Re: grammar

[Libby Miles <emc@omni.cc.purdue.edu>]

I don't want to assume you were serious if this is another example of
your "quirky sense of humor."  Whether or not you were joking, your
comments reflect a fairly common assumption (outside this community, that
is) that good usage and grammar are easy to teach, easy to learn.  Three
counter-arguments, to add to those already posted:

1.  To use a handbook, you must have enough of a meta-language that you
know where to look for a particular rule.  If a writer remembers there is
a "if/were" rule, for example, he or she wouldn't be able to find it in
most handbooks unless the writer knew the term "subjunctive."  Not many
people outside of English departments (and quite a few inside English
departments) do know that term.

2.  There are many, many, many more than a "few" rules in English.  Most
seem arbitrary and inconsistenly applied to writers who haven't grown up
in circumstances in which those rules have been thoroughly engrained in
them (due to social class, geography, ethnicity, and other socio-political
factors which are often manifested linguistically).

3.  What communities and cultures consider "good usage and grammar" is
situationally, historically, and culturally bound.  It changes --
sometimes dramatically -- over time and across contexts.  Thus, my
Great-Aunt Betty, a strict grammarian, would be appalled by the use of
"deliverables" in *any* context, whereas my colleagues and I use the
phrase frequently when referring to our stated purposes in our writing
projects.  The singular "they" is more commonly accepted now, as are
assorted other constructions for getting around gender-neutrality (like
s/he, etc.).  Invented words from industry now in everyday usage:
de-plane, multi-task, prioritize.  All would be considered incorrect in
some circles.  But they work fine in their contexts.

Does this help explain why we don't simply expect all writers to easily
learn a few rules and a good handbook?

Libby

On Mon, 4 May 1998, Kuhne, David wrote:

> I find it difficult to understand why we simply don't expect writers to use
> correct grammar when it's so easy to learn a few rules or use a handbook.
> After all, that's nothing compared to the difficulty of the "larger" issues
> such as organization and clear thinking.  If the writer can think clearly,
> why shouldn't the writer be expected to conform to good usage and grammar.
> 
> Dave Kuhne
>