Many speakers find their [adverbs in relative clauses] use along with the corresponding antecedent somewhat tautologous...
From The Wall Street Journal...
Who decides whether it's acceptable to end a sentence with a preposition or to use the word "infer" as a synonym for "imply"? Who decides whether the phrase "free gift" is redundant and therefore incorrect, and whether it's proper to speak of a "mutual friend" since "mutual" refers to a relationship between two, not three? Most literate people still want these questions decided for them by some authority, whether H.W. Fowler, the usage notes in the American Heritage Dictionary or the guy in the next cubicle who knows a lot about grammar. This urge for clarity remains despite the best efforts of academic linguists and other "descriptivist" grammarians who dismiss the notion of grammatical "correctness" and insist that "rules" are wholly determined by usage.
The trouble with descriptivism—the idea that the grammarian's job is to describe the language, not to issue judgments about propriety—isn't that it's theoretically unsound. Rules really are just conventions. The trouble with descriptivism is that it's inhuman. People will always want to know the right way to say a thing. The secretary writing a letter or the corporate communications drone writing a press release doesn't care whether "impact" as a verb is "generally accepted," as modern usage manuals put it; he wants to know if using "impact" as a verb will make him sound stupid.
Henry Hitchings, in "The Language Wars," seems to appreciate the fact that propriety is part of human life, even if it's given no room in the lifeless principles of linguistics. He has plenty of criticisms for those "inveterate fusspots" who understand just enough English grammar to lord it over their supposed inferiors, but he isn't so naïve as to think we can be rid of "rules" in the old-fashioned sense of the word.
Read the full Wall Street Journal article here.
