http://www.englishforums.com/English/LinguisticsDiscussionForum/Forum35.htmGet into the nitty-gritty of the language.enXMOD (Build: 3598.39794)http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/6/bzznx/Post.htm#297271Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:297271Alienvoord0http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/6/bzznx/Post.htm#297271http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-297271.xml"Proper English" by Robert Wardhaugh is a good overview of the history of English prescriptive grammar.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/6/bzznx/Post.htm#163944Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:163944Anonymous1http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/6/bzznx/Post.htm#163944http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-163944.xmlIf you are at a University try checking their library for works by the two prescriptive grammarians mentioned above. Often libraries if they don't have a hard copy, have access to online databases such as the "Archive of Americana" by Readex. Here you can find both Dr. Robert Lowthe's (1710-1787) work "A short introduction to the English Grammar" as well as many of the works by Lindley Murray (1745-1826). I would also recommend Edwin Newman, a contemporary prescriptive grammarian. He came out with a book entitled "Strictly Speaking: Will America be the Death of English?" that should be readily available at a bookstore or a library. I would however note that most of these grammarians explain the so-called problems of...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/5/bzznx/Post.htm#111488Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:111488LanguageLover2http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/5/bzznx/Post.htm#111488http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-111488.xmlI just wanna thank you Paco, I liked your quotations on Standardization. On also your little research on the order of preposition in a relative clause. Thanks.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/5/bzznx/Post.htm#111375Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:111375paco20043http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/5/bzznx/Post.htm#111375http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-111375.xmlRoro See you again someday here. pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/5/bzznx/Post.htm#111342Sun, 08 Feb 2009 18:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:111342Roro4http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/5/bzznx/Post.htm#111342http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-111342.xmlHi paco, Thank you very much for your time. ... oh I didn't intend that when I asked you ... It is interesting. But I think it's too early to make a judge. I don't know whether there are included in OED sentential data from merchant documents or letters of ordinary people in that period. (If included, then it is certainly reliable to make a judge in this question, of course.) I've checked Latin Grammar. You know, constructions of contemporary Russian are much similar to Latin's than the English sentence structure, owing to the grammarians 18th century. I'm so sorry. paco. I feel need to compel myself to concentrate on my own theme. Although I don't know if I can do without you all or not...!! I cannot make posts for a...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/5/bzznx/Post.htm#111335Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:111335paco20045http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/5/bzznx/Post.htm#111335http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-111335.xmlHello Roro By the way how do you think about MrPedantic's point ? Do you mean the semantic difference between "with whom ..." and "whom ... with"? Or should I talk about why the Lowth's writing is ironic? I think I have no idea about the first question, though I'm getting inclined to agree to opinions of you and MrP. As for the second question, I speculate Lowth's desire would be to get written English similar to Latin where a sentence rarely ends with a preposition. He might intentionally write the sentence ending with "inclined to" to illustrate the construction he wanted to reject. I had a look at the entry of "whom" in OED and found that almost all of the sentences written before the time of Lowth didn't end with a...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/5/bzznx/Post.htm#111188Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:111188Guest6http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/5/bzznx/Post.htm#111188http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-111188.xmlHistory of English Usagehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/5/bzznx/Post.htm#111083Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:111083Roro7http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/5/bzznx/Post.htm#111083http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-111083.xmlHi paco ! It's great. This was certainly the part which I wanted to understand but I couldn't and gave up! It's funny... it was more like to Dutch than English (Although I don't know whether such a comment wouldn't cause another misunderstandings.. :) Seriously, we shouldn't forget these situations in 15-18cc., normally speaking. By the way how do you think about MrPedantic's point ? I'm interested in it. Talk to you soon!http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/5/bzznx/Post.htm#111047Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:111047paco20048http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/5/bzznx/Post.htm#111047http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-111047.xmlHello Roro Historical Motivation for Standardization (or is that an "s"?) The process of standardization of English can be said to have begun with the advent of printing and consequent wider dissemination of printed material in the 15th century. Early on, it was perceived that the extensive and dramatic linguistic variation in England as well as the rapid pace of language change presented a challenge. It is perhaps difficult for us to imagine the marked differences between varieties of English at the time, all co-existing within the small space of England. Today, we can travel across the continent of North America and have high levels of confidence that regional differences in English, although perceivable, will not unduly...