Was vs Were

You've neatly turned this around, Jim. The proof is overwhelming that are both grammatical and in common use. Ergo, correct English.

Now you head off on this tangent instead of locating the proof offerred by PGs to defend the prescription. Not that what you've said and seek to discuss isn't important, for it most assuredly is.

But both you and Mr P always do this; try to deflect the issue to some other topic.

I'll address this but I hope you see what I mean.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Jim: Clarify, please. "Mom's cautionary remark" simply means to me that just because a lot of people do something doesn't make it right.

Is it that meaning that you are questioning? If so, what do you think the remark really means, if not that?

JT: I have a name, Jim. Polite discussion normally entails, that we, even if it's infrequent and even if we strongly disagree with someone, address that person with a name.

I was just shocked that you think this remark is somehow relevant wrt a scientific study, ie. the study of language.


J: If that's not what you are questioning, then is it the inference for language usage that I draw from the remark -- namely, that just because a lot of people say something doesn't make it right -- that you are questioning? If so, then I can only suppose you believe the converse, namely, that if a lot of people say it, it IS right, i.e., frequency is your definition of "rightness".

I'm inclined to believe that you are saying that the more used something (linguistic) is, the more "right" it is, and this is what you regard as an adequate form of scientific proof. My inclination seems to be supported by another passage you cite:

what a linguist ... would call grammar, which is really nothing more than usage

JT: You've hit the nail on the head, Jim. If we were to follow your line of thinking, then no changes could ever/could have ever occur[red] in language. Why aren't you still using 'thou' and 'sayest' and the myriad other forms that were older forms of English.

Why do you pronounce English as you do instead of that before the Great Vowel Shift?

The problem folks like you have, the inescapable conundrum, is to classify language as correct and incorrect. It's a conundrum for at least two reasons; one, there is no defence for the prescriptions grammatically; two, the language doesn't support the prescriptive contentions.

There's no need to compare differing levels of English and ascribe pejorative terms to some language. The rules for SWE and the rules for the spoken are decidely different. Prescriptivists recognize this fact but they only whine and complain about a few aspects of spoken.

Isn't it strange that PGs have no problem with the vast majority of the spoken language even though it is quite different than SWE?

-----------------------------

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/1994_01_24_thenewrepublic.html

I hope to have convinced you of two things. Many prescriptive rules are just plain dumb and should be deleted from the usage handbooks. And most of standard English is just that, standard, in the sense of standard units of currency or household voltages. It is just common sense that people should be given every encouragement and opportunity to learn the dialect that has become the standard one in their society and to employ it in many formal settings. But there is no need to use terms like "bad grammar," "fractured syntax," and "incorrect usage" when referring to rural and Black dialects. Though I am no fan of "politically correct" euphemism (in which, according to the satire, "white woman" should be replaced by "melanin-impoverished person of gender"), using terms like "bad grammar" for "nonstandard" is both insulting and scientifically inaccurate.
------------------------------------

J: My next question -- and I'm sure you may already have anticipated it -- is, "Whose usage?"

JT: I'll let the same linguist reply to this.

---------------------------------

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/1994_01_24_thenewrepublic.html


So what should be done about usage? Unlike some academics, I am not saying that instruction in grammar and composition are tools to perpetuate an oppressive white patriarchal status quo and that The People should be liberated to write however they please. Some aspects of how people express themselves in some settings [are] worth trying to change. What I am calling for a more thoughtful discussion of language and how people use it, replacing [bubbe-maises] (old wives' tales) with the best scientific knowledge available. It is especially important that we not underestimate the sophistication of the actual cause of any instance of language use: the human mind.
-------------------------------

JT: Now, I hope that you and Mr P can get around to defending this prescription in this thread and others in other threads.

JT: I wasn't the one gritting my teeth in frustration, Mr P.


I'll remember to hold up my IRONY placard next time.

JT: That'd be nice, Mr P.

----------------------------

JT: See what I mean, Mr P; "animal noises"! Might I point out to you, Sir that this illustrates, on your part, a profoundly naive [to be kind] conception of what language is.

Mr P: I'd be interested to know what you think human speech is, JT, if it isn't a series of animal noises. But let me rephrase the question, if it offends you:

JT: Luckily, writing isn't near as descriptively clear as speaking is or you'd not have been able to slip out of this one, eh, Mr P? To use a Britishism, "you'd have been caught out".

Mr P: 'If you think [counterfactual 'if it was'] is an 'informal variant', you're presumably discriminating between the two forms in some way. So what makes this particular set of words suitable for 'informal' use only? And why is it a 'variant'?'

(Please feel free to explain in your own words, rather than citing items from elsewhere on the internet.)

JT: I shall by the by, but first.

Did you happen to catch the 1/23 Dilbert cartoon, Mr P? The punch line from Wally, reads; "My favorite part is when he yelled. "Stop ruining my slogans with your logic".

You can catch it at,

http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20050123.html

This should take you right to that 1/23 cartoon. If not check the archives.

I {and every other language professional, including a number around this site} frequently point up differences in formal or informal variants. I believe, without a great deal of searching, I could even find some posts where you've done the same.

is not "suitable for 'informal' use only". We don't have this great divide that can't be crossed. It's not an absolute, it's more a question of degree; it's merely that it tends to be used in the informal realm more often. This shouldn't come as any great shock as many aspects of language tend to be used more in one realm or the other.

Contractions see far greater use in the spoken than in SWE. Relative pronouns and both tend to be used more in formal spoken and SWE than their counterpart .

But I think you feel that you've got a major point to make here, so I'll relinquish the floor to you, Sir. And don't forget the reminder I gave to CJ. I'd love to see something from any prescriptive source you two could dig up that actually, actually provides something in the way of proof for these prescriptions you espouse.

Have at it, Sir.

actually provides something in the way of proof

We don't need no stinkin' proof!

You can sound like an idiot using formal language in informal situations.

So why would that be, JT – scientifically speaking?

MrP

In other words, you're unable to answer the question.

MrP