We often bemoan the educational system in this country and the resultant "dumbing down" of our nation's youth. How on one hand can we be critical of our schools, then in the same breath, not attempt to incorporate of our own education into our day to day life. If we do not use and demonstrate those thing that we were fortunate enough to be taught, where do we have the right to condemn those that were not so fortunate?
Do we now through out the grammatical rules for the ease of expediency? I would hope not.
I have experienced receiving letters from young college graduates seeking employment. Many of these letters weren't written on a junior high school level. Perhaps these graduates were short changed by their teachers and professors or thought that grammar was simply a waste of their time. Young men and women with the benefit and privilege of receiving a college education and they are still unable to communicate using the written word. Pathetic.
I believe that if civilization and culture is to endure, it will only do so by way of pen and paper. To rely on verbal communication is grossly inefficient and haphazard.
I am not a grammatarian, only someone who recognizes the benefit that proper grammer lends to the ability to communicate accurately.
I attempt to speak and write in intelligently and intelligibly, as do most people here. I don't think that's the issue.
The issue is whether certain linguistic constructs which disobey the "rules" of grammar should necessarily be looked down upon if such constructs are neither unclear, nor awkward, nor excessively verbose.
It is useful to understand the rules of grammar. It is important, however, both to recognize the exceptions and to recognize which "rules" constitute a level of formality which was never really a part of English usage.
Do we now through out the grammatical rules for the ease of expediency? I would hope not.
If the meaning of a particular sentence is clear to anyone in the author's target audience, and if the sentence is not overly verbose or awkward, and if the wording of the sentence will not cause the target audience to question the author's intelligence, then the sentence is fine as it is--all other grammatical rules notwithstanding.
That having been said, grammatical rules provide a useful guide for authors who are trying to make their meaning clear, to avoid needlessly verbose or awkward constructions, and to avoid looking stupid.
The original sentence cited in the PSAT was an example of a sentence which passes all of the tests for good writing (the content of the sentence may make me question the author's judgement, but the wording does not).
I'll have to look through the works of Shakespeare to see if there are sentences where a person's name used in possessive form becomes the referrent of a pronoun. I suspect there probably are.
I have experienced receiving letters from young college graduates seeking employment. Many of these letters weren't written on a junior high school level. Perhaps these graduates were short changed by their teachers and professors or thought that grammar was simply a waste of their time. Young men and women with the benefit and privilege of receiving a college education and they are still unable to communicate using the written word. Pathetic.
I am reminded of some things I've been taught in various arts: one has to know the rules to know when to break them. The "rules" of English are not meant to be obeyed 100% of the time, but aspiring writers should know the rules so they can recognize the occasions when they are not appropriate.
BTW, although I've not generally seen things treated this way, I might like to see a book on grammatical interpretation which includes some of the conflicting rules which are often not listed in grammar texts. For example, the phrase "I and" is awkward, and should generally be avoided even if the only effective way to do so is to use "me" as part of a verb's subject. I've never seen that rule in any textbook, but to my mind it supercedes most others. To be sure, in most occasions where "I and X" would be appropriate, "X and I" would be better. In cases where the latter construct cannot work, however, "Me and X" is better than "I and X".
I believe that if civilization and culture is to endure, it will only do so by way of pen and paper. To rely on verbal communication is grossly inefficient and haphazard.
True enough.
I am not a grammatarian, only someone who recognizes the benefit that proper grammer lends to the ability to communicate accurately.
Accurate communication is the goal. Proper grammar should be a means to that end, not an end in and of itself. It is better to write clearly and [by pedantic standards] non-grammatically than it is to write obscurely, even if such obscure writing is 100% grammatically correct.