Pedantry vs. Humpty-Dumptyism
Columba_in_a_Currach
Shipmate
I have a a frequent joke with my students. When they come into class, I ask how they are. Almost invariably, they respond, "I'm good, thanks." When I'm feeling both pedantic and puckish (which is not always), I respond "I'm glad to hear it, I hope you are also well." It's a joke. I do understand the difference between formal and colloquial English. I also believe that is part of my job to teach them the difference between the two.
But I have to say that I'm beyond tired of a senior colleague prattling on about how good she is a getting students to write "thesises." I've checked, and no English dictionary recognizes that as a valid form of "theses." And most recently, at the end of a very condescending email from my boss, she ordered me to get a report to "x, y, and I" before a certain date. That's neither colloquial nor correct.
I work in education. I have a strong feeling that both of these people look down on me as under-qualified. And yet, it is they who write like that...
Perhaps illiteracy is useful for promotion.
But I have to say that I'm beyond tired of a senior colleague prattling on about how good she is a getting students to write "thesises." I've checked, and no English dictionary recognizes that as a valid form of "theses." And most recently, at the end of a very condescending email from my boss, she ordered me to get a report to "x, y, and I" before a certain date. That's neither colloquial nor correct.
I work in education. I have a strong feeling that both of these people look down on me as under-qualified. And yet, it is they who write like that...
Perhaps illiteracy is useful for promotion.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
--"Theses" is Greek, and something like 70% of English words are derived of Latin. (Per long-ago Latin class.) So people aren't sure what's going on. And "thesis" singular is one letter away from "theses" plural, which adds to the confusion.
It can be hard enough to figure out when to add an "s" to a word that already ends in "s", in order to form a plural or possessive. Strunk and White's Elements Of Style has different approaches for different words. IIRC, tl;dr: go ahead and add it to most such words; but leave it off for some particular words, and just add an apostrophe to make a possessive.
E.g., use the possessive Jesus' instead of Jesus's.
--"I" and "me" trip many people up. There was a meme that "I" is usually the right form, especially if you want to sound educated. So if a person gets into a tangle, they may try to straighten it out by throwing "I" in there.
An example I often cite was an article that appeared in the Globe and Mail's Report on Business some many years ago, entitled something like "The Five Million Dollar Comma." The article was about a legal dispute in which the issue turned on the Oxford comma in a contract. Judgement cost the party defending the absence of the comma $5m. Some pedantry. Some comma.
It's over-correction. Quite common.
My spelling is passive aggressive because I stubbornly refuse to use z in words like realise, aggrandise, and the like. I don't check. I just refuse to use z.
The wording was and the question was should it be read as
- canning,
- processing,
- preserving,
- freezing,
- drying,
- marketing,
- storing,
- packing for shipment or distribution
orIt was held that packing (whether for shipment or distribution) was covered by the legislation, but distribution was not covered.
The courts operate on the presumption that legislators mean what they have said in legislation, and in that case presumed that if the legislation had intended the meaning that the comma would have clarified, then a comma would have been included.
As a general rule it's better to sound like you neither know nor care than like you care but don't know. Nine tenths of objectionable usages come from wanting to sound more formal or 'educated' than the context requires.
Which is fortunate, as I was dragged through the English educational system in the 70s and early 80s, and consequently learned no grammar at all. Having said that, I will die on a hill made from Oxford commas.
It annoys me too. I thought it was the norm amongst younger, not so well educated people, but those with a more expensive education acquired at a higher level in an earlier time to my admittedly old-fashioned education, also appear prone to it. Maybe they are trying to fit it. I doubt the younger generation are fooled for one moment.
The response I’ve heard in the past (but never quite dared use) is “I'm enquiring about your health, not your morals”.
I share your thoughts about the usages of your colleagues.
Probably best avoiding smart arse responses really.
It is not a good look. Take people as they are. If you don't understand ask for clarification.
If you, like my mother, decide that people are not worth listening to because of their accent, their dialect, the words they use and the grammar they drop, then eventually you end up talking only to yourself.
Perhaps, being tediously pedantic is bad for promotion.
Anyway, is "a getting" a dialect form or just a peculiar archaism?
It's also easier to say. Jesus's sounds like you've swallowed a snake.
Comrade!
Again, personally I don't think it matters. It seems to be more consistent with the additional s.
Actually I have a feeling I might have even seen "Jesu's feet"..
Well, the issue of clarification extends beyond law. I recall a classmate of mine (Gr 8?) who, when we were studying the Caribbean, was in a constant quandary about Trinidad and Tobago and St Kitts and Nevis. Now in Canada one of our provinces has changed its official name to Newfoundland and Labrador. Those are just some easy examples. There were times when I was studying philosophy and I'd pause over a comma and think, Is that what I mean? Then there's that great (apocryphal?) line from Flaubert, "I spent the morning putting in a comma, and the afternoon taking it out."
I'd say that's either pedantry of a rare and high form, or showing off.
It looks like it was a reasonably common spelling used by famous protestant hymn writers of the 18 century. I wonder why.
It was a shock to learn that Jesus is not a word/spelling used in many languages.
