I came across some guy’s blog entry and, well, I stepped in it when I attempted to correct his grammar. Yeah, it’s one of my pet peeves—saying something is going “slow” rather than “slowly.”
So, in short, he really (really!) took offense. He wrote:
I don’t expect someone who works in television to understand aesthetics – even someone who purports to work in “designâ€? – so I won’t even begin to lecture you on the nuisances of postmodern/poststructuralist linguistic theory specific to your trite comment on my blog today – I’m fairly certain you wouldn’t understand. I won’t even attempt to explain to you why your archaic notions of grammar are laughable – suffice to say, adverbs (slowly) are slack, boring, ugly and ineffective compared to definitive verb progressives (slow). This is not up for grammar debate, it is a matter of personal aesthetic steeped in research and education.
But, hey, I really appreciate that you took the time to stop by and leave a disparaging remark. It’s nice to know that there is at least one person out there in the world who doesn’t have anything better going on in his life than to be slight or catty for the sake of being such. From one human being to another, man, that was a real hurtful thing to do. (yes – “realâ€? hurtful – not “reallyâ€? hurtful) Perhaps in the future you might think twice before 1) commenting about something you know absolutely nothing about & 2) being rude without warrant. I mean, what good does it do? Do you get a laugh out of being mean? Does it make you feel better about yourself? I feel sorry for you. Hopefully someday you’ll learn that there are better ways to feel good about yourself than trying to put other people down.
Yow. Here’s what I wrote back:
Wow…I didn’t intend to leave a disparaging remark…or if it came off that way, I apologize. I just corrected your grammar mistake.
It’s simple and unambiguous–the correct usage is “slowly”. There’s no such thing as a correct use of “slow” in that context. It’s “a matter of personal aesthetic steeped in research and education”? Um, no. It’s a red mark on the paper. An error. A mistake.
And yeah, “real” hurtful is, again, incorrect grammar.
I can hurl AP, NYT and countless stylebooks at you in support of that…but this seems like something you’re sensitive about and again, I’m sorry. I come from a life experience where corrections are a good thing, not a bad thing. I signed my name…I didn’t leave anonymous snark, I was trying to help.
If you think you’re being a literary pioneer or pushing the language into some sort of a new, better world by dropping perfectly good adverbs—I sincerely hope you don’t succeed. I’m all for language as an evolving thing–I’m just not so happy with a regression…and to me, that sort of usage is a regression.
You can dismiss me as “archaic” (gee, thanks…having a bad week?), but I think an open-eyed examination of good writing out there (start with a little Strunk and White—a festival of good design in its present incarnation!) might re-introduce you to the joy of correctly-used adverbs.
I apologize for the offense, but if you’re planning on writing for a living, I hope you take good usage seriously.
Seriously!
With best wishes, even from a TV guy.
jcburns
[update: oh, there's more. See the comments, below.]
March 15th, 2006 at 4:18 pm
Geez! I would have said, “Bite me, repeatedly!“
March 15th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Having done graduate-level studies in linguistics, I can state that I have never heard the term “definitive verb progressive(s).” So I googled it. Nothing. Not one hit.
I think I know a little about grammar (can the blogger define “subject-to-object raising”–I can). What he advocates, the use of an adjective where an adverb is appropriate, is, technically, crap.
March 15th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
I LOVE the suggestion that he take a look at the new, improved, and not a bit stuffy (thanks to Moira) Strunk and White’s! Touché, Mr. Burns. Then again, if that had no impact, well, I’d try Jim’s reply next time. YOU ARE GOOD. Period. (I’ll bet he looked you up and replied… with no small amount of envy.)
March 15th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
Okay, it’s even sadder. This guy [name deleted at his request] responded, in whole:
——-
I accept your apology, even though it is veiled in an attempt to
further your position of “rightness.”
I must, however, respond to your annoying attempt to educate me with
regards to proper grammar.
Strunk and White? Seriously? Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
Perhaps when you are capable of transcending kindergarten reading
material you will step into the postmodern world in which we live,
wherein “correct” grammar usage is no longer relevant. That’s right:
it – does – not – exist. Try reading a book that matters by a
linguistic specialist, not that laughably antiquated Strunk and White
- two bitter old hacks with axes to grind! How utterly precious that
you carted that old tripe out as support for your argument. But
between you and I, it’s a little embarrassing. I tell my freshman
students, who were unfortunately indoctrinated by that trash previous
to attending university, not to listen to a word of it. Honestly,
I’ve yet to meet a thinking person in academia who even acknowledges
Strunk and White as anything other than kitsch, novelty – but here you
are, some fella who thinks he knows what he’s talking about because
he’s read Strunk and White!
Oh boy.
