Are you a grammar pedant? This might be why
Perhaps.<p>Grammar pedants (prescriptivists), seem to be made up mostly of people who&#x27;ve come to the conclusion that the particular mode of the language they&#x27;re most comfortable with is <i>the</i> &quot;correct&quot; one that everybody should be communicating in. It seems to come from some deep-down inflexibility to tolerate or comprehend that other people communicate in different modes. The pedant seems to wish that all the world should structure their communication to be most convenient for them rather than trying to work on increasing the scope of the modes they can work with. They believe there is one kind of audience and their preferred mode is the magical key that ensures correct and precise communication with that audience -- regardless if this is actually true.<p>It makes a kind of sense that this might stem from some deep seated introversion -- people for whom the principal interaction between audience and speaker is themselves. But on the other hand, wouldn&#x27;t you likely be able to understand any mode of communication within your own mind?<p>What&#x27;s most often fascinating to me is how deeply wrong and ignorant of grammar most grammar pedants are beyond some superficially memorized rules they&#x27;ve attached themselves to. When pushed for the &quot;why&quot; behind their rules they frequently don&#x27;t know, or will point to some style manual (usually also full of grammar errors) they believe has taken on an almost holy quality.<p>One of my favorite tactics is the &quot;that&#x27;s not a word&quot; argument, with fingers pointed to the nearest dictionary as evidence. This of course ignores the simple fact that dictionaries are comprised of words that grammar <i>descriptivists</i> have observed in the wild -- with usage reaching above some non-transient threshold that makes it worth capturing by lexicographers.<p>The worst linguists are those that fall very far on the descriptive side of the spectrum.<p>Some references:
<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pbs.org&#x2F;speak&#x2F;speech&#x2F;correct&#x2F;prescriptivism&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pbs.org&#x2F;speak&#x2F;speech&#x2F;correct&#x2F;prescriptivism&#x2F;</a><p><i>So what is right and wrong in language, and who decides? Some observers claim that the real issue about linguistic right and wrong is one of deciding who wields power and who doesn&#x27;t. Viewing language as a form of cultural capital, they note that stigmatized forms are typically those used by social groups other than the educated middle classes--professional people, including those in law, medicine, and publishing. Linguists generally would argue that the language of educated middle-class speakers is not better (or worse) than the language of other social groups, any more than Spanish, say, is better or worse than French, Navaho better or worse than Comanche, or Japanese better or worse than Chinese. They would acknowledge that some standardization of form is useful for the variety of a language used, especially in print. They would also insist, however, that expressions appearing in dictionaries and grammars are not the only grammatical forms and may not be suitable for use in all circumstances. They are merely the ones designated for use in circumstances of wider communication.</i><p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;itre.cis.upenn.edu&#x2F;~myl&#x2F;languagelog&#x2F;archives&#x2F;003588.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;itre.cis.upenn.edu&#x2F;~myl&#x2F;languagelog&#x2F;archives&#x2F;003588.h...</a><p><i>Perhaps the worst thing about prescriptivism is that it is frequently a device for demonstrating the superiority of the pundit and his or her favorite class of people over everyone else. It feeds discrimination, particularly classism. The standards to which pundits appeal are invariably those of a socioeconomic elite. The standard tends to combine their natural speech with details that one can only acquire by means of extensive education.</i><p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theatlantic.com&#x2F;past&#x2F;docs&#x2F;issues&#x2F;97mar&#x2F;halpern&#x2F;nunberg.htm" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theatlantic.com&#x2F;past&#x2F;docs&#x2F;issues&#x2F;97mar&#x2F;halpern&#x2F;nu...</a><p><i>...These bare instructions give no reason at all for choosing the singular pronoun. In fact, there is no mention of an error in the use of the plural, which is labeled not &quot;incorrect&quot; or &quot;illogical&quot; but merely &quot;formal,&quot; as if the difference between plural and singular were on a level with the difference between </i>cop* and <i>policeman</i>, or <i>horse</i> and <i>steed</i>.<p>...But the Handbook says only that the sentence is &quot;illogical,&quot; giving no indication of what point of logic is violated. What is the student to make of that, especially since the Handbook has not explained the use of the singular as being &quot;logical&quot; in the first place? The student who finds &quot;6b(1)&quot; cropping up on his compositions may learn to rectify the error, but only in the way he learns to rectify his misspellings: by rote, learning nothing else in the process.<i>