Talk:English usage controversies

Double copulae
A distinction needs to be made between disputed usage and incorrect usage. In the case of the double copula, it's simply incorrect. Does any source say otherwise?81.157.63.47 (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes:, , , , and , though some of those consider it correct only in a non-standard register or in a more specific grammatical context. -- Beland (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I added it back to the list of examples. -- Beland (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Many reversions over "Double modal"
I took the "Double modal" out of the list of examples, justifying the edit with
 * " Double modals are not generally regarded as ungrammatical. See citation in Double modal article. If you want to claim that there's a dispute over that, please cite it."

It has been reverted back and forth several times, here are the various comments:
 * TJRC undid, with: ""not regarded as correct grammar", "Nonstandard" per Double modal and its references"
 * 99.163.50.12 re-did, with: "This article is about disputes, not "nonstandards". If everyone agrees it's nonstandard, there's no dispute, is there?"
 * Weasel Fetlocks re-undid, with: "double modal is widely used & also widely regarded as ungrammatical - I.E. its usage is disputed."
 * 99.163.50.12 re-did, with: "'widely regarded as ungrammatical' - cite that. The Double Modal article doesn't say that, quite the contrary."
 * TJRC re-undid, with: "'generally not regarded as correct grammar'" [as stated in Double modal]

OK, so, let's do this here instead of in an ever-lengthening list of edit summaries.

Statements in support of removing "Double modals" as a construction of English under dispute:
 * 1) At first, I thought that the Double Modal article said "These kind of double modal phrases are generally not regarded as incorrect grammar", followed by cautions. Well, I admit, I read it wrong. It does indeed say "generally not regarded as correct grammar", after all. OK, neverminding the hilarity of the author who wrote "These kind...", which I think we all can agree isn't Disputed English but is just wrong, I still maintain that no evidence has been provided supporting the statement that "These kind [much less any other kind] of double modal phrases are generally not regarded as correct grammar". The citation provided, http://www.bartleby.com/68/3/2003.html, which I do accept as a respectable source, only recommends that one not use them except in the most informal of situations, and only spoken ones at that. The reason for that recommendation is that the specific examples given are regionalisms. It doesn't say "Double modals in general...", nor even "These examples in particular...", "...are regarded by at least some authorities as ungrammatical and wrong in English". See Shibboleth.
 * 2) The Double Modal article very clearly contains examples of double modal construction of the kind not limited to regional dialects, and these double modal constructions are not among those perceived as ignorant or incorrect ("might be able to"). Since double modal constructions exist which are not disputed, double modals as an all-encompassing category should not be said in this article to be disputed, even if there are specific examples ("might could") which repulse some listeners. Double modals on the whole are clearly not in dispute as to their correctness.
 * 3) As I requested, citation should be provided of English-language authorities or references stating that Double modals in general, or even specific double-modal phrases, are in dispute or incorrect, if this is to be included in this article. So far, no citations have been provided, and there are demonstrable contradictions to the claim.

Statements in support of including double modals in this article:


 * 1) "Nonstandard as per Double modal and its references." I respond: Nonstandard isn't the same as "disputed", not by a long shot. We will need a citation that says "incorrect" or "not universally regarded as correct". "My nana taught me" won't count, and neither will a Wikipedia article - though the references of one might, if they're proper. In this case, the indicated reference does not support the claim - in either article.
 * 2) "double modal is widely used & also widely regarded as ungrammatical - I.E. its usage is disputed." Regarded as ungrammatical, or disputed, by what authority? The "wide regard" of some population of English speakers, even if that were citable as fact, would not constitute an authority. I am as aware of this wide regard as anyone else is, but it doesn't mean it's right. See Split infinitive. As a matter of style or register, one may wish to avoid such construction, but such avoidance can hardly be justified as a strict matter of grammar.
 * 3) "'generally not regarded as correct grammar'" [as stated in Double modal]. The current state of the Double modal article does not count as a reference, because the claim that's being made is not cited. The citation that's offered there doesn't state what the article says it does. There's also a huge difference between the "general regard" of speakers of English and that of scholars of English, so, if this is to justify the reversions, a reference which is a little more authoritative than "generally everybody I know".

