Search options (Page 20 of 30)

I'm new to this discussion- sorry to see it degenerate.

I don't think

I hereby withdraw from this discussion

On a purely practical level, a discussion which converges on a few possible solutions is more likely to convince Sol & Co to change things that a discussion in which analysis of proposed solutions leads to criticism of each other's motives, approaches, attitudes and alma maters.

(Ducks.)

even more irrelevant invective and personal attack

blah, blah, blah.

As far as the number of comments trailing off as you get to the middle of a chapter:  There are several reasons.  One is that the reviewer is simply getting tired.  Another is that the reviewer has played the same tune in many places, and it is of little benefit to the author to keep pounding.  When I cut off for this reason, I say so and offer to come back if the author wants me to continue.

Another reason is that the chapter is really, really good and the reviewer has stopped reading as a reviewer and is reading as a reader.  In rare cases, this happens.  The author should be pleased when it does, although it does mean that nits get missed.

And, finally, there is the reviewer doing a cheap review for points.  I can only suggest that authors bank some points so they don't have to rush to get points to post their chapters.

Charles F Bell wrote:

and what incentive is there to go on?

Oh, I don't know, what about providing a decent review in hopes you might receive one in return or merely to be helpful to the author. As stated earlier, if they only want points there is no incentive to go on period and they will do the very minimum. The shorter work offers less points, the longer work offers more points so they can decide whether they prefer to put their best foot forward or give short shift merely for the points.

Charles F Bell wrote:

And if the author offers up only 400 words because that is the artistic demand, well, lucky the reviewer is that he does less work for the same amount of points.

That is simply not so. How many times do you need to be told that a longer work provides more points; you review 400 words you get less points than if you review 1000 words and you get even more points as you move up the ladder length.

Changing the system to accrue points is not going to change their behavior in giving the minimum to get by. And it won't alter the fact that most authors will recognize the minimum effort and take that into account in any reciprocal relationship; they may follow suit or they may stick to their principles and give their best effort regardless. Take care. Vern

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

njc wrote:

My understanding is that a descriptivist grammarian seeks to find the patterns that we use in organizing and arranging words, ...  By this definition, a descriptivist studying those languages may need other categories.)

I call him simply a grammarian.

njc wrote:

My understanding is that a prescriptivist grammarian, working from some blend of knowledge of the language as it is spoken by a broad range of individuals and his own preferences, judgement, and prejudices, provides instruction in the use of the language.  In chosing to advocate some constructions over others, the prescriptivist is taking the role of arbiter of the language.

And I call them Corra and their womyn of the '90's.

njc wrote:

Note that I have tried to leave aside questions of whether a description or prescription favors some groups of people over others, or some types of ideas over others.  I acknowledge that these are valid questions, but not useful in determining the meaning of these two words, and the antithesis that they appear to represent.  I hold that ... to have those words we need to have substantial agreement on their meanings. ...

Predict how successful Corra and their womyn of the '90' will be in eliminating grammatical gender. This is not a yes-or-no question but rather one that requires some historical precedent. Inserting new words like latino and african-american which otherwise would not evolve naturally  is not at all the same as changing grammar. We no more understand how grammar changes than we know how Man evolved from some species of simian now extinct,  but it certainly was not by direction of some orchestrators.

....

But introducing new words and meaning is not an issue of grammar, but of lexicon.

I seem to recall (am I in error?) that through at least the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries there were people who sought to instruct people in the language as a certain group spoke it.  That certain group was generally the wealthy and powerful, and the instruction included grammar, lexicon, and diction.  These people studied the 'inferior' dialects only for the purpose of reducing their use; they prescribed the 'approved' dialect.  It seems reasonable and useful to call these people prescriptionists, although their activities reached beyond grammar.

In my own time, it seems to me that the teachers who taught me how to know whether to you 'he and I' or 'him and me' (and never 'him and I' or 'me and him')--truly matters of grammar--were prescriptivists, though you might prefer simply to call them teachers.

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

Predict how successful Corra and their womyn of the '90' will be in eliminating grammatical gender. This is not a yes-or-no question but rather one that requires some historical precedent. Inserting new words like latino and african-american which otherwise would not evolve naturally  is not at all the same as changing grammar. We no more understand how grammar changes than we know how Man evolved from some species of simian now extinct,  but it certainly was not by direction of some orchestrators.

Even many simplest (and logical) changes in spelling and punctuation suggested by Noah Webster in a time of widespread illiteracy were rejected or ignored, and that is at the periphery of grammar.

Hi Charles

I am open-minded and prepared to evaluate positions beyond my current assumptions and understanding; but isn't the above simply confusing grammar with language?

Where grammar is the language law of the day and language is how we communicate today.

I mean, when the North Americans change the English language from the English of the British and Australians, New Zealanders and to an extent Canadians wherever they feel they'd like to  i.e. substituting 'Z' for 'S'  in industrialise, industrialize etc. And dropping the the 'U' within labour, labor etc. And the 'double L words' i.e. marvellous, marvellous etc. The 'ow for 'ough' words like, plough, plow. And the numerical and scientific re-wording i.e. milliard to billion etc. And the 'ea' words, paediatric, pediatric etc. and the re-phrased or alternate wording, spelled, spelt etc. ...

Societies change beyond nationality and alternate spelling. Society's views, attitudes, tolerances, understanding and interpretations are dynamic and shift with each generation or even within each generation.  Surely "the Corras' and their womyn of the '90' are a reflection of this? They seek to amend the grammar of the past to fit the language of today. The language driven by society or needing to change in order to articulate our lives within current society in a manner that will be understood by said current society.

That said; the prescriptivist and descriptivist are an irrelevant categorisation and despite being full of self-importance, they don't really influence the evolution of a language to any more extent than plastic surgeons and snappy dressers influence the evolution of human biology. 

Or is this exactly what you were saying when rather than categorise a 'prescriptivist' and a 'descriptivist' you categorise a 'corra' and a 'grammarian?'

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

No, that is not it all.  The anti-concept is created for the purpose to deceive. It is not using a nuanced or alternate meaning but an anti-meaning to the word. As I said, the Progressives/Socialists have been adept at this ...

If you reject the word as well as the anti-concept for which it is used, you make it impossible for me even to ask where the deception is in the terms 'prescriptivist' or 'descriptivist', which makes it hard for me to learn to what you are objecting.  What is the deceit or false claim?  What is the lie?

Remember too that assumptions and beliefs are bound up in terms (e.g. human being/human life).

You may reject the beliefs and assumptions, but you will never convince anyone if you so completely reject the words that you will not even name them to refute them.  You will never even succeed in telling people what you do believe.

All of this is my belief and opinion, and perhaps my limitations.  But my limitations are part of who I am, and if you mean to communicate to me, you will most likely succeed if you communicate to who I am, rather than who you would like me to become.