GIVE ANSWERS - English

DEHER,

The fact that languages change is elementary, and to comment again would be repetitively redundant. (That's a joke)

The questions people like to dodge so that they can maintain their theology are these: Does anyone rightfully prescribe grammar; why do they do so; does anyone inquire about grammar with regard to prescription; is it reasonable to assume that if someone makes a grammatical error, that they would benefit from knowing it; is there an effect on the reader or listener when improper grammar is used; if someone is asked to read or listen, do they then have reason to correct someones grammar; might there be a valid reason someone has for correcting grammar even if someone else is unaware of that reason; and I might think of more later, but... if these questions aren't considered, then I'm going to keep on protecting the language.

Oh yes, that's one. Are there ever errors in grammar that lead to a deterioration of the language--that is, errors that make it difficult to communicate, and finally, are all changes in the language equal?

For example, if you change the meaning of a word, that is one example that is rather isolated. You don't change one word, and therefore change 10 words, but if you err in conjugation, and don't want to be corrected, that is something else, in my estimation.
Something else to consider is that if you defend errors, then you don't have much right to correct anyone's errors in any regard to grammar, unless you first ask, "Did you mean to say it like that," thought being, if they meant to say it a certain way, that's just usage and you can't disparage anyone for saying anything that they said on purpose.

I am ardent about my point because as I looked up a question in my research on beginning a sentence with a coordinating conjunction, I landed on a thread at the Chicago Manual of Style. Someone wrote in from a Law Review ready to go to publication. They asked if you could begin a sentence with "But."

The CMS, (a manual of style, not grammar) gave a grammatical answer that you might not want to make it a habit, but neither would they lose sleep over it.

This is an answer given to a Law Review going to publication. If this isn't writing worthy of Formal Standard English, then I don't know what is. That is, writing of the educated written at the peak of ones ability.

My story goes on but I'll spare further details. It's so funny that I get corrected on grammar (incorrectly by the way), on a site that is typically known for getting corrections on text. Something just seems wrong with that.

Ciao,

Tace

What an interesting verbal sparring! I AM flabbergasted by your discussion.
If I can add my participation (although I am not a specialist or expert, far from it), I would say that in France "l'Académie Française" is an institution which is in charge of the French language and decides if new words or ohrases can enter the new version of the dictionnary. But it doesn't prevent new words or new meanings to be used in daily life. And what is considered as"wrong" today will be "right" tomorrow... It is part and parcel of evolution and of change...
That being said, it's a great moment for me to read such an amazing level of language and another opportunity for an "old" Frenchman to enrich my knowledge.
Thanks a lot to both of you...

Cheerio.

Didier.

Hello Kelly,
Thanks a lot for your comment... I didn't want to trigger a "battle of experts"...(I'm kidding.) But I take your mind into accountand it is another evidence that according to the context or to the level of language, everything is possible. I was taught British (and even Queen's) English and am not specially used to colloquial English or even slang... I have to make more progress.

@ Tace

Well, agree to disagree. Your high school English teacher must have loved you. :-) I’m not going to debate grammar here, but it’s always great to meet other people passionate about language. I wouldn’t care for a baseball signed by Chomsky—ha, ha!—but, maybe if Kenneth L. Pike were handing them out... :-) All the best! :-)

@kso90

Ah yes, the living language rational. I wrote about it. I know a little about linguistics. I "have got" Noam Chomsky to sign a baseball for me.

Linguistics is fine, but it is when people defend every error out of a refusal to bow to the idea that some rules actually preserve functionality, we end up with this:

infer[ in-fur ]SHOW IPA
SYNONYMS|EXAMPLES|WORD ORIGINSEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR infer ON THESAURUS.COM
verb (used with object), in·ferred, in·fer·ring.
to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence:
They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
(of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a conclusion; lead to.
to guess; speculate; surmise.
to hint; imply; suggest.

Did you catch it? "...to hint, imply..."

It seems to me that "to infer" meaning the same thing as "imply" is an incestuous relationship.

I say it is wrong, and I know that my tone will sound askance, but I guess you didn't find anything underhanded about Bill Clinton floundering over what the definition of is...is.

I understand that this is a living language. I outline several ways words change their meaning in a paper I wrote. Portmanteau words, for instance. Functional shift is a way that words change their part of speech. Many people appose words going through functional shift. In my work, I created a neologism and immediately used it in a functionally different way so that nobody could ever say it was wrong, and to poke.

People say things like, "He's so good at the game it is stupid." That use of stupid doesn't really make sense, but we do that. It's a living language.

Now, if you find that to be the same thing as using "imply" to mean "infer," or using tense with foreigners in a way other than that which would be offered in a grammar according to a normative or prescriptive set of rules setting forth the current standard of usage for pedagogical or reference purposes, I understand; you are a linguist.

I'm just a guy learning language, and offering corrections in the "Corrections" section, but I choose to offer people a go-to for what would be taught in schools... at least on a forum where people are trying to learn.

If linguists study how language is used, perhaps we should let learners learn before we teach them poor habits.

When I was playing the piano, my dad used to tell me to learn it the way the music said first, then if I want to play it the way I heard it on the radio, fine.

If people are going to learn a way, let's teach them the "right way." After that, if they make an error and you want to tell them it isn't really wrong because so many people write in the present perfect with the meaning of the present, I understand.

On a side note, this is what I call, "You know what I mean syndrome." Of course, the end result is that I know what "you mean, " but you don't.

One last thing. I spent many, many years on a paper on what I call, "the logic of grammar." I don't say that to imply it carries any weight, but if you think this is a long post, you just have no idea.

By the way kso90, this isn't aimed at you. I'm really speaking to people who need to know who is teaching them humorous and vulgar, or slang, or at best, informal English, and who they can go to if they are interested in rules. Just to prove it...

Everyone... HEY EVERYONE... if you don't care about the rules, say whatever you want.