Linguists?

[undyingking]

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.

• 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".
  

I've never understood why so many English-speakers seem keen to stifle their language -- the most versatile, flexible, powerful and expressive in the world. I'm pretty sure though that it is a social / intellectual insecurity thing -- if you know a bunch of made-up signifiers by which you can claim that you are "right" and lots of other people are "wrong", you mark yourself out as somehow better than the norm.

(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.)

Comments

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

I didn't think I was making that argument? -- although maybe my own clarity is rather lacking...

Pesonally I feel that usage should be our arbiter.

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

Personally I feel that usage should be our arbiter.

I like this approach, but not in the context of correctness metrics.

If people want to evolve usage they can do so whether or not it's correct. What's the motivation for adjusting our concept of correctness. What do we gain?

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Ah, well I don't really believe in correctness metrics in that sense. I think the language is defined by its usage, so anything sufficiently used is de facto correct.

[a-llusive.livejournal.com]

Sufficiently used over time.
Otherwise 'like' would be considered to equal 'ahem' as well as its other significances.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Absolutely.

[floralaetifica.livejournal.com]

So Tescos could have written, '10 items or less, innit'? To borrow the classic Radio 4 whinge.

How about 'aint'? That's ancient. 100-200 years ago, even the upper crust used it. But they didn't consider it 'correct' then, and we don't consider it 'correct' now.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

we don't consider it 'correct' now

I do, in contexts where it's the dominant usage. Which is a limited set of contexts, but they exist.

Of course there are people who believe that there's only one correct version of English, and that any variation on that, be it dialect, argot or whatever, is essentially wrong, but I find that a pretty narrow and unappealing intellectual position.

[mr-malk.livejournal.com]

Of course there are people who believe that there's only one correct version of English, and that any variation on that, be it dialect, argot or whatever, is essentially wrong

There are people like that, it's true, but I think that we would actually find common ground in believing that they are kidding themselves. The thing is, dialects and argots are suitable to their circumstances; not to formal usage, which will be received by people outside that context. I consider that a sign used by a national supermarket in stores across the country to be formal, and therefore one that should be beholden to formally accepted standards of grammar and spelling.

Obviously there are times when words come into the 'core' language from the fringes as they do from other languages, but just because that is the case, it doesn't mean that no one should point out when something is wrong by the current standard, even if a lot of people don't realise it is wrong. I might even go as far as to say that the more people there are who don't recognise the distinction, the more reason there is to draw attention to it!

[brixtonbrood.livejournal.com]

I think for 'correct' in that example we could perhaps substitute "appropriate for neutral written communication (such as a public sign)"? Then almost everyone would agree with you about "ain't" - less/fewer would still be open to debate.

[floralaetifica.livejournal.com]

Alright. How about 'should of' instead of 'should have'?

For me it doesn't get more 'just plain wrong' than that - but it certainly is common.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

I'm very happy with that line of thinking: it seems obvious that different registers of usage are approriate for different contexts. So "10 items or less" is moving into appropriateness in the context of supermarkets, but not everyone feels it's got there yet: that's fine, I don't agree but I respect the opinion. But I haven't seen any critiques along those sensible lines; it's all been about it being "wrong" in some imaginary absolute sense.

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think "ain't" is correct English (much more so than "less items"). It's not formal, but then neither is "fucking isn't". It's also localised in usage, but then so is saying "treacle" to mean "syrup" (or vice versa if you prefer). All are genuine English, as commonly spoken and understood by English people, and consistently described in dictionaries.

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.

[floralaetifica.livejournal.com]

saying "treacle" to mean "syrup"

???

But they're different things. Syrup is golden and treacle is black. Do some people really use the same word for both?

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

I suspect there are some people who use the same word for both, since "syrup" generally can mean "any liquid mostly made of sugar", and so in that sense treacle is a kind of syrup.

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.

[floralaetifica.livejournal.com]

This usage has leaked southwards via the fact that neither "treacle sponge" nor "treacle tart" contains anything black: the syrup in them is golden.

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?

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

Are you sure you're a real southerner?

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.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Disclaimer: grew up in Essex. Have observed teachers trying to inform pupils that not just their word usage, but their accent is "incorrect".

That may also be what lies at the subconscious root of my resentment, I suppose. It certainly grated at the time!