My main objection is to the categorization of double modals on the whole as disputed. If there is a specific phrase or construction which actually IS disputed (a scenario which I expect is a more likely one), then let's by all means include it as one example of disputed English which happens to be a double modal, not as an example that all double modals are disputed. And let's not forget the citations. And those citations should say that there's a dispute, not that it's incorrect. Meanwhile, I have made a change to the article which I hope is satisfactory to all concerned while the rest of this is worked out. Thanks for participating, --99.163.50.12 (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To me it's obvious that many speakers have double modals as part of their grammar, while most speakers (myself included) consider them to be ungrammatical; hence, it's a matter of dispute. I do agree that we should have references — we should always have references — but I disagree with you on two points. First of all, you seem to feel that this must be removed until references are added; I disagree. I think that we should let obvious statements stand, while seeking references for them, and I believe that these statements are obvious. At the very least, when a clear and strong majority of editors support the statement, they should be given a reasonable amount of time to find references, rather than being forced to engage in a series of reverts simply to keep the information from disappearing into the bowels of the edit history. Second of all, I disagree with your statement that “those citations should say that there's a dispute, not that it's incorrect”; I don't see why that's necessary. —Ruakh TALK 01:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, part of the issue here seems to be a matter of definition; see http://www.bartleby.com/68/18/3918.html for the definition of "modal" n. that most of the editors here are using, and notice that it doesn't include "be able to". If you feel that the statement needs to be modified to clarify the definition it's using, or even to use different (less ambiguous) terminology, I think that's fine; but this difference in definition is not a reason to remove the statement. —Ruakh TALK 01:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

None
Should the usage of "none" as a singular or plural be included? Many people insist that "none" must go with a singular verb, however plural verbs have been used with "none" in texts such as the King James Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadpotatoes (talk • contribs) 14:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Dangling participles and gerunds preceded by objective pronouns
This article is one of those that ties together many articles helping wandering readers to find related articles and, as many others, it is in a messy state. English words with uncommon properties was deleted having fallen in utter disrepair, so it is possible to loose lengthy and old articles, I hope this does not happen here. Despite the above, I arbitrarily think that in the list dangling participles and gerunds preceded by objective pronouns should be added as they are quite important. --Squidonius (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Lede and citations
The lede should clarify whether these are disputes between reliable sources on English or simply between average English speakers. For example, is there really a dispute between reliable sources on English on whether it is incorrect to use a conjunction such as "and" or "but" at the beginning of a sentence?

Given that some of these disputes may not actually be between reliable sources, I suggest that these "disputes" should be sourced. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For that example, there's a reference on Conjunction (grammar), documenting a dispute between the Chicago Manual of Style and K-12 teachers. (And see reply generally in the next section.) -- Beland (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

What are we doing here?
This is a terrible article. The idea of "disputed" grammar is not even sourced. If it was, it would help steer the article. If the dispute is between reliable sources, the "disputes" then would juxtapose ideas between reliable sources. If the "disputes" are between non-reliable sources ... well, that's more challenging to source, but it could be done through reliable secondary sources. Yet, that would also focus the article.

Finally, it looks like WP:OR throughout. If no one finds a notable source to define the article's title soon, I'll recommend this be deleted or merged. If a source is found, we should be able to narrow the scope of the article and remove some of the original research. Airborne84 (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If I remember correctly, there's a chapter on grammar disputes and the proscriptivist-descriptivist conflict in The Language Instinct, and various controversies are also covered in Eats, Shoots & Leaves. I agree some of the general claims need to be better referenced; these are at least a start.  The individual controversies are better referenced in the individual articles, such as Conjunction (grammar), Split infinitive, and Preposition stranding.  I agree those should be propagated here.  They document that sometimes there are in fact conflicts between textbooks, style guides that are widely used, or used by respected publications; sometimes the conflict is between professional publications and what is taught in K-12 education.  I think the textbooks and style guides are what you mean by "reliable sources", though that's not what I would call them, since there is no single correct English grammar about which they can reliably report.  Certainly even if professional style guides all agree, it would still be interesting to document in this article that a significant percentage of speakers considers a certain construction in a formal register incorrect and a significant percentage consider it correct.  And ideally we'd have some source that can point to a reliable survey, or at least an expert or forum that hears people argue both sides. -- Beland (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Removing unsourced material
I'm pasting the examples section below. I reviewed a nomination for deletion in 2009 and that suggests that there will be resistance to a nomination now. Why? Because the article probably hasn't changed much since then: it is almost all without sources. There were a number of people who said that it just requires work. But no one is doing it. Thus, I'm going to remove some of the unsourced material and put it here until it is sourced because I believe that including some of this material will cause further misconceptions by people coming to Wikipedia looking for information.

