Talk:The Elements of Style

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kengwen 00:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)==Nebbish== I changed "the nebbish Strunk" to "Strunk". My dictionary here says that a nebbish is a weak-willed and timid person. Even if this were true, I don't think it's the place of the Wikipedia to editorialize like that. - Dominus 15:48, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Not an editorial: White describes Strunk as "nebbish" in various editions of the little book. --Robertkeller 22:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Strunk is only mentioned in the introduction. The word does not appear in the introduction to the 3rd (1979) edition (the last one White edited). The copyright page states that the introduction in the 1959, 1972, and 1979 editions was originally written by White for the 1957 New Yorker article. In which edition do you find it? --Blainster 21:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. He used the word "nibbling" which my memory mistakedly recalled many years later as "nebbish". Omit the needless word. --Robertkeller 16:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Number of rules 2 Commissioning date and copies sold 3 Article style 4 "prescriptivist" 5 Dispute 6 Favorite Reminder

[edit] Number of rules

Evidently by the time of White's 1979 introduction to EOS his memory had gotten a little rusty. In it he states there were seven usage rules and eleven composition principles in the original version, but both online versions of the 1918 book show eight usage rules and ten principles. Or perhaps he only had Strunks 1935 version available (which I don't), accounting for the difference. --Blainster 09:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Commissioning date and copies sold

1. White was commisioned by MacMillan in 1957 shortly after his New Yorker article, not in 1959. The revised edition was published in 1959.
2. The cover on my copy of the fourth edition clearly states that the ten million cumulative sales occurred throught the first three editions, and does not include the fourth edition. --Blainster 20:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article style

Ironically, this article does not follow the guidelines of the book itself. (For example, the book instructs that punctuation marks following words within quotation marks should fall before the end quotation mark. The book also warns against overuse of the passive voice; this article is currently guilty of that mistake.) I am revising the article to conform with the book's admirable and proper advice. OlYeller 21:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is ironic, but this article should follow the Wikipedia Style Manual, since this is a Wikipedia article about Strunk and White (which I admire too--at least up through the third edition). Jonathunder 01:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've read the punctuation section in the WP:style manual, and it seems to indicate that the punctuation should be contained in the quotes. Like in these two examples from the article:

White studied under Strunk in 1919 but had forgotten the "little book", a "forty-three-page summation of the case for cleanliness, accuracy, and brevity in the use of English".

Unless these are scare quotes, in which case the current usage is correct. I'm going to be bold and make the changes. --Unixguy 12:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Your examples above do correctly show Wikipedia house style. On WP, quote marks enclose a literal string of text from a source. A mark of punctuation goes inside the quote only if it was part of the exact text being quoted. Since this is different from how I was taught, it took some getting used to, but after a while it seems logical. Indeed, this practice is often called the "logical style". (Note how the dot goes outside the quote there.) Jonathunder 16:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This discussion, and an irony of this article's topic, would make a fantastic article at Uncyclopedia.org. I now return us to our regularly scheduled seriousness. Mikademus 08:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "prescriptivist"

Let's leave it out altogether, then. It's an opinion. --VKokielov 05:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If it tells someone how to speak or write correctly, it's prescriptivist. It's a neutral descriptor. Slac speak up! 05:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You say it's neutral. I say it isn't. It's pejorative. You know as well as I do that "prescriptivist" is the normal state of affairs, and has been for many centuries, while "descriptivist" is a brilliant twentieth-century American invention. Are you feelin rite tonite, man? --VKokielov 17:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Mind, I'm talking about Western culture here. The Americans are the first who took up formalizing all sorts of things like that. To read that the "prescriptivist authors" of a book call our bluff is like reading that the "rightist" Republicans want to ban abortion. Judge for yourself. --VKokielov 17:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say you were American, by the way. But Queen's English is a standard, and the English still care about their language. They care about it more than we Americans do. --VKokielov 17:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The term prescriptivist as used in the article seems to be a simple description of the author's practice. What is perjorative about it, and why are you claiming its use is part of some sort of cultural conflict? --Blainster 17:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In general, "-ist" is an English suffix with a slightly pejorative meaning when it is derived from words which describe famous factions of various sorts (from relativism to communism). In particular, "prescriptivist" is a label for "old-school" linguistics, and I hear in it an insult to old-school linguists. Again, even if we can say with a clear conscience that "a Republican is rightist," can we really say, with as clear a conscience, that "the rightist Republicans fight against abortion"? We're attributing something to the Republicans now -- to be precise, we're attributing to them a liability, and showing our disdain for rightists, Republicans, and the ban on abortions. --VKokielov 18:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

So perhaps "-ist" isn't to all of us as offensive as it is to me. But its combination with attributions must be, because my first association with a faction like this is "deep-seated belief". --VKokielov 18:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I find all of this quite difficult to follow. I'm not sure what the Republican Party's attitude to abortion has to do with the neutrality of the term "prescriptivist". If the term is such an insult to prescriptivist grammarians (and I find it very hard, in the absence of any cites, to see why: which one of them would disagree that "prescribing forms of speech" is what they do?), what other term do they use to accurately describe their methodological approach? And, dare I say it, prescriptivist grammarians do have a "deep-seated belief" that some forms of language are better than others. That's what defines them as a group. How can this be contested? Slac speak up! 01:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, since when is that term in use? Second of all, did Strunk and White ever say they were prescriptivists? Show me where. Now, I'm not trying to catch you. I'm trying to say that I don't believe it. And, if they didn't call themselves prescriptivists, and it is their book, then why should we call them prescriptivists right before attributing to them what we (all of us, prescriptivists, descriptivists, and bar flies) hated most about our high school English teachers? --VKokielov 02:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave your text up, but will you quid pro quo write up a Request for Comment? I'd like to know what the masses think. --VKokielov 02:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I see I'm not the first to start this fight up. Your move. Will you put up a request for comment, or shall I? --VKokielov 02:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute

