More Rebellion Against Overzealous Grammarians (But Not By Me)

Grammar serfs, unite! All you have to lose are your copies of Eats, Shoots, and Leaves!

Or is it Eats Shoots and Leaves? I guess it depends upon whether you are talking about a panda in his natural habitat or one that walks into a bar with a gun. (If you don't get it, I respectfully suggest the book, however it's punctuated).

Disclaimer: Actually, I did read the above mentioned book and I did enjoy laughing as I did so. I am not a complete grammar 'Philistine.' And I am a Yekke myself--oh, not literally, no ancestors of mine come from Germany--but my Yekkeism has to do with shoes!
We all have our...erm...foiables.
So if you are weak of heart, or get high-blood pressure at the mere thought of differences in usages, why then, just surf on by.

I had to laugh at the Grammar priggishness that is home grown right here in New Mexico. Who'd have thunk it? On Wednesday I opened our local and independent Albuquerque Journal Newspaper to read this headline:

"1 in 4 Teenage Girls Have Sexually Transmitted Diseases."

Being that I was rather shocked by the information, (Oy), I did not prepare myself for the letters to the editor and e-mails to the editor the next day. Not about how very serious this problem is for a multitude of reasons, mind you. No, the messages to the editor were about the grammar in the headline. And it provoked this response:

TO OUR READERS

"Wednesday's headline...touched a nerve among offended grammarians who said it was just plain wrong. Many grammarians agree, taking the position that the verb in such constructions should be the singular "has" to agree with the subject "one."

However, other grammarians say such phrases as "one in (a larger number)" should take a plural verb in keeping with "notional agreement" of subject and verb, because the phrase carries the notion of a larger number rather than an individual.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage says:
'This appears to be a case where actual usage (emphasis added) is more often governed by notional agreement than by grammatical agreement; the writers who use the construction realize that it represents a statistical proportion and thus stands for a multitude of individuals.'

...Who's right? It's debatable...."

Steve Williams, News Editor
(The Albuquerque Journal, Thursday, March 13, 2008, page 2).


Did you notice the emphasis I added?
Actual usage.
In this case, as in the one I wrote about a few days ago, actual usage appears to trump the picky rules. I have been accused of having "difficulties with people" because I pointed this out right on my blog. It's probably true. But if I do, so does Steve Williams, News Editor of the local Newspaper.

Viva la compagnie!

And have a great weekend, everyone: grammar serfs and grammar yekkies alike!

The Attack of the Grammar Yekke

I received a comment on my last blog entry, Yikes! It's Adar II! from a grammar Yekke* (who uses the handle Muffin) that annoyed me.
The entry itself was quite long, and I realize that the nature of the discussion was probably not of interest to a lot of people, although I wanted to post it for reasons of my own. However, there were many ideas in the piece that could well be discussed and argued that would have been interesting and enlightening. However, this comment was a priggish little poem about a specific English usage that must have offended the commentor.

*Yekke: What the Israeli Sabra calls the German Jew. They are so concerned with 'properness' that they wear a jacket even when it's 100 degrees in the shade. You know the type.


I suppose that sooner or later it was bound to happen. What I wonder is this: Do these people go trolling the blogosphere looking for what they consider to be "incorrect usage" with their copies of Eats, Shoots, and Leaves in hand? What is really interesting about this particular objection is that the usage in question is correct or not depending upon whether the writer is using standard American expression or the Queen's English.

I wrote a reply to the comment, but did not end up posting it in those comments. I thought rather to blog it as a separate entry, because I think it would be useful for all of the grammar prigs out there to think about.

The comment was about the correct use of "who" and "whom," and since the commentor did not actually quote the offending phrase, I am making an assumption--always a dangerous proposition--about what that phrase might be.

The piece I posted was actually the written format of a talk I gave in an informal setting. At several places in the talk, I used the phrase, "Who do they think they're kidding?!" I am guessing that this bothered the Grammar Yekke so much that she was unable to actually digest the content and the meaning of the talk. At least, I choose to believe this more charitable interpretation above other less charitable ones.

Here is my response:

Dear Muffin,

Perhaps you are from England, in which case, you can ignore everything I write below, and go on believing that you are correct. I am assuming that you object to my use of the word "who" in the question "Who do they think they're kidding?" For standard American usage in the 21st century, the writer may choose to use either "who" or "whom" even though in English usage, "whom" is considered to be correct.

In the case to which you refer, I made my choices based primarily on the 'voice' I wanted to convey to my listeners--that's right, listeners--because my purpose for this piece was first that it be spoken in an informal setting. In this setting I wanted to project a colloquial and unaffected voice, as well as draw my listeners in to the rhythm of that phrase interspersed with the other content of the piece. Additionally, I knew my audience and thus was aware that the phrase would likely bring to their minds a line from a Simon and Garfunkel song. Yeah, we are that old!