Examples
The following are disputed usages in Standard English:
 * Generic you – e.g. "Brushing your teeth is a good habit." as opposed to "Brushing one's teeth is a good habit"
 * Split infinitives – e.g. "To boldly go where no one has gone before." as opposed to "To go boldly where no one has gone before"
 * Conjunction beginning a sentence – e.g. "But Mom said not to jump on the bed!"
 * Double genitive – e.g. "a friend of theirs" as opposed to "a friend of them" or "their friend"
 * Gender-neutral language in English
 * Me mistaken for I - e.g. "It is me." as opposed to "It is I."
 * The use of like as a conjunction – e.g. "Like I said," as opposed to "As I said,"
 * The validity of aren't as a negative First Person Singular conjunction for to be in interrogative uses – e.g. "Aren't I the one you were talking about?"
 * Whether to use the subjunctive mood – e.g. "I wish I were/was a better man."
 * Whether to use who or whom in various contexts
 * Whether to use the active voice or passive voice in various contexts
 * The use of less or fewer with count nouns
 * The use of whilst, amidst, and amongst

The following are non-standard English usages, which are nonetheless popular:
 * Double negatives – e.g. "We don't need no education."
 * Certain double modals – e.g. "You might could use it."
 * The use (spoken and written) of the word ain't and other similar constructions.Airborne84 (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * And it is not clear to me that the one source above is identifying a dispute. It looks to me to be more of a misconception. Airborne84 (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * From a neutral point of view, it's difficult to maintain a distinction between a dispute and a misconception, given that the descriptive definition of a dispute is that some people think it's incorrect while others think it's correct. There's no objective truth against which one can be misconceived, unless perhaps the number who find something incorrect is negligible. (In which case it's not worth documenting here.) -- Beland (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain all of these are real disputes. I'll go through and add sources for them, though in many cases the sources can already be found in the linked articles. -- Beland (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * When it comes to sourcing (and the article title) I think one problem is the use of the word "dispute", which might be understood as implying that reliable sources describe rational arguments for and against a purported rule. I would like to say that a sufficient criterion for inclusion is met if a reliable source describes the existence of a purported grammatical rule and describes the rule as having no rational basis, as being a myth, superstition, or misconception. However, if we are to use that as one possible (sufficient) criterion for inclusion,I would prefer to use a word other than "dispute", both in the article title and in the body of the article. Another restriction is the use of the word "grammar" in the title. It is important that we
 * # avoid original research (though the boundary may be a little unclear) and
 * # restrict ourselves to issues of grammar (in the wider sense)
 * Inclusion should require reliable sources indicating that
 * # a purported rule exists
 * # the purported rule explicitly or implicitly defines a grammatical error
 * # the purported rule is either disputed or incorrect.
 * To take, for instance, the "rule" on the split infinitive: Strunk & White is probably not a valid source in support of inclusion, since the authors do not make any claim (explicit or implicit) that the "split infinitive" is ungrammatical; they merely state that "the construction should be avoided unless . . .". If we are to include controversial stylistic advice, we should remove the word "grammar" from the title, However, the Cambridge Grammar can be used as a source, because it describes the "split infinitive" as "probably the best-known topic in the whole of the English pedagogical grammatical tradition" and also states that there is "no rational basis for the prescriptive rule".
 * --Boson (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * From a descriptivist point of view, there doesn't really have to be any rational explanation behind a rule. Though it is certainly interesting when reasons are put forward, whether or not they are rationalizations after the fact.  If 99.9% of speakers agree something is incorrect, then it's not correct English.  If 50% think it's correct and 50% think it's incorrect, whether or not there is any particular reason, to me that certainly sounds like a disagreement or dispute.  If you don't like "dispute" in the title, what would you prefer?  We could also say "usage" or "language" instead of "grammar" since in some cases it's word choice and not really syntax. -- Beland (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed retitle and merger with Common English usage misconceptions
I propose this article be renamed Disputes in English usage, which usage says includes "points of grammar, syntax, style, and the choice of words". The list of examples in this article already includes issues which are arguably not grammar.

