“The Times They Are a-Changin'” The times are always changing, and the longer you have been on this planet, the more change you see. The changes I have seen lean toward more tolerance, less rigidity, and, you might even say, less “correctness.”
When I was in Brownies, many eons ago, we learned how to set a table correctly. How many of us care about that now? Yet, when we have a dinner party, most of us probably do try to put the fork(s) on the right and the knife on the left.
I have seen the acceptance of gay marriage, a wider acceptance of what a “nuclear” family is, less strict dress codes in school and in the office, fewer people writing “thank you” notes (or even saying “thank you”), much more leniency in schools,and . . . well, much less concern about correct grammar, which kind of goes along with the trend.
Some people say we don’t need grammar rules, as long as we can be understood. Well, can I then come to your dinner party and eat the steak and salad with my hands, as long as it gets into my mouth? Is there no need for “correctness” or “the right way to do things.” One might even call it a state of “grace.”
In grammar, opinions run the gamut. There are those who say “Why have rules at all? Rules are meant to be broken.” They may be the same people who preach getting rid of kids learning the multiplication tables because we now have calculators. (And dare we even speak about the demise of “cursive” writing?) Some want to get rid of the differentiation between who and whom because it is too hard for people to figure out. Come on, people, remember when we used to walk to school, five miles uphill, both ways . . . in the snow?
Then there are those who stick to the old rules. They are becoming a minority, it seems. I used to be one of them. I am giving way just a little, tiny bit. Sometimes!
Let’s get specific. It used to be “wrong” to split infinitives or end a sentence with a preposition. These “rules” are long gone. They made no sense, and it improved the flow of the sentence to break them:
I want to bravely fight for my country. (I still prefer “to fight bravely.”)
Whom are you baking the cake for? (For whom are you baking the cake? does sound a little stilted.) However, you can’t take that one too far: Where are you at? is still not a wise choice!
Here are two of the rules in transition now: First, there seems to be some discussion about whether you can begin a sentence with a conjunction (and, so but, etc.). Fiction writers and other creative writers have always done so, but they do have leeway; creative writing isn’t the same as business writing. Some people say there has never even been a rule discouraging this. Most people now think it is fine, and often conveys more precise meaning, to begin a sentence with and or so or but.
Example: She went away for three months, leaving her family behind. And, she didn’t even tell them she was going! (Yes, you could indeed just have put a comma after behind and made it a compound sentence. I didn’t say I was in favor of this!)
The second rule in transition has actually been pretty much changed by now. Even Webster says it is okay. The English language has run into problems because it has no “gender-nonspecific” word for third person singular. We have he for males, she for females, and it for nonhumans. When we use a singular pronoun such as everybody, no one, anyone, etc. (and those are all singular) we run into the clunky “him or her” issue.
Example: Everyone needs to sit in his or her seat now. Solutions range from he/she (yuck) to always using he (yuck), to alternating between he and she (nonsensical), or just rewriting the sentence (best solution).
Now it is perfectly acceptable to use their as a singular. Most would say, anyway.
Example: Everyone needs to sit in their seats now.
The fact that there is no “gender-nonspecific” word for third person singular has recently become an issue on college campuses for a little different reason: transgender students. Some new words are being invented as third person singular. I joked to my 7th class last year that we should invent such a word, perhaps shis.
As for me, I follow the “cover letter” rule: If I am writing a resume, a cover letter, or anything where impressions of good education and grammar count, I am NOT going to start a sentence with a conjunction and I am NOT going to use they as a singular. The person to whom I am writing might be a stickler for those rules. He or she might not know that I know the difference, but choose to write the way I am writing.
But that’s just me.
Listen to The Grammar Diva on KGO 810 a.m. San Francisco – Ronn Owens show
Hi everyone, interesting comments all the way through ( – how complex the pronunciation rules are with “ough” words…!) let alone through vs threw. Rules of spelling and pronunciation are definitely somewhat a jungle for English language learners but that makes teaching it all the more interesting.
And I have to say that punctuation has never been my strength; it’s clearer in German & French. ( , vs ;). What I find a shame though is that he’s can now imply he is & he has, as there are implications to meaning. I put it in the same category as people who confuse there- their- they’re which is becoming a more and more frequent error! So spelling rules are being ignored too.
By the way is it the American way to put the fork on the right? I always put the fork on the left and the knife on the right?
