The whole point of that page seems ostensibly to be that if there's some historical argument that something that's been broadly considered an error for a century really oughtn't be one, then it isn’t. But in practice I think it's just a descriptivist manifesto couched in prescriptivist terminology.

In other words: I ain't buyin' it. None is still singular, hopefully doesn't mean "I hope", and the pronunciation of forte does vary according to meaning, regardless what some apologist for sloppiness says.

Good post. I agree.

And you don't even present an argument, just ipse dixit.

Rules of grammar have never been independent from historical construction and common usage. You can disagree with some of the current (alleged) rules without categorically denying the relationship between rule and usage. By the way, "none" is now pretty firmly considered a variable subject similar to "all," whose count changes depending on context.

The descriptivist/prescriptivist divide isn't going to be bridged by any argument I could or would make in this thread; in any case, everyone here already knows the two positions pretty well and I suspect most have chosen which side they're on. (zomg ended a sentence with a preposition!)


... but apparently at least one person disagrees and wants to argue it anyway.

Note, please, that not only did I not categorically deny that there is a relationship between rule and usage, but neither I nor any prescriptivist rulemaker whose work I've read would do so. Really, the dichotomy is just a simplified way of looking at a continuum, with the variable being how fast we want what we consider "correct" to change. Descriptivists tend to argue that if it is often done a certain way today, then that way is correct, but most of them don't really mean that every change is accepted instantly; contrariwise, prescriptivists favor inertia but not stasis, principally because the latter both would be unworkable and would render its advocates irrelevant.

With that in mind, the linked-to article is particularly odd: it takes an ostensibly tradition-based approach, citing centuries-old precedent, but is doing so to justify current popular usage. It's an attempt to hoist prescriptivists on their own petard, but it fails because few, or perhaps no, prescriptivists argue that what was acceptable in middle English is at all relevant to correctness today.

And as for none being singular or plural, I believe a majority of authorities would agree with you but then a similar majority would say that "everyone got their book" is acceptable... and I'm more prescriptivist, by which I mean I am more resistant to change (as well as more swayed by clarity than fashion), than that.

Had a multiple choice exam question that was roughly this:

"Jack has jurisdiction over A & B
Jill has jurisdiction over A

Which of these people has jurisdiction over A exclusively?"

I answered neither because neither of them is the only person with A. The answer graded as correct was Jill, because she had only A (and not B). Grammatically, is my interpretation acceptable? This is a polisci class (not logic/grammar) btw, and the exam was testing our knowledge of governmental institutions, so I feel like the wording is ambiguous.

I have no vested interest in the article you mention, but must disagree with your placement of "none" and "everyone" on the same wavelength in terms of today's consensus. The latter is still pretty firmly singular despite the awkwardness that sometimes results (i.e. "his/her"). Also, I hope / trust you aren't insinuating in your last statement that resisting change is at all equivalent to favoring clarity over fashion (a false dichotomy to begin with).

If you can find a definition of "exclusive jurisdiction" in any of your texts for class it'll be worth a lot more than a wikipedia link, but wikipedia seems to say that exclusive jurisdiction means X (and only X) has jurisdiction over A. So "neither" would be correct.

It appears to be a term of art, so you may have a case.

Not at all. But they do often seem to go together when we're talking about potential changes in grammatical rules, because many of the rules were prescribed in (arguably misguided) efforts to promote clarity. So, for example, those who want to preserve the between/among distinction can cite either history (over the last hundred years or so; as the article notes, you can get a different answer if you go further back than that) or clarity in support.

Thinking about it, though, I think that clarity may not really have been what I meant. Adherence to prescriptivist rules tends to enhance both consistency and precision, and frankly, that may be why I'm a prescriptivist; I like consistency and precision in almost every context. Thus I will keep saying "Everyone got his book" (of a mixed-sex class) in part because I don't see a good reason to change what's been the rule for ages but also in part because it is both consistent (their is always plural) and precise (as one example, I can now distinguish easily between "Everyone got his book" and "Everyone got his books").

If the question had asked about exclusive jurisdiction, you'd be completely correct; the answer would be neither.