After the referencing of examples in this article as bona fide disputes is complete, I propose merging part of Common English usage misconceptions here, because on a topic like this where there is no objective truth beyond actual usage and the opinions of speakers, "misconception" is simply a POV position that deems incorrect any contrary opinion that a construction is incorrect. All items currently referenced as "misconceptions" would of course need sources confirming that some people do in fact find them incorrect (which is probably already the case since sources complaining that people are wrong about something effectively document that some people have the opposite opinion).

That would leave two overview articles on this topic: Disputes in English usage, which covers examples more complicated than a single word or phrase, and List of English words with disputed usage, which covers specific words and phrases indexed alphabetically (and where the remainder of Common English usage misconceptions) would go). -- Beland (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I would prefer the title English usage controversies, but I agree that a different name is necessary if the article is to contain controversies that are not of a grammatical nature.
 * I also agree with splitting Common English usage misconceptions and merging relevant material here.
 * I agree with avoidance of the term "misconceptions" in the title, though it may be appropriate to indicate the mainsteam view of linguists on individual purported rules in the content.
 * --Boson (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: In the text, I would possibly include information about misconceptions, so it might (later) be appropriate to add something like "and misconceptions" or "and misunderstandings"  to the title, especially if we wish to deal separately with the controversies and any misconceptions (on which the controversies may be based). For instance, there appears to be a controversy about the use of the passive voice, with some (e.g. George Orwell) saying  "never use the passive where you can use the active" and others (e.g. Professor Joseph M. Williams) saying "the passive is often the better choice".  Connected to that – but separate – there appears to be a common misunderstanding about what the passive voice is. It appears to be prevalent among followers of The Elements of Style  though in the case of Strunk himself it may simply be a case of bad writing rather than a misconception.--Boson (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, moving to English usage controversies. -- Beland (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Changing the name here to controversies doesn't help the root problem: the topic of this article is not well-defined (is it controversies between reliable sources or non-reliable sources such as bloggers?) and this article is still very much lacking sources. I disagree with merging Common English Usage Misconceptions here. As has been covered on that talk page, that article covers not just when people disagree about something, but when many people say "x, or y is true or false," or "z must be done to be correct," but reliable sources state that the idea in question is incorrect.
 * There could certainly be some topics covered in both articles. For example there could be some sources arguing that one should not end a sentence in a preposition. That would not change that there are (as noted by reliable sources) many people who think that you cannot or must not do it. That remains a misconception and is sourced as such on that page. Airborne84 (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is why I think it might be necessary to add something like "and misconceptions" or "and misunderstandings" to the title (if we find that there are some noteworthy misconceptions that have not also led to controversies and cannot, therfore, reasonably dealt with under such a title). Since there are differing views at the level of the topic as well as at the meta level, it is, in my opinion, more sensible to have a single article, where the differences can be presented without forcing editors to make implicit decisions on which view is correct by deciding what to incude in which article. If there is one article, all relevant views can be presented in one place with due weight and the mainstream view presented as such. Even if all reliable sources state that one view is correct and the opposing views are held only by bloggers, that does not mean that there is no controversy. There can still be a controversy (possibly based on ignorance) with reputable authors and linguists on the one side and hordes of clueless bloggers and misguided school-teachers on the other. And we can discuss this controversy if we have reliable sources stating that a controversy exists (or existed in the past). If a reliable source states that a "widely held belief" is "prescriptivist poppycock", "a superstition" or a "myth", or "has no rational basis", I think this can be treated as implying such a controversy. I agree that citing an unauthoritative blog with one view and a reliable source with a differing view is not sufficient to document that there is a controversy, but there may also be cases where the existence of a controversy is obvious, and some blogs (e.g. those by professors of linguistics) may be reliable sources. --Boson (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If we, as Wikipedia editors, are going to choose to exclude what reliable sources state as misconceptions and discuss only in different terms, then Wikipedia has a bigger problem. For then, other articles, such as List of Common Misconceptions, and many similar articles (see the "See Also" section on that page) will have to go as well. For there are many topics in those articles that people also dispute and for which controversy continues to exist (such as the science and religion topics).
 * If articles discussing the dispute or controversy aspects of these topics, to include the English usage one, are adequately linked in the "misconception" articles, that should be sufficient to point readers to further reading. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To "exclude what reliable sources state as misconceptions and discuss only in different terms" is not what I am suggesting, and I don't understand anyone else to be suggesting such a thing. Especially if there is disagreement among the general public about whether some of the issues are misconceptions, it is better to have all the views in a single article, where it is possible to discuss them and present the mainstream view. Having separate articles is not conducive to a neutral presentation of the issues. I have no objection to stating that a particular issue represents a misconception where this is true, but this does not require a separate article including only those issues which are universally considered misconceptions.--Boson (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia appears to indicate that a stand-alone article that comprises English usage misconceptions is notable. The first sentences at WP:NOTABILITY state: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. Article and list topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice'. In general, if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Common English usage misconceptions is extensively sourced with reliable sources. It meets the criterion for notability and a stand-alone article.

