Of such distinctions as that between 'iced tea' and 'ice tea' Phil Smith writes:
| And not worth debating, as such...folks understand you either way! This view is the predominant one among usage-preoccupied linguists. Usage, by anyone, legitimates [almost] any construct In fact, however, things are otherwise. Two examples will help to make clear what I mean. Many American blacks say 'aksed' where I say 'asked'. Now this is not an error. It is a dialectal variant. There is an important sense in which 'aksed' is every bit as legitimate as 'asked', and there are contexts in which it is literally unremarkable. Still, the heard-out-of-context use of 'aksed' can be disqualifying. American blacks who wish to function effectively in some contexts--It is open to them to have no such wish--need to speak different, appropriate dialects in different situations; and many of them do so routinely and all but reflexively. Or again, Knuth recounts an anecdote, in his book 'Quiddities', of listening to learn whether a speaker at a scientific meeting would use the word 'data' in the singular or the plural. Its use in the singular was disqualifying. Knuth listened no more. Now it is certainly possible to disagree with Knuth, to judge that usage amply justifies, even sanctifies, the use of 'data' in the singular. Knuth was nevertheless a towering figure, one of the greatest logicians, philosophers, and, yes, linguists of the 20th century; and his judgments were consequential. There were and are circumstances in which ignoring the judgments of such figures would be foolhardy. It is possible to stigmatize them as élitist, but doing so does not make them inconsequential. John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
