![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
The article tells us:
Anyone's judgment may be followed by other speakers and writers. There are lots of prescriptive books, and presumably not all the copies thereof merely sit on shelves gathering dust; instead, non-trivial numbers of people attempt to follow the judgments therein (whether sporadically or fanatically). Outside their joint production, White was a prominent writer but Strunk an obscure educator. I don't think that either is famous for prescriptivism outside this book. Is this book taken as an authority? By many people, yes it is. I imagine that it's a/the best-seller in its genre. If this is the claim that's being made here, I suggest rephrasing to make this clear. If OTOH there's a claim being made for quality or the respect of people who are genuinely experts on language, then I'd like to see a refutation of this. -- Hoary ( talk) 09:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The same as above, more completely:
Try this:
-- Hoary ( talk) 08:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
In 2017 User:Geekdiva suggested that the introduction needed to be globalized, and that other sections may need to clarify what languages are involved. The lead section doesn't have too many examples, but the ones it had were only English. I added one French dictionary and removed two English ones, but there are still three English guides and only one non-English one in the section. On the other hand, the later sections seem to refer to a number of languages and regions. I wonder if the {{ Globalize}} template is still needed? Cnilep ( talk) 06:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Grammar Nazi. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 23#Grammar Nazi until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. --
Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) |
o toki tawa mi.
01:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
The phrase
> Despite being apparent opposites, prescription and description are often considered complementary…
cites OECL p286. This page contains both "Descriptive and prescriptive grammar" and "Descriptivism and prescriptivism". The part about complementarity is in the former, which describes how grammars of languages are produced. But this section of the Wikipedia page is about the latter, the imposition of norms on a language. So I am marking it "not in citation given". Marnanel ( talk) 14:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I address the claim 'French: The recommendations of the Académie française, a national body, are legally unenforceable, but they are often followed by standard French speakers.' Says who? Every single native French speaker I've met regard the Academie with varying shades of derision and contempt, and anyone can witness their futile attempts to prevent Anglicisms, Americanisms and the latest coinages from creeping into the common vernacular. Language, to the dismay of purists, is porous and increasingly so as the internet breaks down barriers even further. Language changes from the bottom up. Merriam Webster's recently added 690 words to their database. Oford Dictionaries regularly post updates to changes in their dictionaries. Stephen A ( talk) 05:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
The article tells us:
Anyone's judgment may be followed by other speakers and writers. There are lots of prescriptive books, and presumably not all the copies thereof merely sit on shelves gathering dust; instead, non-trivial numbers of people attempt to follow the judgments therein (whether sporadically or fanatically). Outside their joint production, White was a prominent writer but Strunk an obscure educator. I don't think that either is famous for prescriptivism outside this book. Is this book taken as an authority? By many people, yes it is. I imagine that it's a/the best-seller in its genre. If this is the claim that's being made here, I suggest rephrasing to make this clear. If OTOH there's a claim being made for quality or the respect of people who are genuinely experts on language, then I'd like to see a refutation of this. -- Hoary ( talk) 09:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The same as above, more completely:
Try this:
-- Hoary ( talk) 08:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
In 2017 User:Geekdiva suggested that the introduction needed to be globalized, and that other sections may need to clarify what languages are involved. The lead section doesn't have too many examples, but the ones it had were only English. I added one French dictionary and removed two English ones, but there are still three English guides and only one non-English one in the section. On the other hand, the later sections seem to refer to a number of languages and regions. I wonder if the {{ Globalize}} template is still needed? Cnilep ( talk) 06:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Grammar Nazi. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 23#Grammar Nazi until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. --
Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) |
o toki tawa mi.
01:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
The phrase
> Despite being apparent opposites, prescription and description are often considered complementary…
cites OECL p286. This page contains both "Descriptive and prescriptive grammar" and "Descriptivism and prescriptivism". The part about complementarity is in the former, which describes how grammars of languages are produced. But this section of the Wikipedia page is about the latter, the imposition of norms on a language. So I am marking it "not in citation given". Marnanel ( talk) 14:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I address the claim 'French: The recommendations of the Académie française, a national body, are legally unenforceable, but they are often followed by standard French speakers.' Says who? Every single native French speaker I've met regard the Academie with varying shades of derision and contempt, and anyone can witness their futile attempts to prevent Anglicisms, Americanisms and the latest coinages from creeping into the common vernacular. Language, to the dismay of purists, is porous and increasingly so as the internet breaks down barriers even further. Language changes from the bottom up. Merriam Webster's recently added 690 words to their database. Oford Dictionaries regularly post updates to changes in their dictionaries. Stephen A ( talk) 05:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)