On a side note, merging two articles should also take article size into consideration. Merging the two articles would create one over the 50kb threshold at which Wikipedia indicates and article may need to be split. And given that this article sorely needs to be further developed, the size is likely to increase. But this is just an aside since the main concern, notability of the topic of the misconception article, is covered adequately in WP:Notablity. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * As I see it, in this context, and especially given the NPOV concerns, notability is a necessary, not a sufficient condition, and presumption is not proof. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one and wait to see what others have to say. If necessary, we could start an RfC, in order to get more opinions. --Boson (talk) 07:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. Airborne84 (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to start an RfC, please do so on Common English usage misconceptions since that is the article that stands to be removed if a consensus agrees. The question of whether it is a notable topic is better discussed on that talk page. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merger with List of English words with disputed usage
So, hum, yeah, I think the other merger should'nt be done, cuz if there's consensus in dictionnaries to say "this is bad usage", then it should be taken as bad english usage (not going to enter into those "good" or "bad" debates, but this page relies HEAVILY on dictionnaries, saying yes OR no while the common english usage misconception just talks about what dictionnaries consider as wrong ("saying YES"), so it's definitely not the same) And so, controversies are ALSO discuted in List of English words with disputed usage, so i think it would be merged. (if someone can replace those parenthesis and the text between them the way to say YES to the poll, please...)

Erm... questionable (that is "fragwürdiger" :P) article
Pardon my being so blunt, but the list of "controversies" is - erm, I don't know - pretty dodgy? (ok, the first few are anyway, I didn't get very far yet...), and the citations (again, those I've seen) are laughable. I realise the discussion above is related to this topic in a certain manner (as is that on the article referenced for merger), but I don't have time to go through that right now. I promise I will read it before touching the article or making any concrete suggestions though :) ! 37.209.42.230 (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC) P.S. - my view is that this article is at least as "unneutral" as the other one...

P.P.S. What's with the section marked in red??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.209.42.230 (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on English usage controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060707151608/http://www.scholars.nus.edu.sg:80/post/india/hohenthal/9.2.html to http://www.scholars.nus.edu.sg/post/india/hohenthal/9.2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Rewrite the intro?
The intro seems terribly MOS:INUNIVERSE, the universe in question being the murky one of language "experts" who create and perpetuate fictions about language. Let's take a look:

Yes, sometimes. Or else they're just personal preferences that so-called language experts -- by which I do not mean actual linguists -- have developed into their own rules.

Language teachers and writing-style guides are not prescriptive authorities. (To do justice to writing-style guides, the better among them do not purport to prescribe authoritatively; they merely suggest and advise.) And even if they were authorities, they would not determine the grammatical correctness of various usages. That's simply not how grammaticality judgements work. (Nobody told me that "Put it away" is grammatical and "Put it further" is ungrammatical; I unconsciously figured this out for myself.)

