I has the pleasure of taking part in a debate for William Hansons debate show last week on Fuse FM stickler that I’m I am putting the case forward in favour of adhering to the rules of grammar it were mooted by mine worthy very opponent James Naish thats in the grand scheme of things to communicate prescriptive grammar isnt all that necessary I rather facetiously suggests that I should forego sub-editing perhaps and proofreading this weeks paper’s to test he theory by seeing how much letter’s of complaints I’m duly receiving while a coward I was far too much of to actually go through with it consider this an experiment in microcosm a grammatical petri dish if you will as you can has noticed I have removing conventional grammar and punctuation from my write I have also includes several of the errors I had came across while proof reading this weeks paper I know I know the shear audacity but my point are this do you dear reader think a editorial devoid of a most basic grammatical principles as it is is an acceptable standard of prose for them to have to reading in a newspaper I maintain this grammar are essential to decodifying meaning between two minds in emphasis particular when it is comes to the writing word which is to interpretation so open grammar is vital on dictating when a ondulations and idiosyncrasies for speech is absent however I am open to be provening wrong so I implores you to write to I tell I what you think and whether you caught me drift I won’t hold your breath because their I suspect is where this problem may lay.
Friday 12th March, 2010
LATEST
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:27
Very good, Jenny! Thanks again for taking part.
November 24th, 2009 at 14:51
i wish to complain about the use of more than ten capital letters i only counted ten and then got bored and a full stop in your editorial they were completely unnecessary and youre obviously being a silly grammar fascist and by the way a panda is a mammal that eats shoots and leaves you wouldnt want shot people on your conscience i can recommend that book by lynne truss for anyone reading this okay im done now
i think this piece has clarified the issue very well excuse the pun please
February 3rd, 2010 at 19:13
Hmm, I suppose this piece has shown how little grammar we actually need (and compared to older/other languages English hardly has any grammar anyway!). It’s generally easy to comprehend English if you just throw a few words around, just as we all know what the “10 items or less” sign means (even though it “should” be “or fewer”). Of course, like good manners, good grammar is a petit bourgeois courtesy adopted so that one’s friend/workmate doesn’t have to think too hard about what you might mean (and, of course, so that one’s friend knows that one is rather a well-educated little thing indeed!).
All in all, it generally doesn’t matter too much in terms of comprehensibility, but there are worse vices than grammatical fetishism!
February 9th, 2010 at 09:53
‘good grammar is a petit bourgeouis courtesy?’ I beg to differ. There are pedants who like to show of course but as well as politeness and showing respect for your reader it’s often fundamental to clear communication and avoiding misunderstanding. And English isn’t just about transferring facts from one brain to another (you can tghose by text or telegram), it’s also about subtlety, play, beauty, poetry, fun. The ‘how’ is important and in denigrating the need for grammar you risk losing those undertones .