This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
English usage controversies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article was nominated for deletion on August 9, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
A distinction needs to be made between disputed usage and incorrect usage. In the case of the double copula, it's simply incorrect. Does any source say otherwise? 81.157.63.47 ( talk) 10:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I took the "Double modal" out of the list of examples, justifying the edit with
It has been reverted back and forth several times, here are the various comments:
OK, so, let's do this here instead of in an ever-lengthening list of edit summaries.
Statements in support of removing "Double modals" as a construction of English under dispute:
Statements in support of including double modals in this article:
My main objection is to the categorization of double modals on the whole as disputed. If there is a specific phrase or construction which actually IS disputed (a scenario which I expect is a more likely one), then let's by all means include it as one example of disputed English which happens to be a double modal, not as an example that all double modals are disputed. And let's not forget the citations. And those citations should say that there's a dispute, not that it's incorrect. Meanwhile, I have made a change to the article which I hope is satisfactory to all concerned while the rest of this is worked out. Thanks for participating, -- 99.163.50.12 ( talk) 00:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Should the usage of "none" as a singular or plural be included? Many people insist that "none" must go with a singular verb, however plural verbs have been used with "none" in texts such as the King James Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadpotatoes ( talk • contribs) 14:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
This article is one of those that ties together many articles helping wandering readers to find related articles and, as many others, it is in a messy state. English words with uncommon properties was deleted having fallen in utter disrepair, so it is possible to loose lengthy and old articles, I hope this does not happen here. Despite the above, I arbitrarily think that in the list dangling participles and gerunds preceded by objective pronouns should be added as they are quite important. -- Squidonius ( talk) 08:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The lede should clarify whether these are disputes between reliable sources on English or simply between average English speakers. For example, is there really a dispute between reliable sources on English on whether it is incorrect to use a conjunction such as "and" or "but" at the beginning of a sentence?
Given that some of these disputes may not actually be between reliable sources, I suggest that these "disputes" should be sourced. -- Airborne84 ( talk) 13:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
This is a terrible article. The idea of "disputed" grammar is not even sourced. If it was, it would help steer the article. If the dispute is between reliable sources, the "disputes" then would juxtapose ideas between reliable sources. If the "disputes" are between non-reliable sources ... well, that's more challenging to source, but it could be done through reliable secondary sources. Yet, that would also focus the article.
Finally, it looks like WP:OR throughout. If no one finds a notable source to define the article's title soon, I'll recommend this be deleted or merged. If a source is found, we should be able to narrow the scope of the article and remove some of the original research. Airborne84 ( talk) 22:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm pasting the examples section below. I reviewed a nomination for deletion in 2009 and that suggests that there will be resistance to a nomination now. Why? Because the article probably hasn't changed much since then: it is almost all without sources. There were a number of people who said that it just requires work. But no one is doing it. Thus, I'm going to remove some of the unsourced material and put it here until it is sourced because I believe that including some of this material will cause further misconceptions by people coming to Wikipedia looking for information.
The following are disputed usages in Standard English:
The following are non-standard vague English usages, which are nonetheless popular:
References
I propose this article be renamed Disputes in English usage, which usage says includes "points of grammar, syntax, style, and the choice of words". The list of examples in this article already includes issues which are arguably not grammar.
After the referencing of examples in this article as bona fide disputes is complete, I propose merging part of Common English usage misconceptions here, because on a topic like this where there is no objective truth beyond actual usage and the opinions of speakers, "misconception" is simply a POV position that deems incorrect any contrary opinion that a construction is incorrect. All items currently referenced as "misconceptions" would of course need sources confirming that some people do in fact find them incorrect (which is probably already the case since sources complaining that people are wrong about something effectively document that some people have the opposite opinion).
That would leave two overview articles on this topic: Disputes in English usage, which covers examples more complicated than a single word or phrase, and List of English words with disputed usage, which covers specific words and phrases indexed alphabetically (and where the remainder of Common English usage misconceptions) would go). -- Beland ( talk) 21:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia appears to indicate that a stand-alone article that comprises English usage misconceptions is notable. The first sentences at WP:NOTABILITY state: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. Article and list topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice'. In general, if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Common English usage misconceptions is extensively sourced with reliable sources. It meets the criterion for notability and a stand-alone article.
