Question. What is wrong with the above heading? Grammatically and syntacticly it breaks almost every rule in the book, yet in another sense, nothing.
I was brought up thinking that purity of grammar and syntax were of utmost importance, and indeed there are many pedants who believe that it falls to them to maintain the standards of correct English. Lately though, I have come to a rather radically different conclusion.
I find language, its uses and development fascinating and have read books on the subject for many years. However, I am not an expert on language and I am sure that my writing is full of “errors”. Amongst the many things I have learnt though is that language is not static. It evolves by various means, and adapts to the needs of the society it serves. You see, the pedants have turned the relationship between language and society on its head. For many thousands of years language has been the servant of society but the language police are trying to make society the servant of language.
Within a given society language has constantly evolved and even within societies there have bean different forms to cater for different needs. Even within the same societal structure there have been different forms – as it is today in many societies. There are many reasons for the changes in language. Grammar Nazis would have us believe that the changes in language in modern society are due to laziness. In my opinion they could not be more wrong. Amongst the reasons that language changes is not laziness.
Words can fall into disuse either because they are no longer required or because there are other words or expressions that take their place. Words alter their meaning over time, and on occasion come to mean the opposite of their original. A good example is the loss of a number of the singular forms of the personal pronoun. The words thee, thy, and thou are very seldom heard apart from the prayers of a few very old fashioned Christians in the mistaken belief that they are somehow being respectful to God by referring to him in the ancient singular form. Mind you, they usually get the grammar wrong and use a curious mixture of singular and plural forms when addressing God. You and your have replaced these forms for centuries now and the grammar police don’t seem to care too much about them. But they do care, very much about the poor unfortunate yous, or youse. This form is now used quite widely in spoken English but I have not seen it yet in written form, (except above). This is to my mind one of the most glaring examples of a new word being introduced to fulfill a deficit in the language of the day. Having lost thee and its siblings we have lost the distinction between the singular and the plural for a number of personal pronouns. In fact I believe that some languages make a further distinction between one, two, a small number and a large number. But getting back to yous, this word has been introduced by non-native English speakers to make up for the loss of the singular/plural distinction with the word you. Is the introduction of the word yous a bad thing? I do not think it is for us to judge. If society feels that this reintroduction of this lost form is necessary it will come whether the grammar Nazis like it or not. Much like King Canute commanding the waxing tide to retreat, except that he knew he looked a fool.
Words can alter their meaning subtly, or sometimes dramatically. One example I am often quoting is the word bird for young lady. This is supposed to be a derogatory term but it came from the old English word byrde which meant woman of marriageable age. Indeed, the word bride comes from the same root. Purity of meaning is another drum that the grammar police keep banging. Meaning will change over time – get used to it.
It may appear that I am preaching grammatical anarchy, and in fact what I am saying is something of that sort. The editors of our most esteemed dictionaries consider themselves servants to society in that they are changing the accepted meanings of words in each edition. The add new words and delete words that are no longer as common. We hear the same people bemoaning the surrender of the dictionary to popularism, but when was any dictionary not popularist. All that the dictionaries from the esteemed Dr Johnson’s first dictionary the the latest edition of the OED have ever done is merely describe how words are and have been used, and if that is not popularist then I do not know what is.
Syntax is really in the same boat. We hear much about the apostrophe and its use. The rules are many and complex, but in truth how often is the apostrophe really required? Take the so called grocer’s apostrophe. Those of us who know the correct use of the apostrophe in the possessive recognize the grocer’s apostrophe immediately. In the sign “Orange’s for sale” we know that it is not anything that belongs to the Orange that is for sale it is indeed a number of oranges that are for sale. So we have the possessive “The orange’s taste” and the plural “Oranges for sale”. We could just have clearly written “The oranges taste” and known immediately that we were talking about how the orange tastes. One of the rules which seems to command a chapter in every book on the subject is the serial comer. Do we write “I ate a pear, an apple and a banana”, or do we write “I ate a pear, an apple, and a banana.” The consensus seems to be that it is only used for clarity. If the same rule was applied across the board then we would be looking at a far different syntactical landscape than we have now. If the meaning is clear what does it matter? Is don’t any clearer than dont? Does it really matter if i do not capitalize the personal pronoun I?
Of course that brings me neatly to the changes in spelling, grammar and syntax that have come about in the online and mobile community. The lexicographer Dr Johnson had to make a judgment on how to spell the words in his dictionary. In a number of instances we are burdened with his poor judgment. But what of that? Up until that time spelling was quite arbitrary and depended on your family, what part of England you came from, a number of factors. There was nothing inherently “correct” in the way words were spelt in his dictionary, just as there is nothing inherently correct in the way words are spelt in the Mirriam-Websters or the OED. In which case what is “wrong” with the sentence “hw r u?”. The meaning is clear, and it is no more or less correct than “How are you?” Many people bemoan the loss of the ability in young people to spell “correctly”. In fact in my experience young people are still getting an education, can still spell as well as ever and in most instances better than me.
So what are the criteria for syntax and grammar? I have two. To quote Keats “Truth and beauty”. I use truth in the older meaning as in can it be relied on as a reference. In other words is it clear and unambiguous. Can we tell clearly what is being communicated? The second, and final criteria is does it sound good. There are many ugly things in the English language, and not all of them new. Should anything ugly in language be allowed to survive?
We should ask nothing more of language than that the communicator is able to clearly communicate his intent and that it be graceful if needs be and otherwise, if that is the intent. If that means that words are lost, new words are created and that we do not use “correct” syntax then what of it?