English “Non-Errors” Examined

I blogged a link yesterday to a site of “Non-Errors” in English — discussion of some language rules that the site argues are not really valid rules of language today.
The link is making the rounds of popular blog sites, which is how I picked up on it. I sent it to Stephanie, who is my definitive source for all grammar and editing, (being a well-educated editor for a publishing company and connoisseur of the English language) for her thoughts. Here’s what she had to say:

I think he’s a little hard on split infinitives; for some reason I don’t have a problem with them unless they aren’t clear. I think there’s more to the between/among distinction than he says. The IDG style guide mentions that it matters whether a one-to-one relationship is meant. Our style guides have always specified the over/more than and since/because distinctions, and although I’m certainly not as strict as some, I’m not as permissive as he is. I’m not convinced that “regime” and “regimen” are synonyms — I’ve never heard of a “dietary regime.” Titled vs. entitled — in terms of a book, entitled means “given a title,” and that, to me, happens once. I don’t have the OED, so I can’t see what sense Chaucer used it in.

Posted in Books, Recently Read Tagged with: ,
One comment on “English “Non-Errors” Examined
  1. CGHill says:

    I have actually heard people saying that infinitives weren’t split in Latin, therefore they shouldn’t be split in English. The fact that infinitives were a single word in Latin, and therefore not splittable anyway, doesn’t seem to make any difference.
    I’m with Stephanie on this one: “I don’t have a problem with them unless they aren’t clear.”

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: