Everyday English is bland. Our slang words mostly come from black English because it can make great leaps of meaning. For example, bad can mean good. A famous exchange that makes no sense in standard English:

“Can I borrow your car?”
“My sister is in Pittsburgh.”

Rules are needed when you need to be precise. Flexibility is needed when you need creativity and imagination.

No wonder linguistics gets such a bad name when people still trot out these tired and meaningless cliches. A language’s value to me depends upon whom I try to converse with or what I want to read.

Why is it that the most sneery critics of rules and prescription (like Jeanette here) are invariably themselves telling you what to do or think?

In every thriller I write I’m confronted with both prescriptive and descriptive construction of sentences in order to communicate clearly to my audience.

For example, when writing dialogue it is powerful to write more descriptively so the sentence sounds like people really speak.

In narrative or description sections prescriptive writing is powerful to ensure clarity of meaning. Additionally, not following prescriptive rules can jar the reader out of the fantasy world the author has created because the reader mentally stops and says “Eeeeck! Bad grammar.” Another example is avoiding prepositions at the end of a sentence. They are often unnecessary because they add no additional meaning to the sentence. And it is often better for an author to use the fewest number of words to convey the character, plot, and scene intended.

Does anyone want to reveal lies about comma usage? I hate comma lies. They suck.

One distinction that has not been made explicit at this point is the difference between ‘prescriptive’ and ‘descriptive’ linguistics.

The rules that some enforce and others hate belong to the ‘prescriptive’ type of linguistics – what people should say.

The rules that observe what native speakers regularly say and perceive as sounding good are ‘descriptive’.

Prescriptive grammar tends to be consistent and exact. In English prescriptive grammar is called Standard American English. This has a useful function (as many have already pointed out) in helping us communicate to others in a clear manner (especially between dialectical or pronunciation differences; e.g. Australian, American, English, Ebonics pronunciations). It is also useful for more important reasons. Take the immigration laws under consideration in the United States for instance. Many (including me) think it wise to have immigrants required to know how to speak, read, and write the English language up to a certain standard to help the country to maintain its coherence.

One person pointed out that it is ashame that foreigners in our country know our language rules and how they work better than us native speakers. This is true, but not for the reasons many think. They know English language well because they have learned a foreign language (English, that is). Most English speakers who learn another foreign language well also learn English better.

Descriptive grammar on the other hand also has its uses. It shows how the everyday English speaker uses the English language and how it has change since the last standardization. Prescriptive grammar always lags behind descriptive grammar because those who create the standards are limited by the speed of research and because it doesn’t make sense to change the standards too often.

Johnman made the point that when meaning is conveyed that is all that matters in language or in English. Even by the standards of Descriptive grammar he is wrong. Most of his sentences, while intelligible to English speakers, would be thought to be wrong by any native English speaker, even if they were illiterate. English is only English if it seems normal and right to a group of native-born English speakers.

However, what I found frustrating about talking with an English-major in college is his inability to see that Prescriptive grammar is a useful but artificial tool (sanctioned by the historically socio-economically priveledged status of the speakers of the acrolect). He thought, rather, that the rules were natural. This has been nicely debunked, especially, by Holly.

Linguist Jeanette, however, is talking apples and oranges. The question isn’t whether the terminology we use, like “indirect object” is a linguistically correct description for English construction under question; it is whether the construction exists in the use of native English speakers (or in the grammar of Standard American English) or not. The “indirect object” is a useful label for a construction that actually exists in the English language. The word “pre”position is a misleading label and the rules that surround it are even more misleading. The same is true with the rule about the split infinitive, the conjunction rule, and various other rules. Some of them are so difficult to follow precisely because they run so counter to the spoken idiom of everyday native English speakers.

One other gripe with another of Jeanette’s comments. Dismayed that the discussion is taking place at all? Why participate then? I agree that until “enlightened” linguistics is taught at the grade level, much myth will be perpetuated. But why not have fun and have a go at debunking it here on this forum? Probably no one will change their mind or their stance. But what the hey. It’s fun. =)

PS Sorry about my SAE mistakes. =)

You’ll never get rid of all these, even when castigated as ’snobbery’, simply by academic fiat. They change gradually as culture and cultural imperatives shift over time.

To clarify these issues a little bit, we should look at where the rules mentioned come from. The rules described above did not always exist in the English language. Two of the three came into being between around the 17th and 18th centuries. The linguistic doctrine behind them being adopted and integrated into our language by men who held to the belief that English was a flawed and grotesquely inferior language which needed improvement to bring it closer to what was then considered the language that had retained most of its sacred nature and “linguistic perfection.” The language in question is indeed Latin. Prominent and self-proclaimed experts such as John Wallace, Dean Swift, and Bishop Lowth created rules and guidelines to change English so that in both structure and terminology it fit with Latin.

The idea of a split infinitive being incorrect is considered outdated by most Linguists. The reason for the original rule is simple; in Latin you cannot split an infinitive as it is always written in one word, the ending er, ir, etc … being the equivalent of our word “to.”

Before the inception of “prescribed grammar” as enforced by grammatical purists such as those listed above, it was perfectly correct to split your infinitive and end with a preposition. It was also very common and good practice, to use double negatives. In Chaucer’s writings, one can find examples of quadruple negatives.

So, to correct Kelly, it is not actually a “dumbing down” of our language, but rather returning it to its original form, omitting unnecessary and ridiculous prescriptive rules forced on the language by a few who erroneously viewed Latin as the proper reference in attempting to attain linguistic perfection.

Language is always changing. It is never static or stagnant. The Oxford Dictionary adds thousands of new words yearly. Linguistic, grammatical, and mechanical rules of language and writing are constantly changing. Though older teachers will still adhere to these “old rules,” they do so merely because they have failed to keep up on current standards and trends. Browsing a textbook written twenty years ago and comparing it to one written recently will reveal such changes. The best way to keep current is to update your MLA and APA Writing Handbooks at least every two years.

This is especially important if you are teaching English, as you may be passing on faulty or outdated information to your students.

In response to those who believe grammar is unnecessary, I usually say, “If you plan on flipping burgers your entire life, I suppose you’re correct.”