And, yes, I am aware that 'yeah' is another one of those improper colloquialisms.

When considering how to phrase a piece of writing, I generally consider both the purpose of the writing and the audience for whom it is intended.

Digression: You should note here that I do know the correct usage of the word "whom." You should further note that the usage for the word "whom" is a remnant of the 'objective' or 'predicate' case, and I also know that cases are no longer normative in modern English. Rather, we use word order to convey the meaning that used to be expressed with cases. Cases are important in Latin and in Russian, and probably other languages, too.

Beyond the issue of voice, you may have noticed that the piece of writing to which you had this objection was also not very elegant in phrasing and had quite a few parenthetical statements. These would all sound better than they look, because eye contact, spoken phrasing, and tone of voice were used to convey meanings. Of course, when relying on the written word alone to communicate meaning, it is a good idea to minimize parenthetical statements, and to clean up the phrasing, so to make the writing more elegant. But, as I said, this was a talk and much meaning was communicated in other ways.

And now, I would like to go beyond your objection to my usage in order to provide you with some food for thought, if you choose to take a bite.

Language is arbitrary. This means that words, phrases, colloquialisms, and rules of grammar are in constant flux as people use language in everyday life to communicate with each other. As language is carried by people through space and time it evolves in order to remain useful to the people who are doing the communicating. Language in use is thus called 'living.' If it was not, it would not be very useful. One can only worship at the altar of perfect and unchanging usage for languages that are 'dead.' For example, the French Academy of Language has a bone to pick with Anglicisms and Americanisms coming into usage in French. One such is the Americanism "le weekend." But if the Academy is honest with itself, its members would have to say that they have not been terribly successful at getting rid of "le weekend'. "Le weekend" simply conveys a precise meaning that would require a more convoluted phrase to convey in "proper French." So ordinary French people continue to use it because they want to quickly convey meaning, and they really don't give a damn about keeping French frozen to some arbitrary level of 'purity' approved by the French 'language police.'
For American English it is even more so. That is because the language is so very polyglot, as Americans have adopted words and phrases from many different languages--and has even invented neologisms to convey meanings important to us in the here and now. Think about the following words: bayou, moccasin, patio, chaps, byte, blog. The first is Cajun (French-Canadian-Indian), the second is Indian, the third and fourth are from Spanish, and Spanish Indian, and the last two are computer-neologisms.

Finally, a confession and a warning.

First, the confession. I am a reasonable typist, but not a great one. When typing fast, I miss letters and sometimes mispell words due to "typos" (another neologism from the American Century. For shame! I am sure that Shakespeare never used that word). I am not a great proof-reader, especially when I am reading on a computer. I know this about myself: I am much more interested in the ideas I am trying to convey, and although I do strive to convey them clearly, I am not fussy about the use of perfect grammar. I will generally bow to local acceptable use and I do not get priggish about the fact that this often differs from the Queen's English. This is why I got a "pro" (another neologism--shame on me!) to type and edit my thesis. I will do the same for my dissertation.

Now the warning: Muffin, if the way I write bothers you so much that you cannot pay attention to the content, you might want to consider taking this blog off of your list. I would hate to raise your blood pressure on a daily basis. But if you are trolling for errors to demonstrate how superior you are with respect to grammar, then please, please do not come back here. I am simply not interested.

As the ubiquitous "they" say: "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wears you out and annoys the pig!"

And for those whose blogs I read regularly, I may notice spelling errors and such, but I do not get huffy about them. It would be, to use an old colloquialism, "the pot calling the kettle black."

The Shoe Yekke: A Story of Progress in Social Reasoning

Every year, with the coming of ice, snow, and melting that produces the inevitable mud, I undergo a radical transformation from my normally somewhat haphazard, clean-it-when-you-need-it*, housekeeper, into what my family politely calls 'the shoe Yekke.'
*'needing it' applies to impending guests or picture taking

Actually, there are rumors that certain members of the family who remember Seinfeld have another name for this aspect of my existence--the Shoe Nazi. But the 'N' word applied to a family member in a Jewish household is likely to create an unreasonable amount of family conflict, and so I have never been able to confirm said rumors.

In any case, the symptoms of "Shoe Yekkism" include a fanatical interest in getting people to wipe their feet outside and take their shoes off in the entryway, or in the case of exceptionally muddy shoes or boots, having the person take them off outside and leave them by the door. These symptoms, like Seasonal Affect Disorder, tend to appear as daylight hours wane, and persist through local mudtime, with extreme episodes occuring during snowstorms and blizzards, as well as the ensuing melt-off. The syndrome, like other commom disorders of WAM (wife-and-motherhood) are disproportionately seen on the distaff side of a marriage.

