Acceptable Bad Grammar?

[[deleted user]]

It doesn't answer the entire question. Why would longevity establish proactive as a valid word and not "ain't"? And, if true, why can one be used in formal and semi-formal writing and not the other?

[Christina]

Okay, reading back on what has happened since I last checked, I want to give a friendly reminder everyone to keep the conversation impersonal and civil. I consider this group to be one of the better places on the internet, so let's keep it that way.

And to answer your question, Ken, ain't and y'all are slang where as proactive and like are transitions that have happened to standard English.

But yes, there are plenty of traditionally published folk humorist authors who use all kinds of vernacular in omniscent narration.

[[deleted user]]

Christina wrote: "And to answer your question, Ken, ain't and y'all are slang where as proactive and like are transitions that have happened to standard English..."

Then, to be pacific, I'll throw another word up for grabs: irregardless.

[Christina]

And I will throw the dreaded Star Wars prequels back at you: Only a Sith thinks in absolutes.

I forgot to mention that in addition to being an ever-changing and malleable tool, the English language has about eighty bazillion rules and one of those rules is "don't expect these rules to make sense." No, pacific is not a replacement for specific, but you can't tell that to the poor unfortunate with a wicked sinus infection, now can you? And while irrigardless is nonsense, it is understandable nonsense. I worked with a woman who used this and I saw the snickers and eye rolls. As much as I didn't like this particular woman, I never joined in because who am I to tell her and the millions of others they are wrong?

[Micah]

Christina wrote: "ain't and y'all are slang where as proactive and like are transitions that have happened to standard English..."

I'd say rather that ain't and y'all are vernacular in specific regional dialects. But same thing. They are not as universally used/abused as proactive.

Y'all, for example is only one form of that contraction. Some US regions use y'uns or you'uns or y'us.

[Micah]

I often wonder how much grief Shakespeare would have gotten into if they had the internet back then.

http://www.shakespeare-online.com/bio...

[[deleted user]]

Christina wrote: "And I will throw the dreaded Star Wars prequels back at you: Only a Sith thinks in absolutes.

I forgot to mention that in addition to being an ever-changing and malleable tool, the English langua..."

But the same rules that made "proactive" a word should also work for "irregardless," which has been around many decades longer. The primary question still is: should an author use these words in a novel, outside of dialogue and first-person narrative? And wouldn't many readers dismiss him as ungrammatical, or at least too "mainstream-pop-culture" to take seriously?

[Christina]

Ken wrote: "But the same rules that made "proactive" a word should also work for "irregardless..."

Actually, no. Despite the fact that I won't argue it's use, irregardless would be similar to people who use literally to mean figuratively or atypical to mean typical. Adding "ir" to a word makes it negative. Irregardless would technically mean the opposite of regardless. This happens all the time. In fact, here's a great list:
http://ideas.ted.com/20-words-that-on...

Now, adding "pro" to a word does not give it a meaning that is opposite its original. Pro means to advance or to be in favor of. Proactive advances the action.

I still maintain that this arguement belongs to academics and not futurists, but what do I know?

[Peter]

For me there is a difference between "acceptable writing" that is to say writing that is not grammatically incorrect and good writing. Many words like "proactive" are derived from business jargon and there is a serious risk that they will fall out of favour. In addition there is a danger of cliché when one uses these popular neologisms.

With respect to "irregardless" I would use "regardless" simply because it's shorter and simpler (a general rule of good writing).

I think in the end the reader decides what is acceptable. In my reading, I begin to object when I stop to think about a word rather than follow the flow of the story. Perhaps as writers we are more prone to this distraction than most.

[Christina]

I might also add that there is an entire generation of pock marked youth who know Proactive only as the expensive snake oil their parents shell out for in hopes of having blemish free children.

[[deleted user]]

I've heard that commercial, but I have no problem with a company calling its product by any name it wants to. I just consider it a trendy name, like Clearasil, which helps to sell a useless product. I do think it's a stretch to differentiate the meanings of "ir" and "pro" as prefixes for an existing word: I still say that both were and are used unconsciously to add emphasis. And if I see "proactive" in a novel I think "irregardless," and wouldn't be surprised to find the latter in the same novel.