This presupposes that the language busybodies are language authorities. Very few of them are.

The article is a lot more level-headed than this introduction suggests; the introduction doesn't do it justice. Rewrite? -- Hoary (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that the introduction needs a complete rewrite. --Boson (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Here's a first stab at it: I'm sure that I'll find fault with this within as little as twenty minutes, but I'll stand back for a time and let others comment. -- Hoary (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No other taker? Here's a second stab at it: How's this? (Pinging Boson!) -- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Debunked" might be read as implying a point of view, so I would, perhaps end with something like "or its rationale is challenged". Otherwise looks good to me. --Boson (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Done! -- Hoary (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Chas. Caltrop. What's your objection, exactly? -- Hoary (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * A reply

The flouting of the Wikipedia rules, in order to publish personal opinion — misrepresented as fact — in contradiction to the Wikipedia rules: No reliable source, no publication. How are you two editors exempt from the rules of Good Faith? Deleting substantiated text with a reliable source and replacing it with opinions that are those of the editor who "re-wrote" facts to his taste is legitimate? Given that the source is a legitimate source, an Oxford companion, that is impressive. I missed the Ph.D. graduation, sorry.

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your references to "the rules of Good Faith" or to a "Ph.D. graduation".


 * I wonder at the asymmetry here. I posted objections to the lead, and a suggestion, above. I waited; I let people agree or disagree; none disagreed more than trivially; I rewrote the introduction (incorporating the one quibble). By contrast, you simply rewrite.


 * So here (after REF-stripping) is what you have the article say:


 * ''In the English language, there are disputed grammatical constructions that native speakers identify either as a correct usage or as an incorrect usage. The roots of English usage controversies are the differences between formal and informal speech, and among the dialects of the language; thus, informal speech and non-standard dialects sometimes are identified as incorrect usage.


 * In spoken language, the correct use of a given register or of a dialect, can be perceived as a marker of education, of culture, and of group identity. Prescriptive authorities, such as language teachers and a writing-style guide, determine the grammatical correctness of English-language usages; hence, usage disputes arise when language authorities disagree with each other, or disagree with an actual (non-standard) usage spoken among the population.


 * Each paragraph is sourced to "The Oxford Companion to the English Language (1992), Tom McArthur, Ed. pp. 1072–73." It strikes me as very odd to cite mere page numbers from within an Oxford Companion. I have a copy of the book in front of me. These two pages are from within a longish article: "Usage", by Robert E. Allen. I don't recall having read it previously. I like what I've quickly (re)read of it. Allen talks of "controversies" and "disputes" but I don't notice any example of any real dispute, in which some native speakers "identify [whatever] as a correct usage" and others "as an incorrect usage". Rather, he talks of usages that are identified by some as incorrect.


 * (I started a short paragraph above with the construction "WONDER at [noun phrase]". I didn't thereby "identify it as correct usage": I simply used it, because it's part of my idiolect. Had it been an item within a grammaticality judgment experiment, I'd have okayed it and thereby identified it as grammatical; but it wasn't.)


 * If these are "controversies" (and I really wonder), then one "side" simply uses the "controversial" item, and the other objects on any of a number of grounds, including those you say but also others (analogy, etymology, etc) as Allen says on the very two pages that you cite.


