Book Preview: The Glamor of Grammar, Roy Peter Clark
Disclaimer: I have not read this book.
I woke up recently to the wonderful sound of semantics. The NPR host and his guest was debating over righteous absurdities such as the “fewer or less than” rule and the history of the oxford/serial comma. The guest’s argument came across quite peculiarly in my pre-coffee state. He argued that many grammarians are too serious about their grammar, that prescriptivism goes too far, and that we should really just accept the way that language changes and evolves over time. [The guest was Roy Peter Clark, the author of that book I haven't read.]
Yes, some prescriptivists can get a bit silly in their insisting upon an absence of prepositions at the end of sentences, but the rules exist for a variety of reasons. Unless you know the reasons, then you should be wary about giving up on them. For that purpose, a book like this guest’s would serve as a good guide to learning which rules you can ignore.
Ending sentences with a preposition? That is probably ignorable. The history behind that rule is shaky and based on people who learned far too much Latin in their day and project that knowledge onto English. So if you don’t know Latin, don’t worry about it. But on rules that have more pressing clarity concerns, prescriptivism serves an important purpose. Let me give an example.
A little known fact about gerunds is that they must always have a possessive (a gerund is a verbal noun). So Michelle’s running was peculiar this morning because she hadn’t had breakfast (low blood-sugar does that to a gal). But if I were to say that running was peculiar this morning, you’re left without any idea who was running. It could be my running, it could be Dorothy’s, or John’s, or my cat’s running. Who the fuck knows? The gerund knows. The point is: this element of prescriptivism is not just an instance where silly grammarians have a hissy-fit that their Roberts Rules were discarded arbitrarily. This rule serves an important function in encouraging effective communication.
So I guess I agree with Roy Peter Clark’s base argument: some prescriptivists are too hard core. But I believe those prescriptivists need to see their doctors. If you have an erection for grammar that lasts longer than five minutes, maybe you should too.
