Mike,
You say, “I'm game. I have this type of discussion with my coworkers, on average, twice a month.â€
Hmm. I sense a baited hook. Let me circle without biting….
If the workers of a typical organization spend very much time discussing questions concerning grammar or style, then I am forced to suspect a lack of leadership in that organization. Such arguments usually are a waste of our most precious and irreplaceable resource—time—because the questions can be resolved in minutes. Buy a “style†book that most closely approximates the style your leader requires of his subordinates. There are many different (usually self-proclaimed) authorities in the field of English (or American English) grammar and style so find the one that best suits your needs.
Without an agreed-upon final authority, arguing style is seldom conclusive. There are too many opinions (and opinions are like…., most people have at least one, and most of them stink) concerning style to resolve such questions without a unifying document—for example, a style book.
OTOH, if style is merely something preferable rather than mandatory or universal, let style follow substance. I will pay you the compliment of suspecting you agree.
Note in the preceding sentence, the “OTOH†in no way interfered with your understanding of my sentence. It is, as you know, accepted in this forum as an understandable replacement for the phrase, “On the other hand.â€
Therefore, to blame every misunderstanding upon the “transmitter†(the speaker or writer) is blatantly dishonest. The “receiver†(the listener or reader) must share some responsibility in the science and art of communication.
If (God and George Bush forbid it) you were in a foxhole and you (under extreme pressure of mortal combat) yelled for a “clip†rather than a magazine for your M-16 or Beretta, I doubt that even you would appreciate the ammo carrier (burdened with “magazines†for both your firearms) answering back, “I don’t have any clips!â€
Again, the “receiver†must share some responsibility in the process of interpersonal communication.
An honest mistake by the “transmitter†can be understood as unintentional. Competency in vocabulary and style is no longer a requirement for graduation from government schools or most universities. Some people have neither the talent nor the time to educate themselves or, more likely, they recognize no need to do so.
However, for a “receiver†(again, a listener or reader) to
willfully misunderstand the transmitter’s attempt to communicate is dishonest. It is the “receiver†in this case who deserves our disdain.
Note my earlier statement, "As for me, I prefer clear, concise, unambiguous non-standard speech to
willful obfuscations intended to intimidate rather than elucidate."
You replied, “There's the rub, the heart of the problem. Often ‘non-standard’ speech is, by its very nature ambiguous, so it becomes unclear and fosters confusion.â€
While I agree with your statement, it does not apply to my statement. I clearly stated, “
UNambiguous.†Some other thoughts come to mind.
- Non-standard speech is not necessarily ambiguous.
- So-called “standard†speech is not necessarily clear, concise, accurate, or even truthful.
- Perceived specialized needs (e.g. scientific, social, etc.) may create “non-standard†jargon which is both necessary and clear to those who use the terms.
- Colloquial expressions, though “non-standard,†may facilitate accurate communication among the users.
- The pedant’s efforts to “educate†those whom he considers his “inferiors†is
often (to use your word) more an attempt at self-aggrandizement than honest assistance.
For these reasons and others I still believe my preference is valid when I say, “As for me, I prefer clear, concise, unambiguous non-standard speech to willful obfuscations intended to intimidate rather than elucidate.â€
Furthermore, jargon, colloquial expressions, and acceptable language usage must change to cope with changing needs. I doubt that Chaucer used terms capable of expressing the technical differences between DSL and dial-up, that Shakespeare spoke of “foam rubber,†or Robert Burns felt a need to describe modern “Weapons of Mass Destruction.â€
Likewise, my unabridged dictionary has no explanation for “blogger†though we seem to have many, even here, who might epitomize the concept.
So I’ll not take that baited hook. I merely am saddened at the time we spend on needlessly divisive, pseudo-academic topics such as this rather than honest, diligent efforts to restore Constitutional law in the United States.
Also, when the initiator brags that this was done merely to stir the pot because “It was a LOT of fun,†it reduces the initiator to the leve of “troll.†And all of us who responded (including you and me, Mike) took his bait.
www.familyfriendsfirearms.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12673
