Topic: There Is No ‘Proper English’

[Pandora]

It is well past time to consign grammar pedantry to the history books.

Because "Any toddler is already a grammatical genius. Without conscious effort, we combine words into sentences according to a particular structure, with subjects, objects, verbs, adjectives and so on. We know that a certain practice is a rule of grammar because it’s how we see and hear people use the language."

And therefore, "Whatever is in general use in a language (not any use, but general use) is for that reason grammatically correct."

The range of legitimate variation is wider than you would imagine. Yes, you may use “hopefully” as an adverb modifying an entire sentence; and you may use “they” as a singular generic pronoun; and you may say “between you and I.” The pedants’ prohibitions on constructions like these are not supported by the evidence of general usage.

Let me just say, Yes, there gawdamn well is PROPER ENGLISH!  This is just another instance of defining deviancy down, like it was attempted to foist Ebonics on us as a dialect.

My sister, as a toddler, used to say washa-ming-sheen for washing machine.  It stands to reason the genius who wrote this piece would probably pronounce that as "proper" should it become commonplace.

TWANLOC.

[Alphabet Soup]

My sister, as a toddler, used to say washa-ming-sheen for washing machine.  It stands to reason the genius who wrote this piece would probably pronounce that as "proper" should it become commonplace.

It's cute when a toddler fractures a word or two. Grown-ups (or would-be grown-ups)  not so much. (Although I still refer to it as "strategery" ;')

[Libertas]

More proof the WSJ has gone completely moon-barking insane...

Oh and look what I found, a pic of the author of this birdcage liner -


Oliver Kamm, Born a Brit, will pass a fool.

[Glock32]

I'm not even reading that article.  My blood pressure is high enough as it is.  I don't need to read it, because I know what the real thrust of it is: normalizing the speech patterns of non-whites, blacks in particular.

ETA - and I can't help but point out, as did Pandora, that yes there damn well is such a thing as proper grammar. What is the purpose of language but to convey information? Of what use is information that is conveyed in an ambiguous or misleading manner? The whole reason we have rules of grammar is to ensure a minimum degree of precision in the conveyance of information. Surely everyone (well, excluding under 30s apparently) remembers seeing those examples of sentences that differed only in the placement of punctuation marks, and how the meaning could change dramatically based simply on the position of those marks.

 

[AmericanPatriot]

I've often wondered why the British Blacks can enunciate words and speak the Queen's English, but ours can't seem to master it

[Weisshaupt]

Well, yes there is such a thing as "proper" grammar, but the defintion of "proper" has, and will continue to change over time.
There will always be the speech of the educated  vs.  the speech of the great unwashed,  but useage of the great unwahsed tends to win out - because that is the lowest common denominator.

Want some proof of this?

WHAN that Aprille with his shoures soote
The droghte of Marche hath perced to the roote,
And bathed every veyne in swich licour,
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Whan Zephirus eek with his swete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
ath in the Ram his halfe cours y-ronne,
And smale fowles maken melodye,
That slepen al the night with open ye,
(So priketh hem nature in hir corages:
Than longen folk to goon on pilgrimages,

The Canterbury Tales Prologue in Middle English


So, was Chaucer speaking and writing  "proper english"?

[Glock32]

Chaucer was speaking and writing in Middle English, which was proper in his place and time.  I don't think anyone denies that languages evolve over time, because new concepts and relationships require new ways of expression.  You can add to that gradual evolution the periods of sudden change, such as by conquering armies.  In Chaucer's own time what language did the King's court use?  A bastard named William had something to do with that state of affairs.

What I take issue with is the broader assertion that there is never proper language. Languages may evolve, but if you select a particular snapshot of that evolution it certainly has a set of rules that define "proper."

[IronDioPriest]

I've often wondered why the British Blacks can enunciate words and speak the Queen's English, but ours can't seem to master it

I've wondered the same thing. They are, after all, also descended from African slaves. They seem to have embraced the intelligence/education that freedom made available to them.

[Weisshaupt]

What I take issue with is the broader assertion that there is never proper language. Languages may evolve, but if you select a particular snapshot of that evolution it certainly has a set of rules that define "proper."

well, yes and no.  Middle English varied by location - and  was written in dialect. There were certainly fewer "rules" -  there was no spelling for instance.
Its only after intellectuals start studying,  classifying  and codifying the language that "rules" start to really develop - and those care based on current speech patterns  - and even then such rules are really just ways for that intellectual class to belittle others for being "uneducated" - even though their rules would often lag behind conventional and common speech - as they do today.

I understand being upset by the lowering of the bar and standards for what passes as "correct", but language has served its purpose if the message is understood by those hearing it. (Yes, an INTJ  should care, but this one doesn't, because the criterion "does it work" has been met)

[Pablo de Fleurs]

I've often wondered why the British Blacks can enunciate words and speak the Queen's English, but ours can't seem to master it

I've wondered the same thing. They are, after all, also descended from African slaves. They seem to have embraced the intelligence/education that freedom made available to them.

shiftless
[shift-lis]
adjective
1. lacking in resourcefulness; inefficient; lazy.
2. lacking in incentive, ambition, or aspiration.

[Libertas]

I do not have an issue with language evolving in an intelligent manner, as it has done so for thousands of years...but when natural evolution is hijacked by a rampaging hoard of Dindu Nuffin's and pimped by gaggle of gutless wonders just so childish and ignorant jibberish can be mainstreamed into society...well, to Hell with that, and them!

Pablo is right, this ilk is shiftless and shiftless should be kicked to the curb!