stc-jamesriver.org

Thoughtful Pause…

I think Bruce’s points are:

1. Grammar is about the English language
2. English grammar was originally based on a correlation between it and Latin
3. English is not a Latin language, but a Germanic tongue, instead
4. English grammar rules are described as immutable and unchangeable
5. English usage changes all the time
6. Early English grammarians claimed their work as scientific but were burdened by social bias, instead
7. Adherence to rules of grammar prevents writers from communicating effectively

Okay, so that’s the nutshell into which I place his arguments. Here are my thoughts:

1. I’ve studied German, Spanish, Turkish, and Russian; each have grammar rules and grammars published about those rules
2. I don’t know this for a fact, but I’m reasonably certain that the early English writers who became grammarians knew of the Germanic roots of their language, as well as the French and Latin cognates used contemporaneously
3. Grammar is demonstrably not unchangeable; none of us writes like Shakespeare
4. The English are about as biased in their approach to their language and those of other peoples as are we
5. I believe that there is a difference between spoken and written English, and that adherence to grammar enhances our ability to communicate through the written word

But, then, I haven’t studied or followed the grammars written by William Bulokar, Ben Jonson, or Daniel Webster. Instead, I use what Bruce describes as descriptive grammars (notably, Chicago and Strunk & White [no relation]).

Keywords : Blogs, The Profession, Form or Content?

Average user rating

   (0 vote)