulfils that function which it is meant to, it does not bother me.

Would you be similarly annoyed if I used the word 'nuisance' to mean anything other than 'Injury, hurt, harm' which was its original meaning? Or perhaps awful to mean anything other than 'awe-inspiring'? Perhaps these are just primitive meanings. By primitive, of course, I mean that which it meant in the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: 'An ancestor or progenitor; a predecessor' rather than its earlier meaning of 'A firstborn child or animal' or its ecclesiastical meaning (the 'Primitive Church). I certainly don't mean to suggest that these words are all 'uncivilized' as primitive has come to mean now. Apologies for the indulgence of my personal views. And by indulgence, I don't mean the 'remission of the punishment which is still due to sin after sacramental absolution, this remission being valid in the court of conscience and before God, and being made by an application of the treasure of the Church on the part of a lawful superior’ as the word indulgence first appears in the English language, but the meaning it soon took on as well and that we are all familiar with.

What is the difference between these words and those you flag up? All words are temporal, ('Lasting or existing only for a time; passing, temporary' - from the fourteenth-century) or at least their meanings are.

Yes, sure, but some uses of the english language are directly contradictory and grating. And I know you 'could care less'.

[12th Doctor]

No. Their are far worst grammatical atrocities.

Is that meant to be ironic?

As to the original question, I view language as a means of communication; provided those I am attempting to communicate with understand what I mean then it has fulfilled its purpose. Language is constantly changing and evolving and providing it still fulfils that function which it is meant to, it does not bother me.

Would you be similarly annoyed if I used the word 'nuisance' to mean anything other than 'Injury, hurt, harm' which was its original meaning? Or perhaps awful to mean anything other than 'awe-inspiring'? Perhaps these are just primitive meanings. By primitive, of course, I mean that which it meant in the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: 'An ancestor or progenitor; a predecessor' rather than its earlier meaning of 'A firstborn child or animal' or its ecclesiastical meaning (the 'Primitive Church). I certainly don't mean to suggest that these words are all 'uncivilized' as primitive has come to mean now. Apologies for the indulgence of my personal views. And by indulgence, I don't mean the 'remission of the punishment which is still due to sin after sacramental absolution, this remission being valid in the court of conscience and before God, and being made by an application of the treasure of the Church on the part of a lawful superior’ as the word indulgence first appears in the English language, but the meaning it soon took on as well and that we are all familiar with.

What is the difference between these words and those you flag up? All words are temporal, ('Lasting or existing only for a time; passing, temporary' - from the fourteenth-century) or at least their meanings are.

One thing I learned along time ago is that it is really no use trying to explain to Grammar Nazis why they are wrong.  Their ideas aren't based on history or science, they are based on a general desire they have to put themselves on a pedestal above everyone else.  They use grammar as a means to judge other people.

Of course, if any of them actually understood the source of  modern "Grammatical Theories" then they would probably realize how ridiculous they are being.  But, alas, you can't tell anyone who is supremely convinced of their moral superiority (since bad grammar was thought to be connected to bad morals, among other things), anything.

[12th Doctor]

P.S. I always found it funny that English, a language that has changed more than perhaps anyother in the last 1000 years, is also probably the most obsessed with "grammar" and "propriety" and stopping linguistic change.

[12th Doctor]

No. Their are far worst grammatical atrocities.

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

The one that bugs me most is "I could care less." I mean a second grader could point out the grammatical incorrectness there.

I know what you are getting at, and the problem is that you assume that there must be a certain innate logic to language, much as the original English grammarians did.

So let me ask you this, and this is an example I have used a 100 times:

We are told that you should never use a double negative.  Why?  Well, because a double negative is a logical fallacy.  You are contradicting yourself if you use one.  What could be worse, and more grammatically incorrect than that?

Well, double negatives are a grammatically correct in French, and indeed, alot of languages.

However, in English, almost every non-standard dialect, from India, to England to here in the United States contains double negatives.  If you hear people speaking a fluent non-standard, then chances are they are going to use a double negative at least once.

But, in French, they drop the double negative in almost every non-standard dialect... and oddly enough, they drop out the "No" which is the word that originally meant the negative and just keep "pas" which is a word that originally meant "step"... that's besides the point, though.

