Look Out for the Language Cop With Literary License

As one who believes that good writing sticks to rules of grammar, and who occasionally criticizes journalists and broadcasters who violate them, I am fair game for that school of linguists who scorn rules and argue that good writing is “natural.”

“Dispensing With the Indispensable Strunk and White,” by Bill Wyman, an article published recently in a San Diego newspaper, attempts to demolish the popular 1919 freshman English grammar, “The Elements of Style,” by William Strunk Jr., as edited and enlarged by the late essayist E. B. White.

Wyman faults the book on many counts, but harps at length on its proscription of the word transpire in the sense of happen. Wyman argues that the word has been used in that sense for 300 years.

“I was suddenly struck by the artificiality of so many language ‘rules,’ ” he writes, “and by the zeal with which they’re enforced by so many. Everyone’s an expert these days; if you end a sentence with a preposition, you’re going to have the ‘free for all’ grammarians on your case.” (I don’t know any modern grammarians who accept that rule.)

By “free for all” grammarians, Wyman evidently means such columnists as William Safire of the New York Times, whom he identifies with the “league of little language cops loitering about on literary street corners with its ears pricked up to catch an infraction.”

He says linguistics is a dirty word to language cops, but that “the real battle ended” with publication of Merriam-Webster’s Third New International Dictionary in 1961. That was the controversial edition that was more descriptive than proscriptive, reporting how the language is used, not how it ought to be used.

I have a recent letter from Merriam-Webster enclosing the article on “who/whom” from Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage. The entry is two pages long, which suggests that the dictionary is still concerned with proper usage. It notes that whom is vanishing from speech, but persists in writing. (Shakespeare was oblivious to modern rules. He wrote both “Young Ferdinand, whom they suppose is drowned,” and “To who, my Lord?”)

As I said recently, it is better to use who in every instance than to use whom in a misguided bid for elegance when who is correct.

For example, in her recent TV debate with Pete Wilson, Dianne Feinstein said, “I think it’s meaningless that whomever is the chief executive. . . . “ In Wyman’s view, there is nothing wrong with that whomever , but obviously Mrs. Feinstein was trying to use good grammar and erred.

Erik J. Madsen of Santa Ana points out the improper use of the pronoun he by sports announcers. He cites these recent examples:

* “Mobility is the difference between he and Montana. . . .”

* “There is about 80 yards between he and the green. . . .”

* “Davis now coming to bat, and the coach is sending a signal to he and the baserunner. . . .”

This is a common blunder that seems particularly popular with sports announcers, the reason being, I think, that they were all scared by Edwin Newman’s indictment of sports broadcasting grammar. They are trying hard to be correct, and have the notion that he is better than him . These people also say “between you and I.”

Wyman is certainly right that the language changes constantly, and in time, I suspect, whom will expire, except when it is used incorrectly by people seeking to express themselves elegantly.

By the same process, “between you and I” and “there’s nobody between he and the goal line” will in time become common (and therefore proper) usage, but I hate to see it happen.

That this usage is even creeping into places where we should not expect to find it is shown in a clipping of a Los Angeles Times editorial: “Saddam Hussein would dearly love to turn the tables on the United States and have this country, not he, viewed as the aggressor.”

A Times editorial also presents an example of what I say will be the inevitable solution to the absence of a non-sexist personal pronoun. “Rather, it is an emphatic insistence on the right of every American to make distinctions for themselves according to their own taste and conscience.”

Some say we need only make “every American” plural--”all Americans”--and the problem is avoided. But we don’t want to say “all Americans.” We want to say “ every American,” for emphasis. Eventually, the plural their and themselves will take the place of his and himself , or himself or herself , as well as the abominable he/she , his/her . In this sense, Wyman is right. What will be will be.

But he is mistaken in thinking that we can write well merely by doing what comes naturally. It is enlightening to me that I can find no violations of conventional grammar in Wyman’s entire article. He must have learned it somewhere; perhaps, as most of us do, at his mother’s knee.

Meanwhile, I’m happy to be a member of that league of little language cops loitering around on literary corners with its ears pricked up to catch an infraction.

(Beware excessive alliteration.)