There Is No ‘Proper English’: Ignore grammar scolds. If people say it, it’s the right way to speak

Wall Street Journal ^ | 03/17/2015 | OLIVER KAMM

[Paladin2]

If logic is not mathematical, then it is emotional (eg rat think)

[DJ MacWoW]

Y U B dissin dis homey, bro?

[QuisCustodiet1776]

peepsbetterstanmecauseifndaydontenizashootemorvotesforpeepsdatwilz.

or:

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” - Samuel Adams

[JRandomFreeper]

English is greatly an emotional language. You can't apply logic to languages. Or our Constitution wouldn't get debated 200 years later.

When someone understands the audience, they can communicate effectively, otherwise, they are talking across each other.

Know your target audience.

/johnny

[KarlInOhio]

Most varieties of early English used double (Chaucer even reached a quadruple once) negatives as intensifiers. The English around London which became standard had the quirk of not allowing double negatives. That being said, descriptivist linguists can dispassionately investigate and write papers about the origins of that rule at the same time prescriptivist teachers can teach people that in modern English double negatives aren't used and get out the big red pen when students them.

Also, aren't those who state that all linguists must be descriptivists themselves prescriptivist on that issue?

[JRandomFreeper]

Equating math with language is why many conservatives have such horrible communications problems.

They aren't the same. Math guys would like for it to be, but it ain't.

/johnny

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

No. English is NOT a rational language, the way it has grown.

Never said it was. The only fully rational language would be an artificial one.

And who sets the rules? There was no committee that set the rules one day and there it was. English has changed for hundreds of years.

Who sets the rules? It used to be the English department. They have handed it over to the APA so it is perhaps not surprising that logic and clarity have been pushed out of what is laughably called "language arts".

The trick is to change slowly enough that the rigid rationalists don't disturb everyone else too badly.

The trick is to get people to communicate clearly.

When they use "ya know what I mean" every second sentence they are not communicating clearly.

[bigbob]

Can you repost this in print for those who can read cursive?

[Mastador1]

No I am equating it with “The three R’s” which I believe was fairly obvious, doubly so in the dumbing down of America and it’s future by educators and so called journalists. Perhaps the communication issue is not mine.

[JRandomFreeper]

The trick is to get people to communicate clearly.

Something the conservatives have been fighting with for decades. It's not working.

English rules have evolved over hundreds of years. English department didn't do it.

There is a very good multi-hour documentary on how English came about. It matches closely with my observations from reading everything from the 16th century to modern.

/johnny

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

They also had no standardize English spelling.

There was a reason most official communication was in Latin. It had rules that allowed you to communicate without the guy who got your letter being forced to guess at what you meant.

[spel_grammer_an_punct_polise]

Sez hoo? ROFL

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Something the conservatives have been fighting with for decades. It's not working.

Look up APA standards for college writing and you might figure out why it is not working.

[Unam Sanctam]

Completely disagree. Every language needs standards. They may not always be observed and they may change or be reformed over time, but they are necessary for clarity and cohesion of the language.

[KarlInOhio]

The change in English is also slowing down. The change for Chaucer to Shakespeare was far greater than the change from Shakespeare to the Constitution. And that change was greater than the change from the Constitution to now. Each of those steps was about 200 years. I expect that this sentence will be perfectly understandable and nearly unchanged in 2215.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The “n” word is OK again?

[Political Junkie Too]

In other words, if our educators are no longer capable of teaching our children to speak properly, then declare the subject void and accept whatever manner they choose to speak as correct.

Wait until they try this with math... no, wait a minute...

-PJ

[JRandomFreeper]

I've studied and made a living with language for many years. I probably have the APA standards on my shelf. I know I have Strunk&White (several editions).

Not a new rodeo for me.

I prefer language that works with the intended audience. I think that was the real strength of the Gipper. I've heard him speak to others and not as a politician. He was much more refined in person than on TV.

/johnny

[Stepan12]

I could care less.

I gets the irony of your remark.

Better to be wanted by the police than not wanted at all

The Official Undezog Website

[JRandomFreeper]

Every language needs standards.

Only after printing is widely available. That's not how English grew. It was around LONG before printing. And the standards were slow in evolving. Much faster after printing became common.

/johnny