 * Or do I misunderstand something here? -- Hoary (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There are controversies or at least heated debates about a lot of the grammatical pet peeves also among "experts". It would be a good idea to look at Pinker's recent book "Sense of Style" for descriptions of different usage controversies. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My regional library network has nearly five dozen copies of that Pinker book, one of which is on the table next to me right now. Thanks for the recommendation.
 * A while ago, someone gave me a copy of John McWhorter's "Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue", which describes the creolization that led to English having bits of Celtic structure commingled with Germanic vocabulary. Later, Scandinavians had a pidginizing influence, "knocking off the corners" as McWhorter puts it, when the inflection of English lost many of its case markers. With such a history, it should come as no surprise that prescriptive "experts" disagree. Just plain Bill (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * snunɐɯ (and/or others), I have a borrowed copy of Pinker's The Sense of Style in front of me. I skimread much of it once, and found it sensible and pleasant enough, but only mildly interesting -- perhaps unavoidably so, given the subject matter. (If you want one book by Pinker, try The Blank Slate.) Sorry, but I've no desire to reread great swathes of it. Much of the long chapter "Telling right from wrong" is devoted to dismissing prescriptivist peeving. The boundaries of the meaning of "controversy" are fuzzy, of course, but what I skim-reread doesn't rise to what I'd call "controversy". It's just the refutation -- or, if you're unconvinced, the purported refutation -- of peeves or bugbears or "rules". (Or am I missing something there? Does the chapter for example describe actual controversies among prescriptivists?) I might use the term "controversy" for arguments over prescriptivists' bugbears if some of these prescriptivists fought back -- whether against Pinker, against Geoffrey K. Pullum (Language Log, passim), against Oliver Kamm (Accidence Will Happen); or, further back, against Jim Quinn (American Tongue and Cheek), or, I suppose, against various others I can't immediately think of or haven't heard of. Do prescriptivists do this? (I really don't know.) &para; To take another approach, let's look at the first example this article gives of a "controversy", the one about impersonal you. Here's what it says:
 * [An online dictionary] lists "one; anyone; people in general" as a definition without qualification that it is non-standard / [A high school] requires replacing "you" with another word unless it means "you the reader".
 * Well actually no, the high school did not require this. What it said (with my added emphasis ) was:
 *  In formal writing the pronoun you should be used only to mean "you the reader." In most cases a noun should be substituted for you.
 * (And note the mild "should", where "must" could have been used in its place.) I don't see any disagreement between what's said by the two sources, let alone any "controversy". &para; Incidentally, while I'm no great fan of The Sense of Style, it deserves a better article. The only mention of Strunk within the current article is: Building upon earlier guides, such as Strunk & White's The Elements of Style and Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, [The Sense of Style] applies science to the process of writing.... But Pinker writes (in the Prologue) of Strunk and White that they justified their peeves with cockamamie rationalizations. He also refers (in the context of "masterful", within the alphabetical list of peeves) to "Fowler's harebrained schemes to tidy up [English]". These books aren't the foundation for his newer alternative. -- Hoary (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC) ... tinkered with 22:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Really, this is pretty bad. Consider:
 * The validity of aren't as a negative first-person singular conjunction for to be in interrogative uses 
 * A "negative first-person singular conjunction for to be". By to be, I think the writer means the lexeme BE. By "conjunction", the writer probably means "contraction". However, it isn't a contraction. "She's a fine pianist, isn't she?" is, I think, not "controversial". Let's try "uncontracting" it: *"She's a fine pianist, is not she?" No, this is ungrammatical. (Or it is for me, anyway.) For me, the grammatical version without so-called contraction is "She's a fine pianist, is she not?" Hardly contractable; instead, there are two different structures. &para; And there are more problems. -- Hoary (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

OR in the lead?
diff @Chas. Caltrop: What, specifically, do you consider to be original research in the lead? In particular, what assertions in the lead are OR, not sourced in the body of the article? Just plain Bill (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Me vs I content
In received English, the sentence "George and I went to the shops" would be correct because if I were to remove the words "George and", the sentence would still make sense. Mr anonymous username (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The example for singular 'they' is bad
"A man does not go to war to get killed, but they do get killed". That's not a singular they, it's a generalization on the previous sentence. ie. "A man does not go to war to get killed, but [men that go to war] do get killed." 2601:84:8A01:A4B0:256D:2419:320B:F4E (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I replaced it with clearer examples. Botterweg14  (talk)  19:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

"open/close to denote turn on/turn off"
This section shouldn't exist. It is not, to my knowledge, used by native speakers of any dialect (and the section doesn't claim it is). If we were to list every construction that any non-native speaker of English may use, we would have an infinitely long list. Moreover, I don't know of any sources (and none have been given), prescriptivist or descriptivist. which regard this as an acceptable or correct usage.

Unless a source claiming it's used by natives is provided, this section does not belong here. 94.241.72.241 (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I fixed the link on the citation. It does seem to imply that it is used. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)