TN: Sangiovese at Mas (La Grillade) (March 28, 2012)

originally posted by Jay Miller:

Be sure to read the mouseover.
Click to expand...

I think it's more interesting to read the ensuing forum thread.

There was (unsurprisingly) quite a reaction after the 2009 article, but I think Prof. Pullum's answered those criticisms quite well.
 
originally posted by Yixin:
...

I think that's the most common 'defense' of Strunk & White (that Pullum conflates style and grammar), but wrong is wrong. The which/that prescription is perhaps the silliest one I encounter commonly; it makes no sense for anyone who is trans-Atlantic in their reading.

Strunk & White is, for me, the Cloudy Bay of style guides.
Click to expand...

Beg to differ, and no need to put quotation marks around the verb. Wrong is wrong in comics and political manifestos, but in regular life, context often matters.

The book responds concisely and well to many common stylistic weaknesses of unpracticed writers - which, in America, is most of us. It is effective as a practical guide, not aspiring to scholarly comprehensiveness, and has assisted many to improve their communication and thinking.

One reason Pullum sounds so peevish is he that attacks the authors without acknowledging the ill that Strunk and White's book seeks to remedy (as Jeff notes). Few are going to devote the kind of time to soaking up the niceties of grammar that a tenured linguist in Edinburgh will. The small, easy-to-use book helps quite a bit. Pullam sounds like he suffers badly from ivory-tower syndrome.

I don't follow your beef with S&W's advice on using impersonal relative pronouns - say more?
 
I liked one piece of advice about pronouncing words that you don't know how to pronounce in any manner but with confidence, so as not to compound ignorance with hesitation.
 
So I'm not sure if some of these are jokes I fail to appreciate, but:

'Defense' was used as a noun. I don't think I've seen it employed as a verb.

I think it's polite to spell someone's name correctly, especially if it's been used (correctly) before, even if that person is not reading.

Strunk & White write:

"That is the defining, or restrictive pronoun, which the nondefining, or nonrestrictive...Careful writers, watchful for small conveniences, go which-hunting, remove the defining whiches, and by so doing improve their work."

A good summary of various responses can be found here. A mistaken claim (the distinction in their first statement is not, as far as I know, grounded in contemporaneous usage or grammatical rules), leading to counter-productive advice (by encouraging witch-hunts).

So yes, the Cloudy Bay of style guides. Better than many, but ultimately unsatisfying, and wrong in crucial ways.
 
originally posted by Yixin:
So I'm not sure if some of these are jokes I fail to appreciate, but:

'Defense' was used as a noun. I don't think I've seen it employed as a verb.
Click to expand...

Touche; but still, omit needless quotation marks.

I think it's polite to spell someone's name correctly, especially if it's been used (correctly) before, even if that person is not reading.
Click to expand...

Corrected. Personally, I don't find that Pullum's tone excites a very strong impulse towards politeness ("The authors won't be hurt by these critical remarks. They are long dead." Please.), but that's no excuse.

Strunk & White write:

"That is the defining, or restrictive pronoun, which the nondefining, or nonrestrictive...Careful writers, watchful for small conveniences, go which-hunting, remove the defining whiches, and by so doing improve their work."

A good summary of various responses can be found here. A mistaken claim (the distinction in their first statement is not, as far as I know, grounded in contemporaneous usage or grammatical rules), leading to counter-productive advice (by encouraging witch-hunts).
Click to expand...

Well, I've seen this distinction made in (American) dictionaries going back thirty years, to my salad days as a translator. I don't understand the legislative process for grammar, that is, how the rules are made, and will duck a debate on what's technically correct here. Despite the off-putting cutsie presentation, though, imho, it's a reasonable thumbnail guideline, which can streamline written delivery, and consistent with the overall stylistic theme of the book. 'Which,' if not used thoughtfully, easily breaks flow and sounds bombastic.

Once again, the book is written for the new or casual writer, I believe, not so much the professional writer or linguistic specialist. I don't have a copy of the book on my shelf now, or I'd check to see if the authors talk about their intended audience.

So yes, the Cloudy Bay of style guides. Better than many, but ultimately unsatisfying, and wrong in crucial ways.
Click to expand...

'Es ist Geschmacksache, sprach der Affe und biss in die Seife.' Actually, I've never had Cloudy Bay. Many have found Elements right in ways crucial to them. But you know your own mind and must, therefore, seek other sources of learning and inspiration. Setting high standards for oneself is always admirable.
 
As I said above, the distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive clauses and its tie to the use of "that" and "which" has been around for some time now. It may not pre-exist the 20th century, but it remains a useful one. You can choose to ignore it, but you will, as a result, write ambiguous sentences. I'm not sure why they would advice trying to eliminate "which" from sentences on that basis. There is another stylistic basis for that advice.

You can, of course, choose to write as if you were Joe Gargery and claim that, after all, Dickens is your model.
 
That wine-soaked dinner was quite enjoyable. Great company, delicious dishes, and extraordinary wines make memorable evenings, which are always treasured.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top