tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19053670.post113708912470765181..comments2023-10-31T05:03:38.910-07:00Comments on Letters from a broad...: Grammar Police: Rules are meant to be, like, brokenC. L. Hansonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12698855413639518095noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19053670.post-5245692692056137002010-09-19T23:11:16.126-07:002010-09-19T23:11:16.126-07:00Um, "he's older than me" is grammati...Um, "he's older than me" is grammatically correct; "he's older than I" is incorrect.<br /><br />You only say "I" if you are the subject of the sentence. I'm 99% sure on this.Carla Schmidt Hollowayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12947846629735463824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19053670.post-20440122146632148552007-07-04T09:13:00.000-07:002007-07-04T09:13:00.000-07:00Hey Todd!!!I agree overall, especially regarding t...Hey Todd!!!<BR/><BR/>I agree overall, especially regarding the importance of clarity given the number of non-native speakers.<BR/><BR/>In my heart, though, I'm more of a descriptivist than a prescriptivist. It just bugs me when people try to keep language in place by marking interesting non-ambiguous new common usages as "wrong".<BR/><BR/>Worse, I don't like it when people who (by luck) were born into the dominant dialect imagine that people born into a less-favored dialect are less intelligent because they haven't learned "correct grammar." On the other hand, it's true that it's useful to have a common, dominant dialect that everyone understands, and the fact that educated people learn to use it increases the perception that speaking the dominant dialect equals intelligence...C. L. Hansonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12698855413639518095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19053670.post-23033077567383468042007-07-01T20:48:00.000-07:002007-07-01T20:48:00.000-07:00playing with language, is in fact *very* English, ...playing with language, is in fact *very* English, and goes back to Old English and the way meaning is formed in Old English. I would highly recommend the recent book _Inventing English_ by Seth Lerer. Playing with the language like that is built into the bones of english (we constant coin and combine words, not just borrow them, for on-the-spot utility and meaning-making; this just doesn't happen in most other languages and confuses the hell out of other language speakers when we do it. Try doing that in French. I dare you. hehe)<BR/><BR/>That said, I'm also a believer in grammar. Rules allow meaning to be accurately transmitted to listeners and conversers and readers. Even unwritten teeny language groups will make fun of someone who doesn't speak in accepted grammar. It facilitates and indeed enables understanding.<BR/><BR/>One of the really tricky bits in contemporary English is the amazing amount of non-native speakers. Learning a second language requires grammar to be formerly taught. But as a professor, I can also say that native speakers need to be discussing grammar as well, if for no other reason than to understand the possible clarity issues they will have if they chose to disobey the grammar rules (especially important in writing).<BR/><BR/>Massive influxes of non-native speakers is one of the primary reasons why American and Canadian Englishes have fewer vowels and smaller vocabularies than British English. I'm not sure this is exactly an impoverishment of the language, but it is a change that we should think about.<BR/><BR/>I'm neither a descriptivist or a prescriptivist. There are times when it is enough and/or beneficial merely to describe; there are others when it is necessary to prescribe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19053670.post-1139370696690584022006-02-07T19:51:00.000-08:002006-02-07T19:51:00.000-08:00very funnyvery funnyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com