Brian Henderson, grammar nazi's grammar nazi
10In another thread, we got to talking about Wikipedia, which I consider one of humanity's greatest achievements. It made me think of Brian Henderson. My feelings toward this guy are more ambivalent. I think I mostly kinda almost sorta admire him. But there's something about what he's doing that I consider a genuine illness and social dysfunction--verily, a plague, upon himself and us.
I confess, I imagine many of you to be a lot like this guy, in a variety of ways. I flatter myself that my own Brian Henderson is mostly contained in a particular corner of my brain, mostly hidden behind the Zaphod Beeblebrox (you see how I do that--stick contrasting, complementary components in the same quadrant? highly recommended). I'm probably wrong about that.
Also, Reply All is an excellent podcast. You should check it out. I'm pretty sure they more-or-less broke this story.
So, apparently, mediocre embedding doesn't capture location. Please go to 14:36. Or follow this link.
- 16 comments, 33 replies
- Comment
Here he is on CBS. With his brother. It's genetic.
Geoff Nunberg (one of my heroes), as usual, sheds light on the affliction.
And the Guardian suggests, simply, that he's wrong. They might be right.
Another great piece.
And, yes, I realize that this is ironic.
@joelmw I love that you are holding this conversation with yourself!!
@mikibell It's my thing. It's one of my things. I have a few things. :-) Not that I am sole possessor of said thing. That would be arrogant.
"Thing" is a funny word.
@joelmw My children would call me a grammar nazi, if they knew there was such a phrase. We just started explaining to my children the atrocities that occurred at the hands of Nazis. May I just say, I am quite proud that the whole concept of not liking people for their religion or skin color baffled my children???
Having gone off on that tangent -- I think tangents are my "thing". I hope your thing makes you happy! :)
Permit me to join your conversation, sir. I admit to only skimming two of the articles you linked to (NPR and the Guardian), and I may have missed other points. However, the idea that someone is a self-appointed arbiter of what is or is not correct is always disturbing. I have my own horrorshow hates in grammar (most notably, "like" when the speaker should have used "as"). I've given up on the pointless use of "utilize" (no, really, it doesn't make you look clever, it's just a waste of extra letters).
I love language. I am a reformed (mostly) grammar nazi. It isn't that I never make a mistake (although I used to tattle on posts over on Woot to have typographical errors corrected). My own worst fault is the parenthetical phrase, which is an addiction. In this case, he's wrong. I agree with the Guardian.
I wish I had the time for my own little treatise here, but life intervenes (as it should).
You're an interesting fellow, @joelmw. Thanks for the diversion.
@Shrdlu Yes, @joelmw, is an interesting (strange) fellow, but we love him anyway.
@Shrdlu "Utilize" annoys me too. I'm all for sesquipedalian amusement, but "utilize" is neither useful nor amusing nor, in fact, sufficiently sesquipedalian, IMO. One of my best friends, a civil engineer, uses "utilize" excessively. I often poke fun at him for it. I think he thinks it sounds authoritative and precise--engineery. I've suggested on multiple occasions, in various ways, that it just sounds wasteful and mildly ostentatious in a not attractive way. It's inefficient, I argue. He still likes it. He's stubborn. But I love him; he is my friend. And I think we all like some things for the wrong reasons.
@Shrdlu And I too am a big fan of parentheticals--layers and layers. My first wife somewhat broke me of the habit. I'm still not sure I'm grateful.
@Shrdlu I try very hard not to be a grammar nazi. Part of what I've decided is that I lean to descriptivist in the prescriptivist/descriptivist debate. And I'm very much a progressive in all aspects of culture, politics, etc. Things are meant to change.
I do, however, loathe the loss of meaning. I was very sad when we lost "literally." And, yes, I deride those who seem entirely unaware that they've ruined that word for the rest of us.
I'm also fond of certain old and ancient things, despite the progressivism.
@Shrdlu Finally--and, I swear, I think I'm done for now--you should check out June Casagrande's work. She's one of my favorite grammarians and her stuff is quite readable and fun, and she seems like a delightful, agreeably snarky person. She even consented to be my Facebook friend and will occasionally even like or comment on my drivel.
http://www.grammarunderground.com/
@joelmw damn you for making me have to look up "sesquipedalian".
@carl669
@Shrdlu the best litmus test is to end a sentence in a preposition and see whether the person loses it, then to pull out evidence that that "rule" is nonsense
(ps lemme know if you don't know what I'm talking about... ಡ ⌣ ಡ)
@Lotsofgoats What I love is when someone is all pissy about "violations" that aren't, but they put "whom" in the subject and/or "I" in the object. For instance, "Whomever ends a sentence with a preposition is literally dead to Brian and I, irregardless of what any grammarians say."