How about you let writers write and you do your tv doodles and we’ll
call it a day? I’m not writing you to tell you how to render graphics
or twiddle your AVID, so I would appreciate it if you didn’t presume
to know more about what I do simply because you had an undergraduate
English class. Don’t be silly, man. Until you’ve grasped the concept
of evaluative regression in linguistic constructs through hierarchical
categorization in both fixed medium and verbal locutions, until you’ve
mastered Derrida’s theory of signifier/signified, become capable of
elaborating on issues of social construction vis-Ã -vis word usage, or
even remotely gathered an ounce of information about relative textual
analysis, symbol recognition, arbitrary etymology outside documented
lexicons, I doubt you have any room to quibble over adverbs with me.
I doubt you can even read Latin or Greek – and without that you have
no idea what our language even means, let alone how to use it!
This is all very tricky water that you are not prepared to set foot
in, trust me – especially if you’re going off of Strunk and White!
Hahahaha! You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. You
simply don’t have the education necessary to conduct a logical
conversation with me about these matters. No offence, man, because
I’m sure I don’t have the education necessary to discuss matters of
your career field with you; the difference is that I don’t suppose I
know more than you about your job…I know you probably know more than
me about what you do and I respect that, I’m not attempting to correct
you. So how about you open another soda pop and fiddle with your NTSC
equipment and let those of us who write carry on as we will without
the nuisance of your insolence.
Language, as Chomsky has pointed out, is not fixed, nor is there such
thing as rules to govern its usage.
My advice for you is to read more and talk/write less.
———-
I’ll get right on that reading thing. How dare I think of myself as a writer?
–jcb
March 15th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
He’s a derridian! That explains it all. The emperor’s new clothes of post-modernism. And, btw, Derrida is considered MASSIVELY passé now, even in academia. Pretty much considered a blip in the history of semantics.
I pity his poor students who are getting, at best, a 1990s version of an education with him.
March 15th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
W O W. After being stunned by the nastiness, it occurred to me that this kind of vitriolic reply falls well outside the realm of a brief diatribe by a sad, professionally unfulfilled, angry person. I only HOPE this person isn’t really teaching English at the college level, as he seems loosely to imply. I still stand by my previous remark, but make it more loudly this time: coupled with anger, there’s no small amount of green tinting the envy in THAT reply. Perhaps, in the privacy of his own home and with his internet connection down, he ought to consider (however quietly, sheepishly) the post-rant advice he offered to you. Then again, maybe it’s simply time for Jim’s reply.
March 15th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
okay. he really had me going there for a while, especially by trashing strunk and white, which made me gasp in horror. then i read the rest of his post and realized it was all just one big joke! “correct grammar usage is no longer relevant.” ah ha ha ha ha! he claims to have “students”? har, har. UNIVERSITY students? hilarious! “evaluative regression in linguistic constructs through hierarchical categorization in both fixed medium and verbal locutions”? perfect bullshit! he’s having you on! all that made-up linguistic crapola, combined with the tin-ear usage of “between you and i” tipped his hand.
out here in in the real world — the publishing world — correct grammar is still relevant. and we take points off for “between you and i.”
March 15th, 2006 at 6:46 pm
Okay, spoken language is not fixed, but written can and does have rules of convention, and a system with editors to enforce them.
Remember that even university professors state that 50% of what professors tell you in college is wrong. I daresay this guy errs at an even higher rate!
March 16th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
I can understand why is “book is honestly coming along very slow” (sic). He’s spending way too much time cyber-ranting.
March 16th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Well, sir, I think you know where I stand on all of this. In fact, I feel it’s my personal duty to the world to sort out the “fewer/less” problem before I die. Obviously, it will be an uphill battle with this knucklehead.
Ya’ done good, JC (and I know that’s not correct grammar . . . ).
March 17th, 2006 at 1:39 am
You know, I’m thinking of many two word combinations that can be made into handy compound words to describe your new pen pal.
But the pair that seems most appropriate would be: Douche and Bag
There are others to be sure, but they most involve insulting every guy named Richard on the planet.
Sorry, but I have to get back to studying the concept of evaluative regression through sphincter muscle constructs via the hierarchical categorization of combustible methane expulsions from cretins like this in academia.
However, I do feel better now for some silly reason.
March 17th, 2006 at 10:22 am
The grumpy grammar galoot got me giggling when he said
“so I won’t even begin to lecture you on the nuisances of postmodern/poststructuralist linguistic theory specific to your trite comment on my blog today – I’m fairly certain you wouldn’t understand.â€?
I cannot decide if he really means “nuisances� or if he really meant “nuances�….which points to a fatal problem with his silly argument that grammar is pointless.
Attempting to use good grammar is nothing more (or less) than attempting to comunicate clearly; inattentiveness to grammar (leaving aside actual HOSTILITY to good grammar!) is the same thing as irrational ranting……which has its place, certainly -
but not everywhere and all the time!
