Grammar Guru

[rpeate]

There is a certain freelance editor on Facebook who does very well, and good for him. He lives off his editing. He thinks he is a great editor, and others think he is a great editor. I do not think he is a great editor. I own a book he edited, and I found so many errors in it I could hardly believe someone paid him to edit it. He and I

Comments

[cacahuate]

Hey, whaddaya know-I agree with you on most of this!

Disagree on 5 and 8; semi-agree on 3 (setting it off with commas is fine if it’s her only book, but you need BOTH of them) and 7 (I think the “example...” style is also fine, but it needs a trailing space); agree on the rest.

[rpeate]

5. You disagree that the word means what it means? I suggest you look it up. However, the modern dictionary will likely have the new, perverted meaning, because dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive, as you are undoubtedly aware. I further suggest a dictionary from before 1970.

8. "Sentences" is plural. Something plural is not "one" reason but more than one.

3. You misunderstand me. We agree.

7. I was taught in school the spaces are needed. Since then standards have declined.

[cacahuate]

5. I think words mean what people at large agree they mean, and that it’s appropriate for dictionaries to be descriptive. Sometimes I do have a personal preference against a particular newly common meaning, and may advise against it, but this is not such a case, nor do I believe that in such cases my preference is somehow “correct.” (And supposing I did share your preference on “incredible,” I would echo cruiser’s point that this example is still arguably an appropriate use.)

8. Linking verbs must only agree with their subjects, not their complements.

7. Even if “...” is a lesser standard, there are still better and worse ways to execute it.

[rpeate]

5. I think it's appropriate for dictionaries to be descriptive too; again you misunderstand me. I also think it is appropriate for us to use descriptive tools when we investigate meaning. In this case, the dictionaries of yesterday and today will illustrate my point, which is that the meaning was and usually is being perverted. This is not a "preference". The meaning of a word has been twisted such that users of the word do not even know what the word they are using means.

8. Let me try again, with a simpler example. If I say, "Cars are a cause of pollution," I am being grammatically incorrect. If I turn it around, the error becomes more readily apparent: "A cause of pollution are cars." Perhaps you can see that is not correct? A grammatically correct construction may be reversed and remain correct. "A cause of pollution is car exhaust." Or: "Cars are among the causes of pollution." Nouns and verbs must agree.

[cacahuate]

5. I didn’t misunderstand; I just wasn’t completely sure of your stance on dictionaries, so I wanted to be clear. Where is the line? I’m sure you yourself use words whose meanings have changed (or “been perverted”) long ago from their original meanings. Should we restrict the use of all words to their first meanings only? If not, when are new meanings acceptable?

8. No, that sentence is fine. Your turned-around version simply introduces a separate error: the subject and verb do not agree. “A cause of pollution is cars” is fine, and I think most thoughtful writers would write it before writing “A cause of pollution is the car.” (The latter is also fine, and I don’t mean to suggest that writers who’d write it are not thoughtful; I’m simply thinking only of thoughtful writers rather than anyone who’s ever put a pen to paper.) There is no rule that all nouns must agree with the verb-only the subject must. It is perfectly acceptable to say, e.g., “He loves strawberries,” even though “strawberries” is a plural noun. That copulative “to be

[rpeate]

5. Sigh. I wonder when I will stop receiving this question, over which I unfriended dicedork, sick as I was of his pestering. The line is logic. In other words, the word "stop" may not suddenly mean "go" just because everyone decides it does, which is what he (and perhaps you) argued it should. No, no, a thousand times no! The prefix "in-" means "not". "Incredible", "incompatible", "incorrigible", "intangible". None of these words means "chocolate", though one might wish it did. No matter how much one wishes it did, it does not. Each word means the negative of the adjective after the prefix.

8. You do misunderstand me, though you think you do not. I never said all nouns must agree with the verb; only a simpleton would think that. Again, might does not make right. It is a wonder to me that grammar is still taught, since no one cares about it.

"You can't educate the ignorant," my father used to say, and he is continually proved right.

[cacahuate]

5. But generally when word meanings evolve, there is some sort of logic relating the new meaning to the old; they’re rarely anything like as arbitrary as “go” for “stop” or “chocolate” for “intangible.” In this case, it’s pretty easy to understand the progression. In the past, people said things like “incredibly smart” meaning literally “smart to such a degree as to be hard to believe.” Because such a degree would be a large degree, it’s understandable that people would begin to understand and use “incredibly” as an intensifier. So I don’t see a lack of logic. If it’s the discrepancy with the literal roots that irks you, again I’m sure you use words that have such a discrepancy; off the top of my head, you probably don’t use “intense” strictly to mean “stretched” or “strained.” (Amusingly, the word “intensifier” itself is based on an intensifier that was not originally strictly an intensifier

[rpeate]

No, I am sorry. You are always welcome to comment. I thank you for your cheerful note. And now, I must to bed.

[rpeate]

I have yet to read your next comment, because there is more I wish to add before I do.

I do not wish to be obnoxious; I will say that as long as you know what you are doing, anything goes. That has always been my position, which any look back at my countless debates will reveal. You clearly know what you are doing, to the extent that you have been told what to do and choose to disregard it anyway. You are not ignorant. I am sorry I said you were. I simply tire of these discussions (I don't mean with you), which are almost always fruitless.

Yes, it is very popular to say "Cars are a cause of pollution," et cetera. But let's dig deeper, shall we? In these cases, another verb is being lost. Using "are" is intellectual shorthand, laziness if you will. It is meant that cars constitute a cause. To say "Cars constitute a cause of pollution" would be grammatically correct. No one wants to be bothered thinking long or hard enough to choose the correct verb. "Are" is used instead as a catch-all substitute. No one minds except