"Grammarian"

Linguists are prone to feel that the word "grammarian" should belong to them, not to prescriptivist scolds like the one in Elle Cordova's skit. And we often object even more strongly to "grammar" being used as the justification for condemnation of non-standard spellings, punctuation, word usage, etc., both because of the prescriptivist stance and because the issues involved belong to aspects of usage (like orthography and lexical semantics) that are not part of what we call grammar.

But the OED's primary definition for grammarian is

An expert or specialist in grammar; a person who studies, writes about, or teaches grammar. Also more generally: an expert in or student of language; a linguist, a philologist; (formerly also) †a person of great learning (obsolete).

Sometimes (esp. from the 17th to early 19th centuries) somewhat depreciative, implying that a person is pedantic, too focused on minutiae, or overly concerned with rules and conventions.

The depreciative sense is illustrated in an 1806 citation from Henry Kirke White:

All that arithmeticians know, Or stiff grammarians quaintly teach.

Elle Cordoba's hypervillains spar over

Snuck vs. sneaked Use of passive voice Dangling modifiers Split infinitives Double negatives Literally meaning "figuratively" Loss of subjunctive mood Pluralizing apostrophes The Oxford comma "I could care less" Irregardless "Beg the question" "Between you and I" Parenthetical asides Bad vs. badly

…all of which have occasioned one or more LLOG posts, though we call the grammarian side prescriptivists (or even more negatively-evaluated terms). I'll spare you the links unless specifically requested.

My impression is that recent uses of the word "grammarian" are depreciative more often than not. For example, from Max Maxfield, "Good-For-Nothing Grammarians", IEEE Journal 12/28/2021:

[O]ne of my back-burner hobby projects is writing a book called Wroting Inglish: The Essential Guide to Writing English for Anyone Who Doesn’t Want to be Thought a Dingbat. […]

As part of writing this little rascal — Max’s Magnum Opus, if I might make so bold — I’ve learned all sorts of things myself, including the fact that I have an innate dislike of grammarians who delight in telling us that we’re doing everything wrong and that the world would be a much better place if we did things their way. Admittedly, these sad fellows, with their stooped shoulders, nervous tremors, and complete lack of personality (which explains why they are so rarely invited to parties) are presented with the unenviable task of attempting to retrofit grammar onto a living, breathing, and constantly evolving language. One might almost feel sorry for them if they weren’t such complete and utter drongos who have caused so much pain and suffering for the rest of us.

More context for the deprecation in Kirke's 1806 poem "On Being Confined To School One Pleasant Morning In Spring":

The morning sun's enchanting rays Now call forth every songster's praise; Now the lark, with upward flight, Gaily ushers in the light; While wildly warbling from each tree, The birds sing songs to Liberty.

But for me no songster sings, For me no joyous lark upsprings; For I, confined in gloomy school, Must own the pedant's iron rule, And far from sylvan shades and bowers, In durance vile must pass the hours; There con the scholiast's dreary lines, Where no bright ray of genius shines, And close to rugged learning cling, While laughs around the jocund spring. How gladly would my soul forego All that arithmeticians know, Or stiff grammarians quaintly teach, Or all that industry can reach, To taste each morn of all the joys That with the laughing sun arise; And unconstrain'd to rove along The bushy brakes and glens among; And woo the muse's gentle power In unfrequented rural bower: But, ah! such heaven-approaching joys Will never greet my longing eyes; Still will they cheat in vision fine, Yet never but in fancy shine.