As worded (viz, badly) it is ambiguous; had I been taking the test and not able to ask for clarification I'd have guessed they were looking for A, because none of the above isn't a common answer on most teachers' tests, but I'd have been annoyed at having to guess.

I hate when the wording of a question makes answering unnecessarily difficult. I'm not an expert on the definition of "exclusive," but I agree with your interpretation. Sometimes your book (if the class has one) will have similar wording on the topic, so you might find clarification by going back and finding out how the authors use the term.

So basically, that's my non-answer. Sorry you got screwed.

The broader context for the article may be of interest: http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/

I have to agree, I think speaking in proper grammar is preferable for me, as sometimes the way someone speaks really makes a difference. I don't care if someone uses slang; what I'm talking about isn't the usual, "yo homes what up, what we up to tonight?" type of slang (I really couldn't care less), but rather the incorrect grammar that becomes an issue during business hours when taken literally, such as "Our meeting is in a couple of hours", when it's 4 hours away or something. That's the best example I can think of right now, but I think you can understand what I'm saying.

When it comes to anything business related, how you come across in person and via e-mail really portrays who you are and how you handle things. I really can't stand reading poorly written e-mails; some misspellings and punctuation mistakes here and there don't bother me, but it's really the "me and sister goes to the store" type of grammar that tilts me and makes me go WTF you're a manager, you're supposed to be educated.

The "voice" of my interior monologue is just so ****ed right now. Not only its tone but also its rhythm and everything etc.--it's like, ugh. Hopefully (), you know what I mean by that, lol. When I write, I feel as if someone is scraping a knife on a plate. I might be too sensitive to certain things.

E.g., am I the only one who notices the ****ty rhythm of the last paragraph's penultimate sentence? "... feel as if someone is scraping a knife on a plate." Say it aloud. Is it the succession of dactyls, maybe? Sure, it's just a "first-draft sentence," but...ugh.

Anyway, I'm just venting.

Okay, my actual question (not a grammar question): What sort of "voice" does your interior monologue have? Does it vary based on what you're writing? Do you love it or hate it, or whatever?

Wow. Just...wow.

When I start noticing the difference between iambic pentameter or dactylic hexameter...and actually caring about it...shoot me.

(I'm impressed though.)

No, the idea was (any) sudden poetic rhythm in general can (on occasion) be jarring. That was just a totally wild guess as to why the sentence was bothering me. It's not bothering me anymore, though.

LOL. I'm still amazed that your ear actually picks up these rhythms. Are you a right-brain type person (more artistic?). I must deaf to this stuff. I remember studying the Aeneid in high school Latin class and I never could quite pick out the meter of the poem.

No. My brain has both halves intact.

I'm just slowly "hearing it in my head" and listening for the syllables' stresses. It doesn't strike me as that difficult. Given the conditions under which I posted that, I'm not even sure I did it correctly.

I do have a music background.

A funny poem (though it does run on a bit) about the problems of English pronunciation:
http://spelling.wordpress.com/2007/0...pronunciation/

I have an actual punctuation question.

(Passage taken from my freewritten blurbog whatever.)

That passage contains two quotations with question marks; my question is about the second one. The question marks are necessary.

If the second quotation weren't an interrogative sentence, I'd write it like this:

But when the sentence ends with a question mark, do we use a comma? If so, where the **** does it go, on the inside of the quote or the outside? The former seems very awkward and the latter is both a bit awkward and inconsistent with normal rules for placing commas (using the American system). Not using a comma seems weird too. Quoting-by-italicizing is an option, but keeping that quote consistent with other non-italicized quotes might demand not using italics.

This seems trivial, but w/e.

I think the comma works best after the quotation mark, but that's just from a gut feeling. I'd be interested to know where the actual rule can be found.

My intuitive placement of punctuation around quotation marks is inconsistent with the American system, actually, so I'm probably wrong.

ETA:

This person agrees with me! It's certainly not a scholarly source, but it's the only help I've found so far.

I found the actual rule. The comma can be omitted entirely.

Judging by this website's design, that person is from the Cretaceous Period. I feel like I need Netscape Navigator to view this site.

it hurts my brain. ugh

New Years Eve or New Year's Eve?