Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,sci.lang,bit.listserv.words-l
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!news.acsu.buffalo.edu!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!netcom.com!misrael
From: misrael@scripps.edu (Mark Israel)
Subject: Re: Prescriptivism vs. Descriptivism (was: "try and")
Message-ID: <misraelE27B6K.CEu@netcom.com>
Sender: misrael@netcom14.netcom.com
Organization: The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, California, USA
References: <32AB431D.4F5D@lunemere.com> <misraelE260yw.JwF@netcom.com> <32ACB02B.3AA6@sn.no>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 14:06:20 GMT
Lines: 44
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.lang:65918 bit.listserv.words-l:216048

In article <32ACB02B.3AA6@sn.no>, shughes@sn.no (Simon R. Hughes) writes:
> In article <misraelE260yw.JwF@netcom.com>, misrael@scripps.edu (Mark Israel) writes:

>>    Random House asserts that "try and" is acceptable in formal
>> style merely because they have seen it *used* there.  They make
>> *no* attempt to assess what effect that use has on *readers*.
>> This is a fundamental flaw in their "descriptivist" methodology.

   First of all, please note my scare quotes around "descriptivist".
A description that does not attempt to describe readers' reactions
is an incomplete description.

> The moving of grammar from prescriptivism to decriptivism is 
> necessitated by grammarians' wishes to be accepted as a mainstream 
> science. 

   Um, can you name a single descriptive grammarian who was a
prescriptive grammarian earlier in his career?  Prescriptive 
grammarians and descriptive grammarians are two separate groups of
people, with no common tradition.

> A field which calls itself a science HAS to be descriptive.

   I wouldn't dream of disputing that.

   But do you notice how, with all our *scientific* advances, we
can't compose as well as Beethoven, can't paint as well as 
Michelangelo, and can't write as well as Shakespeare?

   Some disciplines are intrinsically arts, not sciences.

> Language changes anyway, should we stand in this change's way or 
> welcome it?

   Sometimes we should do one, and sometimes the other.

   "... the appeal to the catch phrase 'change means life' needs
reconsideration.  Change means death too, and in our own bodies we
take steps to arrest or reverse certain changes by medicine, 
inoculation, surgery, and other strong measures." -- Wilson Follett

--
misrael@scripps.edu			Mark Israel
"Linguistics is not a science (at least, as most linguists practise it)" -- Richard Goerwitz
