Susan,
    If the main points you are trying to make are that grammar should not
be entirely prescriptive and that prescriptive grammarians should not
claim scientific certainty behind their prescriptive rules, I am happy
to agree. Apparently, we have very different ideas about science. To
me, a scientist observes the world and tries to make sense out of it.
He/she may have very human values that drive that--a desire to cure
cancer, for example--but those are not the science. I think there is
room for patient observation and disciplined inquiry in the study of
language. We should understand how it works apart from trying to
control other people's use of it.

Craig


 On Nov 21, 2010, at 4:25 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>> I agree that grammar stops being a science when it becomes narrowly
>> prescriptive.
>
> You have this completely turned around.  Science is "prescriptive."
>
> Those who try to put prescriptive rules and laws on language are acting as
> though grammar is a science when it clearly is not.  Why do we belittle
> them?  Because they don't get it; grammar is not science.  Your insistence
> that grammar is science, means you believe grammar ought to be completely
> prescriptive.  If a scientific law only most of the time follows the law,
> it is pseudoscience.  Science demands complete obedience.
>
> We can rail all we want about how unfair it is that the cute fawn with the
> damaged foot will be the wolf's target, but the world works without our
> emotions.  Survival of the fittest doesn't care about anything but their
> ability to survive.
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/