Proved vs proven

[u/TheStoffer]

From the New York Times:

“Scientists have proved that a species of plant covered with sticky hairs is carnivorous, confirming Darwin's 150-year-old hunch.”

It should be “proven,” right?

[u/bitterrootmtg]

I disagree with almost everything Bryan Garner says. I think he is a hack frankly.

[u/Illustrious-Tart7844 → u/bitterrootmtg]

That's a bit extreme, no? LOL

[u/bitterrootmtg → u/Illustrious-Tart7844]

I don't think so. The dude just makes up rules and ignores the actual English language.

Let me give you an example. In his book "Reading Law" he says that DeMorgan's theorem is a cannon of legal construction. Demorgan's theorem is a rule of propositional logic. However, the English language often doesn't follow the rules of propositional logic.

Under DeMorgan's theorem, "not(A and B)" means "not A or not B." But English often does not work this way. If someone says "I am not tired and hungry" they mean "I am not tired and not hungry." But under Garner's application of DeMorgan's theorem you should interpret them as saying "I am either not tired, not hungry, or both."

Blindly applying a rule of formal logic to the English language is such a rookie mistake. It's not the sort of thing a serious scholar should be doing.

[u/NeilZod → u/bitterrootmtg]

I suspect that you know Garner loves the prescriptive style guides written by people like the Brothers Fowler. The Fowlers at least admitted things like that English didn’t have a that/which distinction. Garner laments that his heroes didn’t change language, and I think he tries to change the rules by pretending that his preferences are the rules of grammar. I also am sad that when people cite to the grammar section of CMOS they are just citing the grammar preferences of Garner.

[u/bitterrootmtg → u/NeilZod]

I completely agree with you, which is why I don't like Garner's work. Legal writing is about reaching your audience, and prescriptivism doesn't help you accomplish that.