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/5/bzznx/Post.htm#111046Fri, 08 May 2009 17:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:111046paco20049http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/5/bzznx/Post.htm#111046http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-111046.xmlHello I have read the article by Yates and Kenkel, though it is a kind of "look" rather than "read". I take that the main point of what the authors want to say is the last sentence; "We support the teaching of English grammar which makes all students linguistically secure in the grammar they choose to use. Such security, we believe, rests on knowledge of the standard." The sense of linguistic insecurity ("English insecurity" if I say more correctly) is a great problem to most of us ESLs and I am sure I am to continue being annoyed with this as long as I use English. Another paragraph I was struck with is "Not knowing Standard English is not a deficit from any modern linguistic perspective. However, there is an expectation that...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/5/bzznx/Post.htm#111027Sun, 08 Feb 2009 18:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:111027MrPedantic10http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/5/bzznx/Post.htm#111027http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-111027.xmlThank you! "...To keep our eyes open longer were but to act our Antipodes..." Have a cheery morning, MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/4/bzznx/Post.htm#111021Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:111021Roro11http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/4/bzznx/Post.htm#111021http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-111021.xml:) 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,http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/4/bzznx/Post.htm#111015Sun, 08 Feb 2009 18:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:111015MrPedantic12http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/4/bzznx/Post.htm#111015http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-111015.xmlHello 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. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/4/bzznx/Post.htm#111011Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:111011Roro13http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/4/bzznx/Post.htm#111011http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-111011.xmlGood 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,http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/4/bzznx/Post.htm#111008Fri, 08 May 2009 17:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:111008MrPedantic14http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/4/bzznx/Post.htm#111008http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-111008.xmlThat'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.) MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/4/bzznx/Post.htm#111005Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:111005Roro15http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/4/bzznx/Post.htm#111005http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-111005.xmlIt'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 !http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/4/bzznx/Post.htm#110893Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:110893Roro16http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/4/bzznx/Post.htm#110893http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-110893.xmlHello 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!)http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/4/bzznx/Post.htm#110881Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:110881MrPedantic17http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/4/bzznx/Post.htm#110881http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-110881.xmlHello 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 : 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...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/4/bzznx/Post.htm#110809Fri, 08 May 2009 17:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:110809Roro18http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/4/bzznx/Post.htm#110809http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-110809.xmlHi 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...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/4/bzznx/Post.htm#110773Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:110773MrPedantic19http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/4/bzznx/Post.htm#110773http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-110773.xmlHello 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. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/3/bzznx/Post.htm#110759Fri, 08 May 2009 17:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:110759Roro20http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/3/bzznx/Post.htm#110759http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-110759.xmlThank you paco, a very glamorous Monday to you, too ! I've checked my OLD, Liddell & Scott, but there was nothing interesting! :) Your information was new to me, absolutely. How interesting. It makes me ponder over my previous knowledge. Thank you again and see you later!http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/3/bzznx/Post.htm#110756Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:110756paco200421http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/3/bzznx/Post.htm#110756http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-110756.xmlYes, I imagine you are full of glamour because you are studying "English glamour" so hard. Throughout Medieval Age, "grammar" meant "study of Latin literature". A phrase "English grammar" was first used by Ben Johnson in 1600 as the title of his English grammar book. OED says: "In early English use "grammar" meant only Latin grammar, as Latin was the only language that was taught grammatically. In the 16th c. there are some traces of a perception that the word might have an extended application to other languages; but it was not before the 17th c. that it became so completely a generic term that there was any need to speak explicitly of "Latin grammar". Ben Jonson's book, written c1600, was app. the first to treat of ‘English...