Feminism is anti-women in that by desiring to erase the differences it is a proclamation that women must be like men to find significance and worth. What a sorry tale! The goal must be - to be all woman - and exult in that created status, with all of its uniqueness. Complementarian relationships declare the equal status, yet uniqueness of both sexes. And... if men have been so rotten and patriarchical, why would you want to be one??? Much less not be separate from them in language?

FYI. No real grammarian insists on convoluted construction for the sake of not ending a sentence with a preposition. Neither are real grammarians opposed to beginning a sentence with a conjunction or splitting an infinitive. Most grammar-conscious editors trust their ear more than their style books when deciding whether to use "who" or "whom." These are rules observed only by people who had a bad English teacher and who want to feel smarter than other people. But "You should agree with he and I"? Why in the world would anyone want to say that? Most objections to grammatical rules fall along the lines of "That's not how people talk." It seems that messing up the case of pronouns in a sentence like that would grate on anyone's ear.

I agree with you, though, that feminists who want to neuter language do more harm than good.

The women who want to take men out of words are they type that don't want men in them in the first place.

But "You should agree with he and I"? Why in the world would anyone want to say that?

Curt, I get what you're saying. I really do. And I don't want to sound mean about it.

But, in 1992, grammarians threw hissy fits when Bill Clinton said, "If you agree with what I'm saying, you should vote for Al Gore and I." They said he should say, "Vote for Al Gore and me."

But you know what? Clinton was a Rhodes scholar, a man of Mensa-grade IQ, a lawyer, and by all accounts a generally brilliant human being. Yet he made use of this construction fairly often. I say Clinton got it right, and the grammarians got it wrong. Because Clinton's usage was exactly how the English tongue was spoken in most of late 20th century America. It's still how the language is spoken now, in numerous contexts.

I don't know why anyone would want to follow this irregular usage. I just know that they do, and quite often. No language is without its irregular quirks. So, while the usage may be irregular, so freakin' what? It is up to the grammarians to adapt, and not up to the rest of us to change how we speak just to make them happy.

I believe that grammarians are long, long overdue for having a lengthy conversation with linguists, and a re-evaluation of how they teach this wonderful tongue of ours.

Because I do love this language, and wish more people loved it as much as I do. English teachers almost drove me to hate it, and I know for a fact that they make a lot of other people hate it. That's a crying shame, for it's a truly wonderful tongue.

He should be able to take out "Al Gore and" and it should still sound like a proper sentence...that's why his way is wrong.

I disagree. I think grammarians are the gatekeepers of cultural communication practices. Language does indeed change despite their best efforts, and grammarians eventually do adapt to changes, but without grammar rules or anyone to defend them our language would become chaotic. The way we speak in many ways frames how we think, and sloppy language (especially if practiced by so influential a Rhodes scholar, man of Mensa-grade IQ, lawyer, and generally brilliant human being) can only lead to sloppy thinking.

And English in schools should be taught only by people who love language and can inspire their students to love it as well.

I was tracking with you until the "you should vote for Al Gore and I" part. Gah! That's just WRONG! The correct phrasing is "you should NOT vote..."

Just kidding.

Seriously, though, that one just plain grates on my ear. "I went to the concert" is correct, "Me went to the concert" is wrong. "My wife and I went to the concert" is correct, "My wife and me went to the concert" is wrong. "Jim couldn't go to the concert, so he gave his ticket to me" is correct, while "Jim couldn't go to the concert, so he gave his ticket to I" is wrong. Finally, "Jim and Susan couldn't go to the concert, so they gave their tickets to my wife and me" is CORRECT, while "Jim and Susan couldn't go to the concert, so they gave their tickets to my wife and I" is WRONG.

See the symmetry? Putting "_____ and" in front of a pronoun does NOT change the case of the pronoun.

"If you see it the same way, you should vote for Al Gore and I."

Ech. That's like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. Almost as bad as "he gave it to myself." *shudder* I don't mind split infinitives, and ending a sentence without a preposition is almost impossible sometimes. (I once saw a tshirt in New Orleans that said "There is some shit up with which I will not put.") I just stick with trying not to do it in print. I consider starting a paragraph with "and" to be creative license, and I try not to do it in formal documents. But, ech. Mismatched pronouns bug me.

