Scan barcode
A review by davenash
Bad English: A History of Linguistic Aggravation by Ammon Shea
2.0
We have two parties on English usage - the descriptivists and the perscriptivists - as Mary Noris remarks in Between You and Me, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25622752-between-you-me we may as well be the democrats and the republicans.
When it comes to standard written English - see David Foster Wallace on Authority and American Usage essay in Consider the Lobster - I am in the prescriptivist party.
So I am predisposed to pan a descriptivist book and Shea's sneaky ways and filler fulled writing doesn't help his cause.
He includes several examples supposed solecisms that even the most hard-core prescriptivist does not consider to be a grammatical mistake. Limb instead of Leg is the most glaring example of faux-solecism, but we've also accepted Hopefully to start a sentence and a preposition to end one. I would also have no problem with starting a sentence with And or But. But then he brings up real solecisms like between you and I, irregardless, literally instead of figuratively, and like as an intensifier. The first two exemplify over corrections by posers. I would add unnecessary serial commas, which Shea doesn't mention, to the over-corrections list. The second two solecisms - "like" and "literally" - scream nitwit.
But since Shea throws in all these old hang ups, it makes the current solecisms seem silly and that in just a few years, we will accept them. Never.
Shea introduces a solecism with an authoritative quote against it and then an authoritative author violating the supposed rule. The first word he chose, Hopefully, he quotes, "anyone who uses Hopefully to start sentence is an imbecile". Then he follows with "Hopefully, ...." by Ronald Reagan. At first I laughed because I thought he meant Reagan was an imbecile. Only later did I catch on to Shea's juxtaposition trap. I resented his gotcha with Nobokov when Nobokov was writing in the voice of a fictional character. While it's perfectly natural for a character to say finalize a divorce, that doesn't mean that using verb-nouns is acceptable or good practice.
Shea flaunts a rule he should follow: cut unnecessary words. His explanations and narration was too long winded for me. There was a lot filler.
Shea devotes a whole chapter on Shakespeare's poor English. Shakespeare didn't have a copy editor or even Strunk & White. Shakespeare did not write plays to be read but to be acted. Shea does not site Shakespeare's sonnets, only the iambic pentameter lines of his fictional characters.
Babe Ruth ate, aphoristically, hot dogs and beer, does that suggest today's baseball players eat the same?
Shea avoids the contention between Fewer and Less. I noticed that unlike other supermarkets, Whole Foods terms their express lines - 10 items or fewer. I could care less about utilitarian signage and everyday usage.
Shea fails distinguish between standard written English and all other forms. Written English does not have the benefit of verbal inflections or body language. The basic rules of standard written English help readers read better.
Shea does not disclose that language marks culture. If you want to fit in and be accepted by the group, then you need to speak the language of the group. SWE is it's own culture and the leaders and members of the culture are free to determine the rules. If you want success professionally or academically - just between you and I, you literally need to follow the rules of SWE irregardless of like whatever Shea says.
And that is the best stated argument for being a prescriptivist.
When it comes to standard written English - see David Foster Wallace on Authority and American Usage essay in Consider the Lobster - I am in the prescriptivist party.
So I am predisposed to pan a descriptivist book and Shea's sneaky ways and filler fulled writing doesn't help his cause.
He includes several examples supposed solecisms that even the most hard-core prescriptivist does not consider to be a grammatical mistake. Limb instead of Leg is the most glaring example of faux-solecism, but we've also accepted Hopefully to start a sentence and a preposition to end one. I would also have no problem with starting a sentence with And or But. But then he brings up real solecisms like between you and I, irregardless, literally instead of figuratively, and like as an intensifier. The first two exemplify over corrections by posers. I would add unnecessary serial commas, which Shea doesn't mention, to the over-corrections list. The second two solecisms - "like" and "literally" - scream nitwit.
But since Shea throws in all these old hang ups, it makes the current solecisms seem silly and that in just a few years, we will accept them. Never.
Shea introduces a solecism with an authoritative quote against it and then an authoritative author violating the supposed rule. The first word he chose, Hopefully, he quotes, "anyone who uses Hopefully to start sentence is an imbecile". Then he follows with "Hopefully, ...." by Ronald Reagan. At first I laughed because I thought he meant Reagan was an imbecile. Only later did I catch on to Shea's juxtaposition trap. I resented his gotcha with Nobokov when Nobokov was writing in the voice of a fictional character. While it's perfectly natural for a character to say finalize a divorce, that doesn't mean that using verb-nouns is acceptable or good practice.
Shea flaunts a rule he should follow: cut unnecessary words. His explanations and narration was too long winded for me. There was a lot filler.
Shea devotes a whole chapter on Shakespeare's poor English. Shakespeare didn't have a copy editor or even Strunk & White. Shakespeare did not write plays to be read but to be acted. Shea does not site Shakespeare's sonnets, only the iambic pentameter lines of his fictional characters.
Babe Ruth ate, aphoristically, hot dogs and beer, does that suggest today's baseball players eat the same?
Shea avoids the contention between Fewer and Less. I noticed that unlike other supermarkets, Whole Foods terms their express lines - 10 items or fewer. I could care less about utilitarian signage and everyday usage.
Shea fails distinguish between standard written English and all other forms. Written English does not have the benefit of verbal inflections or body language. The basic rules of standard written English help readers read better.
Shea does not disclose that language marks culture. If you want to fit in and be accepted by the group, then you need to speak the language of the group. SWE is it's own culture and the leaders and members of the culture are free to determine the rules. If you want success professionally or academically - just between you and I, you literally need to follow the rules of SWE irregardless of like whatever Shea says.
And that is the best stated argument for being a prescriptivist.