Element of Style, civil war

klysium

Apr 9, 2015 14:54

@Cerberus thanks =]

@terdon =[

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

43

Q: What’s purportedly wrong with Strunk & White’s “The Elements of Style”?

I was reading the comments on this answer where several users claimed that Strunk and White’s The Elements of Style was “misinformed, hypocritical, and wrong” and “flat-out wrong or totally misleading”, so I’d love to get a delineated list of where it is wrong. Note: I have no position on this o...

klysium

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 oh...

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

This Q on our site discusses the book and there are several competing viewpoints presented as answers.

11

A: What’s purportedly wrong with Strunk & White’s “The Elements of Style”?

In the spirit of answering the original question the way he wanted it to be answered, I will summarize the grammar points of Pullum’s essay: Passive voice Elements strongly advises against the passive voice. Pullum has two objections to this: (1) in many cases the passive voice really is superi...

Notably, nohat summarizes several places where S&W get the English wrong.

Cerberus

The problem with linguists is that they just don't get style books.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

So, sure, read S&W if you want basic advice like "omit needless words". But beware that the book contains factual errors about language, and if you're the kind of person who needs a book like this then you're probably the kind of person who isn't ready to distinguish between what's correct and what's not.

Cerberus

Apr 9, 2015 14:57

They hate them, which is fine and good, but they fight them with the wrong arguments, from the wrong category.

The fact that some famous author used x doesn't mean that a style book cannot disapprove of it or recommend y instead.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus The problem with style books is that many people treat them like rule books; and when style books have incorrect rules or bad grammar they do more harm than good.

Cerberus

Yes, people shouldn't treat them as Qurans.

And the categorically disapproving language found on some pages should be taken with a grain of salt.

Mitch

@klysium S&W is not a grammar, but rather biased advice on how to write well. Also it is short and readable, and a lot of the style advice is liked by teachers in the humanities who have to read undergrads who try to hard too write fancy. Lots of its advice can be avoided, but its not a bad thing for a beginning writer to follow.

Cerberus

But the basic problem with linguists is that they think style books describe how the majority of people write, which is a rather silly thought invented by themselves. On the contrary, they aim at leading the majority towards something they perceive as better.

Mitch

right..they're (questionable) suggestions, not descriptions

klysium

Apr 9, 2015 15:01

@Mitch Thanks for the tip. I was looking at the links posted by @Mr.ShinyandNew安宇, and I feel I should probably be more confident/comfortable with grammar then look into styles

Cerberus

Yeah.

Actual usage among certain writers is one course one factor style books will or should take into account, but it is only one out of many.

Mitch

@klysium yes, you probably want grammar rules first before style.

klysium

@Mitch or anyone for that matter, got any recommendations for grammar books? I found a few ESL, or spanish to english learning guides online which are not written for native speakers like me.

Mitch

if you're about to write non-trivial amounts of text (like descriptive paragraphs or essays or short stories), then a style guide might help. Probably good to just mimic styles you like (if you can tell at this point)

@klysium so you're a native speaker of English? are you in school? what level? and what is your concern with writing English?

klysium

@Mitch nope, i can not tell styles from each other. To me, everything is 'well written'

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

Apr 9, 2015 15:04

@Cerberus No, linguists don't think the style books describe how the majority of people write. They think that the majority of people think style books describe how they must write.

Cerberus

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 But that is what their arguments sound like.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

The reason people think that is because the style books are held up as gospels by the teachers.

Cerberus

No, listen to the linguists.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus I have read the linguists' arguments

Pullum in particular often mentions how generations of Americans are being taught from S&W as if it were a grammar book.

Cerberus

> Elements says a sentence should not begin with however in its connective adverb sense (“when the meaning is ‘nevertheless’”), but this restriction is simply invented, and Pullum says “good authors alternate between placing the adverb first and placing it after the subject” and “The evidence cannot possibly support a claim that however at the beginning of a sentence should be eschewed. Strunk and White are just wrong about the facts of English syntax.”

This is the wrong kind of argument, even if Pullum were right.

"Evidence" and "facts of English syntax"?

It is possible that S&W make such claims, in which case perhaps the argument is against the factual claims.

But as an argument against stylistic advice, it is in the wrong category.

The same applies to some of Nohat's other paraphrases of Pullum.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 That is indeed wrong, and problematic.

klysium

Apr 9, 2015 15:09

@Mitch English is my primary language, but I remember having a hard time learning proper grammar and what not as a kid. I graduated college already in Engineer where writing well was not a 'concern'. Improving my english is a long time goal of mine, I no longer want to fear people's poor reflection of me because I can not communicate properly. This greatly affected my public speaking performance at school because I will write my manuscripts

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus Here is a link to the original version where, among other things, they describe their advice as "rules"

Cerberus

Rules doesn't mean you have to follow them always.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

> However. In the meaning nevertheless, not to come first in its sentence or clause.

When however comes first, it means in whatever way or to whatever extent.

That's under a section called "Misused Expressions"

So they are presenting it as a fact of language, and they are wrong.

Cerberus

I don't think "misuse" is factual at all. It is a judgement of value.

A style book is not a technical manual.

Interpreting it that way is wrong.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

Tell that to every teacher in America.

Cerberus

Apr 9, 2015 15:20

Then we're back at your original point.

I would love to tell them.

But I have never been to America.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

How is a high-school student supposed to know that the "however" sentences I quoted are meant to be taken as "We, S&W, feel that it's nicer to always use however this way and not to use it that way"? The sentences are clear and unambiguously stating laws. "When used this way, it's wrong."

