The website PAJIBA: Sweetened by Mock, Lightened by Droll (file:///Users/troycroom2/Desktop/Temp.%20Docs/grammar%20rant-Can%20We%20Settle%20This%20Once%20and%20For%20) offers a Grammar Rant dedicated to "I could care less."
1.What does the author of the grammar rant think is important about language and communication?
Apparently the author is upset by the use of the phrase "I could care less" on the grounds that, to the author, it sounds illogical and makes the speaker sound like an idiot.
2. What does the author say about errors or mistakes in people's writing? What do our grammar handbooks say about these uses of language?
Skirting a proper citing of Webster's, the author offers her own analysis of this faux pas, word by word. True to her word, according to laws of logic and the definition of the words, as well as the cumulate phrase, all signs point to "I could care less" being void of meaning (except that everyone KNOWS what it's intended to mean, and, truly, millions of people use it, just as the Leader of the Free World spake "nuke-you-lur").
3. Do the author's claims about what is right or wrong with language always hold true in any communication situation, or can you think of exceptions? What does the presence of exceptions do the author's claims?
See #2 for exception to this rule.
4. How do the author's claims about language relate to the socioeconomic class in which speakers and writers have been raised? Does the author acknowledge these connections? What do these connections between the author's claims and socioeconomics do to the author's claims?
While her claims make no allusions to the speakers'/writers' socioeconomic class, such comments coming from an admitted graduate from a private, hoity-toity university like Carleton, mark the speaker as elitist by association. The speaker fails to acknowledge her grave offense; hence, her claims and her name shall forever be besmirched.
5. How does the author's claim relate to the race of readers and writers? Does the author acknowledge these connections? Does the author acknowledge these connections? What do these connections do to the author's claims?
While her claims make no allusions to the speakers'/writers' race, such comments coming from a smarty pants with her own website make her look lousy.
6. How does the author's claim about language relate to the cultural or geographical region in which a speaker or writer is raised? Does the author acknowledge these connections? What do these connections do to the author's claims?
While her claims make no allusions to the
speakers'/writers' geographical region, such comments coming from a Carleton grad mark her as know-it-all Yankee..
7. What can you tell about the author's connection of language use to the intelligence of speakers or writers? Does the author acknowledge these connections? What do these connections do to the author's claims?
She calls it "just confusing, stupid, and not at all OK and we should not stand for it anymore." She is. verily, contemptuous of such speakers/writers. She fully accepts responsibility for the venom she spits. However, people who live in glass houses (ivory towers)...and at Carleton University, of all places...
8. What can you tell about the author's connection of language use to the ethical or moral character of speakers or writers? Does the author acknowledge these connections? What do these connections do to the author's claims?
Frankly, she sounds pretty high and mighty and finger-pointy, which is just plumb rude.
On the other hand, these questions themselves are more judgmental than the grammar rant itself, in that the website is established for the sake of comedy: "Sweetened by Mock, Lightened by Droll." So, really, to criticize this ranter is like criticizing a hundred other knucklehead loudmouths who make us laugh. If this is true, how serious would our college students take this? Like much comedy, right or wrong, it's pretty funny and highly irreverent. If I know most students, they would side with the comic, not Dunn.
Your thoughts, please?
Most of the grammar rants I found are similarly humorous in tone, while I think Dunn's excercise is geared towards specificly serious-toned grammar rants. I feel like, as our society increasigly focuses on policial correctness, we will find less and less literal grammar rants, and more humorous ones. I think this could still be as useful excercise, but the framework might need to be changed if we are to use more humorous rants.
ReplyDelete