My views on grammar and usage

When it comes to modern language usage, especially concerning any technology-related terms, I get slightly frustrated with those who make claims like "'Text' is not a verb," implying a speaker cannot say "I'll text you the information." Instead a speaker would have to say, for example, "I'll send you a text message with the information." (Don't even consider using any forbidden slang terms like "info.") In the second example, the verb is now "send," while the noun "text message" is acting as a direct object. (Get crazy and shorten that to "text.") "You" is then the indirect object, and "with the information" is a prepositional phrase. ...Oh dear, I've let my 7th grade sentence dissection exercises lead me off track. *Focusing*

I admit. I am a decriptivist as far as grammarians go—if you can bring yourself to even slightly consider me a grammarian. And I just realized I have a much easier time identifying myself based on my views of grammar and English usage than I do on my views of political issues. In the world of grammarians, with many stereotypically described with a better-than-thou motivation to find every—any—mistake, I often feel as though I am the minority fighting for my voice to be heard, struggling for my beliefs to be understood, accepted, maybe respected. But the bombardment of those screaming "Y-O-U-apostrophe-R-E means 'you are.' Y-O-U-R means 'your" (Oh wait, that was Ross in "Friends") tends to overshadow my stubborn statements of "Yes, 'texted' can be used as a past tense verb of 'text'" or my response "I'm good." to questions of how I'm doing.



No, I'm not saying you don't need to use an apostrophe and the extra "e" in "you're" or to not bother distinguishing between "there," "their," and "they're." While I'm not sure how to exactly determine what will eternally be right and wrong in overall usage of a language, there are accepted styles of language for various settings that you simply have to conform to. (Well I suppose you don't HAVE to.) But to be taken seriously academically and in job interviews, there is one form of "correct" language and to be taken seriously in another setting, there is different form. I for one embrace the fact that I can speak differently than I write in a professional setting. That my academic writing differs from my writing on my blog. That I can speak one way with my friends and another with subject experts. That every day I can make up words and opt to include usage I wouldn't dream of in another setting.

I have control of my language.

Do you remember your teachers telling you to never start a sentence with "and"? Or the dramatics of the apostasy that follows if you split an infinitive? No doubt these teachers also emphasized that a preposition should never end a sentence. These "hard-and-fast rules" reflect years of trying to control a language and fit it in a mold. (I love that I listed these three examples and then found all three mentioned in an article entitled "Three Grammar Rules You Can (And Should) Break.")

There may be some individuals somewhere who still insist on these rules. Maybe. Perhaps some nitpicky teachers are still teaching them. Perhaps. But really what is the point? Sooner or later, students and language users realize that the contorted, un-split sentence is awkward and, hey, look around, people are splitting the heck out of infinitives left and right. Nevermind that not ending a sentence with a preposition is a rule that really has nothing to do with the preposition but instead wants to get rid of unnecessary words. ("I have no idea where this rule came from" is fine. "Where are you at?" might be better as "Where are you?")

Forrester: Paragraph three starts...with a conjunction, "and." You should never start a sentence with a conjunction.

Jamal: Sure you can.

Forrester: No, it's a firm rule.

Jamal: No, it was a firm rule. Sometimes using a conjunction at the start of a sentence makes it stand out. And that may be what the writer's trying to do.

Forrester: And what is the risk?

Jamal: Well the risk is doing it too much. It's a distraction. And it could give your piece a run-on feeling. But for the most part, the rule on using "and" or "but" at the start of a sentence is pretty shaky. Even though it's still taught by too many professors. Some of the best writers have ignored that rule for years, including you.

Maybe this is all a result of the English language completely and definitely going down the drain. The teenagers are ruining it! Text messaging and e-mail will be the end of all that was good and all that we cherished!

...

Calm down people. Yes, here is where my passion for descriptive grammar steps in. I think I pretty regularly make conscious decisions about what I say and how I use the English language. That's right, once again, I do my research, choose my side and proceed to respond "I'm good" to the question "How are you?"

How many times have you heard "Ain't ain't a word, and you ain't supposed to say it." But is it not widely used informally? I don't personally use "ain't" on a regular basis, but I love belting "Ain't it a shame that every time you hear my name you can't think straight" with Kellie Pickler like any country music-loving gal. No, technically "ain't" may not be a word in standard usage, but it's everywhere and can't be denied. It might drive some people crazy, but who can say that "ain't" can't be a "proper" word? Why were "haven't," "who's," "doesn't" and "you're" chosen, but "ain't" left behind?

P.S. This is not me advocating for a wider use of "ain't." I'm just saying.

I just discovered yet another book to add to my To-Read list: "The Lexicographer's Dilemma
The Evolution of English from Shakespeare to South Park. " The author, Jack Lynch, is a professor of English at Rutgers University and was the editor of Samuel Johnson's Dictionary. From what I've read thus far, he describes how we got "proper English" and that grammar isn't made up of rules or laws like the law of gravity or those against thefts. Instead they are fallible by people and subject to change.

"Most of these [rules of English] probably describe the speech habits of of some class of people, once upon a time. It will tend to be the upper class of people a generation or two ago. And that's what many people decided proper English is," says Jack Lynch.

Stated simply, I advocate for grammar usage based on the needs and desires of the people who use the language. I embrace language change and get excited when those changes evolve, are identified, and then accepted. Disregarding various opinions and arguments of whether those changes are for the better or worse, I appreciate the notion of a group of people taking control of their own lives—in this case language. Language as a whole should embrace change, especially those reflective of a current culture and lifestyle.