On a side note, merging two articles should also take article size into consideration. Merging the two articles would create one over the 50kb threshold at which Wikipedia indicates and article may need to be split. And given that this article sorely needs to be further developed, the size is likely to increase. But this is just an aside since the main concern, notability of the topic of the misconception article, is covered adequately in WP:Notablity. Thanks. Airborne84 ( talk) 23:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
So, hum, yeah, I think the other merger should'nt be done, cuz if there's consensus in dictionnaries to say "this is bad usage", then it should be taken as bad english usage (not going to enter into those "good" or "bad" debates, but this page relies HEAVILY on dictionnaries, saying yes OR no while the common english usage misconception just talks about what dictionnaries consider as wrong ("saying YES"), so it's definitely not the same) And so, controversies are ALSO discuted in List of English words with disputed usage, so i think it would be merged. (if someone can replace those parenthesis and the text between them the way to say YES to the poll, please...)
Pardon my being so blunt, but the list of "controversies" is - erm, I don't know - pretty dodgy? (ok, the first few are anyway, I didn't get very far yet...), and the citations (again, those I've seen) are laughable. I realise the discussion above is related to this topic in a certain manner (as is that on the article referenced for merger), but I don't have time to go through that right now. I promise I will read it before touching the article or making any concrete suggestions though :) ! 37.209.42.230 ( talk) 14:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC) P.S. - my view is that this article is at least as "unneutral" as the other one...
P.P.S. What's with the section marked in red??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.209.42.230 ( talk) 15:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
English usage controversies. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The intro seems terribly MOS:INUNIVERSE, the universe in question being the murky one of language "experts" who create and perpetuate fictions about language. Let's take a look:
In the English language, there are disputed grammatical constructions that some native speakers identify either as a correct usage or an incorrect usage. The roots of English usage controversies are the differences between formal and informal speech, and among the dialects of the language;
Yes, sometimes. Or else they're just personal preferences that so-called language experts -- by which I do not mean actual linguists -- have developed into their own rules.
thus, informal speech and non-standard dialects sometimes are identified as incorrect usage. In spoken language, the correct use of a given register or of a dialect, can be perceived as a marker of education, of culture, and of group identity. Prescriptive authorities, such as language teachers and a writing-style guide, determine the grammatical correctness of English-language usages;
Language teachers and writing-style guides are not prescriptive authorities. (To do justice to writing-style guides, the better among them do not purport to prescribe authoritatively; they merely suggest and advise.) And even if they were authorities, they would not determine the grammatical correctness of various usages. That's simply not how grammaticality judgements work. (Nobody told me that "Put it away" is grammatical and "Put it further" is ungrammatical; I unconsciously figured this out for myself.)
hence, usage disputes arise when language authorities disagree with each other, or disagree with an actual (non-standard) usage spoken among the population.
This presupposes that the language busybodies are language authorities. Very few of them are.
The article is a lot more level-headed than this introduction suggests; the introduction doesn't do it justice. Rewrite? -- Hoary ( talk) 09:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Chas. Caltrop. What's your objection, exactly? -- Hoary ( talk) 01:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
The flouting of the Wikipedia rules, in order to publish personal opinion — misrepresented as fact — in contradiction to the Wikipedia rules: No reliable source, no publication. How are you two editors exempt from the rules of Good Faith? Deleting substantiated text with a reliable source and replacing it with opinions that are those of the editor who "re-wrote" facts to his taste is legitimate? Given that the source is a legitimate source, an Oxford companion, that is impressive. I missed the Ph.D. graduation, sorry.
Chas. Caltrop ( talk) 11:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
diff @Chas. Caltrop: What, specifically, do you consider to be original research in the lead? In particular, what assertions in the lead are OR, not sourced in the body of the article? Just plain Bill ( talk) 22:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
In received English, the sentence "George and I went to the shops" would be correct because if I were to remove the words "George and", the sentence would still make sense. Mr anonymous username ( talk) 21:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
"A man does not go to war to get killed, but they do get killed". That's not a singular they, it's a generalization on the previous sentence. ie. "A man does not go to war to get killed, but [men that go to war] do get killed." 2601:84:8A01:A4B0:256D:2419:320B:F4E ( talk) 16:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
This section shouldn't exist. It is not, to my knowledge, used by native speakers of any dialect (and the section doesn't claim it is). If we were to list every construction that any non-native speaker of English may use, we would have an infinitely long list. Moreover, I don't know of any sources (and none have been given), prescriptivist or descriptivist. which regard this as an acceptable or correct usage.
