Examples:

Go back from whence you came
(should be go back whence you came -- whence means "from where")

Using 'data' as if it were a singular noun

"Begs the question" interpreted to mean "prompts the question." Correct meaning is a logical argument where you assume the very thing you are supposed to prove.

Anyone with sense knows their own limitations. (Mixes singular and plural case)

As a writer, grammar is important to me.
(Should be, 'As a writer, I ....'. The construction 'As a writer, grammar ...' makes it sound like it is grammer that is the writer, not that far distant pronoun 'me'.

You get the idea.

"From whence" isn't actually incorrect, just redundent...like saying something was "cerulean blue" or "sitting on (something)".

We almost never talk about an individual datum anymore, thought people do still use the word. I'm not sure which usages you mean other than using 'data' where 'datum' would be correct...I'm thinking you mean grammatical usages but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

"That begs the question" is commonly used to mean an answer removes the question to another question of similar implication.

"How did life arise on Earth?"

"It drifted in from space as microscopic spores."

"That begs the question, how did it arise somewhere else?"

This usage is still correct. Most people don't use it for "prompts the question" because the usage "brings up the question" is still far more common and comfortable for most people. However, while begging the question can mean 'appealing to the question', it can also correctly be taken to mean 'appealing for the question'...it is simply that one usage is more commonly accepted, not that the other usage is in any way actually incorrect.

quote:

---

I would guess that the strongest proponents of basics instruction and testing and all that would take great offense at the suggestion that grammar, spelling, proper usage don't matter very much, as long as you get your idea across.

---

Indeed, this may be the case, but I don't see what this all has to do with pronunciation...which doesn't fall iunder any of the above catagories and isn't standardized under our language system.

Okay, I think I've got that under control. As Survivor said, nucular is a matter of pronunciation, not grammar, and I don't think anybody expects Texans to use proper pronunciation.

You people owe me one for keeping this post constrained to the subject of the original grammar issue, and keeping poilitics out of it. It wasn't easy.

quote:

---

Anyone with sense knows their own limitations. (Mixes singular and plural case)

---

I think "they" is well on its way to having the meaning "one person of unspecified gender." And frankly, I think it's a much better solution than "he or she" or "he/she" or "s/he" or "one." The language is evolving in that direction, and it makes just as much logical sense as using "you" instead of "thou" for the second person singular.

Main Entry: nu·cle·ar
Pronunciation: 'nü-klE-&r, 'nyü-, ÷-ky&-l&r

Sorry guys. Pronounciation changes over time, and there's nothing you can do about it. It's pretty much a majority thing...

When I lived in Britain, there were plenty of place names that had what seemed like a zillion extraneous letters in them. Here's a lovely one:

Main Entry: Worces·ter
Pronunciation: 'wus-t&r

And "Worcestershire" is pronounced "'wus-t&r-sh&r".

Also people who use a word that sounds similar to the one that they're supposed to be using, rather than the correct one. A classic example is 'I could of done that' rather than 'I could have done that'.

quote:

---

Anyone with sense knows their own limitations.

---

I'm not sure I see what's wrong with this. Could you explain in more detail? You say its something about plural and singular usage mixed up, but I don't get that. Anyone is singular, knows is third person singular, their is gender-neutral singular. What's the issue?

quote:

---

When I lived in Britain, there were plenty of place names that had what seemed like a zillion extraneous letters in them.

---

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=nuclear&x=0&y=0

It is true that people's mispronunciation can lead to a pronunciation being added to the dictionary - I love how Webster's justifies it (disapproved of, but found anyway)! Most of the educated people I know don't pronounce 'nuclear' with the extra letter, but obviously things can and do change. The dictionary in my bookcase does not include the pronunciation (or the word 'muggle') - guess I need a new dictionary!

I recently offended some people by mistake, in having issue with the Junie B. books. The grammar issues in Junie's speech are meant to help show her youthful self, but I forgot that grammar mistakes would show up in her inner dialogue. I had thought that it was teaching young readers, through modeling, incorrect grammar. But if we don't expect people or books to be models to learn from (except teachers who we'd better test, and educational texts, when schools can afford them) I guess we can ignore grammar or pronunciation and accept differences for their entertainment value. (yes, teacher speaking)

It sure would be easier to use "they" as explained above!

What they mean is, "I couldn't care less," I pressume.

The "begs the question" misusage is something that used to drive me crazy. I would say I hear it used in the sense of "leads us to the question" far more than the correct usage of using the conclusion of your argument as a premise of your argument. To say that we know the existence of God because the Bible tells us he exists, and the Bible is and undisputable source because God wrote it, is an example of begging the question.

But, as I've mellowed over the years, I've learned to relax about people using words and phrases "wrong." English, especially spoken English, doesn't have some infallable judge lording over it enforcing its rules. It's a consenses language. If 95% of people use begging the question to mean what it sounds like it means, i.e. leads us to ask the question, then that's what it means. I personally won't use the construction this way, but I long ago stopped correcting people when they used it. I only came off as a jerk and a snob when I flashed my language cop badge.

However, returning once again to the no child left behind topic that started this, I do think we have the absolute right to force our children to adhere to strict rules of grammer and pronounciation. I would say if you are under 18 and use the word "nucular," teachers should have the right to zap you with a cattle prod.

And if a child misuses "begging the question," I say he should be slapped with a herring.

I think you are wrong about Carter. I made a careful study of his pronunciation when he was president, and I am quite sure he said nooky-er (as in, my bombs are nooky-er than yours are.)

