|
malthaussen -> RE: Protect Our Grammar!!!!! (2/18/2006 4:10:32 PM)
|
Sorry I missed all the fun.
Since certain allegations have been made publicly, it would be best to address them publicly, rather than via PM as Rich requests.
Rich12545 complains that my attitude was "condescending" and that my objective was to embarass. He later claims I accused members of this forum of "butchering" the English language.
Nowhere do I make such an accusation. The term "butchering" was used by TexHorns in response to my post. I later mentioned a friend of mine who butchers -- but did not state or imply that anyone here does so.
As far as Rich's perception of my attitude and objective, clearly these are interpretive issues and are therefore his problem, not mine.
It should have been obvious from certain of my content (e.g., the banging of a shoe on the table) that my tongue was in my cheek when I initiated this thread. Certainly, that is how everyone else who responded appears to have perceived things. I'm surprised Rich took offense, but we all have our little quirks.
I thought TexHorn's point was interesting, and I'd like to address it. English is, of course, a living language, and it mutates rapidly as new words come into currency and old ones pass out of fashion. And there are certainly a number of different regional variations in word meaning and grammar. Does this mean, therefore, as Tex suggests, that "proper English" doesn't even exist? Or is there, in any event, at least a Platonic ideal of the language which has its own life and beauty, nevermind rules and regulations? And who really cares, anyway, LOL?
Insofar as the vocabulary of the language is concerned, there is no "absolute" English, unless we define that "absolute" as embracing all words, even hideous ones like "normalcy" and "alot." As far as the rules of grammar are concerned, however, there is certainly an "absolute" English, even though few of us (myself not included) use it properly at all times. As for who really cares... ah, there's the rub. One might argue that grammar and vocabulary are irrelevant as long as we can get our message across, and that being a stickler for such things shows a marked degree of anal-retentiveness, if not a psychotic obsession with minutinae. After all, our lives hardly hinge on the proper use of "who" and "whom" (and a damned good thing, too). One might further argue that anyone who makes an issue of such... issues... is a "language Nazi" or trying to put others down by insulting their ignorance. I shouldn't have to point out that both of these arguments are interpretive ones, and therefore tell us more about the plaintiff than the defendant, but I will anyway. The bottom line, in any event, is that it only matters if you think it does. In this, it is like many things in life.
It strikes me as odd, somewhat, that one should have to come up with reasons why we should strive to use our language correctly. Most of us try to do most things right, so far as it lies within our power. Some of us even glory in being "perfectionists," and in trying to do everything right, as though this sets us apart from the common herd, who are presumably satisfied with second best. Yet when it comes to language, it seems that the rules are optional, that "good enough" is good enough, and that it is an insult to be corrected in one's usage, however egregious that usage might be. I wonder why this is so?
-- Mal
|
|
|
|
