APOD: Horsehead: A Wider View (2013 May 03)

[Anthony Barreiro]

This is the only forum I visit where English usage is a common topic beyond simple your/you're corrections. There are entire APOD threads which have been almost entirely compromised due to some detailed analysis of what is grammatically correct.

There are entire APOD threads that have been enriched by some detailed analyses of what is grammatically correct.

[geckzilla]

This is the only forum I visit where English usage is a common topic beyond simple your/you're corrections. There are entire APOD threads which have been almost entirely compromised due to some detailed analysis of what is grammatically correct.

Could we therefore usefully have a separate Grammar thread, into which such posts could go? Or be moved by administrators?

Threads sometimes naturally flow into other topics and it's not nice to split it in the absence of another conversation going on in parallel within the same thread. So, yes, sometimes it's appropriate and other times it's not.

[Anthony Barreiro]

... English is incredibly fluid, incredibly versatile, and what is "right" is determined purely by common usage.

Fluid and versatile, yes. But it's an overstatement to say that a description of how most people speak or write is the only way to decide what is correct. Prescriptive grammar still has its advocates and its benefits, as someone who has pointed out the subtle difference between "more elliptical" and "more eccentric" might recognize.

[Chris Peterson]

... English is incredibly fluid, incredibly versatile, and what is "right" is determined purely by common usage.

Fluid and versatile, yes. But it's an overstatement to say that a description of how most people speak or write is the only way to decide what is correct. Prescriptive grammar still has its advocates and its benefits, as someone who has pointed out the subtle difference between "more elliptical" and "more eccentric" might recognize. :wink:

One can certainly argue for a particular usage that provides greater clarity. But the bottom line remains: for English, what is correct is determined by usage. I'd wager that was is considered correct these days by even the most pedantic speakers would have been considered incorrect or unusual at some point in the past.

We can use our own usage in an effort to create change, as well. In most cases, I avoid using Latin plurals, and in astronomy I avoid using Latin genitives. This goes against the most common convention, but isn't strictly wrong... and perhaps my choice of usage will push the language a little in a different direction.

[owlice]

Data is grates, and I'd edit that is were I editing text which used it.

If usage is what connotes what is correct, then Chris, your use of the English language is wildly incorrect where I live. I would not argue for the lowest common denominator here!

[Chris Peterson]

Data is grates, and I'd edit that is were I editing text which used it.

If usage is what connotes what is correct, then Chris, your use of the English language is wildly incorrect where I live. I would not argue for the lowest common denominator here!

I wouldn't argue for the lowest common denominator, either. I argue for the greatest clarity. Usually, but not always, that is achieved through consensus usage. In some cases ("data" is a good example) there is no consensus. Nor is it always the case that there is just one usage that is "correct".

(Which particular usage of mine are you considering "wildly incorrect"?)

[emc]

[attachment=0]Horsehead_of_a_Different_Color.jpg[/attachment] Here you go ed, a "horsehead of a different color" avatar.

Thanks! I needed a new head!

[owlice]

(Which particular usage of mine are you considering "wildly incorrect"?)

I don't consider any of your usage wildly incorrect, but if you're going with "usage makes it correct," you'd have to pretty much give up noun-verb agreement and other such orthodoxies to fit in here. And standard spelling, too.

(More times than I would have liked -- I'd have preferred zero -- I had to correct the spelling lists my son brought home from school. These lists were typed and could easily have been spell-checked by the computer, but were they? Noooooooo!)

[Chris Peterson]

I don't consider any of your usage wildly incorrect, but if you're going with "usage makes it correct," you'd have to pretty much give up noun-verb agreement and other such orthodoxies to fit in here. And standard spelling, too.

Well, to be more precise, I'm not arguing that a single person using English in an unorthodox way automatically makes the usage correct. But more than in most languages, what is correct is ultimately determined by consensus, and that can shift very quickly. This is particularly true of English vocabulary, where not only are new words common, but old words shift into new meanings, or new forms (such as "data" being collective, or "party" being a verb).

[Anthony Barreiro]

...

We can use our own usage in an effort to create change, as well. In most cases, I avoid using Latin plurals, and in astronomy I avoid using Latin genitives. This goes against the most common convention, but isn't strictly wrong... and perhaps my choice of usage will push the language a little in a different direction.

What do you call Eta Carinae, or any other star that is commonly referred to by its Bayer designation? Just curious.

I'm a bit of a language geek, and enjoy such things as subject-verb agreement and genitive possessives.

[Chris Peterson]

What do you call Eta Carinae, or any other star that is commonly referred to by its Bayer designation? Just curious.

I'm a bit of a language geek, and enjoy such things as subject-verb agreement and genitive possessives.

Where the star name has fallen into common usage, like Alpha Centauri, I use the Latin form. In most other cases I don't. I usually refer to Eta Carina (although that one is a borderline case).