[Christina]

Context to what, Rob?

[Owen]

Ken wrote: " I do think it's a stretch to differentiate the meanings of "ir" and "pro" as prefixes for an existing word: I still say that both were and are used unconsciously to add emphasis."

I still don't understand the logic that says "proactive" is "bad" but "reactive" is not. There are certainly plenty of other ways to express "proactive" but the same is true of "reactive".

Where do people stand on inflammable vs. flammable?

Ain't is, of course, both proper and consistent. That it is considered "improper" is merely a peculiarity without any logical basis. (Is "improper" OK? Maybe it be better to say "not proper"?)

It'll be interesting see what the opinions are when I return to this topic ... I mean come back. ; )

[Richard]

The problem with "ain't" is that is isn't a contraction of anything. What letters, added at the apostrophe, result in a word or phrase? I don't geddit, innit?

[Richard]

In the excellent the very good Philip Pullman has his characters say "ent" when they're talking common. Seems more logical than ain't.

[Christina]

Richard wrote: "The problem with "ain't" is that is isn't a contraction of anything. What letters, added at the apostrophe, result in a word or phrase? I don't geddit, innit?"

On the contrary:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?t...

[Christina]

Rob wrote: "@Christina, Context regarding "the expensive snake oil their parents shell out for in hopes of having blemish free children", I feel I'm missing some (possibly local) context here."

Ah! Yes, Proactive is the name of a really expensive acne medicine endorsed by the likes of Katy Perry here in the States.

[Owen]

Richard wrote: "The problem with "ain't" is that is isn't a contraction of anything. What letters, added at the apostrophe, result in a word or phrase? I don't geddit, innit?"

Indeed, it is. You aren't; we aren't; they aren't; she isn't; I am not... thus, I ain't. "You ain't" would thus be incorrect in the same sense that "He aren't" is considered incorrect. (Oh -- I see Christina beat me to it.)

[Owen]

Rob wrote: "The problem with proactive is more a usage problem like the one with compelled vs impelled..."

I feel "pelled" to also mention "repelled". : )

Can I be "nonpelled" or "unpelled"? Maybe "irpelled"?

Irrespective of any possibly irregular perspective with respect to a directive regarding ir, in, un, non, pro, pre, and re... I'd like to reiterate that, um ... dang it. Lost my train of thought there. Guess I gotta go in for retraining. I mean training... once I recuperate -- cuz I wouldn't wanna relapse -- or lapse.

Oops. Sorry...

[Robert]

"The problem with proactive is more a usage problem"

That seems to indicate it is not a technical issue but a social issue, something you have no control over.

[[deleted user]]

Rob wrote: "Ken wrote: "I still say that both were and are used unconsciously to add emphasis."

'ir...' is in the case of '...less', 'pro' in 'proactive' has absolutely nothing to do with emphasis.
There may ..."

"Ir" or "pro" may not be used properly for emphasis, but people who use it definitely mean it that way. I think "proactive" became popular during the time when businesses were using "Pro" a lot in their commercials to mean the same thing that "extreme" was later was used for. Problem is, "extreme" doesn't make a good prefix, while "pro" can be put in front of almost anything to add emphasis. I'm not entirely certain of all that, but it sounded good and I'm not going to look it up. I'll leave that to Owen.

Wow, Clearasil is still in business. http://www.clearasil.us/

[Micah]

Excerpts from Mirriam Webster's Online dictionary

================================
Definition of IRREGARDLESS
nonstandard : regardless

Usage Discussion of IRREGARDLESS

Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

===================================
proactive
adjective pro·ac·tive \(ˌ)prō-ˈak-tiv\

: controlling a situation by making things happen or by preparing for possible future problems

1 [1pro-] : relating to, caused by, or being interference between previous learning and the recall or performance of later learning

2 [2pro- + reactive] : acting in anticipation of future problems, needs, or changes

— pro·ac·tive·ly adverb

[Owen]

Ken wrote: "I'll leave that to Owen..."