Thanks so much for your comment. I put the fork on the left….I had it wrong in my post but I thought I fixed it.:)
Bravo, Arlene! I have been on the correct English bandwagon for a long time now. I am glad I didn’t have to learn English as a second language because of its many intricacies. The rules are many, and then there are exceptions to the rules and, it seems, exceptions to the exceptions. I think our use of correct English has deteriorated, in part, because it is a confusing language, and our kids are not taught it correctly or thoroughly. Having taught in a large public school system (L.A. Unified), I know first-hand (which may also be spelled “firsthand”) that some so-called “English teachers” are, themselves, not properly schooled in the grammar aspects. And another major reason was cited by Arlene: more “tolerance” in many areas, too many in my opinion. Or, put another way, we are lowering our standards and taking the path(s) of least resistance.. This troubles me because it seems to be a general trend reflected in people’s overall behavior and lack of respect for society’s rules.
Thanks so much for your comments, which I am totally in agreement with (ending a sentence in a preposition!) And let me say (starting a sentence with a conjunction!) that the last sentence of the blog post should read—-but that’s just I!
It’s certainly the case that English teachers generally haven’t studied enough grammar. I’d like to see every English major, not just teachers, have to take History of the English Language at a minimum. Teachers ought to take that, a sociolinguistics course, and a general linguistics survey as well, in my opinion.
I like your idea, Benjamin. I had some decent schooling in grammar early on, since I went to school long time ago. Most teachers know little about grammar now.I would love to take a linguistics course and never have.
Nice piece!
I’ve never heard anyone actually say the equivalent of “Why have rules at all? Rules are meant to be broken,” though, as far as language is concerned — no one who was engaged in a serious discussion of the matter, anyway.
As for this analogy — “Some people say we don’t need grammar rules, as long as we can be understood. Well, can I then come to your dinner party and eat the steak and salad with my hands, as long as it gets into my mouth?” — it brings up an interesting point. I would say it is near-universal in the United States that one does not eat such foods with one’s hands. But there *are* foods we do eat with our hands (pizza, sandwiches, etc.). And there are cultures in which one is *expected* to eat with one’s hands (been to an Ethiopian restaurant lately)?
It’s really about context — which is to say, find me a linguist who would advise anyone to to the linguistic equivalent of eating steak and salad with one’s hands while interviewing for a job, arguing a court case, or meeting the president, and I’ll eat my hat!
As for language change, I am glad you call it evolution rather than devolution. It’s important to recognize that the way you learned to set a table “correctly” when you were in Brownies was correct for that time. It was probably incorrect in the context of 75 years prior — certainly for 200 years prior. Today’s may not be correct by your Brownie standards, but people *are* still setting the table, and no one (I think) is inconvenienced. What’s happening in language isn’t that there are no more forks, or no more knives — just that they’re on different sides of the plate, perhaps.
Anyway, again — nice piece!
Thank you for the comment! Always appreciate hearing your informed opinions, Benjamin!
Arlene
In this post you confuse changing rules with having no rules. For example, acceptance and legalization of gay marriage is a rule change, not anarchy.
I’ve engaged in forums (written by millennials, I’m quite sure!) arguing that spelling, punctuation, and capitalization rules just don’t matter any more. My response: “The people who sign paychecks, like me, think they matter.”
But I recently read (can’t remember where) that some favorite rules, including no split infinitives and can’t end sentence with a preposition, were arbitrary constructs enforced by anal grammarians back in the 19th century, and somehow got adopted as gospel by English teachers.
Finally, I have always placed forks on the left and knives on the right! So do my gay friends.
Soon, no one is going to sign your paycheck, as they are doing away with cursive writing! Thanks for the comments, Mike!
Mike’s right — a lot of these rules aren’t preservation of old forms but rather were dreamed up by people who thought English should be forced into a Latin mold. And, in many cases, a lot of now-nonstandard forms, like “ax” for “ask,” are actually the originals, or at least have a fair claim to being.
As for cursive… I wonder. I may have been among the last to learn cursive (I graduated high school 20 years ago). I don’t use cursive the way I was taught but I don’t print when I write, and I can certainly sign my name. Are kids these days really unable to do anything except print?
Well, I always loved Latin, so that could be it! Cursive has just gone away this year or last — in some places, but not all — with the new Common Core standards.