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 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.