My point is this... why is it that English is so much more logical than French?  And then why is it that the French people are so much more logical than people who speak English?

[minionofmidas]

I know what you are getting at, and the problem is that you assume that there must be a certain innate logic to language, much as the original English grammarians did.

Nothing "English" about it. All of these ideas are washed-up Latin has-beens that migrated to other languages.
Although the Sanskrit grammarians developped many very parallel ideas.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nominally. Really, of course, it's because a double negative wasn't done in Classical Latin (although I'm not sure about their reasons). The purging of double negatives from the Germanic languages was part of the campaign to "civilise" them by making them more similar to Latin.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not, actually - for the received French grammar isn't an example of a double negative at all, though it looks like one to the casual observer. It's just a negative formation built of two words - ne pas "no step" ie not, ne rien "no thing", ne jamais "no ever" (in these latter two the positive sense is extinct, but that's the etymology), ne que "no but" ie except, ne plus "no more". If these are double negatives then so is English "nothing". They work completely unlike actual double negatives, and "ne" can never stand alone.

However, in the spoken language the ne can indeed be dropped - just a common case of slurred speech. It's a small particle and the meaning of the sentence, except for a few ne...que formations, is immediately obvious without it* - so in a non-historical sense the other word is, indeed, a negative. But you can never learn anything really worthwhile in linguistics without at least a sideglance at historical linguistics.
And here we get to the really interesting point: Because spoken French does indeed have what, viewed ahistorically, are double negatives - real ones this time. In written French these constructions are of course sort-of triple negatives: (ne) plus rien, (ne) plus jamais "not anymore", that sort of thing.

*Of course, this is actually what happened with "I could care less", too.

[12th Doctor]

I know what you are getting at, and the problem is that you assume that there must be a certain innate logic to language, much as the original English grammarians did.

Nothing "English" about it. All of these ideas are washed-up Latin has-beens that migrated to other languages.
Although the Sanskrit grammarians developped many very parallel ideas.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nominally. Really, of course, it's because a double negative wasn't done in Classical Latin (although I'm not sure about their reasons). The purging of double negatives from the Germanic languages was part of the campaign to "civilise" them by making them more similar to Latin.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not, actually - for the received French grammar isn't an example of a double negative at all, though it looks like one to the casual observer. It's just a negative formation built of two words - ne pas "no step" ie not, ne rien "no thing", ne jamais "no ever" (in these latter two the positive sense is extinct, but that's the etymology), ne que "no but" ie except, ne plus "no more". If these are double negatives then so is English "nothing". They work completely unlike actual double negatives, and "ne" can never stand alone.

However, in the spoken language the ne can indeed be dropped - just a common case of slurred speech. It's a small particle and the meaning of the sentence, except for a few ne...que formations, is immediately obvious without it* - so in a non-historical sense the other word is, indeed, a negative. But you can never learn anything really worthwhile in linguistics without at least a sideglance at historical linguistics.
And here we get to the really interesting point: Because spoken French does indeed have what, viewed ahistorically, are double negatives - real ones this time. In written French these constructions are of course sort-of triple negatives: (ne) plus rien, (ne) plus jamais "not anymore", that sort of thing.

*Of course, this is actually what happened with "I could care less", too.

Yes, I know that their were Latin grammarians, but the interest in grammar in English didn't start up until the 1700's and it has remained largely and English phenomenon.  No other language in Europe has quite the obsession with grammar and staying change that English does (except, perhaps, Dutch), which, as I said, is ironic, considering.

And, yes, I know the historical context of "pas", but the fact is that most French people no longer use "ne" in a number of sentences, and to do it marks you are a foreigner, or someone who is quite pretentious.  Regardless, my point still stands.

[12th Doctor]

Let me put it this way... if you had no idea that written French existed, you would think that "pas" and not "ne" was the negative marker.

[minionofmidas]

Let me put it this way... if you had no idea that written French existed, you would think that "pas" and not "ne" was the negative marker.

Absolutely. Which is why "ne" could be omitted - it carries no meaning anymore.