I call my girlfriends "dude" and "guys" and "you da man!" Furthermore, when I was doing paleontological work in Montana, I was required to join the volunteer fire department, and if anyone had called me a "firelady" I would've punched him. I call all flight attendants "stews," which is an insult to both genders, but I can't help it.

I don't like "they," but I like it a lot better than "he/she," which is what my psycho feminazi misandristic psych prof in college made us use. Flip a freakin' coin. Heads, use "he." Tails, use "she." It pleases me to see a writer just pick one, no matter which it is.

For some reason, that topic always brings to mind how tickled I was to see that Home Depot has little cartoons of women using power tools in some of the pictures in their 1-2-3 books. :)

I'm a goofball. I often enjoy constructing sentences in order to avoid ending with a preposition. But that's just me, and I only do it for fun, when I'm in a good mood.
I do like to have some standards in grammar, because no matter how people speak, if their grammar makes them hard to understand, or if the wording detracts from the communication to put the focus on the word used (like s/he, or alternating genders by paragraph/chapter/whatever), then it is wrong. But aside from those caveats, the important point simply is:
communication

I have heard that the word "man" is the indo-germanic root for the word "mind" and that "man" meant rational being long before it had a masculine connotation. "Man" was capable of rational thought, which differentiated him from the beasts. The other meaning, i.e. a male human being, came later.

At the other end of the language spectrum, we have the thug rappers teaching our kids that the proper way to refer to a woman is "bitch" and "ho" -- and it is becoming increasingly common in the suburbs and on college campuses.

Grammar is similar to a rule book. If two people agree to a set of rules, they can communicate. Obviously, disagreeing on the rules affects that ability adversely. And, equally clearly, some rules are more important than others.

The fact that irregular usage exists does not, though, necessarily imply that "regularity" is invalid. Do we object to law as a concept because there are stupid laws? Rather, questions about relaxing the rules of grammar should be based in empirical observations in usage, combined with an analysis of the new construct's effect on ambiguity.

For example, several grammarians now recognize the practice of starting sentences with a conjunction. ("And...") It was a very common irregularity. More importantly, it reduces ambiguity by allowing for more explicit connections between sentences. Thus, it's a no-brainer to allow them. Similarly, I wouldn't mourn the passing of "whom" (though I still try to use it correctly).

Clinton's construction, however, does tend to increase ambiguity by encouraging the use of subject forms for objects. English is already much more loose than other languages in distinguishing subject from object, to the detriment of non-native speakers. Should we raise the bar even further? If the rulebook is too complicated, more people will simply give up the game, and thus is communication made more difficult.

Dean:

But you know what? Clinton was a Rhodes scholar, a man of Mensa-grade IQ, a lawyer, and by all accounts a generally brilliant human being. Yet he made use of this construction fairly often.

Which tells us nothing. "Brilliant" people have done quite stupid things in the past, and will in the future. Do we consider him a great ethical thinker on similar grounds? What about his brilliance gives him weight on grammar but not on ethics? (Let's not even get into his most famous grammatical innovation: the usage of "is".)

Oh, one more point I forgot in my impassioned defense of grammar:

I don't mind solving the gender problem in grammar, as long as we don't edit the past. Neil Armstrong said "mankind" and I don't want that changed, even if the first astronaut on Mars says "humankind" when they get there.

I'm surprised Dean or someone else has not yet mentioned Steven Pinker's The Language Instinct (1994), which includes, among much wisdom and many delights, the definitive debunking of language mavens, prescriptive grammarians, and other punctilious tightasses.

We learn, for example, that Black English Vernacular uses negative concord, like French -- "You ain't goin' to no heaven" -- and that it is more precise, in some cases, than Standard Armerican English: "He working/He be working," for example, to distinguish between what is happening at the moment and a regular job; "he is working" fails here.

I love my language. English is the schmoo, the natural selection principle of languages in action: if it needs to express a concept, it will take a word from any language and twist it, snip it, snap it and shape it for presentation in an English sentence.

You just try to stop English from being the liveliest language on Earth.

I don't mind gender-carping so much in "they" constructions as I do the attendant accounting failures. You might see why here.