Unless a source claiming it's used by natives is provided, this section does not belong here. 94.241.72.241 ( talk) 19:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
English usage controversies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article was nominated for deletion on August 9, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
A distinction needs to be made between disputed usage and incorrect usage. In the case of the double copula, it's simply incorrect. Does any source say otherwise? 81.157.63.47 ( talk) 10:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I took the "Double modal" out of the list of examples, justifying the edit with
It has been reverted back and forth several times, here are the various comments:
OK, so, let's do this here instead of in an ever-lengthening list of edit summaries.
Statements in support of removing "Double modals" as a construction of English under dispute:
Statements in support of including double modals in this article:
My main objection is to the categorization of double modals on the whole as disputed. If there is a specific phrase or construction which actually IS disputed (a scenario which I expect is a more likely one), then let's by all means include it as one example of disputed English which happens to be a double modal, not as an example that all double modals are disputed. And let's not forget the citations. And those citations should say that there's a dispute, not that it's incorrect. Meanwhile, I have made a change to the article which I hope is satisfactory to all concerned while the rest of this is worked out. Thanks for participating, -- 99.163.50.12 ( talk) 00:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Should the usage of "none" as a singular or plural be included? Many people insist that "none" must go with a singular verb, however plural verbs have been used with "none" in texts such as the King James Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadpotatoes ( talk • contribs) 14:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
This article is one of those that ties together many articles helping wandering readers to find related articles and, as many others, it is in a messy state. English words with uncommon properties was deleted having fallen in utter disrepair, so it is possible to loose lengthy and old articles, I hope this does not happen here. Despite the above, I arbitrarily think that in the list dangling participles and gerunds preceded by objective pronouns should be added as they are quite important. -- Squidonius ( talk) 08:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The lede should clarify whether these are disputes between reliable sources on English or simply between average English speakers. For example, is there really a dispute between reliable sources on English on whether it is incorrect to use a conjunction such as "and" or "but" at the beginning of a sentence?
Given that some of these disputes may not actually be between reliable sources, I suggest that these "disputes" should be sourced. -- Airborne84 ( talk) 13:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
This is a terrible article. The idea of "disputed" grammar is not even sourced. If it was, it would help steer the article. If the dispute is between reliable sources, the "disputes" then would juxtapose ideas between reliable sources. If the "disputes" are between non-reliable sources ... well, that's more challenging to source, but it could be done through reliable secondary sources. Yet, that would also focus the article.
Finally, it looks like WP:OR throughout. If no one finds a notable source to define the article's title soon, I'll recommend this be deleted or merged. If a source is found, we should be able to narrow the scope of the article and remove some of the original research. Airborne84 ( talk) 22:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm pasting the examples section below. I reviewed a nomination for deletion in 2009 and that suggests that there will be resistance to a nomination now. Why? Because the article probably hasn't changed much since then: it is almost all without sources. There were a number of people who said that it just requires work. But no one is doing it. Thus, I'm going to remove some of the unsourced material and put it here until it is sourced because I believe that including some of this material will cause further misconceptions by people coming to Wikipedia looking for information.
The following are disputed usages in Standard English:
The following are non-standard vague English usages, which are nonetheless popular:
References
I propose this article be renamed Disputes in English usage, which usage says includes "points of grammar, syntax, style, and the choice of words". The list of examples in this article already includes issues which are arguably not grammar.
After the referencing of examples in this article as bona fide disputes is complete, I propose merging part of Common English usage misconceptions here, because on a topic like this where there is no objective truth beyond actual usage and the opinions of speakers, "misconception" is simply a POV position that deems incorrect any contrary opinion that a construction is incorrect. All items currently referenced as "misconceptions" would of course need sources confirming that some people do in fact find them incorrect (which is probably already the case since sources complaining that people are wrong about something effectively document that some people have the opposite opinion).
That would leave two overview articles on this topic: Disputes in English usage, which covers examples more complicated than a single word or phrase, and List of English words with disputed usage, which covers specific words and phrases indexed alphabetically (and where the remainder of Common English usage misconceptions) would go). -- Beland ( talk) 21:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia appears to indicate that a stand-alone article that comprises English usage misconceptions is notable. The first sentences at WP:NOTABILITY state: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. Article and list topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice'. In general, if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Common English usage misconceptions is extensively sourced with reliable sources. It meets the criterion for notability and a stand-alone article.
