Hacker News Reader

Comment by stinos | Hacker News Reader

Thanks for this. Even if some don't agree with this, it does in my opinion show that it can be rather silly to treat any style guide as authorative. Especially an old one, in a world where there are considered to be multiple types of English. A bit of a rant maybe, but this stems from having wasted hours on a discussion on whether or not a comma is mandatory after a certain construct, and 'Elements of Style' was being treated as being definitive on the subject (for reasons I still do not understand), even though I presented other guides which would say the opposite or would say that there is no decision.

On that subject: as a non-native speaker I always wondered if there actually is a grammar (not syle) guide which is considered authorative, as there is for other languages?

View on HN

> On that subject: as a non-native speaker I always wondered if there actually is a grammar (not syle) guide which is considered authorative, as there is for other languages?

No living language has a fully authoritative grammar book, as the grammar of living languages is discovered, not prescribed. That's a part of what linguists do, after all, and they have plenty of debates over precisely how to do it. The overly-simplified grammars taught to language learners as "Correct" are only the tip of a huge, wonderously complex iceberg.

Here's an example of a more academic English grammar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cambridge_Grammar_of_the_E...

Note that The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language is almost 2000 pages long.

As a French native, born and living in France, I can guarantee you that "a fully authoritative grammar book" backed by a public institution can be a think. Really, here even orthographic errors is supposed to be deemed as a "fault" for which you should feel very ashamed. All that with a large set of inconsistent rules, all having exceptions.

The fact some finger-wagging body in France thinks it can sweep out the tide doesn't mean it's capable of any such thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Canute_and_the_tide

Interesting links, thanks.

Yes, we agree, but those pretending they can when they are backed by governmental powers can go pretty far in term of influence.

All that is is a style guide for government publications. It's not binding on anyone else, and certainly is not representative of how French people really speak or write.

Of course it's not representative of how French people speak, write, or think. It does influence all aspects of their life wherever they have verbal interactions with some institution, and all the side effect it can permeate to.

I think Italian actually has an official version, which is from when the Academia della Crusca got together and decided what would be the official Italian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accademia_della_Crusca

Again, a government claiming they have one doesn't mean it's possible.

Extra appropriate to this thread, given one of the authors.

As you noted, there are "other guides". As an antidote to Strunk & White, I have always liked the Fowler brothers' The King's English (1906):

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_King%27s_English

Just a small sample:

"The 'split' infinitive has taken such hold upon the consciences of journalists that, instead of warning the novice against splitting his infinitives, we must warn him against the curious superstition that the splitting or not splitting makes the difference between a good and a bad writer."

No, English does not have this. We can't agree on anything and we like it that way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com