0
MrPedantic Posted 21 years ago
Linguistics Studies

Prescriptive Grammarians - Who Are They?

0 In another thread, where the difference between 'I wish I was' and 'I wish I were' was being discussed, a member made the following interesting comment: 02br
01blockquote
00The older prescriptive grammars were simply wrong. Their analysis was wrong and the proof they offered was wrong. It was just one more rule that was wrong from the outset. The rule actually changed hundreds of years ago and yet these prescriptive grammars kept on misanalyzing this for centuries. 12blockquote
12br
02br
00I've only been a member of this forum for a few months; but I've quite often heard such comments. 02br
02br
00Now I would like to know who these older prescriptive grammarians might be, and what their analyses look like. 02br
02br
00(Interestingly, I've often read similar comments in the works of David Crystal and Steven Pinker. Crystal sometimes quotes a brief passage from an original text; but Pinker never seems to, for some reason. I suppose you can't read everything you comment on.) 02br
02br
00Anyway, it's all very baffling. Can anyone help? Here's my shopping list, for what it's worth: 02br
02br
001. The names of these older prescriptive grammarians, who have misanalysed the question over 'centuries'. 02br
002. A transcription of a sample analysis. 02br
003. A commentary that explains where the transcribed analysis goes wrong. 02br
004. Details of their 'proofs'. 02br
005. Details of the change in the 'rule', hundreds of years ago. 02br
006. Details of the other 'rule', that was 'wrong from the outset'. 02br
02br
00(Qy: Is the outset of the rule in #5 the same as the outset of the rule in #6? Guidance would be appreciated here.) 02br
02br
00I look forward to reading a wealth of original material. 02br
02br
00MrP 0-
  

Top answer

0I hope, Mr. , this isn't a case of "where angels fear to thread"! 05002br 02br 00CJ 010id1

— CalifJim

  • 0I hope, Mr.
  • , this isn't a case of "where angels fear to thread"!
  • 05002br 02br 00CJ 010id1
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

47 Answers
0
0I hope, Mr. P., this isn't a case of "where angels fear to thread"! 05002br
02br
00CJ 010id1
0
0
0Can we argue from First Cause? 0-
0
0
0 ... First Cause of Aristotle ...? 02br
00Sure! We could! Let's discuss about it (later). 02br
00I'm interested, especially, in your view, in the first place, Mister Micawber ... we're looking forward to hearing your comments. 02br
02br
00Actually I know nothing about the difference between prescriptive/non-prescriptive grammars, to tell the truth. I
0
0
0 I do not remember any names. But this is what I remember from my grammar course. Writing a grammar for a language started when scholars wanted to record the rules of Latin before it was going to have no speakers (17th century I guess, you guys should know better than me)(there were very few grammars written before that time). The problem began when the scholars of other languages, including E
0
0
0 Wonderful, LL, thank you! It's a great help – esp. the names. That provides a lead. It was very good of you to type it all out. 02br
02br
00I wonder whether these were the grammarians that Katsu-san and Rancho had in mind. It would be interesting to see the original texts, and compare them with the comments that have been made. I'll see if I can find them online. 02br
0
0
0 Good luck MrP with your search. Another example of a prespective grammar rule that I remember reads that "and" must not be used before "et cetera". Because as you know, the Latin "et" means "and" in English. 02br
00I do not think that Ranchhand and Katsusan mean a specific book or author. However, if you want more examples you can refer to Palmer. The approach of most of the gram
0
0
0 Well, I haven't had a great deal of luck. I've found many derogatory references to '17th/18th century prescriptive grammarians', but little in the way of original source material. 02br
02br
00In fact, I would say that most of the references I've found consist mostly of more or less blatant plagiarism of Pinker, Crystal, and Wikipedia. 02br
02br
00I'm b
0
0
0 I hope it wouldn't interfere with your discussion if I introduce some data about Russian, briefly, as one of case studies. I'll try at least (it will take some time, though). 02br
02br
00I felt the same when I studied this matter: there was a much too little reference to original source material. 02br
00See you later. 0-
0
0
0 01blockquote
00The older prescriptive grammars were simply wrong12blockquote
12br
02br
00I have a silly thought. Shouldn't descriptivists simply describe what prescriptivists do? Who are we (assuming we are all descriptivists) to prescribe how they prescribe? Doesn't that make us prescriptive descriptivists? LOL! 02br
02br
0
0
0 Hello julielai ! I like your thought. 02br
00The only difference is whether he is aware of his own theory or not, maybe! 0-
0

Related Questions