The OTHER rules in that section are more loosely worded. "This is bad style", "This is trite or cliche", "This is hard to read", "this sounds better".

But for however, they just say "Don't do this. It means something else".

Cerberus

They mean the same thing.

But I see no reason to give a style book to high-school students, at least not without a proper reading guide.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

Compare their advice for very in the same section:

> Very. Use this word sparingly. Where emphasis is necessary, use words strong in themselves.

See the difference in tone? "use it sparingly". THAT is "advice" and not "rules".

tchrist

@klysium Native speakers are fundamentally disadvantaged against learning that language’s formal grammar.

Cerberus

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Sure, but, in style-book language, it is the same thing: they always mean "advice".

Catholics get this better than Calvinists.

terdon

Apr 9, 2015 15:27

That however rule is ridiculous.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus When someone hands you a book and tells you "This book will teach you how to write well", and parts of the book have advice like "it's better to X" or "Y is overused, do Z instead" or "avoid this or that", and other parts have "X is wrong. Always do Y" and "A can never do X, use B; A means something else", how is a reader who needs that guide supposed to distinguish between the advice and the advice-masquerading-as-rules and the real rules?

Cerberus

@terdon I sympathise with it to some extent. I am undecided.

terdon

However, it did not turn out as expected.

klysium

@tchrist hopefully, I am not hopeless. lol

terdon

Nothing wrong with that. It is extremely common in scientific manuscripts.

@klysium By the way, the pedants among us might point out that hopefully doesn't mean I hope but full of hope. If you want to hang out with close minded prescriptivists, don't use it that way.

Cerberus

Apr 9, 2015 15:28

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 If you give it to people who are too...young to understand that a style book is not the Bible, then you should explain that to them.

@terdon Category mistake!

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus The advice to avoid using however in certain cases may be valid, in order to promote clarity or to reduce complaints from prescriptivist readers or whatever. But to frame it the way they have is simply misleading.

Cerberus

(Besides, scientific manuscripts are the worst example ever: they are often poorly written.)

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus You are not listening to my point.

Cerberus

@terdon *prescriptivists

terdon

@Cerberus Well, yes, thats quite true.

Cerberus

Apr 9, 2015 15:30

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I think you're just disagreeing with their point.

terdon

@Cerberus I have no idea what you're talking about.

whistles innocently

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

There are three kinds of statements in the book: 1. "It's better to do X". 2. "Doing X is wrong." 3. "Doing X is wrong"* <- this third one is not a real rule, just advice masquerading as a rule

Cerberus

@terdon Oh, never mind, never mind.

terdon

:)

klysium

@terdon haha. Well... I hope to still improve despite being a native speaker

terdon

Apr 9, 2015 15:30

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Name three "real" rules.

Cerberus

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Any "fit" reader should be able to tell that.

> Nu krijgen gebruikers bij video’s nog regelmatig reclamevideo’s te zien, die niet zijn weg te klikken. Op vaste computers zijn de advertenties redelijk eenvoudig te omzeilen met adblockers, maar op mobiele apparaten is dat niet mogelijk.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@terdon Oh, there's a language log post about that.

terdon

@klysium Being native is no help. Much of the worst English I've ever heard was spoken by natives.

Cerberus

Newspaper claims you can't block advertisements in Youtube on mobile.

tchrist

@terdon 1. A verb agree with its subject.

terdon

Apr 9, 2015 15:31

OK, I lie, it's a help, but not sufficient.

@tchrist 2 to go.

Cerberus

@tchrist The language police are not always in agreement about this.

klysium

@terdon I agree! I wish to avoid that

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus You mean, any reader who doesn't need a style book like S&W.

tchrist

@terdon 2. Pronouns in subject position must be nominative or genitive case, never in object case.

Cerberus

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 No. I need it. You need it.

terdon

Apr 9, 2015 15:32

@klysium Read. A lot.

Cerberus

"Need" is not the right phrase.

terdon

@tchrist Examples?

tchrist

*Me talk pretty someday.

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

@Cerberus I shared the link with you, did you read it? it's really, really short. did you learn anything from it?

terdon

@tchrist Me thinks you doth protest too much.

Cerberus

Apr 9, 2015 15:33

@tchrist And yet, "us" is what people sometimes use as a subject, especially with quotation marks.

tchrist

She is good. Hers is better. But her suck.

terdon

OK, 3?

klysium

@terdon I got a kindle! Heard that C.S Lewis has great books with well written english

Cerberus

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I have not.

terdon

:)

Mr. Shiny and New 安宇

Apr 9, 2015 15:34

@tchrist Actually... in some dialects of English using objective pronouns as subjects is standard. But let's agree that we're only allowing rules of "Standard English" ;)

klysium

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 What is Standard English?!

tchrist

@terdon 3. Many goes with plural count nouns; much goes with (amongst other things) mass nouns, which are never plural.

There are also various article rules.

terdon

@tchrist Manyfold?

tchrist

That is not many.

terdon

@tchrist Isn't it? :P

tchrist

Apr 9, 2015 15:37

This paper has many folds in it, not *much folds.

terdon

> Old English monigfald (Anglian), manigfeald (West Saxon), "various, varied in appearance, complicated; numerous, abundant," from manig (see many) + -feald (see -fold). A common Germanic compound (Old Frisian manichfald, Middle Dutch menichvout, German mannigfalt, Swedish mångfalt, Gothic managfalþs), perhaps a loan-translation of Latin multiplex (see multiply). Retains the original pronunciation of many. Old English also had a verbal form, manigfealdian "to multiply, abound, increase, extend."

So manifold does kinda come from many. But I am being difficult.

English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…

Participants