Talk:Solecism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] specious example

Clearly, "me" is not an inflected form to show the possessive. The following example does not jibe with a syntactic analysis in which "me" would be an inflected form. I have, consequently, removed it from the article and placed it here

  • "This is me and Leslie’s house." for "This is Leslie’s and my house." (from the assumption that 's is an inflection and not a particle)

First, it's a perception, if that. Yet more importantly, the syntactic unit is the same lexified "me and Leslie" as found in "Me and Leslie are going to the movies." and "The gave candy to me and Leslie.", the last example often hypercorrected to "Leslie and I".

In the solecism, the syntactic unit is "me and Leslie" plus ’s. Compare: "_Ken and Barbie_’s house" vs. "_Ken_’s and _Barbie_’s house".

Therefore, ’s is indeed a particle in the solecism. One would expect "my" not "me" if the units were the separate "I" (if the subject is the base/neutral form) plus "Leslie", that is, if we do not take into account the possible dialectic influence of the expanded/stereotypical possessive "me" from "m'" in "M'back is killin' me!". CJ Withers 06:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's a bad example, but I think the reason is simply that Standard English hasn't yet converged on one particular possessive form for coordinated personal pronouns. ("Leslie and me's" makes the most logical sense, but "me's" sounds amazingly wrong regardless of context, and no other form has won by virtue of extreme popularity.)
Also, are you suggesting that "Ken and Barbie's house" is a solecism, and it should be replaced with "Ken's and Barbie's house"? Because "Ken and Barbie's house" is definitely the ordinary way to say it, and makes logical sense given how 's works; would you also argue that "the Queen of England's life" should be replaced with "the Queen's of England life"?
Ruakh 14:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a serious question: "whom on earth could have eaten the food?"

[edit] Accuracy dispute

Recently Theraven has begun editing this article to push his POV that "most well-known" is always wrong. I repeatedly neutralized his edits and asked for a source, until finally he produced a source that says that "most well-foo" and "best-foo" both exist, but that in the specific case where "foo" is "known", "best-known" is preferred to "most well-known". (That's not what he said it said,[1] but fortunately I have access to the source he cited and was therefore able to correct the article accordingly.) He's still editing the article to state that "most well-known" is wrong, even though the source he cited said otherwise; to me, it seems that he's intentionally editing the article to add misinformation and deceptive claims about external sources, which would constitute vandalism, though I'd also accept the argument that it's simply blatant POV-pushing. Either way, I think I've compromised as much as possible on the article text before further compromise means accepting blatant violation of key Wikipedia policies (including verifiability and NPOV), and I'd rather not resort to a revert war (which this has already started to become), so I've left his most recent text intact and added a {{disputeabout}} notice. Input from other editors (whether or not they agree with me) is more than welcome (especially since he's sent me a series of long, angry e-mails, and I'd rather not deal with him one-on-one anymore). Ruakh 03:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the example. There are enough examples already; we don't need additional examples that are really just debatable personal pet peeves. Nohat 03:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Ruakh 14:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This is not a "debatable pet peeve" nor "POV-pushing". "Most well known" is clearly erroneous as there is a very simple rule involved here - namely that "well" is an adjective modifying "known" and that the superlative of "well" is always "best". "Most well known" is therefore an excellent example of a solecism. I included it in particular becasue it is used extensively on other Wikipedia pages and, if Wikipedia is to be successful, it should use correct English grammar. I (and, I hope, others) would correct other solecisms on Wikipedia pages, such as "between you and I", "off of", "real" used adverbially, etc. as well as common spelling errors such as "accomodate", "recieve", "wierd", etc unless, of course they were being used as examples or direct quotes. To simply toss them aside as "debatable pet peeves" is short-sighted and narrow-minded. If Wikipedia is to drop standards because someone who is not English mother tongue and not a linguist, as is the case with Ruakh, cannot see that this is an error, then, clearly, it means that Wikipedia is now saying that any old garbage is acceptable.
Theraven 20:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The case of "most well known" is not "clearly erroneous". It is erroneous only if one subscribes to your analysis, which is not the only valid one. The other analysis—that "well-known" is a compound adjective which has been lexicalized, and whose superlative is formed in the standard way—has quite a bit of evidence in its favor. "Well-known" occurs as an independent entry in many dictionaries: [2], [3], etc., and these dictionary entries for "well-known" do not specify a superlative for this word, which means that the superlative is formed in the normal way for a word of two or more heavy syllables—by preceding it by the word most.
The "most well-known" example you have repeatedly posted to this page does not have a solid foundation of evidence supporting its being regarded as a solecism, and the way you have described it has been from a flagrantly pro-prescriptivism POV. If you want to make correctness claims about English, they must be contextualized by clarifying who is making a claim of correctness and what their authority is to make such a claim. Also, just putting in a citation is insufficient for this purpose: there is no text that can conclusively establish the "correctness" or "incorrectness" of English—all we have are claims about correctness, and they must be identified as such.
The examples on this page should be restricted to only those for which there is widespread condemnation in usage guides and dictionaries, and they should be cited. Furthermore, this page should not take a standpoint that solecisms are "incorrect", just that usage authorities claim that they are. Nohat 07:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
In all fairness, the list of examples has the heading "Some examples of usages often regarded as solecisms in standard English", so if it weren't for the apparent lack of an acceptable compromise on how to cover "most well-known" vs. "best-known", I think that could be reasonably be included.
At any rate, I think Theraven might be a troll; you might want to read WP:TROLL for tips on dealing with him (until such time as we can rule out that possibility). It's hard for me to be sure, but the invective-to-argument ratio in his e-mails to me (which I can forward to you if you'd like) seems way too high to be due purely to genuine anger; and some of his invective centered around Googling my name and attacking my non-Wikipedia life, such as being a member of Alpha Phi Omega. (I'm not sure if he started out trolling, or if he only switched to trolling once he realized he couldn't get his POV pushed through here, but it seems very likely that he's a troll now, with the main goal of disrupting Wikipedia.)
Ruakh 13:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


