individualism for the masses

BK Marcus is an amateur political economist with no formal education in the subject.

He works from Charlottesville, Virginia as an editorial consultant for the Ludwig von Mises Institute and managing editor of Mises.org.

He is no longer a house husband, nor a faculty spouse, but he is still a dilettante and a layabout, at least in spirit.

twitter.com/bkmarcus

recent

Please supportGo To Project Gutenberg

Wikipedia Affiliate Button

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."

Murray Rothbard

calendar

August 2009
S M T W T F S
« Jul   Sep »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

archives

categories


Benjamin Tucker Marcus
February 19, 2010

if I were king

August 25th, 2009 by bkmarcus

What we were taught in grammar school was called, appropriately enough, grammar. But by the time you get to college (or even high school), old-fashioned grammar is looked down on as reactionary, authoritarian, even racist. After that, the only respectable use of the term grammar is descriptive grammar — meaning a linguistic analysis of common usage. At this point, those of us who want or need to maintain a standard for clarity of communication are relegated to terms like style and usage.

My favorite grammar books, therefore, don’t have the word grammar in their titles:

  1. The Chicago Manual of Style
  2. The American Heritage Book of English Usage

Despite their apologetic tone, these are both solid references for anyone looking to standardize written grammar.

Chicago is available online (for a subscription). American Heritage was online at Bartleby.com, but some time in the past year, it disappeared down the memory hole. This has been a problem for me professionally, as I need an online reference to cite for editorial corrections I make at work. Otherwise, resistant writers or underinformed proofreaders are likely to incorrect my corrections.

The section of American Heritage I have needed to cite most often is the subjunctive, which is usually a counterfactual construction, but is too often confused for a conditional. In a self-conscious effort to get it right, most writers seem to get this one wrong. So you think it would be easy to point them to an authority on getting it right, an explanation not just of how and when to use the subjective mood but also when not to use it.

The only reliable such explanation I’ve found is American Heritage, and it’s no longer conveniently available online.

So I’ve transcribed it here.

Posted in language | No Comments »

Leave a Comment

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.