I'm with Jeff Licquia on this, pretty much. I start sentences with "and" or "but" all the time (see the following two paragraphs), because if I didn't my writing would be even more semicolon-ridden than it already is. Split infinitives I still avoid quasi-instinctively (learn something early and it's next to impossible to unlearn it).
But "they" as a singular, gender-neutral pronoun? I understand the point, but it irritates me. I get around it by either recasting a sentence so that the subject's plural, or else (last resort) using "he or she." Or "she or he" when in a mischievous mood ;-)

And the Clinton quote just strikes me as, well, wrong. He might as well have said "Please vote for I." I know that lots of people get confused by cases, sometimes substituting the one they think "sounds wrong" for the one they'd instinctively use, on the theory that the "wrong-sounding" one is probably correct. But Jeff is right again here: We have fewer cases for our pronouns than do most other languages as it is; let's try to preserve what we've got.

Here is a Texas phrase to drive you insane:

"You use-ta could."

I thought Kim was joking when he warned me about that one.

Yes, but, Mrs. du Toit, in spoken speech that's concise and clear. "You used to be able to" adds three syllables and isn't a bit clearer. "You once could" sheds a syllable but probably takes longer to say (and sounds twee, but never mind that); "use-ta could" just rolls off the tongue.

Grammar rules are about making meaning clear. "You should agree with I" just ain't a' gonna hack it. A leetle too eubonics flavored for me.

I'm afraid that, while they mean well, I've come to believe that grammarians do not clarify the language. Nor do they "protect" it from deterioration.

I firmly believe that grammarians speak an artificial non-language that no human being is capable of speaking on a regular basis. I've met some of the most tightassed grammarians and made a point of noting when they themselves break their own rules in everyday conversation. Happens all the time. They get self-conscious about it and apologize when you point it out, but my response is this: if you've made a lifetime's study out of trying to follow these "rules," and even you can't get it right most of the time, hasn't it ever occurred to you that maybe what you believe about the language is simply wrong?

Grammarians have created an unnatural pseudo-language that they believe is "proper" English. That's the real problem. Compounding the problem is that their proscriptive rules are so often ass-backwards and counterintuitivie that they actually make it hard for students to learn---and make a lot of them think they "hate English" when all they really hate is the psuedo-language that grammarians are trying to force on them.

I understand that some people don't like "vote for Al Gore and I." But I hear everyday speakers of English use this construction all the time, and it never makes me quiver. Yes, the usage is irregular. So what? It's also common, and usage is the only truly objective standard.

"Aren't I right?"

Are Not I Right? What kind of nonsense is that? Shouldn't it be Am Not I Right? Aha, just another one of English's irregular usages, one of the many quirks that make it flavorful and interesting.

Oh, and I second the mention of Steven Pinker's The Language Instinct. Fabulous book.

English departments around the world are long, long, long overdue for an extended conversation with linguists, who generally understand the English language much better than they do. Then the English departments could do a much-needed top-to-bottom reevaluation of the rules they teach and how they teach them.

They'd probably cut way back on the number of students who say they "hate English" if they had the courage to do it. Alas, so many of them are so passionately convinced that they are the "keepers of the language," it's a hard thing for them to do.

Dean, there's a difference between "Vote for Al Gore and I" and "Aren't I right?" (which is just a "prettying-up" of "Ain't I right?" anyway). The former is someone trying to sound dignified and doing it badly; the latter is someone getting information across as efficiently as possible.

I don't doubt that Clinton knows grammar; I don't think he'd write "Vote for Al Gore and I" any more than I would. So it's just a stumble in speech, what in this latest presidency has gotten to be known as a "Bushism." But it is a stumble. You accept it as an "irregularity," but you wouldn't accept "Vote for I and Al Gore," would you? Why not?

Whereas "Aren't [ain't] I?" is just a sensible simplification. Something like answering "Who is it?" with "It's me!" and not "It is I!" (When I was a kid, it was repeatedly impressed on us in our English classes that "ain't" was the unpardonable sin — a thing I still don't understand, since I have never heard anyone use it in actual speech, outside film and stage. It seems to me a very useful and intelligible word, actually.)

Michelle: Since Clinton used the phrase more than once, it was an intentional usage. A usage I've heard from many other people, and have used myself, both verbally and in print. I use it because I contend that there's nothing wrong with it.

I understand the logical thinking of those who say it's wrong. I merely say that their logic is not relevent. The usage is correct regardless of their logic, because real language doesn't generally follow these artificial grammarian rules--and trying to force them on people has caused countless students to decide they hate studying their own language.

