Aucf-cs.472
net.general
utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!duke!ucf-cs!goldfarb
Wed Mar 17 11:07:02 1982
Grammar: one more
Because it presents a position contrasting with most of those received
in response to my grammar article, I think the following rebuttal from
a local user will be of interest.  Its text follows.

					Ben Goldfarb
					..duke!ucf-cs!goldfarb

==========================================================================


To: goldfarb
Subject: grammar

	If I may come out of the (anarchist's) closet for a moment - I
would suggest that the objections to the grammar you encounter is the same as
objecting to the change of appearance of a train as it moves on down
the tracks while standing off to one side.  Natural language has always
been dynamic, and any present or future attempts to define it in static
terms will lead to frustration.  You (collective) simply don't have the
power and authority to make it stand still.

	No doubt Willie the S caught a ration for bending the language
back in his days (surely not everybody had the bug to explore and
create) - but that matters little now, and so will any complaints
about current grammar in future years.  What will be remembered will
be the extent to which we explored new ideas, and how we incorporated
the new information we discover into the fabric of our present.  The
complaints about the form of communication as opposed to its content
will simply be added to the total of all such complaints which have
come before.

	What I do find important is the ability of people to
communicate their thoughts - and I would suggest that the poor grammar
may (but ONLY may) also be indicative of a lack of precision of the
thought being expressed.  Other possibilities are that grammar is
irrelevant to the thought being expressed, or that current forms of
grammar do not allow for the subtlety of the thought being expressed.
So long as communication continues, and is able to express the intent
of the speaker to the listener the purpose of the language (and of
grammar) has been served.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
 gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
 of http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/


This Usenet Oldnews Archive
article may be copied and distributed freely, provided:

1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles.

2. The following notice remains appended to each copy:

The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996 
 Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.