Post your linguistic pet peeves here.
I'll start with with the improper use of the third person plural personal pronoun "they" when the singular form is called for.
(See below for the correct pronoun to use in this case.)
You need to be a member of Captain Comics to add comments!
Replies
Let's jump to one of my most annoying grammar peeves:
"Begs the question."
In my youth, I seldom heard "begs the question"---because it applies to a specific circumstance. But, over the past twenty-five years or so, I hear or read it all the time. Unfortunately, in that time, I've yet to hear or read it used correctly.
Because somewhere between the time of my youth and my geezerhood, people have gotten the idea that "begs the question" is a slightly more distinctive way of saying "raises the question" or "prompts the question"
Actually, it's not even close---except for the matter of a question being involved.
This is one of those things which is easier to understand by example, than by definition. (But don't worry, I'll be providing a defintion, too.) Because all of us have, some time or another, begged the question in its true meaning.
Think back to when you were in elementary school, or junior high, or high school, and you'll have certainly experienced a scenario virtually identical to the one I'm about to present.
Suppose last night, you were supposed to read four chapters in your American History book as homework, but instead, you blew it off. After all, Maverick was on TV last night, and you don't miss that show for anything. You come into class this morning and plop down in your seat, and the first thing your teacher announces is that she's handing out a pop quiz on the material you were supposed to have read.
You get that sinking feeling in your stomach and it completely founders when you read the first question of the quiz:
"Why were the years 1817 to 1825 known as 'the Era of Good Feeling'?"
You shuffle through your memory, pinging on every brain cell individually, hoping that maybe you picked up something about the Era of Good Feeling by osmosis. But you got nothing. So you go for the Hail Mary, and you scribble down:
"It was called 'the Era of Good Feeling' because it was an era when people felt good."
And there, in it's simplest form, is an example of "begging the question".
"Begging the question" occurs when the speaker (or writer) makes a claim or answers a question with a statement that assumes facts not in evidence. That's the definition. Here's another basic example:
"Doctor, why does a sedative make it easier for a person to fall asleep?"
"Because sedatives have many sleep-inducing qualities. Next question."
In other words, the statement presupposes its truthfulness without actually providing the information which would establish its validity. It's a common refuge of politicians, and it's a bit more difficult to detect when they beg the question. For example, a proponent of capital punishment might state, in response to a question about the morality of the death penalty:
"Executions are moral because we must have a death penalty to discourage violent crime."
This statement begs the question because it presupposes that the death penalty deters violent crime without offering any substantive information to support such a claim.
Several years ago, a San Francisco newspaper ran an article on the exclusive "men's clubs" in the city. The article contained snippets of an interview with Paul B. Fay, Jr., a prominent Bay Area businessman. When he was asked why such clubs have a long waiting list, Mr. Fay responded, "The reason there is such a big demand is because everyone wants to get in them."
The best way to remember the distinction between "raising" and "begging" a question is "raising the question" refers to a question that has yet to be asked, while "begging the question" refers to a question that has already been asked (or implied).
Ah, Commander, this reminds me of my own school days, when I would try to turn the one sentence of information that I remembered into an essay. Good times!
I had a sociology professor in college who ended every sentence with "Oh-Kaaaaay?" Got to be maddening after a while.
Also, not a a grammar issue, but every class consisted of nothing else but him reading the textbook to us, No Q&A, no explication, no checking to see whether we were absorbing the material, nothing. Didn't have the nerve to call him out over it in them days, but I was always thinking, "Man. I could've stayed in the form and read the god-damned book!"
Just to throw a little cold water on the Thor covers that opened this discussion: They is correct nowadays. From the American Heritage dictionary:
They (pron.)
2a. Used to refer to the one previously mentioned or implied, especially as a substitute for generic he: Every person has rights under the law, but they don't always know them.
Merriam Webster says the same thing:
3a. —used with a singular indefinite pronoun antecedent
It might not be traditional grammar as we learned in elementary school (40+ years ago for me), but it's proper. Time marches on.
I'm afraid modern dictionaries are a poor reference.
At one time, dictionaries were the arbitors of definitions. They disregarded illiterate and vulgar usage (except to note it), common misconceptions, and social considerations. They provided definitions and usage strictly on the verifiable etymology of the words and the strict rules of grammar.
However, modern dictionaries---and Mirriam Webster was one of the earliest examples---have abrogated their rôle as the authority. Now, their definitions include meanings which people generally believe the words to mean, with equal weight to the classic definitions. They also apply social mandates to their applications of grammar, e.g., they is acceptable as a singular pronoun because some considerate it sexist to use he.
On my desk, I have two unabridged dictionaries---one from 1933, the other from 1971. Neither of them insists that they may be used as a singular pronoun. That's good enough for me.
Ah, Commander, I wish you could've met the Old Man. You and he would've had some fine conversations about language.
And that's why I tend to stay out of these discussions, and just do the job as I'm paid to do it -- using current reference books and spellings, and whatever style guide my publisher or client provides.
Ultimately, it's all arbitrary and personal preference, once the hurdle of comprehension is cleared.
I've had friends get into long Facebook battles about the Oxford comma, for instance, and I just roll my eyes. Put the money in my hand, and THEN I'll care. Otherwise, do what thou wilt.
. . . using current reference books and spellings, and whatever style guide my publisher or client provides.
This is probably the primary reason why I have never submitted anything I've written for publication (if you will permit me the conceit of believing anything I wrote was good enough to publish).
I don't mind if my editor points out or corrects words I've used improperly. I don't mind the typos and stray violation of grammar that might sneak in. I don't mind if he blue-pencils portions of my prose as superfluous or overblown. I wouldn't even mind if he told me to use U. S. spellings, instead of British variants.
But I do mind being told to conform to modern sensibilities of grammar. I'm not going to use a plural pronoun as a singular one. I'm not going to avoid using gender-specific nouns like "actor/actress" or "murderer/murderess" or "aviator/aviatrix". I won't change "illegal immigrants" to "undocumented aliens". I won't capitulate proper grammar to social justice crusades.
The editor is well within his right to require all of these, to insist that I conform to his publication's stylebook. So, I don't even consider submitting.
Well, I think it's everyone's loss that you haven't. There are sure to be some editors and publications out there that would be perfectly amenable to a lot of your preferred syntax -- and certainly if you could discuss it with them*, some might be willing to make exceptions for you.
*That said, this is the true sticking point. Every publication is under a time crunch, and there's nothing that can slow things down like a back-and-forth with an author. But I'd look into TwoMorrows publications, especially Alter Ego. I imagine there's a fair bit, gramatically, that you and Roy Thomas would see eye-to-eye on.
Well, I think it's everyone's loss that you haven't.
I take your words very kindly, sir. Thank you.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 15 Next