"Aren't I clever?" is not just verbal shorthand. By the logic of grammarians--who are very selective about where they apply logic and where they don't--it would have to be considered incorrect, because it translates to "Are not I clever?" which mixes tenses and makes no sense. We accept it because we've rejected "ain't," and therefore have no contraction for "am not." Therefore, "aren't I [fill in the blank]" is simply a linguistic irregularity--like countless other linguisitic irregularities found in English and in every other language on the planet.

We'll just have to agree to disagree--but I will note that linguist Steven Pinker, in his excellent book The Language Instinct, deals very effectively with why there's nothing wrong with "vote for Al Gore and I." And I'll leave it at that.

One area where we do agree: like you, I have absolutely no trouble with the term "ain't," which has been around for centuries and is a perfectly natural and acceptable word. Is it irregular? Sure. That's because, in English, "Amn't" simply won't flow off the tongue easily. Once again, so what? So it's irregular: so what? I grew up in parts of the country where people use it all the time. It doesn't make them stupid, or illiterate.

A lot of people here are speaking negatively about rules of grammar. But what's the alternative? "Let people talk any way they want and things will just work out naturally." Apply that logic to any other area of human behavior and see where it gets us. That's not to say that anyone's perfect in regard to grammar, or even that they should be. Sometimes effective communication comes from knowing when to break the rules, but you have to know the rules first. I go back to what I said earlier: without grammar rules or anyone to defend them, our language would become chaotic.

I'm sorry that there are bad English teachers out there. I'm sorry that there are people who wield grammar like a paddle, ever ready to swat the behind of someone whose verb and subject don't agree. But that doesn't lessen the value of an established method of communication, any more than violent cops lessen the value of the constitution.

Curt: the alternative is for English departments around the globe to engage in a lengthy dialogue with linguists, and to re-evaluate from top to bottom how they teach the language.

Because the way things are going, English departments are making themselves less and less relevant to everyday speakers and writers, precisely because of the problems I've brought up.

There are alternatives, and alternatives which would probably work much, much better for teaching effective speaking and writing skills. We just have to have the courage to face them.

Go read Pinker's The Language Instinct. It's a fabulous start on seeing the possibilities.

Meh. It all doesn't matter. The english language is a bastardized version of every language and using the weakest parts thereof. Listen to spanish and greek and you see how a language is supposed to be constructed.

I'm probably going to be flamed, but that's all I have to say on that...

Dean, Here's the thing: I don't see any utility in "Vote for Al Gore & I" vs "[...] & me." It's not an improvement. It's not more convenient. It isn't easier or quicker to say. The only thing it does that might be conceived as useful is to sound more sonorous and more "formal," at least to those who don't perceive the usage as "wrong."

My suspicion is that it's the same sort of "overcorrection" that leads people to use "whom" even where "who" is grammatically correct. It takes only a single tongue-lashing for using "who" in the wrong place for some poor souls to start using "whom" absolutely everywhere.

Now, "Aren't I?", "It's me," &c. are real improvements — they're "irregular," as you say, but they do something positive: they allow for quicker & more casual speech.

You know, I wonder whether the "Al Gore and I" thing isn't a deliberate Southernism of some kind. You say Clinton used it several times. Maybe it's a regional tic that he decided to keep. I am positive that that's the case with Bush's "nukular." If he wanted to say "nuclear" he would be doing it; God knows the rest of his delivery has improved considerably in the last few years. So he's doing it on purpose, presumably to sound like a Regular Guy.

1ne: Yes, English is an "illogical" language. I don't know Greek, but all the Romance languages are far more sensible than English, and far easier to learn. German is even more logical, though the temptations it offers (build-'em-yourself compound words, endlessly nested grammar) tend to have a nasty influence on writers ;-)

So English is a mess. But it's a rich mess. We have the richest vocabulary in the world. You could look it up.

Pinker is a great guy and his books are very readable for the general public. I've heard him lecture before, and I've taken several classes from his colleagues.

On a related topic, I'm always amazed by the combination of incredible genius and lunacy within the mind of Noam Chomsky. Pinker's books are thoroughly based on the massive foundation of Chomsky's work in linguistics, although they have been translated into readable English. Chomsky's own writing on the subject is exceedingly technical and practically impenetrable to the non-linguist.

1ne, thank you for demonstrating your complete ignorance of linguistics. English structure is no more an amalgam of other languages than Arabic, Mandarin, or Tagalog is, nor is it any more "illogical." English vocabulary borrows heavily from other languages, but this is also not unique--even French, despite the efforts of French academia, borrows words. What, you thought "hamburger" had Latin roots? It is a French word now.

