It is worth noting that the Boston Globe article was also by Geoffrey Pullum. Any guesses as to who wrote the Wiki article?I can't give you XP, but let me link some unflattering commentary on S&W I demur to retype myself:
The Elements of Style - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A quick summary:Not to threadjack, but can someone point me to a link or something detailing this Games Workshop PR debacle [MENTION=34534]carmachu[/MENTION] is referencing?
It is worth noting that the Boston Globe article was also by Geoffrey Pullum. Any guesses as to who wrote the Wiki article?No proof, but I do have a guess....
The Auld Grump, in the manner of being the one dentist who does not recommend brushing after every meal, his good judgment is to be doubted....
Fowler's?! Even in 1908 his grammar - 'The King's English' was considered inaccurate, even for British English. Stretching it to cover American English would be folly. 'Dictionary of Modern English Usage' was even worse! (We had a teacher who openly ridiculed Fowler's. Amusingly, this same teacher was a huge proponent of Wheellock's Latin.Well, it wasn't me.
S&W are exalted by being recognized, not by being expert. I consider debunking S&W no more iconoclastic than calling into question Dr. Phil's expertise on relationships. Much as with Pluto's planetary status, the brontosaurus, and the oft-misunderstood "the exception proves the rule," we cling to "facts" we were told we could rely upon, with perhaps less than ideal understanding of the logic, and yes, rules, that underlie the learned consensus.
The main value of S&W is that it will teach you the style that everyone else has been taught. It will not, however, teach you correct grammar, nor does it admit to much in the way of geographic variation in English, i.e. how it is written in England. It gives senseless and archaic advice that was perhaps practical at one time, but which has eroded in value, such as the distinction between classical names and non-classical names and the possessive S. That rule only existed because people continued to read books with archaic and irregular possessives, such as popular versions of the Bible.
Not only do they malign the passive voice, but they do no not understand it. Thanks to their dubious advice, modern software still reliably identify adjectives such as "confused" as though they were verbs.
When I want to theologize English, I prefer Fowler's. Even his British English is arguably more useful than S&W, since his usage, grammer, and linguistical command are better. And as for vernacular, there is no better grammarian than Google.
*EDIT* Let us leave this discussion here - suffice it to say that I will be sticking with S&W over Wikipedia....
All better authorities than Wikipedia.
The AuldGrump, also, it is 'linguistic', not 'linguistical'....

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.