tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post4343473661660516373..comments2024-03-28T16:11:36.465+00:00Comments on Separated by a Common Language: Review: Origins of the Speciouslynneguisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-54904558765567574242010-08-23T10:55:23.560+01:002010-08-23T10:55:23.560+01:00That's interesting about the co-authoring. I s...That's interesting about the co-authoring. I sometimes read a blog that's co-authored by twins and always says 'we', and answers on a translators' mailing list by a married couple who also write 'we', and it drives me mad (of course).<br />I'm also interested in the hypercorrection thing. As a translator I often have to say that usage is right or wrong, talking to non-native speakers, or to take editorial decisions, and there's a risk of over-correcting.MMhttp://transblawg.eunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-41122311139187741422010-01-18T07:03:39.944+00:002010-01-18T07:03:39.944+00:00Hmmm. The co-authoring thing didn't bother me....Hmmm. The co-authoring thing didn't bother me. I think she was saying that they decided to use solely her (O'Conner's) writing voice. I think he (Kellerman) monitors their blog, Grammarphobia.com.<br /><br />In any event, she (they?) manages to express really deep, well-researched ideas very simply. She spends a lot of time tracing and comparing the British antecedents of US English--often to surprising end. <br /><br />Her discussion of curse words also should not be missed.Michael Farrellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-25928402870245715422010-01-13T07:31:17.833+00:002010-01-13T07:31:17.833+00:00I forgot to add the one thing that drove me (AmE) ...I forgot to add the one thing that drove me (AmE) <b>crazy</b>/(BrE) <b>mad</b> in the book. There are two authors, but they refer to themselves as 'I' rather than 'we'. They say something about this at the beginning--that they're writing in O'Conner's voice because it's impossible for a book to be truly co-authored, or something like that (which I didn't accept). I HATED that.lynneguisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-57066690014011372052010-01-13T05:59:25.391+00:002010-01-13T05:59:25.391+00:00It's brilliant and fun; I highly recommend it....It's brilliant and fun; I highly recommend it. Lynne's review seems fair and accurate. If I could summarize O'Conner's overarching theme, it's that many language myths could be clarified with a bit of research.Michael Farrellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-16876059369124681172010-01-04T21:28:52.654+00:002010-01-04T21:28:52.654+00:00"The book takes on different kinds of myths a..."The book takes on different kinds of myths about language--particularly the kinds of myths that prescriptivists (often so-called language lovers who have very little patience for language) bandy about"<br /><br />And there are a lot of those pesky prescripwotsits out there, unfortunately. Thanks for the review - sounds interesting. And a snip at $14.96, he says, stumbling around Amazon.com while he's supposed to be working.Spanish Cowhttp://spanishcow.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-26582171128371524692010-01-03T12:36:48.857+00:002010-01-03T12:36:48.857+00:00Hypercorrection is one of my favorite subjects in ...Hypercorrection is one of my favorite subjects in language so I will be downloading this to my Kindle soon and giving it a read through. From what you listed it sounds like a lot of the cases will be ones I know, but hopefully there will be many I don't as well.<br /><br />I do find prescriptivism interesting because there are definitely places where it is important to keep to a certain grammar, eg academia and business. Businesses that have large amounts of written editorial content (newspapers, PR firms, even the marketing consultancy I work for) will have style books that contain rules for their writers.<br /><br />In a way this is a different kind of prescriptivism - it may or may not adhere to various hypercorrections, but it is fundamentally a tool for a certain goal. It is used to create a coherent and unified voice and style across many authors. Whereas I see strict grammatical prescriptivism as less of a tool, and more of a 'this is how language should be because that is how it should be.'<br /><br />I don't know if any of that makes sense, however. I guess it could be said that prescriptivism as a means to a separate, defined end is okay in certain circumstances, while prescriptivism as a grammatical end in itself is not. One might think Kant would be a rather strict prescriptivist ...<br /><br />Edit: Sorry about the deleted comment. I wish you could edit comments, I always find mistakes <i>after</i> I post.Lowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704903596997447763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-82377391603468238562010-01-03T12:34:09.096+00:002010-01-03T12:34:09.096+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Lowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704903596997447763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-10401669373462149862010-01-03T03:17:10.497+00:002010-01-03T03:17:10.497+00:00@Paul Danon:
I find it curious that somebody who ...@Paul Danon:<br /><br />I find it curious that somebody who objects to starting a sentence with "And" would, in the very same post, start a sentence with "Also".<br /><br />The eminent translators of the (AmE) King James Bible/(BrE) Authorized Version [neither name dates back to the original] clearly didn't see any problem with starting a sentence with "And". Take a look at <a href="http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=77" rel="nofollow">the first chapter of Genesis</a>.vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-4940858125274565102010-01-02T22:09:32.384+00:002010-01-02T22:09:32.384+00:00Paul, a sentence that starts with 'and' or...Paul, a sentence that starts with 'and' or 'but' has a main verb--it's a sentence that has them in the middle that doesn't have a main verb (but instead has two). 'And' and 'but' are coordinating, rather than subordinating conjunctions. When they're used at the beginnings of sentences, they're used as discourse markers, coordinating the current sentence with some larger theme in the discourse.<br /><br />I think a lot of people use 'grammar' in a general 'the workings of language' kind of way, but there probably is a difference in that Americans traditionally have more 'structure of language' i.e. 'grammar' teaching at school (see <a href="http://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.com/2008/01/diagramming-sentences.html" rel="nofollow">this old post</a>). <br /><br />Yes, I'd write 'heads of departments'. But I'd write Heads of Department if I were (BrE more likely to use 'was' here) using it more as a title. I will say, though, that I was recently editing someone else's writing and changed things like 'types of books' to 'types of book' in a very regular way--so what you've probably seen here is the difference between 'casual Lynne' and 'formal Lynne'.lynneguisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-61942865788588725432010-01-02T21:13:43.507+00:002010-01-02T21:13:43.507+00:00The notion of linguistic purity is, of course, bun...The notion of linguistic purity is, of course, bunk. Being more archaic proves nothing except you use older words and/or constructions than the other guy. I'm interested in Lynne's "kinds of myths" and "types of books". Is that AmE or just a style-difference between her and me. Would she write "heads of departments"? BTW, over at grammarphobia, the authors seems to miss the point about the singular/plural status of "data". They don't mention countability. Also, is it an AmE practi{s/c}e to use "grammar" to encompass, well, basically the whole language, or do we do it here too? In arguments I've had on the web, my mainly American interlocutors have used "grammar" to cover semantics, spelling and even pronunciation. BTW, it _is_ wrong to start a sentence with "and" or "but" - not because I say so but because doing so means the phrase lacks a main verb and is, thus, not a sentence. *Danon puts on crash-helmet.*Paul Danonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04816761952837296368noreply@blogger.com