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/3/bzznx/Post.htm#110731Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:110731Roro22http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/3/bzznx/Post.htm#110731http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-110731.xmlHi paco, it's for the first time we got the same view, isn't it?? I'm very glad. Good day!http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/3/bzznx/Post.htm#110703Fri, 08 May 2009 17:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:110703paco200423http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/3/bzznx/Post.htm#110703http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-110703.xmlActually "glamour" comes from "grammar". It was originally a corrupted form of a Scot word for "grammar" and it also meant "magic". Probably, to most of common people of pre-modern times, skills of writing sentences looked something magical. It would be the reason "glamour" and "spelling" connote "magic" also. pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/3/bzznx/Post.htm#110698Fri, 08 May 2009 17:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:110698Roro24http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/3/bzznx/Post.htm#110698http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-110698.xmlAnd at the very least I would say Cry A was not so glamorous. Good night!http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/3/bzznx/Post.htm#110696Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:110696Roro25http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/3/bzznx/Post.htm#110696http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-110696.xmlHello, MrPedantic, I haven't read S. Pinker yet, to tell the truth. Seems the reference in that site is to his The Language Instinct . I found the following phrase and it surprised me a little bit. the idea that language is a biological adaptation It's tough for me to swallow this statement whole now. It's quite new for me! I've heard that in the middle ages was . Only educated(?) people knew that ... How about this?http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/3/bzznx/Post.htm#110689Fri, 08 May 2009 17:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:110689MrPedantic26http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/3/bzznx/Post.htm#110689http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-110689.xmlThere's a reference to the following comment by Pinker, in the link Paco has kindly provided: "Imagine you are watching a nature documentary...The voiceover reports... the song of the humpback whale contains several well known errors...What on earth could it mean for the song of the humpback whale to contain an error? Isn't the song of the humpback whale whatever the humpback whale decides to sing?" I'm not familiar with the song of the humpback whale. But I'm interested in the implications of this passage. Let's posit Cry A, which the males of a particular species of bird utter as part of the courtship ritual. Perhaps an individual bird utters A noticeably differently from its fellow males. Perhaps this variant of A doesn't...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/3/bzznx/Post.htm#110688Fri, 08 May 2009 17:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:110688Roro27http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/3/bzznx/Post.htm#110688http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-110688.xmlHello MrPedantic, Yes, that's right. Sometimes other type of conflicts are carried out in the disguise of disputes on linguistic or stylistic matters. At least in 18c, though! I like your expression: people identify themselves so strongly with the dialect they happen to speak ... quite penetrating ...! There're other reasons, too. I'll try to explain them, if there's appropriate occation.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/3/bzznx/Post.htm#110685Fri, 08 May 2009 17:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:110685MrPedantic28http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/3/bzznx/Post.htm#110685http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-110685.xmlHello Roro That's an interesting point. Do you think those words have a strong effect because people identify themselves so strongly with the dialect they happen to speak? (In other words: 'if you call my English incorrect, you're calling me incorrect'.) MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/2/bzznx/Post.htm#110598Sun, 08 Feb 2009 18:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:110598Roro29http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/2/bzznx/Post.htm#110598http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-110598.xmlHello MrPedantic, I don't feel like using these strong words, usage, in this context, if I could. I'd say some people were very sensitive to stylistic differences, and tried to normalize a language. It's interesting ... what other members are thinking..?http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/2/bzznx/Post.htm#110581Fri, 08 May 2009 17:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:110581LanguageLover30http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/2/bzznx/Post.htm#110581http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-110581.xmlInteresting thoughts, friends. Of course your first option is correct, MrP. However as I said earlier, prespective grammar started with the Latin influence. Nowadays, any grammarians who claims that this usage is right, and nothing more, regardless to the real usage among the speakers of a language, is referred to as a prespectivist. The article that Julie has found is also interesting. I think the author is right, if you are a foreign language teacher, you have to tell your students about correct and wrong usages. But as long as you are flexible to the language changes, you are considered to be a descriptivist. I haven't read anything from Crystal, except pieces from his language and linguistics encyclopedia. However, I've listened...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/2/bzznx/Post.htm#110580Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:110580Roro31http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/2/bzznx/Post.htm#110580http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-110580.xmlHello paco. Thank you for your reference. It was interesting and helpful. ... Nevertheless, the "project (of standardization of orthography)" was remarkably successful, and by the 18th century, written usage had greatly stabilized, as we today are able with little difficulty to read the works of that period. ... owing to prescrivistic grammarians, I'd add. (Almost the same ... or much, much more drastic ... situation was in Russia.)http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/2/bzznx/Post.htm#110553Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:110553MrPedantic32http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/2/bzznx/Post.htm#110553http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-110553.xml...I have a silly thought. Shouldn't descriptivists simply describe what prescriptivists do? Who are we (assuming we are all descriptivists) to prescribe how they prescribe? Doesn't that make us prescriptive descriptivists? ... A thought experiment: Grammarian MrA recommends rule X. It is a direct application of Latin rule X, which did not previously apply in English. On MrA's recommendation, X displaces rule Y and becomes the norm. Grammarian MrB discerns the misapplication, 200 years later. Which of these responses by MrB are prescriptive, and which are descriptive? 1. X has displaced Y. X is therefore now the correct usage. 