March 17th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
“I cannot decide if he really means “nuisancesâ€? or if he really meant “nuancesâ€?….which points to a fatal problem with his silly argument that grammar is pointless.”
Once again, brian nails it.
Man, I can’t wait to see what notes his editor gives him on this “book”.
BTW, Google reveals he’s a grad student at UNL teaching “Writing Rhetoric” and “Writing from Literature”. All students seeking tuition refunds, line up here.
March 17th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
“…between you and I”…?
An argument can be made, I suppose, that there is occasional merit in reproducing in informal writing the usages and rhythms of colloquial speech — I think we’ve all said “it’s going real slow” a time or two, and the Republic, such as it is, continues to stand. If you’d dropped that correction on my blog I’m pretty sure that would have been my retort.
I’m no great fan of Strunk and White for any number of reasons. It’s not only permissible but one’s artistic duty to break their mean little homiletic strictures when one wishes to achieve a desired effect. Writing would be dull porridge indeed if rule-bound editors followed The Elements of Style down to the last jot and tittle, much as music would be deadly boring were composers forbidden from breaking the rules of eighteenth-century polyphonic theory. I think that somewhere in “between-you-and-I”-Boy’s labyrinthine self-justification this point lurks. But trotting out “evaluative regression in linguistic constructs through hierarchical categorization in both fixed medium and verbal locutions” (there should be a hyphen between “fixed” and “medium,” btw, or the phrase is garbled at best) is simply (or should that be “simple”?) nothing more than willy-waving in the face of perceived injury to his pride.
He is, I believe, safely ignored.
March 17th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
A bit of Googling suggests that he’s a graduate student in the English department of University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
I feel sorry for his students.
March 17th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
Joan…echo..echo…echo…echo
March 17th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
Sorry to have repeated what Ashley said… I didn’t realize she had provided the same information between the time I read JC’s post and when I posted my comment. Mea culpa.
March 17th, 2006 at 10:06 pm
It’s all here, such as it is…my comment never made it past his blog’s moderation, so I decided to move my discussion of it here, to our forum…the people’s court!
I just said in my unapproved comment “it’s slowly, not slow”, and “grammar is important.”
I’m not a born nitpicker (as folks will tell you, I’m a bit of a mess in many ways.) I do, however, see typos onscreen and in print at 100 yards, and grammar mistakes like this fall into that category. I have been known to call into CNN in the old days and correct a misspelled super, however…I mean, heck, that stuff’s going out for the whole world to see..uh..um. Oh.
March 17th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
I’ve just realized, [his] second riposte is rollickin’ fun if read out loud (oh, shit, do I mean “out loudly”?) in the voice of The Simpsons’ Comic Book Guy.
JCB, where did you drop your original comment? All I see is [post] 0 Comments… [post] 0 Comments… [post] 0 Comments…
(Mind you, speaking as a Reformed Professional Grammar Pedant, I do have to wag an admonishing finger: Correcting strangers’ grammar unbidden is less than gentlemanly. [He] behaved like a complete sphincter, but it’s not as though he was unbaited. I find an unsolicited language lesson in my Comments section one day — especially one as sparse as [his] — I might get a little testy too.)
Now let me carry on without the nuisance of your insolence.
March 18th, 2006 at 8:04 am
Gee. I have to say that, in some perverse way, I am impressed with this guy. You don’t normally see anyone so passionately committed to anything anymore. It is a pity it is misdirected into something so pointless. Like some bad “friend” character in a new sitcom arguing the advantage of aerosol cheese over a block of cheddar.
August 14th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
Well, I *am* a born nit-picker, and I’ve cultivated the nasty habit all my life. After reading this highly entertaining thread (brought to me today by Google, in response to a search for the etymology of the term “snark” as it’s used today), I cruised over to the site you cited, and what a sight it is. I only had to scroll down to an entry dated August 12 to find this gem: “…But since the U.S. release date continues to move, shift, push, and allude us, I’ve decided to diffuse the tension by offering a few trailers for upcoming films that look equally exquisite…” Two for one! And twice two for one, because now I have the duel (heh) pleasure of reading your blog for good writing, and his for the postmodern-something-something viewpoint I so severely lack. One of these days, I swear, I’m going to get a t-shirt printed with “Linguists drool, prescriptivists rule.”
March 30th, 2007 at 12:21 am
When you print that shirt, sign me up for a black one, size medium please. Having a Masters in linguistics I recognize the argument this poor brainwashed po-mo is _trying_ to imply, but it really doesn’t hold water and as you all have pointed out, he’s taking it much too far. A very typical po-mo argumentative tendency is to say, if it’s not completely white, its just the same as black. I daresay that type of reasoning falls into the category of logical fallacies, but I’m know for a fact that po-mo “critics” have antiquated the idea of logic a long time ago as well.
“‘Linguists drool, prescriptivists rule’”, heh heh…