Virtually none of our ecclesial/religious words are. And precious few of them are even halfway-decent representations of the original Hebrew/Greek/Latin/Aramaic/Syriac/Whatevs.
In my corner of the U.K. (Essex), “alright?” Or “y’alright?” means hello, at least the first time you say it. After that, it might mean how are you, but it doesn’t always. It’s a change that’s come in really quickly over the past few years, and it took me (Essex resident for most of my life) ages to get used to it. I don’t tend to use it though.
Typical Essex conversation goes like this,
“Dan! Alright?”
“Jim! Alright?”
“Alright mate?”
“Yeah, thanks. You?”
“Good thanks”
Sometimes there are several rounds of alright.
Yes, I know that now. It has taken a long time to really plumb the depths of the ignorance that swirled about in the kinds of Protestant churches I attended.
People here frequently greet each other with "alright mate" and "alright then buddy?".
But I have heard people ironically saying "alright-y then" when responding to something daft. Even unironically people sometimes say "alright then" for example when they've finished doing something and need to start something else.
One could make cases for instances where the Oxford coma is actually useful beyond preference and pedantry, but IME those are far fewer than the cases where it isn't. And many times where it is helpful, a rewording could easily bring clarity.
I don't know where you're at. Surely saying the opposite of what you mean is universal in the English language. "Alrighty then" as an ironic (sarcastic) way of saying "you're full of shit" is an example of this. "Alright then" to move on to the next thing is a subset of the usage I mentioned of "let's go." Amping oneself up to move on.
But why reword when just sticking in a comma does the trick? Sheer laziness alone would favor the Oxford comma over twisting something into a "kind of nonsense up with which I shall not put" workaround. The only reason, as I understand it, that the Oxford comma dropped out of use was to save typesetting and printing costs. Which is why it is forbidden int he AP stylebook (used by newspapers and magazines) and not the Chicago manual (used by book publishers). The former are in a hurry, the latter are not.
To Mousethief and Blahblah:
The thing about 'Jesu' vs. 'Jesus' is that Jesu was once in common usage (including colloquial so far as we can tell), e.g., Fluellen in Henry V, IV.i., (though Fluellen then goes on to display his learning) cf. Canterbury's elevated disquisition (I.ii.) on succession in Salic Law. (A joke that never gets stale, for me.) I can't think of an example of Jesu in the KJV (help, please), but the committee quite deliberately chose a style that was dated at the time of the translation and assemblage, throwing themselves back by about 50 years, to achieve that feel of timelessness, a t'was ever thus - ness'. Jesu certainly appears in the BCP. I've seen explanations of Jesu that it came into English from the Latin (gen., dat., abl., voc.), so sort of a macaronic usage.
I've never seen "Jesu's feet" (not saying that it doesn't exist), but that would be 'doubling up' on the genitive. Sort of like the way English doubles up on some foreign plurals, like, "I'd like to order three paninis" where panini is already plural.
We're not alone in this. German did (still does? don't know) the same, declining Jesus latinly in the midst of German, e.g., Die Sieben Worte Jesu Christi am Keuz.
Archaisms in certain contexts, I think, are quite fine.
I'm in the West of England. Here we'd say "I don't know where you are" or "I don't know where you are from".
"I don't know where you are at" sounds a bit like you are aggressively saying "I don't know which planet you are calling in from but over here in planet sanity, we would do this.."
Yeah, but a very straightforward Greek plural and one with no accepted English alternative. I do feel pedantic pluralizing metropolis as metropoleis, and would certainly not be phased by metropolises. But one crucial difference is that English dictionaries accept both. There are other areas where plurals are confusing. I was taught it was "antennas for radios but antennae for insects," but I have no idea how widely observed that rule is.
But I don't like bad usage from people who are condescending to me, especially when they are "Educators" with a capital E (I am not an "Educator," but just a humble teacher - a title that, after all, was good enough for Socrates and Jesus but apparently not for graduates from ed schools).
I think maybe your irritation with the Powers that Be is expressing itself as grammatical irritation.
Yes, how humble to compare oneself to Jesus and Socrates! :killingme:
Wait, you are being intentionally humorous, right?
I was referencing the late great Jacques Barzun who, when teaching at Columbia, disdained the title "professor" and despised "educator," saying that "'teacher' was good enough for Socrates and Jesus and it's good enough for me." (I paraphrase, because I don't have his book Teacher in America on hand).
But she is a sweetie.
I find that I could get irritated by the absolute twaddle she comes out with, but it is easier just to laugh along with her.
It is probably worth saying that my meetings with her are a highlight of the week. Good stuff.
“Today I went to lunch with my roommates, Tom, and Molly.” The pedant Oxford comma defenders would say that this makes it clear that Tom and Molly are not your roommates. But in the context in which such a sentence is typically used, it would already be clear. And one could simply rewrite that to "Today I went to lunch with Tom, Molly and my roommmates." Which is more clear because it does not rely on someone seeing the comma.
From grammarist.com Though, I would argue that even the second example is irrelevant because anyone reading those sentences who does not understand that brownies are not typically fried is likely missing more understanding than just that.
After all, when speaking one would say the sentence and expect understanding.