2. MrA was wrong. We must return to Y. 3. MrA was wrong. Y is equally valid. 4. X...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/2/bzznx/Post.htm#110552Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:110552paco200433http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/2/bzznx/Post.htm#110552http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-110552.xmlFYI We're Prescriptivists. Isn't Everyone? pacohttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/2/bzznx/Post.htm#110548Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:110548MrPedantic34http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/2/bzznx/Post.htm#110548http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-110548.xmlThank you, Mister M! I had only found costly facsimiles. I'll also have a root round some London s/h bookshops later this week. It would be interesting to see the beast in question. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/2/bzznx/Post.htm#110517Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:110517Mister Micawber35http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/2/bzznx/Post.htm#110517http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-110517.xmlI became curious, MrP, and found reprints of both Murray's and Lowth's grammars available online at www.abebooks.com. Murray is very cheap; Lowth is a little pricey. I haven't yet decided whether I really need a copy: shipping to Japan is always expensive. MMhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/2/bzznx/Post.htm#110488Sun, 08 Feb 2009 18:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:110488Roro36http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/2/bzznx/Post.htm#110488http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-110488.xmlHello julielai ! I like your thought. The only difference is whether he is aware of his own theory or not, maybe!http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/2/bzznx/Post.htm#110481Sun, 08 Feb 2009 18:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:110481julielai37http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/2/bzznx/Post.htm#110481http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-110481.xmlThe older prescriptive grammars were simply wrong I have a silly thought. Shouldn't descriptivists simply describe what prescriptivists do? Who are we (assuming we are all descriptivists) to prescribe how they prescribe? Doesn't that make us prescriptive descriptivists? LOL!http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/bzznx/post.htm#110480Fri, 08 May 2009 17:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:110480Roro38http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/bzznx/post.htm#110480http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-110480.xmlI 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.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/bzznx/post.htm#110433Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:110433MrPedantic39http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/bzznx/post.htm#110433http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-110433.xmlWell, I haven't had a great deal of luck. I've found many derogatory references to '17th/18th century prescriptive grammarians', but little in the way of original source material. In fact, I would say that most of the references I've found consist mostly of more or less blatant plagiarism of Pinker, Crystal, and Wikipedia. I'm beginning to wonder if anyone anywhere has read Murray's grammar – or even Lowth's, for that matter. But then, as Sydney Smith said: "I never read a book before reviewing it. It prejudices a man so". MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/bzznx/post.htm#110160Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:110160LanguageLover40http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/bzznx/post.htm#110160http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-110160.xmlGood 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.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/bzznx/post.htm#110146Sun, 08 Feb 2009 18:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:110146MrPedantic41http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/bzznx/post.htm#110146http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-110146.xmlWonderful, LL, thank you! It's a great help – esp. the names. That provides a lead. It was very good of you to type it all out. I wonder whether these were the grammarians that Katsu-san and Rancho had in mind. It would be interesting to see the original texts, and compare them with the comments that have been made. I'll see if I can find them online. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/bzznx/post.htm#110120Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:110120LanguageLover42http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/bzznx/post.htm#110120http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-110120.xmlI 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...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/bzznx/post.htm#109930Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:109930Roro43http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/bzznx/post.htm#109930http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-109930.xml... First Cause of Aristotle ...? Sure! We could! Let's discuss about it (later). I'm interested, especially, in your view, in the first place, Mister Micawber ... we're looking forward to hearing your comments. Actually I know nothing about the difference between prescriptive/non-prescriptive grammars, to tell the truth. I will be interested in your discussions, all the time. Let's enjoy this debate.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/bzznx/post.htm#109913Sun, 08 Feb 2009 18:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:109913Mister Micawber44http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/bzznx/post.htm#109913http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-109913.xmlCan we argue from First Cause?http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/bzznx/post.htm#109837Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:109837CalifJim45http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/bzznx/post.htm#109837http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-109837.xmlI hope, Mr. P., this isn't a case of "where angels fear to thread"! CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/bzznx/post.htmSun, 08 Feb 2009 18:04:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:109766MrPedantic46http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrescriptiveGrammarians/bzznx/post.htmhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-109766.xmlIn 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...