I was there in the fairly early days of "proactive" (1984-85), and at least where I was, it was never used for emphasis. It was used (and overused) strictly in the sense of "Take appropriate action in anticipation".

To be "proactive" was actually to engage in a process: when a potential (or likely but not yet emergent) problem/issue was identified, various courses of action to be taken in advance were proposed and evaluated. The selected actions were then implemented (more or less). To be engaged in this process was said to be being "proactive".

Now I have no doubt that once it became a buzzword, people started using in other senses (though, again not within my horizon, up to 2002). But people have done the same thing with "literally". In wanting to lend hyperbolic emphasis, people began using literally to mean figuratively. But this is misuse -- or misappropriation. Literally is still a perfectly good word, with a worthwhile meaning.

Such misappropriation does not make either literally or proactive "non-words" or "incorrect" in their original sense. It makes then annoying and obnoxious to some. If they become obnoxious enough, like "ain't", they may fall out of general favor. Thus, does language evolve.

But it will be an evolutionary process, not a logical one, and (just like ain't) one may chart the rise to acceptance, and subsequent decline. This happens all the time, and such words show up as "archaic" (like fain). That doesn't make them "non-words" or "wrong" words.

As far as I've noticed, the use of "pro" as a prefix lending emphasis has (in all case I can recall) meant "professional" not "prior". In that sense, there seems to be "pro" all sorts of things, and "extreme" and "pro" in that sense have been linked, and maybe through sports? (Pros do seem rather extreme at times.)

The widespread use of "pro" to mean "in advance of" I haven't see in ads or idiomatic speech, but I don't get out much.

[Owen]

There might also be confusion due to the fact that "pro" as in pros and cons or probiotics is Latin ("for" something, forward, advancing something), while "pro" as in proactive is Greek (beforehand, the fore part of something).

[Christina]

Look, let's settle this once and for all:

My autocorrect, which is powered by Google, therefore the utmost authority in all things, recognizes proactive if I type 'proac' but will try to correct irregardless to 'it regardless.'

It also recognizes ain't and predictive text will suggest 'like' if I type 'tastes.'

[W.]

Google is all powerful. So say we all.

[Christina]

So say we all!

[Micah]

So let it be written, so let it be done.

[Owen]

Alea iacta est.

[Glenn]

Christina wrote: "W. wrote: "When somebody goes into a business to shoot up his former colleagues, they call it an ACTIVE shooter, not a proactive shooter. When directors are shooting movies, they don't call for PRO..."

Totally agree with this interpretation and previous comments pointing out that language evolves and always will. I think 'active' becomes generic and 'proactive' or 'reactive' become specific based on whether the act was preemptive or a response.

[Micah]

Glenn wrote: "I think 'active' becomes generic and 'proactive' or 'reactive' become specific based on whether the act was preemptive or a response..."

"Preemptive?" Shouldn't you just say "emptive?" **ducks**

];D

[[deleted user]]

And I'm wondering why it was not preactive instead of proactive.

Edit: Sorry, I left out "not."

[Robert]

Would that be for a prequel?

[Glenn]

Micah wrote: "Glenn wrote: "I think 'active' becomes generic and 'proactive' or 'reactive' become specific based on whether the act was preemptive or a response..."

"Preemptive?" Shouldn't you just say "emptive..."

It just doesn't resonate. It's far too correct.

[Richard]

Saying English is "wrong" when it's inconsistent or unpredictable is like saying the weather is "wrong" when it doesn't match the forecast. Language just happens, all messy like, and we writers just have to guess what our readers will find acceptable.

[Amanda]

I love the word irregardless. If you are having a serious argument with someone all you need to do is use this word to try and really make your point and the next thing you know you'll be arguing about that word instead of whatever you were arguing about. I speak from personal experience.

[Christina]

Well, when you put it like that, you have a really good point.

[Micah]

So...it's like not so much a word as a debate tactic.

Wow. Meta.

[Richard]

It sounds absolutely infuriating - remind me never to get in an argument with Amanda!