Read Online Writing well (for the rest of us): No Grammar. No Rules. Just Common Sense. by Alex Eckelberry - Free Book Online Page A
Authors: Alex Eckelberry
Ads: Link
oppressively on much of the early history of English grammars. Any attempt by one author to assert an independent grammatical rule for
English was quickly followed by equal avowals by others of truth of the
corresponding Latin-based equivalent. Even as late as the early 19th century,
Lindley Murray, the author of one of the most widely used grammars of the day,
was having to cite "grammatical authorities" to bolster the claim
that grammatical cases in English are different from those in Ancient Greek or
Latin.” [4]
Rational linguists view language through use (descriptive). A rules-based method (prescriptive) method of viewing the
language is bound to fail. English is an open language with a potpourri of
influences, and it will continue to evolve.
The reality is that grammar is descriptive, not prescriptive, no matter how much grammarians want to fight against an evolving
language.
To wit, the French have the Académie française, a national
body given the task of keeping the French language pure. In its effort to force
continued purity on the language, some asinine decisions have been made – as my
friend David Newberger points out – few more infamous than banning the use of
the word “computer.” instead forcing the French to use “ordinateur.” which is a
big desktop calculator.
I don’t mean to imply that rules aren’t needed; there would
be no way of learning the correct, current use of the language (and this is
especially important in teaching English to foreign language students). There
have to be rules, but there must also be a recognition of the natural evolution
of the language. As Adrian Williams points out:
“If we look at history, the English language has transformed from a language that demonstrated ‘grammatical gender’
to a language that demonstrates ‘natural gender’. In Old English, gender was
normally marked on all parts of language including noun, adjective,
demonstrative and pronoun. But the gender attached to a noun was quite randomly
assigned which resulted to a language system of grammatical gender that really
had no methodical relationship between biological gender and the gender that
marked a linguistic object. In the Old English, the word ‘hand’ was assigned a
male gender while ‘pride’ was given a female gender and the word ‘body’ was
given a neutral gender. As the English language evolved in due course, genders
were no longer used to mark nouns, with some prominent exceptions like the use
of ‘man’ and ‘-ess’ in words that refer to specific professions (milkman,
fireman for both men and women, actress for a female actor and waitress for a
female waiter).” [5]
To quote linguist Jean Aitchieson:
“In brief, the puristic attitude
towards language – the idea that there is an absolute standard of correctness
that should be maintained – has its origin in a natural nostalgic tendency,
supplemented and intensified by social pressures. It is illogical, and
impossible to pin down to any firm base. Purists behave as if there was a
vintage year when language achieved a measure of excellence which we should all
strive to maintain. In fact, there never was such a year. The language of
Chaucer’s or Shakespeare’s time was not better or no worse than that of our own
– just different.” [6]
The Middle English of Chaucer was just that – the English of
Chaucer. It was not better or worse than the English we speak today, although
it was vastly different than modern English.
It evolved.
Indo-European language This chart shows the theorized spread of the Indo-European language:
(Credit to Dbachmann) [7]
The theory that all major European and Indo-Iranian
languages came from a common ancestor is well established in Linguistics,
although the exact nature of the original diaspora continues to researched and
debated.
Needless to say, the prevailing thought is that there was an
original group of dialects in the region of the Caucuses (modern
English was quickly followed by equal avowals by others of truth of the
corresponding Latin-based equivalent. Even as late as the early 19th century,
Lindley Murray, the author of one of the most widely used grammars of the day,
was having to cite "grammatical authorities" to bolster the claim
that grammatical cases in English are different from those in Ancient Greek or
Latin.” [4]
Rational linguists view language through use (descriptive). A rules-based method (prescriptive) method of viewing the
language is bound to fail. English is an open language with a potpourri of
influences, and it will continue to evolve.
The reality is that grammar is descriptive, not prescriptive, no matter how much grammarians want to fight against an evolving
language.
To wit, the French have the Académie française, a national
body given the task of keeping the French language pure. In its effort to force
continued purity on the language, some asinine decisions have been made – as my
friend David Newberger points out – few more infamous than banning the use of
the word “computer.” instead forcing the French to use “ordinateur.” which is a
big desktop calculator.
I don’t mean to imply that rules aren’t needed; there would
be no way of learning the correct, current use of the language (and this is
especially important in teaching English to foreign language students). There
have to be rules, but there must also be a recognition of the natural evolution
of the language. As Adrian Williams points out:
“If we look at history, the English language has transformed from a language that demonstrated ‘grammatical gender’
to a language that demonstrates ‘natural gender’. In Old English, gender was
normally marked on all parts of language including noun, adjective,
demonstrative and pronoun. But the gender attached to a noun was quite randomly
assigned which resulted to a language system of grammatical gender that really
had no methodical relationship between biological gender and the gender that
marked a linguistic object. In the Old English, the word ‘hand’ was assigned a
male gender while ‘pride’ was given a female gender and the word ‘body’ was
given a neutral gender. As the English language evolved in due course, genders
were no longer used to mark nouns, with some prominent exceptions like the use
of ‘man’ and ‘-ess’ in words that refer to specific professions (milkman,
fireman for both men and women, actress for a female actor and waitress for a
female waiter).” [5]
To quote linguist Jean Aitchieson:
“In brief, the puristic attitude
towards language – the idea that there is an absolute standard of correctness
that should be maintained – has its origin in a natural nostalgic tendency,
supplemented and intensified by social pressures. It is illogical, and
impossible to pin down to any firm base. Purists behave as if there was a
vintage year when language achieved a measure of excellence which we should all
strive to maintain. In fact, there never was such a year. The language of
Chaucer’s or Shakespeare’s time was not better or no worse than that of our own
– just different.” [6]
The Middle English of Chaucer was just that – the English of
Chaucer. It was not better or worse than the English we speak today, although
it was vastly different than modern English.
It evolved.
Indo-European language This chart shows the theorized spread of the Indo-European language:
(Credit to Dbachmann) [7]
The theory that all major European and Indo-Iranian
languages came from a common ancestor is well established in Linguistics,
although the exact nature of the original diaspora continues to researched and
debated.
Needless to say, the prevailing thought is that there was an
original group of dialects in the region of the Caucuses (modern
Similar Books
