There’s one thing that really bugs me on the internet, and that’s a Grammar Nazi. I don’t have a problem with helping others who don’t know their semi-colons from their apostrophes, but I also don’t mind if you don’t want help and you don’t particularly care if you’re using the correct punctuation or not.
I can just hear the cacophony of Grammar Nazi disgust over that comment, but let me explain.
Our written language is (or at least was initially) simply a visual representation of our spoken language. As such, as long as you are making yourself clear to your audience, surely it doesn’t matter exactly what form that representation takes?
Yes, we have our standard spelling and our standard grammar, but we also have constantly changing spoken language. Should our spelling and grammar not also be allowed to change with it?
I have heard it argued that correct spelling should not be changed because it reflects the etymology of our language, that is the origins and history of each word. As someone who is fascinated by etymology and often noticing new connections between words I never realised were related, I do like the idea of retaining this resource. However, I also feel that new changes are important, and will in future reflect a more recent part of the history of our language.
I find it interesting that the same people who can argue in favour of retaining as many languages as possible can also be the same people who argue for a lack of change in our own language. To me, the main reasoning for keeping alive as many languages as possible is to promote diversity in thought, since language has the ability to affect thought processes. If we don’t allow any change in our own language, how can we be expected to be able to diversify our own thinking processes to cope with a changing world? And if we do allow change in our spoken language, shouldn’t that be reflected in our written language?
Another point I would make is that with the internet becoming a larger part of our communications, and therefore the written language gathering more importance in its own right (rather than simply being a representation of spoken language), I think it’s even more reasonable for there to be change. I would expect this change to be even faster, since it is not written language catching up with spoken language change, but actual change in written language.
Our culture isn’t static, our language isn’t static, and so our written language should also not be static.
So to all you Grammar Nazis out there; when it comes to making niggling little comments about a probable typo then all I can say is ‘Get over it!!’
Thoughts, anyone?
Do you say "there", "their" and "they're" differently? Is there a vocal difference or not?
ReplyDeleteThis was a question that my non-native speaker wife once posed. I can answer for myself, but certainly not for the majority of English speakers (nor for most of them either!).
I would say there can be a slight difference with "they're", but possibly not enough to be audible.
ReplyDeleteBut that may also just be me. I think the answer would generally be no.
How insightful! As someone who wishes heartily to have complete knowledge of the proper use and spelling of the English (that is meant to be a capital isn't it?), I find this post very thought provoking and will no doubt ponder it for some time to come. Not least of all will I wonder, why do I feel such an urge to get it right?
ReplyDeleteThanks Rain! And yes, I also feel that urge to get it right, thinking about which is part of what inspired this post.
ReplyDelete