I apologize to those whose brains have been injured by that example.
@joelmw lol irregardless is so extremely devoid of regards you monster
@joelmw People like to make a big deal about "literally" losing its meaning, but the OED has examples of it being used hyperbolically going all the way back to 1769 (See definition I.1.c). It's not new, it just seems more widespread now.
@jqubed The fact that it's been used that way isn't news. But most lexicographers resisted registering as acceptable its self-negating sense. There is significance to the tide turning. In any case, no matter how far back it's been used that way, it's still wrong.
@joelmw it's literally fine
@joelmw @Lotsofgoats Ouch.
btw "they" as a singular neutral pronoun is growing on me, tbh because "he" as a default is crappy
@Lotsofgoats I'm convinced that "they" as a singular pronoun is not only viable and acceptable, it may be preferable in certain cases.
@joelmw yea I just let an individual do what they want
He says in the interview (and I'm paraphrasing); "It would be nice if [the English] language never changed".
I, for one, am really delighted that language (and many other things) has evolved, otherwise my cookbook would be comprised of shit like this (For to Make Tartys in Applis, an 18th-century print of a 14th-century recipe for apple pie):
However, since I'm a woman I'd be illiterate, and unable to read whilst chained to the stove. Note the use of the Oxford comma there, shithead.
What a douche.
@MrsPavlov I’m afraid that is not the Oxford comma. That comma before the “and” is incorrect under every prescriptive grammar I know.
@giraffedata welcome to the forum? What a strange thing to bring up from the dead to nitpick. Are you Brian Henderson, by chance?
@djslack @giraffedata I’ve noticed that it’s usually gramher nazis, not gramhim nazis.
OP’s image be broke. I think this is it.
@djslack Well, I just stumbled across this forum and I thought I could contribute to this topic, which is all about the nitpicking of grammar. If there’s going to be a reference to the classic Oxford comma nitpick archived on the Web for all time, it just makes sense to add that the reference was incorrect.
Yes, I am the Bryan Henderson who is the subject of the topic.
@djslack @giraffedata
@giraffedata this is accurate. It was just a very old discussion so to see it pop up is strange. Usually a necropost is some spammer dropping a link to some shady website. I had a hunch it might be you since this wasn’t a spammer. This took a while to come full circle.
Welcome, you’ll find this forum is
comprised offrequented by all kinds–most of whom don’t bite. (Sorry, had to.)I think you mean "grammar Nazis' grammar Nazi" ;)
@PhotoJim I could, but I don't. ;-p At the very least, the singular is allowable and appropriate. I'd go farther and say that it follows precedent. The most common example I can think of is "man's man," in which the genitive is obviously singular. As for capitalization, I considered it as I posted and consciously decided against. I find capitalization to be a far more fluid thing (I work with engineers who--and I mean these particular ones, not sure if it's a common tendency--like to capitalize common nouns; some of my favorite poets capitalize for emphasis or eschew it altogether). I'm actually against the tide on this one, but I'd argue that lowercase makes more sense in the colloquial expression "grammar nazi." But more to the point, in this specific case (and a few others), I also mean it as a dishonor. As a general rule, I won't capitalize the title "satan" either.
Thanks for allowing me to clarify and giving me the excuse to ramble. :-D
Deal Genius sells crap (like the bajillion other sites that copy things started by people here) and their emails usually have a funny thing near the bottom. The most recent one is apropos this conversation:
My take on it is if the writer doesn’t care about the reader enough to put effort onto following the common communication conventions of their audience, then they don’t deserve my time to read it because I’m not their audience.
I try to be abstemious in writing, but often fail.
Conjunction Junction, what’s your function?
@mike808
/giphy “cluck cluck”
Anyone else think that ‘that’ is a useless word that adds no value to the sentences that it appears in?
@mike808 I too, think that.
@mike808 @therealjrn
I think that you’re wrong about that.
That serves a multitude of useful functions–more numerous than I care to list. But above all else, that is the far demonstrative, and, as such, among the most fundamental lexemes in our language (it’s said by some that the near demonstrative is the very beginning of language; and surely the far demonstrative is, um, not far off–though it may denote a thing that literally is). For chrissake, with this and that you’ve got the beginnings of binary, the bits that underlie this whole business of computers and interwebs and whatnots. I could go on. I have work to do, damnit. And I probably shouldn’t even be on this aged thread.
@joelmw @mike808 Is that a Throwback Thursday post?
Holee Sheeit. That woke up @mike808. By that, I mean this.
@therealjrn
/giphy wut?
/giphy conjunction
@OldCatLady
/image ConFuckTion