Nohat, It is difficult to know where to start with your errors but let me start with sources.

1. Ruakh continued to cite "most dictionaries" as a source. That is not, in my view, a source. You cite two online dictionaries. The first gives the function of well-known as an adjective but does not, as far as I can see, state anywhere that it is morphologically an adjective. The second (dictionary.com) merely says it is an adjective but rather shoots down your assumption by having an entry for best-known (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/best-known), which is also cited as an adjective, but not for most well-known. I have already given one source for preferring best-known, namely Quirk's Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Let me give another, namely the OED. If you look in the large one, under best, you will see an entry B where the definition is simply Superlative of WELL. Under that entry, in section 2 it gives examples for compounds, i.e. best-[adj]. One of the examples is best-known. (There are, of course, numerous other examples of similar compound words formed with best + adj.) Most well(-)known is not, of course, to be found.

2. However, even if you and Ruakh do not accept Quirk or the OED – and, apparently, you do not – your argument is specious. The function of a dictionary, particularly the online ones you cite, is not to act as a reference work on grammar but to provide definitions of words and a limited (I stress the word limited) guide as to how they are used. Thus, the use of adjective for well-known and, indeed, for best-known is merely intended to show that this compound is used adjectivally, not to show that its entire morphological structure is as an adjective. I doubt if you will find any entry in the dictionaries you cite that is called an adjectival compound or anything else of similar nature because that is not the role of the dictionary. It is the role of the grammar reference work.

3. Sticking to sources, neither you nor Ruakh have given one single source for most well known as being accepted. Ruakh did show a Google search (which gives 5,700,000) for "most well known" to which I responded that Google gives 25,300,000 hits for accomodation and would add 15,100,000 hits for recieve, 10,800,000 for wierd, and, if I could easily search it, would presumably give similar numbers for it's used for its and vice versa, your used for you're and vice versa and so on. The argument that this usage justifies most well known and your statement quite a bit of evidence in its favor frankly do not stand up. That a lot of people use it incorrectly does not make it correct.

4. Finally, on sources, it is interesting that none of the other examples of solecisms on the solecism page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solecism) have sources and that neither you nor Ruakh have queried this. Why? I think that the answer is simple. As with most well known, the solecism is obvious because of the basic rules of English language. With between you and I, for example, between as a preposition will take the objective case for all pronouns it modifies. In your example, He's the person whom I believe is the fastest, which should, of course, be He's the person whom, I believe, is the fastest, who is clearly the subject of is and not the object of believe. Similarly, my initial addition of best known was based on the fact that well is clearly an adverb modifying known and is therefore subject to the known rules of superlatives. Yet, for some reason, this one needs a source (which I have given and you have not) and the others do not. To use another solecism/dialectical usage, go figger.

5. Your statement flagrantly pro-prescriptivism POV shows that you have learned well from the Republicans. Take a word, say liberal or prescriptivist, make it out to be bad (even if it isn't), apply it to anything you disagree with (even if that is inaccurate) and use it to damn your opponents at every turn. I fully accept that most well known, between you and I, real good, off of, accomodation, recieve, etc. are used in everyday discourse, including throughout the media and the Internet and by political leaders, at least in the United States (today's press has an example of Mark Foley telling one of his pages your buzy (sic). ) I also fully accept that the English language is changing and that this is a good thing. I have long since accepted the demise of the subjunctive, the split infinitive and so on. I do believe, however, that where there is no evidence that authorities have accepted such changes and, I repeat, neither Ruakh nor you have cited a single authority for most well known¬ , then we should stick to the traditional forms in formal discourse which, of course, includes online encyclopedias. BTW, if all this makes me a prescriptivist, I am as proud to be a prescriptivist as I am proud to be a liberal.

6. You state there is no text that can conclusively establish the "correctness" or "incorrectness" of English. Do you really believe that? If that is the case let's throw out the dictionaries and write accomodate, wierd, recieve and your doing real good with wild abandon. There are such texts. I have cited two – OED and Quirk. I suspect that your inability to find even one is what prompted your statement, another good Republican tactic.

