Forum Moderators: open
But why are ignoramuses the ones who get to effect change? :(
As Churchill famously commented when one of his memos was corrected by a civil servant,"this is nonsense up with which I will not put."
Always loved that one. But, FWIW, it appears that one did not originate with Churchill. (See [itre.cis.upenn.edu...]
Those were very interesting links, thanks. The 'singular their' does indeed have a long history, however in linguistics a long history does not imply correct current usage. Many regional forms of speech are remnants of previous historical forms but are still held as incorrect.
Appears to me you did not take a very close look as esllou's links. According to your take, the "incorrect" usage applies to many literary luminaries over the course of several centuries (till at least the mid 20th century), and in such a variety of uses that they can hardly be dismissed as "regionalisms". I think I'd take their opinion over a group of stodgy, Latinizing grammarians most any day.
it would be poor practice to apply a comma only where it is required to avoid a[m]biguity.
I don't follow you here. Exactly why is this "poor practice"? Is not avoiding of ambiguity one of the reasons for using commas? Why should it not at times be the "only" reason?
When I search for "purpose of commas" I find things like:
"The primary purpose of the comma is to indicate to a reader when a sentence calls for a brief pause. Additionally, the comma defines, supports, and reinforces various grammatical structures and grammatical units."
If I have read that last part correctly, one of the chief reasons we use commas is PRECISELY to clearly mark grammatical structures and units, that is, to help remove ambiguity!
In other words, to quote from another list of rules for comma usage, "(Rule 8) Use a comma to avoid confusion."
Yes, a comma before the penultimate item in a is sometimes necessary to remove ambiguity, but I do not accept the pedantic inference that I must, therefore, always include the serial comma.
I assumed the USA! I see from your profile that it is a short hop over the border.
My pet hate is "normalcy", instead of "normality". A classic US invention (on par with the verb golfing)that is now used by everyone from Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw to George and Laura Bush, and almost daily by all of them!
"Normalcy" is so common that Webster's have actually decided it is now valid English! I guess we call it progress...."ain't it gr8" ;)
"Normalcy" is so common that Webster's have actually decided it is now valid English!
Actually, the words "normality" and "normalcy" are practically the same age (mid-nineteenth century). There is nothing in the history or formation of either word, indeed no particular reason (except, perhaps, snobbery) to insist that one of them is "correct" and the other is not.
(See [randomhouse.com...]
Now I do understand that the word is looked down on in British English. But again, there is no objective reason for assuming that a particular British or American linguistic preference is superior (whether of vocabulary/usage, pronunciation, grammatical form, spelling, or what-have-you). Further, even if one generally avoids the word "normalcy" (and frankly, I can't recall when I last used either term!), there are contexts where it has a connotation that "normality" lacks, viz., of concern with restoring the status quo (a connotation largely attributable to Harding's 1920 presidential campaign for "a return to normalcy").
Same may be said of your distaste for "golfing" (rather than "playing golf" I presume). If the term serves a useful purpose and communicates clearly, what is the complaint? I assume you are thinking the expression ought to parallel "playing tennis" and the like. But language, thankfully, does not always insist on such bland consistency. In this particular case, consider also that the one who plays the latter sport is called a "tennis player", whereas a devotee of the former can be a "golfer" (as well as "golf player"). If you allow this form then, in keeping with the general use of the agent suffix "-er" , there should be nothing odd about deriving a related verb form -- a "golfer" is "one who golfs". Of course, we could impose consistency across the board, and nix the British term "footballer" (Americans always say "football player"). But there's no need for that either. This too is simply a variation in usage. Neither the British nor American preference is "the" correct one.
Now if you want to concern yourself with truly abused terms, I suggest concentrating not on words that may sound odd to your ear, but on such things as the mistaken use of "enormity" as if it meant "immensity". Here at least there is an issue of clear communication.
these are considered to be official french words ( so official street signs show the way to the "parking" and supermarkets sell various brands all marked "shampooing" ) and not mistaken usage of english and in the case of shampoo I think it is actually hindi .or maybe gudjerati/gudjarati in origin?
