(1) Fowler is in fact being scornful of the people who pedantically insist on precise placement of ‘only’, not of people who take a freer hand with it, though I now see I could have been a bit clearer about that

I see. But if that’s the case, where is your evidence that the placement of only gives a sentence a certain technical meaning, regardless of the speaker’s intent? I’d say it much more complicated than that, since it is possible in standard English to place only before the verb, which is the common location for adverbs.

I will only add this in the defence of our present Writers – John Dryden, “Defence of the Epilogue” 1672

Every other author may aspire to praise; the lexicographer can only hope to escape reproach – Samuel Johnson, Preface to the Dictionary 1755

We see cherubs by Raphael, whose baby-innocence could only have been nursed in Paradise – Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Marble Faun 1860

Maybe we agree more than I think we do, since I agree that language has a formal structure, and your example ‘The cats is before the mat which were fireplace the front of in’ clearly violated that structure. But it seemed to me that you used the bad example of only placement to demonstrate this structure.

What a weird discussion this is.

Well, we’re in complete agreement about that at least. I am a she, for a start — although, having seen the amazing diva channeler (and diva indeed in his own right) Paul Capsis at the Adelaide Cabaret Festival last night, I am not quite as sure about that as I was yesterday.

In your last comment there are (at least) two misunderstandings of what I was saying:

(1) Fowler is in fact being scornful of the people who pedantically insist on precise placement of ‘only’, not of people who take a freer hand with it, though I now see I could have been a bit clearer about that.

(2) The innate qualities and structures, which I did not ‘equate’ with the point about Fowler and ‘only’ which in any case you misunderstood (see (1)), are in the relentless logic of grammar and syntax, where the places and forms of words in a sentence are determined by the placement and forms of the other words in the sentence — tenses, verb forms, plurals and so on. If I said ‘The cats is before the mat which were fireplace the front of in’, would you still be arguing that my intention and meaning were clear and that no blue pencil need be taken to this alleged sentence?

Roisin, I review whatever the literary editor gives me, which is how it works — we book reviewers are a bit powerless that way. But I think Flaubert et al have already had a pretty good going-over, critically speaking.

I guess what I objected to was Pavlov’s Cat mention of “innate qualities and structures,” and how he equated this with Fowler’s rule about only placement. I do believe that language has “innate qualities and structures,” but that they are quite different from the rules we find in your average prescriptive grammar book.

What a weird discussion this is.

Anyway Fiasco, me Lexus is not for draggin, it’s got hydraulic shocks for hopping, and a 20 inch woofer in the boot. It’s for slow big bass cruisin’ down George Street.

Now RG, pay attention.

Roisin mentioned Flaubert. Harold Bloom includes Madame Bovary; Sentimental Education; Salammbô; and A Simple Soul in his literary canon as per your point b, except Flaubert is not English, so go and stand in the corner.

We are talking about snobberies (as perceived by others) or good taste and discernment (as perceived by ourselves). Therefore, RG, there is no objective measurement of these things. Snobbery is subjective by definition.

You know RG, you remind me a lot of Eric Olthwaite of Castle Street, Denley Moor.

a) a law, or rule of doctrine or discipline, enacted by a council and confirmed by the pope or the sovereign; a decision, regulation, code, or constitution made by ecclesiastical authority.

b) The collection of books received as genuine Holy Scriptures, called the sacred canon, or general rule of moral and religious duty, given by inspiration; the Bible; also, any one of the canonical Scriptures. Or the English Canon, defined by Harold Bloom et al.

c) In monasteries, a book containing the rules of a religious order.

d) A catalogue of saints acknowledged and canonized in the Roman Catholic Church.

e) A musical composition in which the voices begin one after another, at regular intervals, successively taking up the same subject.

f) The largest size of type having a specific name; so called from having been used for printing the canons of the church.

g) The part of a bell by which it is suspended; — called also ear and shank.

And PC does write a more than competent book review, though one pines for some Flaubert or Homer or Dickinson, rather than the ephemeral fly-by-nighters she reports on.

No, you’d be wrong there

Mine’s pretty close, though. And (just to invoke some seriously utiltarian values) it has never once broken down, much less spontaneously combusted at the midtown traffic lights at peak hour like my friend D’s new BMW did once so nyerdy nyer. I mean, what’s important is that it works, right?

I think cars snobs are a squillion times worse than grammar snobs.

Besides, here in SA there are better things to spend one’s money on, like seriously la-di-da wines at the cellar doors.

Ken Scott, that is just wicked!

“Luxury is not an option” would not make sense in this context because it posits a comparison between Mercedes on the one hand and Lexus on the other.

In other words, Lexus ad indulges in a bit of gratuitous moralising at the expense of Mercedes, posting the selling message as a philosophy.

Would I be correct in assuming that your car is a 1998 Hyudai Excel GX 3-door hatchback?