According to the MLA--Modern Language Association--one of the standard setters for writers of research papers and English in the world of accademia, the accepted term when referring to a person is "she." The English language went through the 'he or she' thing, then it went to 's/he or h/she' and now it is implied that "she" includes both genders in formal writing. The APA or the American Psychiatric Association, the other standard setter for writers of research papers in the world of academia for the medical and psychological professions also accepts this standard.

So, the English language has changed in one respect towards gender. I did recently have a professor (male) correct me for using the term "she" in a logic class. When he corrected me, I told him I was using the 'formal she' which according to current standards included both genders.

He didn't like it, but...Change happens slowly I suppose.

Katherine,

Language Nazis at the MLA do not dictate what is and is not English. Majority intuitive usage dictates what is and is not English, and you are in a tiny minority if you think "she" has taken the place of the traditional "he" as the correct gender-unspecified pronoun. Your professor was right to correct you.

Dean:

I understand the logical thinking of those who say it's wrong. I merely say that their logic is not relevent.

It is relevant. We argue that reason and logic have their place in defining the English language; you simply brush this idea aside. Why?

The usage is correct regardless of their logic, because real language doesn't generally follow these artificial grammarian rules...

I have already addressed at least one non-circular defense of normative grammar: non-native speakers. To a non-native speaker, the whole language is "artificial", and some semblance of logical consistency is a great aid to them. As I mentioned before, English is already one of the most illogical languages out there. Why make it worse?

Here's another: all language is "artificial". Did we find it under a microscope, or derive it from some mathematical description of the universe? No? Then "descriptive" language is man-made, as much so as the rules grammarians teach.

And, as with everything we make ourselves, the application of reason and logic always produce better results. Name me one other field where rational analysis has not helped to advance it. And you expect me to believe that, even as logic has made us better bridges, faster cars, longer life, and greater happiness in orders of magnitude, that it must be excluded from the task of communicating with each other? Please.

...and trying to force them on people has caused countless students to decide they hate studying their own language.

By this logic, I suppose we should judge all Muslims by the actions of the "September 19", or declare the ethics of all Democrats suspect after Bill Clinton's antics while President.

Some of the "sacred wisdom" of grammarians is garbage. I note not a single dissent from the idea that some of their actions harm their cause. On the contrary: did we not agree with some of your cases, and even provide evidence and logic to support them?

But to abandon all norms? This would allow language to splinter along cultural lines, and increase the difficulty of even native speakers to communicate with each other, to say nothing of the deep study of dialect the non-native speaker would be forced to endure. This is absurd, and I find it unusual that you, of all people, would advocate such a naive and anti-rationalist perspective on it.

Language is NOT artificial. It is NATURAL, as a cursory study of the field of linguistics will tell you. Language DOES have rules that must be followed to communicate successfully--which is the whole point of the exercise.

The problem with the grammarian approach is that they are fumbling in the dark with the wrong tools for investigating the nature of language. That's why they get things both half-right and all wrong on issues like terminal prepositions. If you introduce concepts like verb particles to explain WHY some terminal "prepositions" are correct English (terminal prepositions are wrong, but terminal particles are perfectly fine), then you can get somewhere.

It's not clarity on grammar that is at fault. It is relying on misunderstood grammatical dogma rather than a scientific analysis of language. Strangely enough, the best work on language is done by MIT Engineers...Chomsky, Pinker, et al. :)

1ne: I won't flame you. I just point out that you're working under flawed assumptions. Latin and Greek are more precise languages. This makes them superior in some ways, and inferior in others. However, most analysts have concluded that English is one of the easiest languages to learn, because it's so much more flexible than those language. Learning to speak English well is another matter, and learning English spelling is nightmarish. But basic speaking competency is much easier in English than most other languages.

Sam: Katherine is correct that "she" is now accepted as gender-neuter in many professional publications. Whether the MLA are "language Nazis" or not--and that's really rather inflammatory, isn't it?--she is correct. People are using this usage, professionally anyway.

Whether it'll make it into conversational English or not remains to be seen. Groups like the MLA can and do create neologisms that stick though.

Jeff: Having just disagreed with Sam Barnes in what he said to Katherine, I must note that his response to you was so spot-on perfect, I can't think of much to add.

