About Me
The Manifesto

Previous Posts

The Further Adventures of Hiatus
This hiatus just got REAL
Meh declared cromulent
The usual post-election vocab lesson
Contest FAIL
A National Punctuation Day Contest
No one will ever pick up on this hyperbole
A spirited defense of good grammar
Good Stuff: 8/29/08
Montreal: phonetics, purists, and even some terror...

Back to Main


My del.ic.ious site feed


Common Errors in English
Netvibes RSS Reader
Online Etymology Dictionary
Research and Documentation
The Phrase Finder
The Trouble with EM 'n EN

A Capital Idea
Arrant Pedantry
Bradshaw of the Future
Bremer Sprachblog
Dictionary Evangelist
Double-Tongued Dictionary
English, Jack
Futility Closet - Language
Language Hat
Language Log
Mighty Red Pen
Motivated Grammar
OUPblog - Lexicography
Style & Substance
The Editor's Desk
The Engine Room
Tenser, said the Tensor
Watch Yer Language
Word Spy
You Don't Say

Dan's Webpage

Website XML feed

National Grammar Day:
No Time for Diatribes Edition

Tuesday, March 4, 2008   2:40 PM

Work has picked up, miracle of miracles. But Achewood had a great strip about spelling years and years ago. Too big to post here, or I would.

(If you find yourself liking the comic, please go back and start at the beginning.)

Labels: , ,

I could read Achewood all day, in fact I have.

Leave a Comment

National Grammar Day:
How to Correct Someone

  11:12 AM

Here's a National Grammar Day comic for you, from the always-excellent Basic Instructions. Click here for their larger version.

Labels: ,

Leave a Comment

National Grammar Day:
Readability is My God

  10:28 AM

Outside the realm of comic books, the best arguments for prescriptivism are invariably pragmatic.

Maybe I'm just being naive, but it seems like most grammatical prescriptions, even the crazy ones, came about because someone thought the text would be more readable that way. For example, even though the "avoid the passive voice" rule is much too blunt, it's true that "the active voice is usually more direct and vigorous than the passive."

The novelty of the UChicago academic writing program was its extremely pragmatic approach: the intro course focused on things like subject continuity and sentence order. When pressed, one instructor told me that there was actually research behind all these new guidelines, proof they would make our writing more readable. It was hard to find fault with this purportedly scientific prescriptivism.

Editors have to consider other factors — correctness, conformity, veracity, elegance — but our fundamental concern is readability. We're there to make sure the text communicates its ideas effectively. That post about a National Clarity Day has it exactly right.

It's a shame that grammatical prescriptions don't always have much to do with readability. Dangling modifiers could trip up the reader, I can see that, but has ignorance of the which vs. that distinction ever done any harm?

(See also: Dryden's proscription of sentence-final prepositions, which is prettymuch completely ignored these days.)

Labels: , ,

Pleased to make your acquaintance, I'm Mr. Unreadable.

I think it might be because I switched schools every year and missed ever doing the 5th/6th grade sentence diagramming phase of English education.

Now, that is also liberating, but the truth is you have to hear me to understand me, because it is basically all singing (e.g. tangents get their own pitch).

Would you look at my blog to see if you could make any suggestion for my improvement?

Hmm, I think if the writer is ignorant of the that/which distinction and the reader is not, then the writer's use of that and which might cause the reader to pause for a moment and lose the flow. In that sense it might affect readability.

The same would go for things like split infinitives – I have no problem with them, but I still try to avoid them where possible in the magazine I work for because some of our readership would take issue with them. The readers that don't have an issue with them presumably wouldn't mind either way.

So I am a pragmatic prescriptivist... I imagine most copy editors would fall into this category too.

Oh and Mr Unreadable - I had a quick look at your blog (the old movies one) and thought your writing was fine. I know professional writers whose writing is less clear.

Leave a Comment

National Grammar Day: Prelude
  7:17 AM

Do you adore clean, correct sentences? Do ungrammatical advertisements make you cringe? We understand completely, and this is why the Society for the Promotion of Good Grammar and MSN Encarta have designated March 4, 2008 as National Grammar Day.

Today is National Grammar Day. John McIntyre was spotted wandering the streets yesterday in his camel-hair suit (seasonal), joyously proclaiming the impending Grammarocalypse. There were even rumors that four horsemen had been spotted...

Which is to say: count me among those who worry that this holiday will just empower would-be pedants.

I mean, obviously it will — "Do ungrammatical advertisements make you cringe?" is a clear appeal to the Princess and the Pea school of prescriptivism — but after today, will we have a better-informed public, or just more people acting like assholes because they know not to use the word irregardless?

For the most part, the posts so far from National Grammar Day partner blogs have given me some reason for optimism:

Grammar Girl provided good usage advice and pointed out some common misconceptions in Top 10 Language Myths.

At You Don't Say, McIntyre described his eventual realization that sloppy writing is not a moral failing and invited all of us to enjoy a Grammartini. I can definitely get behind that idea.

And Mighty Red Pen, after surveying the evolving Grammar Day controversy, wrote:

MRP is proud to be a National Grammar Day participating blog. As such, I intend to embrace the spirit of the day, which to me is to celebrate the joy and complexity of language, and our shared interest in it.

I'm too much of a language geek not to appreciate National Grammar Day, whatever my complaints about its specific focus. And I'd rather represent mystery shop editors and militant reactive grammarians and whatever else I am than pout on the sidelines.

So I'll be "liveblogging" throughout the day today (if I could make those scarequotes scarier, I would) until work picks up and/or I run out of stuff to post.

Labels: ,

Leave a Comment

Think reactive, not reactionary