Pedants' Paradise

[Pabmusic]

This one should have been easy. The BBC had a choice of two words, often given as examples of words to use with care. They chose the wrong one. Twice.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19659943

The BBC have now altered the heading to spell 'forgo' correctly - but they've left it in the body as 'forego'. Brilliant!

[french frank]

The BBC have now altered the heading to spell 'forgo' correctly - but they've left it in the body as 'forego'. Brilliant!

Heh! heh! I was holding back, rather than forth, on that one. Actually, they've changed the text now too.

Oops! Done it again:

[gurnemanz]

"I'm good" is an example of new usage, a reflection of the phenomenon that language is dynamic, not static. It is not incorrect grammatically and conveys exactly what the speaker wants it to in a way that the interlocutor exactly understands. For me, it should not be the subject of pedantic objection. It is merely prejudice against something new which you don't like. I also do not like it or use it, but my daughter, a fairly intelligent and cultured 30-year-old uses it all the time. Older people who use it are not necessarily being trendy but have caught on to it by repeated hearing - which is how language works.

It is not in the same category as "amount of people" mentioned above which is simple wrong by the definition of the word "amount" which applies to something you measure not items which you can count. This misuse is a genuine target for pedantic disapproval.

[french frank]

I agree with that almost entirely. Though I do think older people are aware that they are copying the linguistic traits of a younger generation - how could they not be aware that they are using a new phrase where they would naturally have used a different one? It isn't as if everyone is going around saying, 'I'm good, I'm good, I'm good,' all the time.Whether they do it deliberately to be trendy or subconsciously is arguable.

But I agree that it is merely something to notice, not object to.

[Pabmusic]

"I'm good" is an example of new usage, a reflection of the phenomenon that language is dynamic, not static. It is not incorrect grammatically and conveys exactly what the speaker wants it to in a way that the interlocutor exactly understands. For me, it should not be the subject of pedantic objection. It is merely prejudice against something new which you don't like. I also do not like it or use it, but my daughter, a fairly intelligent and cultured 30-year-old uses it all the time. Older people who use it are not necessarily being trendy but have caught on to it by repeated hearing - which is how language works...

I agree that it's not a grammatical error. It's actually worse, since 'good' is very much looser that 'well', and might have any of several meanings, so the questioner needs to take account of context and make a (fairly easy, I grant you) guess at the meaning. 'I'm well' is a more precise answer, that doesn't require contextual analysis, so in terms of successful communication it wins hands down. In any event, I can't agree that it "conveys exactly what the speaker wants it to in a way that the interlocutor exactly understands". It might only do that if we treat it as jargon - a precise meaning that's not obvious at first sight, and used by those 'in the know' - and that could not happen until we are 'in the know'.

[mangerton]

The 'I'm good' is one of the classic cases of imitation. People hear it said and the young copy because they're still learning the language - yes, even at 20. Then the oldies copy them in order to be cool (do I put that in inverted copies or not?)

I was speaking to a younger colleague today, just back from holiday in Morocco:

"Did you have a good time?"

"Yes thanks. We went for a camel ride in the desert. Temperature was about 45 degrees. It was really cool!"

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

On the contrary, to reply to the question, "How are you?" With "I am good", IS bad grammar in context, and no amount of argument that language is changing/dynamic can alter the fact that "good" is an adjective and "well" is an adverb. The misuse is lazy and sloppy (and far from cool).

[french frank]

On the contrary, to reply to the question, "How are you?" With "I am good", IS bad grammar in context, and no amount of argument that language is changing/dynamic can alter the fact that "good" is an adjective and "well" is an adverb. The misuse is lazy and sloppy (and far from cool).

In the phrase, 'I am well', well is an adjective, not an adverb.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Hmm. Maybe. But really it is short for "I am feeling well".

[vinteuil]

The interchanges -

"How are you?" - "I'm well."
"How are you?" - "I'm good."

- and indeed the earlier version which I was brought up with -

"How do you do" - "How do you do."

... are not (pace Pabmusic's # 575) examples of the need to convey precise, grammatically well-formed utterances; rather, they are instances of phatic communion - the human equivalent of chimpanzees' mutual grooming. In a way, the words used are irrelevant: it is a social ritual rather than a conveying of information.

"I'm good" is clearly a recent innovation. Some are comfortable with these new introductions; others regard them with disfavour. Some are comfortable with the idea of performing Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven on that recent innovation, a modern Steinway grand piano. Others are less comfortable with such inappropriate new introductions.

[gurnemanz]

Hmm. Maybe. But really it is short for "I am feeling well".

In this sentence "well" is still an adjective.
Confusion may arise because "well" has two meanings~:
1) the adverbial form of "good". (She is a good player. She plays well.)
2) the adjective meaning "healthy".

I am feeling happy. (Adjective describing the person doing the feeling.
I am feeling happily. (Adjective describing the manner in which the feeling took place. Difficult to imagine anyone ever finding a reason to say this sentence).

I copied this explanation off the web below:

"Feel is a copular verb here (like 'be') and takes an adjective complement ('happy'). Other copulars:

This soup tastes good.
You look great!
That song sounds sad."

http://www.englishforums.com/English/CanTheWordHappyBeANoun/hbrjz/post.htm

So "I am good" is perfectly grammatical.

[french frank]

So "I am good" is perfectly grammatical.

Yes, the phrase is not ungrammatical, but it would have been regarded as unidiomatic. When its use becomes widesperead it becomes idiomatic or colloquial (and would do so regardless of whether it was ungrammatical or not e.g. 'It's me.').

[Don Petter]

I was speaking to a younger colleague today, just back from holiday in Morocco:

"Did you have a good time?"

"Yes thanks. We went for a camel ride in the desert. Temperature was about 45 degrees. It was really cool!"

That would be quite cool for me as well! Much more pleasant here today, at about 61.

[mercia]

How I speak depends largely on who my interlocutor might be... how I write less so.

can an interlocutor be someone one corresponds with ?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

"I'm good" is clearly a recent innovation. Some are comfortable with these new introductions; others regard them with disfavour. Some are comfortable with the idea of performing Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven on that recent innovation, a modern Steinway grand piano. Others are less comfortable with such inappropriate new introductions.

Bad grammar is not an innovation. It's ignorance.
Choosing to play Bach, Mozart and Beethoven on a modern Steinway piano is just that - a choice - in the full knowledge that it isn't what the composers would have experienced.
"How are you?" --- "I am good", isn't answering the question. It's answering a different question: "How would you assess your morality?"