tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6737851275453020904.post1194709398814779142..comments2024-03-08T14:27:48.599-08:00Comments on albertnet: The Grammar WarsDana Alberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13488621586586091954noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6737851275453020904.post-9358075962934766082013-06-02T13:44:29.310-07:002013-06-02T13:44:29.310-07:00For a rebuttal to the comments above, click here:
...For a rebuttal to the comments above, click here:<br />http://www.albertnet.us/2013/06/more-war-of-words.htmlDana Alberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13488621586586091954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6737851275453020904.post-36265072840269281562013-05-13T23:11:45.548-07:002013-05-13T23:11:45.548-07:00Wow.Wow.darwinianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00154417210746759745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6737851275453020904.post-79076051655626516372013-05-09T18:49:07.600-07:002013-05-09T18:49:07.600-07:00Oh, and the American Heritage Dictionary? Total cr...Oh, and the American Heritage Dictionary? Total crap. I looked up "irregardless" in it, found it, and then threw it away. "Bungled affectation" is only legitimate if you can successfully defend "irregardless."<br /><br />[Heh. For those of you who know Dana really well, this is the proverbial birthday cake covered in ants.]Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12979956425600899566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6737851275453020904.post-48242768901094543382013-05-09T18:36:19.949-07:002013-05-09T18:36:19.949-07:00I've been duped! Where's the grammar?! Shi...I've been duped! Where's the grammar?! Shibboleths and marketing!<br /><br />The suffix -al is perfectly fine and acceptable to form adjectives, nouns, and verbal actions. "Artisanal" is certainly a real word and perhaps the single best word to connote that certain type of Bay Area hipster pretension that we love to hate. The beauty of the word is that the connotation is there whether intentional or not, which leaves it to the listener to determine "Do I like this person, or don't I?" It's very helpful. It is probably one of the most useful words I never use for its meaning. <br /><br />And for process[ease], I am not bothered by it. Not in the least. Processe[es] can occasionally be a mouthful, but that's not a real excuse for adults who can annunciate and aren't drunk. Those who say process[ease] almost always reference the noun and not the verb. The noun is frequently used in some quasi-scientific context and the [ease] is consistent with the pronunciation of the plural forms of analysis, neurosis, prognosis, and so on. That is, the different pronunciations do have some utility to distinguish meanings. "This device pr[aw]cess[es] widgets by different pr[oh]cess[ease] depending upon which buttons you press."<br /><br />I have heard pr[oh]cess[ease] quite a bit and suspect I may have used it in that quasi-scientific context — I don't remember using it, however, and it sounds funny saying it, so I'm really not sure — but I have never heard it pronounced that way when used as a verb.<br /><br />And since we're bringing it, do my poor eyes deceive me or are you adding two spaces after every period? From Robert Bringhurst's "The Elements of Typographical Style," which I highly recommend:<br /><br />"In the nineteenth century, which was a dark and inflationary age in typography and type design, many compositors were encouraged to stuff extra space between sentences. Generations of twentieth-century typists were then taught to do the same, by hitting the spacebar twice after every period. Your typing as well as your typesetting will benefit from unlearning this quaint Victorian habit."<br /><br />Isn't grammar itself a Victorian invention? Or is that spelling?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12979956425600899566noreply@blogger.com