All I have to add on the word "prescriptivist", and to clarify my analogy, is that it doesn't belong in the introductory paragraph, and points a finger where it shouldn't. Again, it's no better than calling Bill Clinton an "abortionist" or Bush a "lassez-fairist". --VKokielov 18:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

(Reaction to RfC:) I would agree that the position in the phrase "its prescriptivist authors" is not optimal. But some other place in the intro, I think, would be appropriate. The concept is extremely relevant as a characterisation of what the book is, but not so much as a characterisation of what its authors are. Some sentence like: "The book is one of the most well-known and influential prescriptivist popular treatments of English grammar and usage in the US." - By the way, there doesn't seem to be a section on "criticism", right? I don't know if "Language Log" counts as a "reliable source", but it sure makes for a fun reading when it comes to Strunk-and-White-bashing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What I don't understand is how we, weasels as we are, can bring ourselves to bash Strunk and White, when Strunk was a professor and White was a writer. I'm not a rightist or leftist ;), in the sense that I respect tradition neither for tradition nor common sense, but out of respect and the knowledge that "sense" isn't always common. (This is how most people are, but the poles, as usual, have been making themselves known much more than the middle.) --VKokielov 22:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur. The whole issue of Descriptivist vs Prescriptivist is an issue of linguistics, not an issue of style and grammar. The point of style guides is to indicate usages which allow for 'inter'communication and cut down on misunderstanding. to call that prescriptivism, while 'technically' accurate from a linguisitc point of view, is shortsighted and insulting to those of us who strive to teach people to be able to understand each other. There seems to be a train of thought out here that anyone who sets down 'any' rule of grammar is a prescriptivist and we should all be left to our own devices - once the phrase is uttered, it is acceptable. That is how Babel is made; yes, linguists need to stick to description rather than prescription - but somebody needs to establish style and usage parameters. It is only when those parameters are un-moving (e.g. insisting on Victorian usage as 'proper' English) that the slur has any place. While prescriptive/descriptive thus has a place in that article and articles abbout grammar disputes, it has no place here.Bridesmill 22:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you meant to "concur" with VKokielov or with me here. Just one nitpicking point: I can't follow you on "an issue of linguistics, not an issue of style and grammar". Grammar is the domain of linguistics. (Style too, though not quite as centrally.) If Strunk/White tell us you can't write "three people" because you also can't write "one people", they are making a claim about grammar, hence they are doing linguistics. As long as Strunk/White do grammar, they have to be evaluated by standards set by that discipline. And even where it's concerned only with style preferences and not grammar, yes, that too can be done either in a prescriptive or a descriptive way, so the adjective is still pertinent. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, as an afterthought: I see above that VKokielov was concerned about the negative connotations of the "-ist" suffix. When dealing with a characterisation of the approach, we can easily replace "prescriptivist" with "prescriptive". "Prescriptive grammar" is just the accurate and neutral disambiguated name of the field to which this work belongs. Nothing to do with the legitimacy of the field as such. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, again, technically you are right - but there is a difference between linguists who study language (and should stick to describing it) and grammarians who develop usage guides to help people communicate in a mutually intelligible fashion. When you call the former 'prescriptivist'(e.g. those 'linguists' who say things like 'this subculture speaks 'substandard english because they don't follow the rules') that is an appropriate criticism. When you place the same tag on grammarians who harp on freezing a language in time, that might be appropriate. When you place that tag on grammarians and teachers who strive for mutual understanding in a growing, moving language just because they establish some normative rules or guidelines, that is totally inappropriate, POV, and shortsighted - there have to be some guidelines...Bridesmill 15:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm, sorry but I have the feeling your response sounds as if you hadn't really read my last paragraph above at all? What you call "grammarians who develop usage guidelines" - that simply is the meaning of "prescriptive grammar". What's wrong with calling it that? "Prescriptive grammar" is an entirely non-judgmental term. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you thinks so, but the term has been used in a derogatory sense; I find it derogatory when used to refer to grammarians, I find it derogatory when it is applied to me, and so do others. This is like the 'n' word - not everybody considers it derogatory, and sometimes it isn't. But we still avoid it because it is too easily taken the wrong way. So if it doesn't need to be used, why use it unless the intent is to send a message? On the other hand, the intro as it stands right now works for me - prescriptive is a good descriptor in this sense - prescriptivist Isn't.Bridesmill 16:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I guess we can agree on that. You're right that the way the "-ist" was used in the earlier version did sound as if it wanted to "send that message". - We could still do with a "criticism" section maybe, further down in the article of course. The criticism I've seen is not so much against the book being prescriptivist as such, but against it being bad prescriptions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Concur. Strunk isn't my fave either Bridesmill 18:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Read Geoff Pullum, grandmaster of Strunk-and-White-bashing.. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I have, IMHO he's the other end of the pendulum swing LOL. Guys like that make me pull my hair out, because every 'anti-prescriptivist' in the book loves to quote him out of context.Bridesmill 19:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --VKokielov 20:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If everyone is happy with the intro now, shall we say the dispute is solved, and de-list the RfC? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That would have my vote - would also make this article a good example of everyone working together for a better tomorrow

.Bridesmill 17:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC) I'm wondering if it might be good to put in a little on the topic of ending sentences with prepositions, just since it's a matter that seems to often be misunderstood. Many people apparently have learned that there is a strict rule against this, but Strunk & White insist it's not a hard and fast rule at all, only an element of style to be considered... Kengwen 00:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Favorite Reminder

16. Eschew obfuscation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.125.144.16 (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC).