Printable View
I can usually get past misplaced or improper punctuation when I'm reading, so long as the writer's meaning is clear. My current pet peeve is writers don't know how to write things like "could have" as a conjunction; I keep seeing things like:
... could of ...
... should of ...
... would of ...
Drives me freakin' nuts! I'm seeing this more and more often in published, ostensibly edited, works.
I've been away: this has moved on without me. But I see the elitism remains.
The ability to change the language remains with its users: mostly ordinary people who speak and write in an uncomplicated way. Forcing a rigid (Latin) structure onto it and maintaining that the rules are logical and immutable is simply wrong. Those rules will all ultimately mutate or disappear, I am sure. It will happen, not by a formal edict from the Masters of the Language (successful authors, I suppose), but by common usage. This may leave publishers with bit of a problem, but they'll cope, don't worry.
You speak of elitism as though it's a bad thing. I think it has its place.
When people are studying to do something well (like, say, heart surgery, or writing), it seems to me sensible to ask those who do it best for advice, and then learn from the advice. But that's inherently elitist. See Jimbo Wales vs. Larry Sanger on Wikipedia for elitism and anti-elitism.
If you dislike elitism, then you choose not to ask those who are best at it. You take your wisdom, like Wikipedia, from the masses. Writing is a matter of personal taste, so nobody's going to stop you from punctuating randomly, or single-handedly evolving the language.
But if you ever take up an interest in heart surgery, please tell me where you live so I can avoid that place.
Nothing wrong with being the best, nor with searching it out. There's nothing wrong with avoiding the worst, either.
But "best" is not synonymous with "elite". "Select" or even "elect" are closer in meaning. Chosen because better, perhaps, but possibly chosen for other reasons too. Consider Wall Street, for example, where wealth and contacts speak louder than mere talent. Are those who ran Lehman Bros or AIG the best? They are among the elite. Is the Chairman of HBOS so clever now his bank - created by Royal Charter in the 17th Century - is to be absorbed by an English Joint Stock Bank to save it from bankruptcy? No, he's not; but he's among the elite, and will be rewarded for his failure with shares in the English bank and a brand new job into the bargain. In other words, the elite nuture and promote the elite, not the best. If he were a heart surgeon of a similar aptitude, I would not want him to operate on me.
And what about ... ummm ... Geoffrey Archer. He's sold millions of books, so he qualifies as an arbiter of language by your criterion. Yet no-one would call him a skilled wordsmith: common wordmonger would be the best he could hope for. He could never be accepted as a guardian of our language's integrity. If he were a heart surgeon, he would perform one simple type of operation only, with a few minor developments from time to time. He would never improve, but he would always be among the elite.
======================
Ragoczy,
Why let "should of" worry you - you know what is meant. I remember back in the sixties, I had a girlfriend who once wrote me a letter: "Dear MMI, I know I should of told you last night, but your dumped ... " The grammar was terrible, but I realised I would have to act quickly if I wanted my Sgt Pepper album back.
======================
I feel this debate/argument has run its course, and it's surprising how a simple proposition raised so much ire. Frankly, it proved nothing - Clevernick, I admit you are right, but you must grant my opinions are valid too.
Dear MMI,Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
Not to say you're pureeing your metaphors, but there is a difference between language and story telling. Mr. Archer’s success at book sales hardly qualify him as an elite arbitrator of the English language, rather it makes him a popular, perhaps even elite, teller of stories, and a very specific type of story at that.
If you seek populism as your determinant then turn to William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White as the Arbitrator of Language in the USof A, they have undoubtedly sold more copies of books on the subject of grammar and style than any I know of. That would, make them the physicians of our languages integrity, at least in a populist venue.
You’ll be happy to know that the French have a system to end this discussion. The Académie française, founded in 1620 has developed a system to preserve the purity and integrity of the French language. In a truly republican feeling of fraternity all language disputes can be resolved.
The Académie consists of forty members, known as immortels (immortals). New members are elected by the members of the Académie itself. Académicians hold office for life, but they may be removed for misconduct. The body has the task of acting as an official authority on the language; it is charged with publishing an official dictionary of the language.That is how "Television" became a french word back in 1960 ya know...
Yours
Mad Lews
Interestingly, I heard that a proposal to the English Parliament about 300 years ago to reform English spelling included the establishment of an Academy somewhat along the lines of the Academie Francaise.
It was apparently this which killed the proposal. Nobody in English Parliament wanted to be seen as adopting a French idea.
Now now ... this got heated enough already without bringing the French into it!