I know I’m late to this particular party but, as something of a grammar and punctuation pedant, I cannot resist the urge to comment.
Rules matter. They shouldn’t be used as a reason to look down on others but they MATTER. How can anyone be expected to learn a language without rules, if getting it wrong is reframed as language evolving, if anything goes? And how can we be sure we understand one another if our basic grammatical structures are now deemed flexible?
Having been brought up by parents from other European countries I know from experience how easily a minor error in grammar can cause confusion and miscommunication. We owe it to ourselves and those around us to be clear in the way we express ourselves. The easiest way to achieve this is to adhere to basic rules.
And yes, of course language evolves. But it does this by a process of communal agreement, not by everyone doing as they please. That would result in a population speaking infinite varieties of gobbledygook.
So I will continue to tut at aberrant apostrophes, to shake my head at incorrect pronunciation and to growl under my breath at poor grammar. But I will be intolerant of the sin, not the sinner.
And I will accept that, like beginning a sentence with a conjunction, what was once shocking now - heaven knows - goes.
It’s great to hear from you Nigel. I couldn’t agree more with you that language rules do matter and that correct punctuation and grammar in all languages are the ideal. A comma in the wrong place can cause hilarity, embarrassment or offence - albeit it accidental. So, we all do our best to say and write things ‘properly’. And those fortunate to have a facility with language or to have received good language and grammar education are no doubt advantaged in that.
However, language rules ARE sometimes used to catch people out and worse still to shut people down. To me it’s communication that is key - and giving people some slack to fudge through, even if they break those rules that either they’ve forgotten, aren’t familiar with, or simply don’t get. I’m not sure I’m with you on being intolerant of the sin rather than the sinner - that phrase takes us into some pretty grey territory. Sadly, I’ve known it to be used rather too readily to cover being intolerant of the sinner.
There are many Englishes in the world now. And, personally, I believe that’s a good thing. Most of those ‘new’ Englishes have their own rules and regs too. People have taken a language that was often foisted on them and made it their own. Which is basically what the Americans did when they created their dictionary and made their rules for American English. Good on them.
As for starting a sentence with a conjunction, I believe it was the Victorians who decided it was a grammatical crime. The reason? The Latin ‘et’ at the beginning of a sentence means ‘even’ or ‘also’ as in ‘Et tu Brute? and never ‘and’. Therefore, it was decreed that a conjunction should not darken the dawn of a sentence. Before it was outlawed by our Victorian forefathers it was a perfectly acceptable practice. So I guess that’s evolution - or de-evolution? - in practice.
I know I’m late to this particular party but, as something of a grammar and punctuation pedant, I cannot resist the urge to comment.
Rules matter. They shouldn’t be used as a reason to look down on others but they MATTER. How can anyone be expected to learn a language without rules, if getting it wrong is reframed as language evolving, if anything goes? And how can we be sure we understand one another if our basic grammatical structures are now deemed flexible?
Having been brought up by parents from other European countries I know from experience how easily a minor error in grammar can cause confusion and miscommunication. We owe it to ourselves and those around us to be clear in the way we express ourselves. The easiest way to achieve this is to adhere to basic rules.
And yes, of course language evolves. But it does this by a process of communal agreement, not by everyone doing as they please. That would result in a population speaking infinite varieties of gobbledygook.
So I will continue to tut at aberrant apostrophes, to shake my head at incorrect pronunciation and to growl under my breath at poor grammar. But I will be intolerant of the sin, not the sinner.
And I will accept that, like beginning a sentence with a conjunction, what was once shocking now - heaven knows - goes.
It’s great to hear from you Nigel. I couldn’t agree more with you that language rules do matter and that correct punctuation and grammar in all languages are the ideal. A comma in the wrong place can cause hilarity, embarrassment or offence - albeit it accidental. So, we all do our best to say and write things ‘properly’. And those fortunate to have a facility with language or to have received good language and grammar education are no doubt advantaged in that.
However, language rules ARE sometimes used to catch people out and worse still to shut people down. To me it’s communication that is key - and giving people some slack to fudge through, even if they break those rules that either they’ve forgotten, aren’t familiar with, or simply don’t get. I’m not sure I’m with you on being intolerant of the sin rather than the sinner - that phrase takes us into some pretty grey territory. Sadly, I’ve known it to be used rather too readily to cover being intolerant of the sinner.
There are many Englishes in the world now. And, personally, I believe that’s a good thing. Most of those ‘new’ Englishes have their own rules and regs too. People have taken a language that was often foisted on them and made it their own. Which is basically what the Americans did when they created their dictionary and made their rules for American English. Good on them.
As for starting a sentence with a conjunction, I believe it was the Victorians who decided it was a grammatical crime. The reason? The Latin ‘et’ at the beginning of a sentence means ‘even’ or ‘also’ as in ‘Et tu Brute? and never ‘and’. Therefore, it was decreed that a conjunction should not darken the dawn of a sentence. Before it was outlawed by our Victorian forefathers it was a perfectly acceptable practice. So I guess that’s evolution - or de-evolution? - in practice.