My least favorite solecism is the misuse of "whom" in the subject position, almost always when the author is misled by an intervening phrase or clause or by a preceding preposition:
“by historians whom I must believe have never looked at it”
“delivered to whomever could be reached in an increasingly literate public”
Examples from a piece by Marilynne Robinson, whom I nevertheless revere.
"Hopefully" is fine, though, in its common usage, unless we also want to claim that "Frankly" or "Luckily" & dozens of other such adverbs should be proscribed. It is not even clear that there is a historical case to be made here.
I am usually “reticent” to wade into the descriptivist waters, but it must be allowed that usage does indeed change over time. I just said to someone, of a movie, "It's awful." I didn't mean it inspired awe.
I’ve effectively given up on my colloquial speech being grammatically respectable--I’m too much a product of my generation, educationally and culturally, and my mostly uneducated southern father and moderately educated midwestern mother--but I do strive to cleanse my writing of such oversights. Many of the things you list here are so atmospheric that I have never considered them though you’re obviously right. For example, “He invited my wife and I” is something that if I had never heard it I would immediately recognize as the incorrect use of a nominative for a direct object when what one wanted was an accusative, but the malpractice is so ubiquitous I’ve never paid it enough attention to realize that.
I think many of these mistakes come from lacking public schools. I remember being frequently corrected when saying "my mom and me are going to lunch" or some such phrase, but I don't think I was ever told why it was wrong, and so "X and me" just starts to sound taboo. In fact, I don't really recall receiving much formal grammatical training at all throughout most of my years in small town public schools. So it's no surprise that people overcorrect based off of "feel" when that's all they've ever been given.
". . . with a febrile gleam in my eye that would have you nervously backing away from me and feeling for the doorknob behind you if you could see it."
Reading this, and trying to imagine your eye with such a gleam, made me laugh aloud.
"Human personality, community, society, and culture are all informed, sustained, and determined by language; everything we are and can be, everything we think and know and believe, is woven from words; even our most immediate sensuous experiences are ultimately mediated to us through concepts shaped by signs."
Is this satirical, as well? It sounds right to me.
Can anybody recommend (apart from David's writing guide) any resources or guidance to somebody who wants to learn English grammar? David's comments on style guides such as Strunk and White's and Pinker's have made me weary of autodidactiaclly finding myself in a dark dungeon of spider webs that I am unable to escape from. Any guidance would be much appreciated!
It is a truth universally acknowledged that it is only a short road that leads from grammatical laxity to cannibalism, immediately turned my mind to "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife." A woman who's writing has been described by my favorite Concordian heretic and Transcendentalist as "vulgar in tone, sterile in artistic invention and imprisoned by the wretchedness of English society. Suicide being more respectable than the monomania of marriageableness. I would selfishly enjoy an article where you expand upon your favorite 19th century American writers.
My least favorite solecism is the misuse of "whom" in the subject position, almost always when the author is misled by an intervening phrase or clause or by a preceding preposition:
“by historians whom I must believe have never looked at it”
“delivered to whomever could be reached in an increasingly literate public”
Examples from a piece by Marilynne Robinson, whom I nevertheless revere.
"Hopefully" is fine, though, in its common usage, unless we also want to claim that "Frankly" or "Luckily" & dozens of other such adverbs should be proscribed. It is not even clear that there is a historical case to be made here.
I am usually “reticent” to wade into the descriptivist waters, but it must be allowed that usage does indeed change over time. I just said to someone, of a movie, "It's awful." I didn't mean it inspired awe.
I’ve effectively given up on my colloquial speech being grammatically respectable--I’m too much a product of my generation, educationally and culturally, and my mostly uneducated southern father and moderately educated midwestern mother--but I do strive to cleanse my writing of such oversights. Many of the things you list here are so atmospheric that I have never considered them though you’re obviously right. For example, “He invited my wife and I” is something that if I had never heard it I would immediately recognize as the incorrect use of a nominative for a direct object when what one wanted was an accusative, but the malpractice is so ubiquitous I’ve never paid it enough attention to realize that.
Bravo! You have embiggened my vocabulary with your cromulent satyricon.
I think many of these mistakes come from lacking public schools. I remember being frequently corrected when saying "my mom and me are going to lunch" or some such phrase, but I don't think I was ever told why it was wrong, and so "X and me" just starts to sound taboo. In fact, I don't really recall receiving much formal grammatical training at all throughout most of my years in small town public schools. So it's no surprise that people overcorrect based off of "feel" when that's all they've ever been given.
But I do like those "vittles" -- sorry, just a pronunciation hack.
". . . with a febrile gleam in my eye that would have you nervously backing away from me and feeling for the doorknob behind you if you could see it."
Reading this, and trying to imagine your eye with such a gleam, made me laugh aloud.
"Human personality, community, society, and culture are all informed, sustained, and determined by language; everything we are and can be, everything we think and know and believe, is woven from words; even our most immediate sensuous experiences are ultimately mediated to us through concepts shaped by signs."
Is this satirical, as well? It sounds right to me.
Summary, according to my classical education (excuse any vulgarity):
Hedley Lamarr: My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives.
Taggart: God darnit, Mr. Lamarr, you use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore.
Can anybody recommend (apart from David's writing guide) any resources or guidance to somebody who wants to learn English grammar? David's comments on style guides such as Strunk and White's and Pinker's have made me weary of autodidactiaclly finding myself in a dark dungeon of spider webs that I am unable to escape from. Any guidance would be much appreciated!
And, as always, thanks for all you do David!
It is a truth universally acknowledged that it is only a short road that leads from grammatical laxity to cannibalism, immediately turned my mind to "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife." A woman who's writing has been described by my favorite Concordian heretic and Transcendentalist as "vulgar in tone, sterile in artistic invention and imprisoned by the wretchedness of English society. Suicide being more respectable than the monomania of marriageableness. I would selfishly enjoy an article where you expand upon your favorite 19th century American writers.