Samuel Johnson's dictionary 3rd edition 1766 defines pedantry as:
PEDANTRY
Awkward ostentation of needless learning.
I like the neatness of Johnson's definition, but pedantry is also one of life’s many tactics, a way of attacking change, of closing down other possibilities beyond the status quo. It is a way of being right without really trying, a way of analysing without contributing, a way to harass without having to engage.
But perhaps it is also a way of avoiding errors, going back to what we know rather than wandering off into a desert of colourful but sterile possibilities. As with many of life’s tactics, pedantry has two edges – constructive and destructive. Which is the most common though?
But perhaps it is also a way of avoiding errors, going back to what we know rather than wandering off into a desert of colourful but sterile possibilities. As with many of life’s tactics, pedantry has two edges – constructive and destructive. Which is the most common though?
4 comments:
The positive side. Where would we be if nobody cared about actual hard facts any more?
Grammar pedantry on the other hand is just a harmless sport, the correctee is perfectly entitled to admit that he made a mistake.
MW - facts aren't actually hard though and writers usually advise you to boldly go for the best sentence rather than the grammatical one (:
I suspect it is getting rarer, as academic "book learning" declines and the functions you refer to are taken over by adherence to procedures and received internet wisdom. 'Elf and Safety, E&D, Aims and Objectives, Project Management, and so forth.
I suspect that one day, we will look back on even the most mean-spirited forms with nostalgia.
SV - yes, I'm not classing proper scholars as pedants here. But as you say, where have they all gone?
Post a Comment