In our household, as shoe-yekkism progresses, the other family members become very good at lining up their shoes and boots by the door.

Hmmm. Is that a speck of mud next to the pair on the left? Methinks I ought to hie myself off to a Big Box and procure a shoe tray.





Now, N. has the most difficulty mitigating my Shoe-Yekke episodes, because as an 'Aspie' he does not relate strong emotion coming from me with actions on his part. Whenever he has to face me as I am emitting strong waves of parental disapproval, he looks like a classic example of the "deer-in-the-headlights" phenomenon, complete with the "what did I do?" expression.
Connecting past experience with present action and the prevention of ensuing diatribes is, after all, social reasoning at a very high level.

Another thing you should know is that we do not have a mudroom. In fact the back door provides entrance from an uncovered patio directly into the breakfast nook. This is one of the (very) few design flaws in our house. As a consequence, the covered front porch and ample front entry become the primary defensive perimeter in the war on tracking-in-stuff, which, as research has shown, triggers Shoe Yekke episodes. Therefore, during the winter, the front door becomes the favorite method of entrance and egress for the family. Of course the glacier that develops outside the back door due to a closely related design flaw in which two parts of the pitched metal roof dump melt water directly onto the door mat, also deters use of the back door during this season. Global warming, Schmobal warming! Al Gore should see my glacier!

N. is the only person who uses the back door with any regularity because it leads more directly to his beloved winter wonderland in the meadow, and because he conducting a scientific study of glacier formation on my glacier. It's also fun to slide on!

He has been pretty good about cleaning his shoes and leaving them neatly--all, right, at least they are in pairs--by the back door.
The other day, though, as the birthday weekend blizzard was building momentum, I noticed that his old pair of white skater shoes--the ones with a different colored lace in each shoe--were piled outside the door by the birdbath--it holds the outdoor temperature sensor so it stays there year-round, to the delight of the family Geeks.

So I called out to N. as I passed by his room, "Bring your old skater shoes into the house before they are completely snowed in." And N., entranced with his mating fire-bellied toads, said, "Yes, Mom. Just one second." And I went off to do whatever it was that I was planning to do. (By the way, did you notice that 'Yes, Mom' response? Taekwondo is a wonderful thing).

Later, I happened to be wiping off the table in the breakfast nook and I noticed that the shoes were not yet inside. They were however, stacked next to the grill, just under the "Doomed, I tell you!" icicle hanging down from the eaves. So I called out to N: "You know, we are going to have send the National Guard out after your shoes if you don't get them inside, achshav!

As I was waiting for him in the kitchen, I did notice N.-sized footprints in the snow outside the kitchen door. They were slightly drifted over--it was a blizzard!--but they showed where he had taken the trouble to go outside and move the shoes.

Naturally curious, like the rest of the family, I asked him about that rather than laying into him right away.

He said: "Well, Mom, I went outside to get the shoes but they were still very muddy, even though they were copiously rained on. And when I picked them up, they were dripping quite large drops of slush and mud. And since I know how you value your clean kitchen floor, I decided to put them against the wall outside instead, and bring them in during more favorable weather." (Yes, he really said this. It is a wonderful example of hyperlexia at work. Or is it how he works mom? Only his yetzer* knows for sure).
*yetzer ha-ra: evil inclination

Now I was impressed. He had begun to do what I asked him to do. That is progress. And he noticed the dripping slush and goo. That's pretty normal--he used to spend hours watching the dripping bath faucet. It was cheap entertainment. But what is really impressive is that he thought through the social implications of bringing that dripping goo and slush into my kitchen. He got it that it would not make me happy in this season of Shoe Yekkism, and he even weighed the consequence of that with the consequences of not doing exactly as he was told. And he came to the correct conclusion based on his experience with my seasonally induced descent into selective hysteria.

Every now and then, I get glimpses of success, confirmations that cognitive approaches to social problems do eventually penetrate my son's Aspergers mind. But this is more than that. It is a giant leap in social reasoning! And N. shared his reasoning sequentially and understandably, and so nonchalantly. He has no idea what a leap he just made! And I have no idea how long this has been developing. It's like when we found out that he could read. When I pointed out what he had done, he just gave me that "Duh, mom" look as if he had been doing this for a long while and only now decided to share it with me.

In our daily life of dealing with Aspergers, the social approbation from others, the loss of confidence in our parenting, the melt-downs and now more frequently, the shut-downs, the one-step-forward-two-steps-back quality of therapy, we need moments like this.

It gives both of us the courage to continue down our uncoventional path towards a good life.


It's nice to get an occasional glimpse of the mountaintop.