In another thread, where the difference between 'I wish I was' and 'I wish I were' was being discussed, a member made the following interesting comment:

The older prescriptive grammars were simply wrong. Their analysis was wrong and the proof they offered was wrong. It was just one more rule that was wrong from the outset. The rule actually changed hundreds of years ago and yet these prescriptive grammars kept on misanalyzing this for centuries.

I've only been a member of this forum for a few months; but I've quite often heard such comments.

Now I would like to know who these older prescriptive grammarians might be, and what their analyses look like.

(Interestingly, I've often read similar comments in the works of David Crystal and Steven Pinker. Crystal sometimes quotes a brief passage from an original text; but Pinker never seems to, for some reason. I suppose you can't read everything you comment on.)

Anyway, it's all very baffling. Can anyone help? Here's my shopping list, for what it's worth:

1. The names of these older prescriptive grammarians, who have misanalysed the question over 'centuries'.
2. A transcription of a sample analysis.
3. A commentary that explains where the transcribed analysis goes wrong.
4. Details of their 'proofs'.
5. Details of the change in the 'rule', hundreds of years ago.
6. Details of the other 'rule', that was 'wrong from the outset'.

(Qy: Is the outset of the rule in #5 the same as the outset of the rule in #6? Guidance would be appreciated here.)

I look forward to reading a wealth of original material.

MrP

Can we argue from First Cause?

I do not remember any names. But this is what I remember from my grammar course. Writing a grammar for a language started when scholars wanted to record the rules of Latin before it was going to have no speakers (17th century I guess, you guys should know better than me)(there were very few grammars written before that time). The problem began when the scholars of other languages, including English, began to impose the Latin rules on their own language. The following quotation is from The Linguistics Encyclopedia edited by Kirsten Malmkjer, Routledge.(Sorry guys, I have also studied linguistics, so I can't provide you with any anti-linguistics reference!)
Grammars of English became common in the 18th century. The most famous of these are Bishop Robert Lowth's A Short Introduction to English Grammar (1762), and Linda Murray's English Grammar (1795). These early English grammars were written by scholars steeped in the Latin tradition, who felt that a grammar should provide a set of rules for correct language use, where "correct" meant according to the rules of the grammar of Latin. Such grammars are known as prespective or normative, and are often compared unfavourably with the descriptive grammars produced by linguists, whose main concern is with how a language is used, rather than with how some people think it ought to be used.
One of the examples of prespective grammars that is widely quoted among linguistics is "It's me" that according to perspective grammarians ought to be "It's I", since in Latin if the subject is nominative, the complement also has to be in nominative case.
If you are looking for more examples, MrP, you can refer to Grammar by Palmer, F.R. (1971).
However, the term "perspective grammar" is still used for the ones with strict rules, for example, in an unreal situation we have to use the form "were" for the first person singular, and thus: I wish I were you.
From a descriptive grammar point of view, "I wish I was you" also can be used, since it is in use by the speakers of English. (Though as you know, the usage is a bit different.)
I've learned something from my own experience (with my husband actually!) that it's better to leave linguistic discussions among linguistics(I mean who academically studied linguistics). My husband never accepts something when I'm describing it based on linguistics. It doesn't mean that my husband or you are not familiar with language or linguistics. Just as you know, language seems so trivial that we do not challenge the grammar that we study at school,... And one of the first thing that we learn when we began to study linguistics academically is that the task of linguist is to describe a language spoken at the present time, the way people use it now.
I think this forum is not a place to have that kind of discussion Rachhand and Katsudan(I do not remember his name correctly, any way) have, unless they are on the linguistic thread. I think Paco's reply was enough. But ...
Sorry guys, I know that I'm not good at transfering the things that I know, but hope that it helps.

Good luck MrP with your search. Another example of a prespective grammar rule that I remember reads that "and" must not be used before "et cetera". Because as you know, the Latin "et" means "and" in English.
I do not think that Ranchhand and Katsusan mean a specific book or author. However, if you want more examples you can refer to Palmer. The approach of most of the grammars to language is one of a prespective nature, since the discriptive method was taken to consideration years following the publication of De Saussure's linguistic lecture notes after his death in 1916.

I hope it wouldn't interfere with your discussion if I introduce some data about Russian, briefly, as one of case studies. I'll try at least (it will take some time, though).

I felt the same when I studied this matter: there was a much too little reference to original source material.
See you later.