So in the latest salvo in the grammar wars, Steven Pinker is taken to task by Nathan Heller in The New Yorker. I read the whole thing and it made my head swim. Here’s a taste:
This tendency to add complexity, ambiguity, and doubt is a troubling feature of Pinker’s rules. He fights pedantry with more pedantry. He doesn’t want to concede that the phrase “very unique” makes no sense (things are either unique or not), so he mounts an odd defense. Look at two snowflakes from far away, he says, and they no longer seem unique: “The concept ‘unique’ is meaningful only after you specify which qualities are of interest to you and which degree of resolution or grain size you’re applying.” If we did all that, we wouldn’t need the word.
You can read the rest at the link above if you dare (or care). I’m just an old dog with no motivation to learn new grammar tricks. So you can count on me firmly maintaining my position in the “descriptivism” school of grammar. I love the fact that there even is such a school. Warms the cockles of my libertarian heart.
Hat Tip to Althouse.