7. You state this page should not take a standpoint that solecisms are "incorrect". Yet one of the definitions of solecism on the page is mistake. A correct mistake? I don't think even Dick Cheney has gone that far. Of course, the page should take a standpoint that solecisms are incorrect in formal English usage while fully accepting that they are used (often extensively) in current English usage.

8. I see Ruakh has now accused me of being a troll. I have been accused of many things in my life but never that. Thanks for that, Ruakh. Let me point out – again – that I was prompted to add this entry to the solecism page when I saw numerous examples elsewhere in Wikipedia. I believe that, if Wikipedia is to succeed, it must maintain high standards, which include correct usage of English. Clearly, judging by recent attacks in the press, Wikipedia has slipped up on these high standards and its whole credibility has been called into question. I added the entry and it was sabotaged by Ruakh who, I repeat, has yet to provide one source for this view, is not English mother tongue and is not a professional linguist.

9. I am now going to drop out of this discussion. I do not have the time to continue. It is clear – sadly – that Wikipedia is being run by people who do not share my high standards. I do firmly believe that you and Ruakh have further abetted a decline in Wikipedia. Good luck to both of you in your future endeavors. Theraven 15:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You did cite the OED and Quirk, but Quirk supports my view (that "most well-known" is acceptable and correct, if not preferred), and the OED doesn't support either view: it lists both best-known and well-known, but does not suggest that the two are related. Indeed, it describes best-known etc. as "differing little from ordinary superlatives" [of known etc.], and in particular does not describe them as superlatives of well-known etc. (One could of course infer that well-known and best-known are related, from the fact that best and well are related, but the OED does not say so, and the OED's inclusion of best-known is by no means an argument against the correctness of most well-known.) Ruakh 16:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Geoff Pullum I think puts it best:
"It is a complete caricature of linguists' attitudes to usage that they think anything goes and regard everything that occurs as grammatical. They don't. Quite to the contrary, they insist that there are constitutive correctness conditions for natural languages, conditions that define the difference between right (grammatical) and wrong (ungrammatical) for individual languages. Grammaticality is not to be confused with choice of formal style, though: informal style is grammatical too."
[4] Nohat 04:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

The etymology was removed [5] . I believe that it is important to the article and not just a dictionary entry. If anyone else believes the same, you can put it back.--FocalPoint 12:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the etymology as such is irrelevant, since this article is about solecisms, not about the term solecism. Nonetheless, if you want to add some historical information on solecisms, it might be worth noting that Athenians considered such-and-such dialect to be full of solecisms and that this is indeed the source of the term. —RuakhTALK 19:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point. I will give it a try.--FocalPoint 18:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Although the distinction between "historical information" and "etymology" may be worth considering (but seems a bit too 'subtle' for my liking) I modified the relevant section just because the prose itself was stilted and unnatural. If you want to change it to still avoid "etymology", please try to keep it readable for a general audience. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 14:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the ain't example is kind of odd

My understanding of "solecism" is that it usually applies to prescriptively incorrect usage within a standard dialect or register of a language. The "ain't" example, though, is just one of many examples of regional or lower-class English dialects, which is a somewhat different concept from a solecism. Surely describing a particular sentence of Cockney English as solecistic would be odd, for example. --Delirium 07:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? That wasn't my understanding at all — after all, the word is named after a group of Greeks that, in the view of the Athenians, spoke incorrectly — but etymology isn't destiny, and if you have reliable sources that support your understanding, then obviously that wins out. —RuakhTALK 18:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

May I point out to Ruakh that he actually used etymology to explain things which are described in the article, yet he chose to remove it at the time. Maybe it is time to think it over Ruakh? --FocalPoint 18:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You're conflating two different points. Assuming Solecism is to be an actual article (as opposed to a redirect or something), it should be about solecisms. Its scope is therefore circumscribed by the definition of the word solecism, and the etymology of the word might be relevant to us as editors insofar as it helps us understand the definition correctly and therefore give the article its proper scope. The article, however, is not about the word "solecism", and as the etymology of the word "solecism" does not seem to say very much about solecisms — indeed, if Delirium is correct, then the etymology of the word doesn't even say very much about the word's current definition — then it's not worth including in the article. (This is a frequent debate, however, and as a standard compromise, Wikipedia makes a habit of linking to Wiktionary entries for the words we use as article titles; so, for example, Solecism links to wiktionary:solecism, which does have etymological information.) —RuakhTALK 20:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] does this article serve any purpose?

playing devil's advocate, i would propose that the article be deleted since it contains little information about solecism beyond an attempted dictionary definition. TrumpingTon 17:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. So you don't think the article should be deleted, but you're proposing its deletion anyway? Devil's advocacy can be useful, but in this case it seems rather silly. —RuakhTALK 18:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "He ain't going nowhere"

The solecism is in "nowhere", not ain't. Correctly used, dialect isn't solecism. --Dweller (talk) 09:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)