His grammar was based on the Latin (Linguistic prescription) model.

For a more general discussion see Linguistic prescription.

In some language communities, linguistic prescription is regulated formally.

Linguistic prescription is typically contrasted with the alternative approach linguistic description.

A complementary aim of linguistic prescription may be the imposition of a political ideology.

Linguistic prescription in Russian dictates usage of na.

Its use as a disjunct has prompted controversy among advocates of linguistic purism or linguistic prescription.

Linguistic description is often contrasted with linguistic prescription, which is found especially in education and in publishing.

The main aims of linguistic prescription are to specify standard language forms either generally (what is Standard English?)

Islamic naming conventions and greetings are notable examples of linguistic prescription being prerequisite to spiritual righteousness.

Leísmo is always rejected in linguistic prescription when the direct object to which it refers is not an animate object.

This kind of linguistic description contrasts with linguistic prescription, an attempt to discourage or suppress some grammatical constructions, while promoting others.

(See Linguistic prescription.)

Finally, Crystal condemns what he sees as the over-abundance of linguistic prescription in the study of English, especially that which existed from the 18th Century to the 20th.

Like most 'practical' guides, its linguistics is a mixture of the linguistic prescription and the descriptive - thus allowing extremists of both camps to place Fowler in the other.

For these reasons, some writers have argued that linguistic prescription is foolish or futile; Samuel Johnson, commented as follows on the tendency of some prescription to resist language change:

Like most linguistic prescription, disapproval of the split infinitive was originally based on the descriptive observation that it was not in fact a feature of the prestige form of English which those proscribing it wished to champion.

He favored descriptive linguistics over linguistic prescription, stating "Let's throw the old textbooks out the window, along with the words correct and incorrect, because there's really no such thing as grammar, but only an ever-changing language pattern formed by everyday usage".

During the second half of the 20th century, politically motivated linguistic prescription recommended by various advocacy groups had considerable influence on language use under the name "political correctness", imposing special rules for anti-sexist, anti-racist or generically anti-discriminatory language (e.g. "people-first language" as advocated by disability rights organizations).

Linguistic prescriptions also form part of the explanation for variation in speech, particularly variation in the speech of an individual speaker (an explanation, for example, for why some people say "I didn't do nothing", some say "I didn't do anything", and some say one or the other depending on social context).