The Crazy Thing about Grammar

Lingua, Frankly takes a break and steals from itself.

In the beginning there was the infinitive, and it was good. And there was only one rule: don’t split the infinitive. Right? And don’t start a sentence with a conjunction (what is it conjoining if you do?) And¹ always use the Oxford comma but never the passive voice. And, as came up in a work conversation² not too long ago: never, never use “impact” as a verb. There are rules, and we call these rules grammar.

Here’s the thing, and sing along if you know the tune: the rules didn’t create the language.

The rules are an attempt to understand how the language works, kind of like the “rules” of economics or psychology, two excellent disciplines that don’t perfectly describe the complex systems they study. So, yes, this means the language didn’t create the rules, either.

In fact, some of the people most attached to particular rules don’t always get them right. I don’t just mean that grammar fails to perfectly describe the language—which is also true—I mean that some people will insist up and down that it’s verboten to wantonly split infinitives when even Oxford (who, along with Philo Farnsworth, invented the comma³) says⁴ it’s okay.

The problem is that some grammar aficionados (and aficionadas, and so on) align themselves with the grammar written down in the 1700s and 1800s, when a lot of men⁵ where writing a lot of lofty stuff which, let’s face it, didn’t always bear out. And others align themselves with the grammar of the 1900s, dominated (in part) by Strunk & White, when maybe Lounsbury should have been more prominent instead. Strunk & White did tremendous damage to so many people’s understanding of the descriptive rules we call grammar. And the problem is: based on incorrect assumptions, assessments, and apprehensions⁶ based partly on moralistic attempts to wedge the rich, multi-faceted English language into the mold of Latin, where only a part of it fits, grammar attempts not to be merely descriptive⁷ but prescriptive, often finger-wagglingly so.

And that is destructive.

Not only does Enlightenment-era prescriptive grammar get etymology wrong sometimes (as in the impact example linked above); not only does finger-waggling foolishly try to staunch the organic change that brings a constantly moving beauty to the language; worst of all, it establishes a standard that implicitly values one strand of the culture above others and devalues some of the richest, most hotly evolving linguistic communities. Grammar can, in fact, perpetuate bigotries.

So where does this leave us? Are all rules discriminatory?⁸ Shall we abandon all structure and collapse into absolute relativism in fear that we might be offending someone? No, no, not at all. I am recommending thoughtfulness, awareness, and a grain of salt. Always a grain of salt.

1. See what I did there?

2. I am lucky enough to have friends who like to talk about these interesting linguistic conundra for fun!

3. This is a lie. Philo Farnsworth helped invent television and is a distant relative of Hubert Farnsworth, who was born in prison.

4. In English, this would be “say” but in American “says” is correct.

5. And women like Anne Fisher, too, but there were surely a lot of men.

6. In the sense of “things that are held,” not “fears.”

7. Where it succeeds, partly, but doesn’t quite keep up with the changes.

8. Well, yes, by definition, but you know what I mean.