Pedants' Paradise

[Sydney Grew]

A thread for all Members who enjoy being pedantic, about any subject at all. To begin:

Upon looking through Thomas Gaspey's book Calthorpe, published in 1821, we came across some emendations evidently (from the hand-writing) inserted by some nineteenth-century pedant:

Do Members think the pedant was right? About number two there can hardly be any question can there that he was, but we are less certain about the first and third. Indeed the O.E.D. would appear specifically to allow both "the same that" and "the same as" (when followed by a clause). But our anonymous pedant must have felt strongly about the matter. Perhaps the difference between "that" and "as" here is that one indicates identity and the other similarity.

[verismissimo]

Pedantry all seems to stem from the mistaken view that there are correct and incorrect meanings, usages, pronunciations etc. In global English, more than in any language, I guess, there are usually multitudes of possibilities, continuously shifting.

[Pianorak]

Pedantry all seems to stem from the mistaken view that there are correct and incorrect meanings, usages, pronunciations etc. In global English, more than in any language, I guess, there are usually multitudes of possibilities, continuously shifting.

Indeed - and one has got to be sure of one's ground before objecting. Until a couple of weeks ago I blamed McDonald's for the ubiquitous "I'm loving" etc. when to my mind "I love" should be quite sufficient. But then I heard some linguistics professor (on R4's Word of Mouth) explain that it actually hails from India where it is common currency.

[mercia]

well, he didn't check the punctuation because on page 111 the comma after Burleigh needs to be moved to after the word if:
but I think my friend Burleigh would have stared if, after a rat-tat at the door, he had ......
I think these days we would say:
but we must not expose ourselves to the jeers and reproaches of people who do not have the same liberal feelings as we have.
(I wonder when the spelling of negotiation changed)
personally I would insert 'been' after 'just' rather than before, though he is probably correct
I think we need commas after negociation and concluded
if they were plural negociations I would omit 'been'
I think those semi-colons need replacing
These days we would say 'condescension is all very well in its place'

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

personally I would insert 'been' after 'just' rather than before, though he is probably correct

I would do the same, and I don't think he is correct. Correcting bad grammar isn't being pedantic. If usage determines what is acceptable, we may as well succombe to text-speak and accept the verbal ineptitude of Ronald Reagan (and the children I teach, who don't understand that "I was sat", "You are stood" and "If you are headed towards..." are all bad grammar. I used to enjoy the Radio 4 quiz programme, "Many a slip", with 2 points for a correct challenge and 3 points when exposing a mistake made by the team setting the questions.

[french frank]

I can't read the second example. What is it?

There is a thin line between 'correcting' and amending to fit your own usage. (In the second, for example, I would have said: "I did not suspect him of being your accomplice", not "I did not suspect him to be your accomplice". But is the second one 'wrong'?

I would take 1) & 3) as being unnecessary. 'Concluded' can surely be intransitive?

[mercia]

I can't read the second example. What is it?

whom do you call an accomplice? not who do you call an accomplice?

[french frank]

Thank you, hercule. I should have worked that out - I thought it was a small word.

'Who' would certainly be accepted now, but 1821 seems quite an early example of the loss of the accusative. I suppose in conversation it was not unusual.

[Basil]

A warning?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3y0CD2CoCs

[verismissimo]

"we may as well succombe to text-speak"

I think we have no choice in such matters, Eine. They are a present reality. And I hadn't realised that you're a teacher of French.