MrPedantic  +  110773 Mon, 20 Jun 05 08:00 AM Hello Paco and Roro Hence 'grammar school': originally, a school where one learnt Latin. I believe that among the Romans, a 'grammaticus' was in effect a teacher of literature – originally, Greek – who prepared the student for the study of rhetoric; though later, as literature in Latin accumulated, the term was extended. 'Grammarye' is another interesting word. MrP MrPedantic Joined on Tue, Oct 12 2004 Veteran Member 12,592 ...opella forensis / adducit febris... Grammar, Literature

	Roro  +  110809 Mon, 20 Jun 05 10:05 AM Hi MrPedantic and paco ! a 'grammaticus' was a teacher of literature who prepared the student for the study of rhetoric And they were severely criticised in that era, too. Please let me quote from Satyricon Petronii: No one would mind this claptrap if only it put our students on the road to real eloquence. But what with all these sham heroics and this stilted bombast you stuff their heads with, by the time your students set foot in court, they talk as though they were living in another world. No, I tell you, we don't educate our children at school; we stultify them and then send them out into the world half-baked. And why? Because we keep them utterly ignorant of real life. (..) What's more, if you'll pardon my bluntness, it was you rethoricians who more than anyone else strangled true eloquence. By reducing everything to sound, you concocted this bloated puffpast of pretty drivel whose only real purpose is the pleasure of punning and the thrill of ambiguity. Result? Language lost its sinew, its nerve. Eloquence died. (..) No, great language is chaste language??if you'll let me use a word like "chaste" in this connection??not turgidity and worked-up purple patches. The point is it's from Satyricon! (By the way in my dictionary . I didn't know this word...!) Roro Joined on Mon, Apr 11 2005 Regular Member 581 Literature

	MrPedantic  +  110881 Mon, 20 Jun 05 02:19 PM Hello Paco and Roro I hope you don't mind if I take a few steps back. I was struck by this passage on the Yates and Kenkel 'We're Prescriptivists. Isn't Everyone?' page: For example, one of the most notorious prescriptions is never to end sentences with a preposition. This style was given the status of norm in 1762 by Lowth in his Short Introduction to English Grammar. In one of the choicest ironies of linguistic history, Lowth repudiates his norm in the very sentence that he promulgates it in [sic]: 3. "The preposition is often separated from the relative which it governs, and joined to the verb at the end of the sentence . . . As, 'Horace is an author, whom I am much delighted with.' . . . This is an idiom which our language is strongly inclined to (emphasis added): it prevails in common conversation; and suits very well with the familiar style in writing; but the placing of the preposition before the relative, is more graceful, as well as more perspicuous; and agrees much better with the solemn and elevated style." (Cited in Riley & Parker, p. 29) Obviously, the nature of English had little place at the forefront of Lowth's consciousness. I'm not quite sure why Y. & K. talk about linguistic ironies here, and imply that Lowth has broken his own rule. He is presumably writing in 'the familiar style', which he exempts from the 'rule'. Unless we know that Lowth considered the style of his Grammar to be the 'solemn and elevated style', we have no grounds for accusing him of inconsistency. MrP PS: I should declare an interest here, and say that terminal prepositions don't greatly bother me. MrPedantic Verbs, Prepositions, Grammar, Whom, Idioms, Conversations, English Grammar

	Roro  +  110893 Mon, 20 Jun 05 02:58 PM Hello MrPedantic, Yes, me too, I cannot understand if we can consider this passage ironic or not. I feel like reading this as ... Lowth showed by myself some examples, of different style. (I guess it would be more natural to think so. I don't know on purpose or not, of course, though!) Roro

	Roro  +  111005 Mon, 20 Jun 05 11:15 PM It's interesting. Could we express these kinds of differences as a difference in ...? That is the force with which the main verb unites components into a composite whole sentence. ... It's not the best way to explain these phenomena, probably, but I got such an impression. (1) Horace is an author, with whom I am much delighted. ? The unifying force of the main verb is stronger. (2) Horace is an author, whom I am much delighted with. ? The unifying force of the main verb is a bit weaker. This is what I hit upon at 6 a.m. while dozing ! Roro Verbs, Whom

	MrPedantic  +  111008 Mon, 20 Jun 05 11:29 PM That's an interesting thought. Now that you mention it, I do notice a slight difference in emphasis between the two versions: 1. Horace is an author, with whom I am much delighted. ? The emphasis here, to my ears, remains with Horace (?because 'whom' has a stress). 2. Horace is an author, whom I am much delighted with. ? While here, the emphasis moves to the 'being delighted' (?because 'whom' has no stress, and the stress on 'much' seems slightly stronger). (This may be simply to approach your 'unifying force' idea from the other end of the syntax.) MrP MrPedantic Whom

	Roro  +  111011 Mon, 20 Jun 05 11:38 PM Good morning MrPedantic, thank you for your reply! I got really interested in these questions. I didn't expected at first that your theme would develop thus far. Your point sounds convincing to me, and, as you said, I don't think it's not compatible with my humble idea! Thank you again. With my best wishes, Roro

	MrPedantic  +  111015 Mon, 20 Jun 05 11:52 PM Hello Roro, you're welcome – and thank you for your replies! Much there to consider. I'm interested in this point, for instance: "Sometimes other type of conflicts are carried out in the disguise of disputes on linguistic or stylistic matters." I wonder whether the prescriptivistic bogeyman has been to some extent invented – or at least, exaggerated – simply because it provides a useful foil for modern grammarians. MrP MrPedantic

	Roro  +  111021 Tue, 21 Jun 05 12:10 AM :) That is what you've pointed out through an actual case. When I went over that site I didn't notice it at all! ( .. and when I wrote my comment, I didn't have in mind conflicts at the present time, to tell the truth. I know little about it, in the first place! but how true it is. ) I'd like to develop our discussions more further. Thank you for your reply, and have a nice dream, Roro