undyingking (
undyingking) wrote2008-09-05 11:24 am
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Linguists?
From the BBC news magazine:
"Tesco is changing its checkout signs after coming under criticism from linguists for using "less" rather than "fewer". But it's not just huge, multinational supermarkets that get confused about this grammatical point. The grammatical question of fewer versus less has been raising the hackles of plain English speakers for years."
I see two errors in this excerpt.
(Please note that I'm not saying that there should be no rules in English; that would be ridiculous. What I'm saying is that some of what are claimed as rules -- like less vs fewer, not splitting an infitive, not ending a sentence with a preposition, etc -- are meaningless, hallowed neither by usage tradition nor by innate sense, and frankly pathetic.)
"Tesco is changing its checkout signs after coming under criticism from linguists for using "less" rather than "fewer". But it's not just huge, multinational supermarkets that get confused about this grammatical point. The grammatical question of fewer versus less has been raising the hackles of plain English speakers for years."
I see two errors in this excerpt.
- First, it would be more accurate to say that Tesco has come under criticism not from linguists, but from pedants. (Some of whom may also be linguists, or at least think of themselves as such, but that's not what characterizes them in this context.)
- Second, plain English speakers couldn't give half an etiolated toss about fewer vs less, because they care about clarity of communication rather than smug pseudo-intellectual one-upmanship about fanciful and arbitrary grammatical "rules".
(Please note that I'm not saying that there should be no rules in English; that would be ridiculous. What I'm saying is that some of what are claimed as rules -- like less vs fewer, not splitting an infitive, not ending a sentence with a preposition, etc -- are meaningless, hallowed neither by usage tradition nor by innate sense, and frankly pathetic.)
no subject
Disclaimer: grew up in Essex. Have observed teachers trying to inform pupils that not just their word usage, but their accent is "incorrect".
Further disclaimer: I do it myself, and hence can't really criticise it in others, but I think that often when people say "X is incorrect English", what they really mean is "I wish X were incorrect English". I prefer to think in terms of "better" and "worse" use of language where possible: English does not have an authoritative definition, so where there is genuine disagreement the most one can say is that one side of the debate communicates more effectively than the other.
Next: double negatives for fun, but not no profit.
no subject
???
But they're different things. Syrup is golden and treacle is black. Do some people really use the same word for both?
no subject
But the people I'm talking about call the thing you and I call "(golden) syrup", "treacle", and the thing you and I call "treacle", "black treacle".
This usage has leaked southwards via the fact that neither "treacle sponge" nor "treacle tart" contains anything black: the syrup in them is golden.
no subject
Not where I come from. I've never come across any dessert involving syrup being referred to treacle pudding or tart, only syrup pudding or tart. And similarly all the treacle puddings and tarts I've ever encountered have had treacle in.
Are you sure you're a real southerner?
no subject
Well, I don't come from Waitrose, so if that's the definition then no.
All the recipes in the top 10 google hits for "treacle tart" have golden syrup in them, except one which only has sugar. One of the others does have a small amount of dark treacle.
no subject
That may also be what lies at the subconscious root of my resentment, I suppose. It certainly grated at the time!