[Riverkid: my comments are direct and frank but they are in no way intended to be disrespectful] My new comments are in red.
RB wrote: riverkid, why do you have to turn everything into a battle about prescriptivism versus descriptivism?
That is the central issue, RB. You raised it yourself. You pointed out, correct me if I'm wrong, how artificial these prescriptions are. Why would anyone want to use artificial rules for language when language has all the real rules it needs to do the job. 
Why not use accurate descriptions of language instead of artificial prescriptions, which are after all, mere opinions of how some people want to see language.
RK wrote: His definition is precisely what The Grammar Book, a respected ESL grammar uses.
RB wrote: Well, I disagree with The Grammar Book. I've pointed out what I believe to be a weakness in that definition: it's far too simplistic and simply doesn't match reality. You haven't addressed that with anything more than appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy and always a very weak argument.
You chide me for "an appeal to authority" yet you offer nothing more than "Rewboss".. These are people who have studied language and found prescriptivism to be sadly lacking. And it is and has been sadly lacking. RK wrote:
I'm not aware of any dialect of English that actually has a rule, a real rule that is, where double negatives cancel each other out to form a positive. Perhaps you could point one out for us?
RB wrote:
How can you, who claims to believe in descriptivism, demand to see "a rule", and then qualify that by saying "a real rule"? What do you regard as "a real rule"?
A real rule is one that describes how language is actually used.
RB wrote:
For a huge number of speakers, a double negative is generally a positive, such as the dialects spoken in southeast England, on which RP is partly based. In a large number of dialects, speakers do not use double negatives, or use them only as negated negatives (slightly different from a straight positive, of course, but I was simplifying for clarity).
I would truly like to see some proof for this contention. RK wrote:
If this was to appear in a technical manual, every native speaker of English would know that it was a typo
RB wrote:
How would they know if it's perfectly grammatically correct? Are you saying that technical manuals follow different rules of grammar? If so, why are you even arguing with me?
I think you missed a negative somewhere in there, but I believe I get your point. Because I disagree, vehemently, with your example. RK wrote:
I can't imagine any person, even the most prescriptive, thinking that the two negatives mean that a person should supply hydrogen gas to the outlet.
RB wrote:
Perhaps that's because such a construction doesn't exist in your dialect. Maybe it exists in mine. Do you know all English dialects? I mean, do you really?
Let's get rid of the maybe's and deal in facts. Do all double negatives mean a positive in your dialect of English, Rewboss? What is your dialect of English? RK wrote:
These unhelpful statements have been repeated for so long by prescriptivists that they have, for some, taken on the qualities of a mantra.
RB wrote:
No, this is your mantra; it has become so because every time somebody says something you personally disagree with, you claim that it's "prescriptivist" and therefore "wrong". It is by way of a knee-jerk reaction with you: "This is a silly prescriptivism", "Prescriptivists have always claimed this, but they're wrong" -- and yet the fact remains that for a large number of native speakers of English, a double negative is not a negative. There's no "right" or "wrong" here; there are dialects of English that treat double negatives differently. The error would be to suggest that one way is "correct" and the other is "incorrect" -- that is the fallacy. They are all correct within their own dialects.
I've never said that one way it correct and others incorrect. I'm merely questioning your contention that there are dialects of English where a double negative equals a positive. So don't just tell me, prove it to me for I simply don't believe that what you've said, above, is an accurate representation even of BrE. I may well be mistaken but I need proof, not opinions. Steven Pinker quoted:
A tin ear for stress and melody...
RB wrote:
I'd like to see Pinker use that argument for written English. Punctuation and italics can only give a rough clue as to intonation, stress and melody.
I'd like to see you address the issue, Rewboss. Professor Pinker was quite obviously addressing the spoken language. RK wrote:
That Standard English better facilitates communication is a complete falsehood, Rewboss. People communicate perfectly well in their dialects, at least as well, if not better using nonstandard forms.
RB wrote:
People communicate perfectly well within their dialects, but between dialects is an entirely different matter. I would be very surprised indeed if you could understand a broad Geordie dialect, as spoken in the Tyneside area of northeast England. Even most British people have trouble with it. It may well be that "yakkin Geordie is mint", but you'd never write a technical manual or even a novel in Geordie. (You might write a novel in standard English with some well-known Geordie dialect words and a few spellings to indicate a Geordie accent, but that's not the same.)
And why wouldn't you write a book in real Geordie? Not because there's anything inferior about Geordie, but because people in Cleveland, Auckland or even Birmingham, England would have difficulty understanding it. Write it standard English, or even standard English with variations, and it instantly becomes accessible to all. I hope it is not your contention that someone from Newcastle can make himself better understood by a New Yorker if he spoke Geordie instead of Oxford English.
Please, Rewboss, let's do focus. You clearly understand that description does not deny that there are times appropriate to Standard English. But Standard English is hardly guided by prescriptions. SWE is guided by the language we all use. RK wrote:
People who have not been raised on prescriptions still use Standard English for writing and for formal speech. They use it not to communicate any more effectively but simply because that is what we use. RK wrote:
Again, there is no need for prescriptive grammar; there actually isn't any need for prescriptive grammar for descriptive grammar accurately describes how language is used in all registers.
RB wrote:
I'm not using prescriptive grammar to describe how language is used. Indeed, I expressly made the point that prescriptive grammar is nothing but an artificial set of agreed standards. You're falling into the trap of thinking that there is a war between prescriptive and descriptive grammar (a trap that an awful lot of self-styled "grammarians" on both sides of the argument fall into), when in fact it's a case of different tools for different jobs.
Nobody, using language naturally, ever uses prescriptions because as Professor Pinker says, prescriptions are alien to the natural workings of language. The trouble comes when people pass on to ESLs and ENLs these artificial "rules".
Take one prescription, just one prescription and show us how it is a "different tool for a different job".