This is a difficult question. As far as I know, there is no organization that defines rules for English language. Unlike, for example, Russian language that has rules defined by the State Academy of Sciences. "Rules" and words for English language are stated de facto -- e.g. Oxford dictionary has "blog", while in Russia we still argue about "coffee" (is it "he", like official rules say, or "it", like people say?).
Since there are no official rules for English, here I suppose that S&W is a commonsense summary of what good English is.
Which points of Pullum's critique, exactly, do you claim fail to apply to American English?
Um... That was a joke.
Sorry about readability, I had to do that "what he wrote/what it really is" thing to get readers some context.
Yes and no. I didn't argue about the language in my comment (since I'm not a native speaker). My first point is about words taken out of context. My second point is about joke in S&W. My third point is about this: https://qht.co/item?id=557978
This is a difficult question. As far as I know, there is no organization that defines rules for English language. Unlike, for example, Russian language that has rules defined by the State Academy of Sciences. "Rules" and words for English language are stated de facto -- e.g. Oxford dictionary has "blog", while in Russia we still argue about "coffee" (is it "he", like official rules say, or "it", like people say?).
Since there are no official rules for English, here I suppose that S&W is a commonsense summary of what good English is.
Which points of Pullum's critique, exactly, do you claim fail to apply to American English?
Um... That was a joke.
Sorry about readability, I had to do that "what he wrote/what it really is" thing to get readers some context.