Why Grammar?

As a grammarian and word person, I am constantly asked why grammar is important. “Why do I have to understand what words go together and which ones don’t?” “What's the difference if I use double negatives?” “Why do we even have apostrophes — much less, how do we use them?”

Having order to the way we communicate by mouth and writing is as important as having some order to the way we communicate via the Internet and email. Sure there are different systems, or styles. But computer-ese makes communication between computers — and therefore between people — possible. If your computer cannot talk to mine, we cannot get together on anything.

Grammar is like the coding in computers, in that knowing how it works makes it work better. Read a good book about language: The Anarchist’s Guide to Grammar, by Val Dumond, or The Language Instinct, by Steven Pinker. I guarantee you’ll come away with more respect for the guidelines offered through the order of language.

No, it’s not British English or Australian English or Canadian English — not in the good old US of A! Which is why we in the U.S. have the most beautiful and flexible language in the world. Why? Because it is composed of all the other languages — with all their styles and systems in one room, together.

Bless us all, everyone, for our language and knowing how to order it!

Can an Exception Prove Anything?

You’re familiar with the phrase: An exception proves the rule.

Maybe so, but the idea is confusing until you understand that the word prove can mean “test”. Or, as my American Heritage Dictionary states: to prove is “to determine the quality by testing".

“Not so!” says Sherlock Holmes through the pen of Arthur Conan Doyle. Sherlock claims that a rule cannot be questioned; it is sacrosanct, unchangeable, unwavering. Therefore, to claim there are “rules” to grammar is to claim there are no exceptions and… ergo… an exception must admit the falsity of the “rule”. Did I lose you? I didn’t lose Sherlock. He knows! And he's a Brit!

Anyone who has studied grammar quickly learns “the exceptions” that accompany almost every “rule”. The conclusion therefore must admit to preferring guidelines to rules.

You’ll find all the guidelines you need in my book, The Anarchist’s Guide to Grammar — the best grammar book you’ll ever enjoy!

Quote-Contents-Unquote

When do you use quotation marks, how many, and where? Forget the “rules” you were fed in school. Many options are available to suit the inventive writer.

Standard/Normal/Ho-hum maybe:
Double quote-dialog-double unquote — “What do you mean, choice?” you ask. (New paragraph) “You have options,” I say.

Standard/Normal/Ho-hum quote within a quote — “Someone will tell you ‘Listen to me,’ and you have to listen.’’

Standard/Normal/Ho-hum quote that is not dialog — The word you want is “choice”. (punctuation outside the mark) 

British/Normal/Ho-hum:
Single quote-dialog-single unquote — ‘You Brits do it this way.’ (New paragraph) ‘Yes. Neah, neah, neah, U.S.’

Creative:
Eliminate quotation marks — What do you mean, choice? I'm suggesting options to you.

Creative:
(You decide how to handle dialog quotations. I’m waiting to hear your ideas.)

With E or Without

How do you spell — acknowledg ment? or judg ment? Do you stick an E in there to make the words: acknowledgement and judgement?

Uh-uh! That’s a dead giveaway that you’re with “them” (the Brits).

If you’re a true U.S.-er,  omit the E. Otherwise the Grammar Anarchist will be after you.

The Old Foodie Speaks

 Slightly edited, the following arrived with today’s note from The Old Foodie (a favorite contact). Can you find some usage variations?

The Oxford English Dictionary defines brioche as ‘a kind of cake made of flour, butter, and eggs; sponge-cake’, Most folk on either side of the Channel, and on all sides of the big waters, would say that the OED got it badly wrong, and that brioche is bread, not cake. Perhaps the OED is merely out of date. For the word-smiths amongst you: such authorities as I have been able to rustle up at short notice say that the word ‘brioche’ comes from the Middle French dialect brier ‘to knead’, which in turn is of Germanic origin, and is ‘akin to Old High German brehhan ‘to break’.

Okay, I’ll tell you. Notice the single quotation marks where U.S. language uses doubles. And the word “amongst” echos British usage. You’re absolutely right. This writer is from Australia, where “English” takes on elements different from both U.S. and Great B. The part I thoroughly get is “…the OED got it badly wrong”.

Strike the “E”s in U.S.-English

The first day of law school, you learn that judgment is spelled without the British “e”. Another word that did not translate well from England is: acknowledgment. Please! We changed much of our spelling and grammar after we kicked out the red coats. About time we got used to our independence. (There! four “e”s; are you happy now?)

Who Changed Brit-English to U.S.-English?

No, it wasn't The Grammar Anarchist, although the need persists. (Will we never learn?)

ANSWER: Noah Webster. Yup! Back BEFORE the U.S. Constitution was finalized, he taught school and realized the blasphemy of teaching British words to kids whose parents were overthrowing the king. He wrote the Blue-Backed Speller for his students and published it in 1783. He followed that with a grammar book in 1784 and a reader in 1785.

Still, we insist on spelling honor with a “u” and center with the “er” reversed!

Why follow British rules?

Think about it! The U.S. sent the Red Coats on their way long ago. Isn't it time to rise up and banish the British-English rules? Claim your own U.S. language that eschews “right and wrong” and replaces those strictures with “what works best”. The Grammar Anarchist replaces Rules with Choice; The Grammar Anarchist says: Look at what the parts of speech and punctuation Do! Are you with me?