A few comments make incorrect presumptions. First, Oliver Kamm, author of the WSJ essay, is British, and pretty solidly so as he write leaders for The Times. Second, he is a former prescriptivist who has seen the error of his ways, and has not just recently become anti-prescriptivist. Third, most of the arguments put here in favour of prescriptivism are demolished in his recent book "Accidence will Happen: The Non-Pedantic Guide to English Usage" which I commend not only for its arguments, but also for its guide to usage. I have reviewed it in detail here. There I also suggest one reason for prescriptivism which no one has yet mentioned - the Mother Tongue and old, battered teddy bears. Enjoy!
Slashdot Mirror
A few comments make incorrect presumptions. First, Oliver Kamm, author of the WSJ essay, is British, and pretty solidly so as he write leaders for The Times. Second, he is a former prescriptivist who has seen the error of his ways, and has not just recently become anti-prescriptivist. Third, most of the arguments put here in favour of prescriptivism are demolished in his recent book "Accidence will Happen: The Non-Pedantic Guide to English Usage" which I commend not only for its arguments, but also for its guide to usage. I have reviewed it in detail here. There I also suggest one reason for prescriptivism which no one has yet mentioned - the Mother Tongue and old, battered teddy bears. Enjoy!