On a side note, merging two articles should also take article size into consideration. Merging the two articles would create one over the 50kb threshold at which Wikipedia indicates and article may need to be split. And given that this article sorely needs to be further developed, the size is likely to increase. But this is just an aside since the main concern, notability of the topic of the misconception article, is covered adequately in WP:Notablity. Thanks. Airborne84 ( talk) 23:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
So, hum, yeah, I think the other merger should'nt be done, cuz if there's consensus in dictionnaries to say "this is bad usage", then it should be taken as bad english usage (not going to enter into those "good" or "bad" debates, but this page relies HEAVILY on dictionnaries, saying yes OR no while the common english usage misconception just talks about what dictionnaries consider as wrong ("saying YES"), so it's definitely not the same) And so, controversies are ALSO discuted in List of English words with disputed usage, so i think it would be merged. (if someone can replace those parenthesis and the text between them the way to say YES to the poll, please...)
Pardon my being so blunt, but the list of "controversies" is - erm, I don't know - pretty dodgy? (ok, the first few are anyway, I didn't get very far yet...), and the citations (again, those I've seen) are laughable. I realise the discussion above is related to this topic in a certain manner (as is that on the article referenced for merger), but I don't have time to go through that right now. I promise I will read it before touching the article or making any concrete suggestions though :) ! 37.209.42.230 ( talk) 14:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC) P.S. - my view is that this article is at least as "unneutral" as the other one...
P.P.S. What's with the section marked in red??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.209.42.230 ( talk) 15:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
English usage controversies. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The intro seems terribly MOS:INUNIVERSE, the universe in question being the murky one of language "experts" who create and perpetuate fictions about language. Let's take a look:
In the English language, there are disputed grammatical constructions that some native speakers identify either as a correct usage or an incorrect usage. The roots of English usage controversies are the differences between formal and informal speech, and among the dialects of the language;
Yes, sometimes. Or else they're just personal preferences that so-called language experts -- by which I do not mean actual linguists -- have developed into their own rules.
thus, informal speech and non-standard dialects sometimes are identified as incorrect usage. In spoken language, the correct use of a given register or of a dialect, can be perceived as a marker of education, of culture, and of group identity. Prescriptive authorities, such as language teachers and a writing-style guide, determine the grammatical correctness of English-language usages;
Language teachers and writing-style guides are not prescriptive authorities. (To do justice to writing-style guides, the better among them do not purport to prescribe authoritatively; they merely suggest and advise.) And even if they were authorities, they would not determine the grammatical correctness of various usages. That's simply not how grammaticality judgements work. (Nobody told me that "Put it away" is grammatical and "Put it further" is ungrammatical; I unconsciously figured this out for myself.)
hence, usage disputes arise when language authorities disagree with each other, or disagree with an actual (non-standard) usage spoken among the population.
This presupposes that the language busybodies are language authorities. Very few of them are.
The article is a lot more level-headed than this introduction suggests; the introduction doesn't do it justice. Rewrite? -- Hoary ( talk) 09:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Chas. Caltrop. What's your objection, exactly? -- Hoary ( talk) 01:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
The flouting of the Wikipedia rules, in order to publish personal opinion — misrepresented as fact — in contradiction to the Wikipedia rules: No reliable source, no publication. How are you two editors exempt from the rules of Good Faith? Deleting substantiated text with a reliable source and replacing it with opinions that are those of the editor who "re-wrote" facts to his taste is legitimate? Given that the source is a legitimate source, an Oxford companion, that is impressive. I missed the Ph.D. graduation, sorry.
Chas. Caltrop ( talk) 11:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
diff @Chas. Caltrop: What, specifically, do you consider to be original research in the lead? In particular, what assertions in the lead are OR, not sourced in the body of the article? Just plain Bill ( talk) 22:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
In received English, the sentence "George and I went to the shops" would be correct because if I were to remove the words "George and", the sentence would still make sense. Mr anonymous username ( talk) 21:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
"A man does not go to war to get killed, but they do get killed". That's not a singular they, it's a generalization on the previous sentence. ie. "A man does not go to war to get killed, but [men that go to war] do get killed." 2601:84:8A01:A4B0:256D:2419:320B:F4E ( talk) 16:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
This section shouldn't exist. It is not, to my knowledge, used by native speakers of any dialect (and the section doesn't claim it is). If we were to list every construction that any non-native speaker of English may use, we would have an infinitely long list. Moreover, I don't know of any sources (and none have been given), prescriptivist or descriptivist. which regard this as an acceptable or correct usage.
Unless a source claiming it's used by natives is provided, this section does not belong here. 94.241.72.241 ( talk) 19:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)