Grammar nazism exists in Germany, too. It exists in France, too. Although often, the focus in these countries has been more on Vocabulary nazism. Indeed, most Germans are probably not aware that Grammar nazism exists in Britain and America - which I suppose has more to do with the quality of journalism (or rather lack of it) than anything else... still, I wouldn't be so sure about English Grammar nazism being particularly bad.
Actually, come to think of it, none of the countries mentioned are within shouting distance of Greek Grammar nazis. Nor able to see eye to eye with Turkish or Basque ones.

Most of my point was a footnote to your point (which is really only that traditional Grammar nazism is pretty damn pointless, and that languages evolve) - the only bit that I was actually contradicting is that "ne pas" is a double negative. It isn't. A double negative is, e.g. "I didn't say nothing" - which colloquial French might render "J'ai pas dit rien", incidentally, also using a double negative, and one as "wrong" in received French as in received English.

[A18]

The problem with dropping the traditional definition isn't that it's a break with tradition. The problem is that it makes a perfectly good idiom ambiguous.

Grammar, spellings, and definitions do indeed change—although formal English grammar has (happily) changed very little over the past 200 years. No one claims that the present state of the language is an act of God; it is indeed arbitrary. But that fact doesn't cast any doubt on the wisdom of a moderate linguistic conservatism. It prevents old texts from becoming unintelligible to modern readers; insures against regional dialects becoming too out of line with one another; and (as in this case) maintains useful features of traditional usage.

If humans weren't naturally prone to snobbery, the rate of linguistic change would be an absolute nightmare.

[minionofmidas]

The problem with dropping the traditional definition isn't that it's a break with tradition. The problem is that it makes a perfectly good idiom ambiguous.

Hardly. It's not a "perfectly good idiom", nor is it unambiguous. (Or even grammatical.) It is very easy to misunderstand as "that begs for the question", which is not an idiom but is unambiguous (and means exactly what people take "that begs the question" to mean).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Define "moderate".
I would be with you here if, well, if we weren't arguing about exactly the kind of phrase a moderate linguistic conservatism would throw to the dogs.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

the stress being on "readers".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not a positive goal by any stretch of the imagination. You're basically saying you're trying to perform forced abortions on emerging languages here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As it used to be. *Grammatical* change would be comparatively rare, though, the bulk of the change is to pronunciation and vocabulary.

[J. J.]

Two points:

1.  Most people don't speak in formal logical phrasing.

2.  Colloquial English changes.

[A18]

Well, of course; it's not unambiguous any more. That's exactly what I'm complaining about. Its misuse has made it synonymous, in the minds of far too many people, with "raise the question."

By a "moderate" linguistic conservatism, I mean one that takes into account three factors; namely, (1) How useful is the convention being violated?; (2) What are the prospects for salvaging it, at least in educated writing?; and (3) Does adopting the contrary rule make me want to puke? As it so happens, here the answers are "quite useful," "considerable," and "almost."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is indeed what I'm saying. The purpose of language is communication; not variety.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes; an absolute nightmare, as it used to be. Except even worse.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No. Their are far worst grammatical atrocities.

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

The one that bugs me most is "I could care less." I mean a second grader could point out the grammatical incorrectness there.

I know what you are getting at, and the problem is that you assume that there must be a certain innate logic to language, much as the original English grammarians did.

So let me ask you this, and this is an example I have used a 100 times:

We are told that you should never use a double negative.  Why?  Well, because a double negative is a logical fallacy.  You are contradicting yourself if you use one.  What could be worse, and more grammatically incorrect than that?

Well, double negatives are a grammatically correct in French, and indeed, alot of languages.

However, in English, almost every non-standard dialect, from India, to England to here in the United States contains double negatives.  If you hear people speaking a fluent non-standard, then chances are they are going to use a double negative at least once.

But, in French, they drop the double negative in almost every non-standard dialect... and oddly enough, they drop out the "No" which is the word that originally meant the negative and just keep "pas" which is a word that originally meant "step"... that's besides the point, though.

My point is this... why is it that English is so much more logical than French?  And then why is it that the French people are so much more logical than people who speak English?

I don't have any problems with double negatives. But that statement above is literally meaning the exact opposite of what it's supposed to mean, and it could easily be fixed with two letters and an apostrophe.