And just for the record, the original post was not a matter of politics at all. I am in fact curious about my own ambivalence on this issue. On the one hand, as a tried and true situational ethicist, cultural relativist, and secular humanist, I rebel against the tyranny of arbitrary and meaningless rules of usage. Moreover, as a card carrying member of the professoriat, I know well the historical futility of trying to constrain the evolution of language. On the other hand, it simply sounds WRONG to say nuculus. This is not just a matter of regional variations in pronunciation. The word is nuclear. Look at how it is spelled. It comes from the word nucleus. Saying Nucular isn't a matter of contraction for rapid or relaxed speech, and it isn't a matter of bending vowels due to regional pronunciation patterns. I am not sure where it comes from, but my bet is on the origin being carelessness and error. Still, people will talk the way they want, I suppose.

As has been pointed out, "nucular" is accepted. I personally find it easier to say nuclear, and I wouldn't ever say what Carter is reported to have said...it sounds a little obscene. More than a little.

But my original point is and remains that while I may chuckle quietly at odd or even technically incorrect usages, I laugh out loud at people that complain about imprecise use of the language when they haven't nailed it down themselves! Not harsh or mocking laughter, of course.

But you have to admit, when someone is pointing out various little errors in another's usage, it would seem incumbent on the critic to be clear of such errors.

As for the question about Bush's motives, I think that Bush does it to remind people of how petty his enemies are...getting riled over the pronunciation of a word. Whether or not his enemies really are so petty doesn't matter, politically, it works to his advantage to make them seem so. And he gets to do it every time he discusses anything important.

Honestly speaking, I think that some of his political opponents actually were the fools that handed him that weapon by attacking him as a 'cowboy' in the first place. And some people continue to get pulled into arguments that make them look like...well, like they think that national policy should be decided on the basis of how we pronounce the word "nuclear". So I would say that his strategy is working to that extent.

quote:

---

Go back from whence you came
(should be go back whence you came -- whence means "from where")

---

quote:

---

Using 'data' as if it were a singular noun

---

quote:

---

Anyone with sense knows their own limitations. (Mixes singular and plural case)

---

quote:

---

Then why does our President continue to say "nucular" when he should be saying "nuclear?" Why do his handlers implicitly accept this usage as correct etc? Does this bother anyone but me?

---

quote:

---

Main Entry: nau·seous
Pronunciation: 'no-sh&s, 'no-zE-&s
Function: adjective
1 : causing nausea or disgust : NAUSEATING
2 : affected with nausea or disgust
- nau·seous·ly adverb
- nau·seous·ness noun
usage Those who insist that nauseous can properly be used only in sense 1 and that in sense 2 it is an error for nauseated are mistaken. Current evidence shows these facts: nauseous is most frequently used to mean physically affected with nausea, usually after a linking verb such as feel or become; figurative use is quite a bit less frequent. Use of nauseous in sense 1 is much more often figurative than literal, and this use appears to be losing ground to nauseating. Nauseated is used more widely than nauseous in sense 2.

---

I think that the thing that bugs me the most is sentences liberally seasoned with swearing and slang. A while ago, when my little brother started using the word "phat" I flipped out. I don't bother him about I/me or who/whom but I can't stand that outright slaughter of the language. "Dawg." [shudder]

For real, dude, you need to chill.

One thing that drives me nuts is when people use internet slang in non-internet conversation. TTYL, BRB, LOL, etc. How freaking retarded is that?

The answer is super freaking retarded.

1. The prescriptivist- identifies a correct grammer, one that they believe should be followed to the letter, i.e. Proper grammer is set in stone and changes little with time. A good example would be your average college english teacher.

2. The descriptivist- realizes that regional and global colloquialisms exist which render fluid changes in a language, i.e. correct usage is correct inasmuch as it is used and commonly agreed on. A good example would be many authors and liberal literature departments.

Yes, 'new-kyu-ler' is listed as a pronunciation of nuclear, but it is a colloquial documentation of usage. It IS NOT proper (in a proscriptivist sense). Hey, the argument for the two schools of thought has been going on for hundreds of years, and whatever system you proscribe to, you have to understand both to write effectively. Except in strict literary works, you will have to use "common speach", and to be taken seriously you'll have to twist some pretty wicked grammer.

I wonder if we can ask the UBB coders to come up with one, though I suppose might work.

quote:

---

imho [in my humble opinion] the language is fubared [f***** up beyond all recognition] lol [laughing out loud]...afaik [as far as I know] tho you cant rtfm [read the f****** manual] cuz there isnt 1 [one].....ianalinguist [I am not a linguist - a play on ianal: I am not a lawyer] but imo [in my opinion] its still np [no problem]...otoh [on the other hand] its a major pita [pain in the a**] rofl [rolling on the floor, laughing]

---

What I don't like is when people use slang or swear words -exclusively.- English is such a full, expressive language. There is a wealth of adjectives out there. Try out a new one.

I'm also driven nuts by spoken internet slang. (Mmm, passive voice... I use it far too much. Must be a side effect of writing papers for school.)

A spoken acronym that has always made me wonder is POW. Almost anything with a W takes more syllables to say as an acronym. And I think most people say /priz nr/ instead of /priz i nr/ (I don't know the code for schwa). So in that case it would be shorter. I guess acronyms just sound more martial.

We refer to Webster's, but Webster's is an American institution because it was the first dictionary based on the way Americans speak. It is a descriptive tool, not a proscriptive one.

I occasionally encounter someone that speaks with a drawl, wears a cowboy hat, tight jeans, and boots. But this is a rare occurence, and most people speak and dress like typical Americans.

Of course, I live in the suburbs in Houston, but then much of the state's population lives in such cities.

Texans that live in rural areas, of course, do fit more with the cliches typically mentioned. But then, I'm sure that's true for most states, each in their own way.

So lay off Texas. Bush doesn't deserve any extra slack because he comes from here, and we don't deserve extra criticism for the same reason.