Grammar Police

If you read my other posts, they fully explain my position. I do not disagree with the fact that they aid proper expression, for one.

Also, it does, by definition, restrict creative expression if it limits the forms through which one can write. If we could not appreciate any writing that did not fully adhere to proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation, you could never have Lewis Carroll, ee cummings, Gwendolyn Brooks, Charles Bernstein, etc. etc. Look at some of those links. I find saying you cannot break traditional grammar rules akin to saying that all art should follow paths of realism (because it best communicates the subject matter) or that poets should have never strayed from conventional rhyme schemes.



[Edited on Oct 22, 2005 by Fatality]

According to research at Cambridge University, it doesn't matter what order the letters in a word are, the only important thing is that the first and last letters are at the right place. The rest can be a total mess and you can still read it without a problem. This is because we do not read every letter by itself but the word as a whole.

Take that bitches.


Wonderful and so easy; I read it aloud without pausing.

[Edited on Oct 22, 2005 by Fatality]

Here is a basic synopsis of of Steven Pinker's argument against rigid pro-grammarians:

A group of people decide on what is correct English based on the fact that they want to encourage clarity, logic, consistency, precision, stability, and expressive range. The problem is that most grammar rules stem from the following situation. In the eighteenth century, scholars began to criticize London english because it was posited against the aristocracy. These people thought that Latin should be used because it was the "language of englightenment." With all of the changing social structure of this period, people wanted a language system that would distinguish their class rank. This created a demand for style and usage manuals so that their owners could stand out from the rest. To sell the books, each version became increasingly refined and increasingly restrictive so that the most refined individuals would have the most distinct form of language. This is where most of our grammar rules come from and also, I think, the fact that people think that they need to prove something by exercising correct grammar.

Let's take the example of a split infinitive. How many of you are guilty of saying, "To slowly go" or something like that? The reason that this rule exists is because an infinitive is a single word in Latin. However, if words are able to be rearranged, and spliting an infinitive doesn't change the meaning of the text, why can I not say, "I want to quickly get up"? "To boldly go where no man has gone before" - wrong - it should be "To go boldly where..." I like Winston Churchill's example of ending sentences with propositions, "t is a rule with which we should not put." People often try to stick to such silly grammar rules because they don't want to appear that they are unaware of them, not because they best express their purpose.

Now, let's examine some inconsistencies of grammar arguments. How many pro-grammarians don't get upset when someone says, "Y'all are dumb"? Y'all just evolved to be a second person singular form. We used to have "thou," why shouldn't we have "y'all"? Double negatives: does "I can't get no satisfaction" really mean "I can get satisfaction"? According to prescriptive grammar, but not to most other languages on the planet. A double negative doesn't necessarily mean that they cancel each other out. Often, the meaning is conveyed perfectly fine with a double negative, but we stick to grammar rules that insist that "no" cannot be an agreement element in place of "any."

How about all of the nouns that have evolved into verbs against the cries of pro-grammarians? Try speaking without to caveat, input, host, nuance, access, chair, dialogue, showcase, progress, parent, intrigue, contact, impact, scalp, eye, stomach, etc. Try speaking without the words that evolved from slang: to flame, to dis, to blow off, clever, fun, sham, banter, stingy, etc. Try to speak without using hopefully when refering to the speaker's feelings. Technically, "Hopefully, this sentence makes sense" is wrong. Instead, hopefully should only be used when the subject of the sentence is hopeful. Who/whom follows the model of he/him, so we should use it? Then why have we dropped the necessity of the ye/you distinction?

Steven Pinker doesn't think that we should ignore grammar altogether, and neither do I. However, we should consider other aspects of the situation. We need to be aware of common intents in expression and not just of archaic rules. So many errors only become commonplace because the rule is not necessary for communication. As Pinker says, "Some aspects of how people express themselves in some settings are worth trying to change." Why stick to rules just because they are there if they are not necessary? We are creating new forms of expression all of the time, but we very rarely seem to eliminate any. I don't insist that people be lazy and pay no attention to the meaning conveyed by their words, just the fact that sometimes some grammar rules aren't necessary and we should all remain open to the evolution of language.

[Edited on Oct 22, 2005 by Fatality]

Actually, it's not proposterous. Dyslexia is the defeiciency in the processing of phonemes. Instead of reading chunks of words, dyslexic individuals read each individual letter; the rest of us read by units of written word.

Edit: obviously her example would have limits in larger words in which the phonemes are actually segmented and strewn across the word.

P.S. I totally didn't get the second one!
P.P.S. Philistine

[Edited on Oct 22, 2005 by Fatality]

Nah, I don't think so. I was only on the site for like 2 weeks before my set went up. I don't think there was enough time in there for me to actually get on the GP.

For the rest of you, I spelled "speech" wrong. So what? Go blow a goat. I said I'm on the Grammar Police, not the Spelling Police.

[Edited on Oct 23, 2005 by Al]

Okay, I honestly have never heard caveat or dialogue used as verbs before. I can guess what they would mean, but every time I try to use them in my imagination they sound WEIRD. Using "input" as a verb has always sounded weird to me too. Also, it looks like "progress" is the only one of those words that's pronounced differently depending on whether it's used as a verb or a noun. That's interesting. Well, it is to me, at least.

I think the evolution of language is a good thing. New concepts call for new words so we can express ourselves correctly, however, sticking to certain rules of sentence construction is necessary for being able to communicate these concepts. Having a standardized grammar means that everyone who knows english will be able to understand each other (even if they don't know the words being used; that's what dictionaries are for {and let's hope they can keep up with our ever-changing vocabulary}). I'm not saying that those rules shouldn't evolve, they obviously do, and it's good for us to get rid of antiquated rules, but I also think it's good that they don't evolve nearly as quickly as our vocabulary does. I sure hope that made sense.

I also think we should bring back the ye/you distinction. It'll make things less confusing.

I must say, Al, that for the most part I think we agree.

Yeah, I have a whole mess of thoughts on the English educational system that I haven't even begun to delve into. I'm sorry, but I am glad that you have managed to find a way to adequately communicate.