Editor for this issue: Anthony M. Aristar <aristar
tam2000.tamu.edu>
Alexis Manaster Ramer: "it surely is not correct to assume that "Real Linguists" are not prescriptivists. For many if not most of the world's written languages, the folks who are writing prescriptive grammars and dictionaries are in fact linguists... It is I think correct to say that the opposition to prescriptivism in language originated with some linguists around the turn of the century, but I do not think it is true that all or even most linguists ever adopted this stance... While much of the prescriptivist "theory" is drivel" I am no longer sure that it is drivel, since I found in a second-hand shop a book on French grammar and expressions by the died-in-the-wool prescriptivist, Grevisse. I had never read any of his works before. In this book, every time on every bone of contention, he refers to usage, frequency of usage, and the historical evolution of usage, and draws his prescriptions from there. Perhaps prescriptivism has been misrepresented. Take an old-style Latin grammar. The last thing a student of Latin would want is to be confronted with questions of usage, from Cicero to Aquinas: they are matters for experts. The discussion of usage was then mercifully omitted from my high school Latin grammar, which was dryly prescriptivist. On the other hand, I have an old Latin grammar at home, bought much later, which goes deep into usage and its variations in time and across authors. Which makes me wonder: is prescriptivism a straw man?Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue