I’m proud of the Times for publishing this fine appreciation of the great novel, especially in the context of their continuing slide into cowardice. But I was surprised to see its title set in quotes, not only in the headline but throughout the text. I had assumed that the Times had gotten a handle on basic typographic conventions by now.
I’ll cop to the tedious bit. But consider that, while “English” may not be prescriptive (odd idea, that), people can be. For example, the people who wrote this style guide: they were exactly prescribing usage for Times editors and writers. Yes, the thing I am tediously complaining about follows this guide. But the guide is wrong.
>”English” may not be prescriptive (odd idea, that)
Natural languages can’t be descriptive or prescriptive, they merely are. Grammars for those languages can be either descriptive (i.e., describing the language as used by speakers) or prescriptive (i.e., prescribe how the language should be used).
In the former case, it’s perfectly fine to freely split infinitives; in the latter it is something up with which one does not put.
Me, too. It’s quaint, but distracting. But remember that for a good part of its history they had a period after the title of the paper on the front page.