But that's never stopped me before. ;-)

Human beings develop language naturally. Even the rare cases where children have grown up in the wild with no exposure to adults or any other language, the kids develop their own perfectly functional languages, spontaneously. Language is like running, jumping, skipping, eating, etc. There's no reason we cannot apply science and logic to doing these things better, but if we're going to do it we need to make sure we're using as much scientific information as we can get our hands on.

In the past several decades, linguists have made amazing discoveries about how human language works, and can now describe things about human language very much like pediatricians can describe child development and physical trainers can describe how muscular development works. Yet most English departments and grammarians are blissfully unaware of any of it.

The problem isn't lack of logical thinking. It's with using outmoded forms of analysis.

Let me see if I can make this clearer:

Did you ever see the movie Chariots of Fire? The movie about Olympic sprinters in the early 20th century? If you saw it, you remember how all the athletes ran in that movie: with their backs and necks very stiff and ramrod straight, and their hands immobilized near their torsos, their elbows sticking out almost like chicken wings. Why? Because scientific analysis, involving a lot of brights minds of the early 20th century suggested that this was the most effective way to run.

It's not.

Now, the problem there wasn't that they were failing to apply rigorous logic and analysis. But the tools they were using, and the modes of analysis they were using, were wrong, and led them to faulty conclusions. More data came in. More analyses were done. Experiments were conducted. Watch how Olympic sprinters run now: it's very different, but it's no less precise. It's because with extensive analysis we've learned the postures and movements that eke out the best possible running performance from the human machine.

Grammarians have not updated their modes of analysis or the tools they use in a very long time. They've ignored countless discoveries in the field of linguistics that help explain, in much more logical fashion, how human language works. Thus, much of what they advise, while it may be based on logic, is unnatural and wrong.

There is a huge need for English departments to re-evaluate what they're doing, from stem to stern, based on extensive evaluation of the discoveries of linguists over the last few decades. That's all I'm saying.

Dean, all I'm going to say in response to your post is: I feel better. I don't mind at all disagreeing with specific conclusions regarding proper grammar, as long as we agree that it's OK to have a prescriptive grammar in the first place.

Sam:

Language is NOT artificial. It is NATURAL, as a cursory study of the field of linguistics will tell you.

A "cursory study of the field of linguistics" will not tell me any such thing. If it tried, I would know immediately that linguistics had lost its way.

That we have linguistic ability is an objective fact, and one that lies in "nature" as we understand it. How we use that ability, however, is no less "artificial" than our use of our (naturally bestowed) muscles to build a house. Does the fact that our muscles work the same way (for the most part) as all other vertebrates make our skyscrapers, cities, and farms "natural"? How, then, can the results of our linguistic efforts to communicate be anything other than "artificial"?

But I will be content to agree with the following, with a caveat:

It's not clarity on grammar that is at fault. It is relying on misunderstood grammatical dogma rather than a scientific analysis of language.

I would agree that grammarians should pay attention to the findings of linguists, but I would also posit that linguists should return the favor. Neither side should consider the other to be "misunderstood" or "dogmatic" except in those specific cases where such misunderstanding and dogma can be proven.

All fields of science can fall prey to dogma and confusion, even the hard sciences; normative grammar can serve at least as a bulwark against fads in linguistics, even as linguistics can help persuade the grammarians to abandon some of their windmills.

Once again, an eloquent discussion. Sam: Wasn't Chomsky's work purely on the deep structure of linguistic imprinting and not on language itself? I think Chomsky later disproved his own beginning theory stating that although his preliminary work which stated the mind processes much like we know the computer does today was useful, he later believed and proved that the use of language was plastic--changing with societal needs and not on scientific principles as first thought.

Also, many of our treasured words that are used today come from science and are folded into modern language. It seems to me you are agreeing with the discussion but stating it differently. Maybe a definition of nature as changeable and not static would add meaning here?

Perhaps language is natural AND artificial. Why couldn't it be both? Nature adapts as needed, so it would seem does our language. Yet, communication through language amounts for only about 20% of a message, the other 80% happens non- verbally--from everything to proxemics to chronomics, posture, etc. Language therein, is limited and supports Dean's argument in it's limitations. Humans beings communicate through many channels, language being a minimal and limited one.

Dean,

Language Nazis was intended to be inflammatory. I have amazingly little patience for people who try to twist society according to their own sociological ends by deliberately manipulating what is considered "proper English." Perhaps a more precise analogy would be to 1984, in which precisely the same thing occurred, only to a much greater extent.

Jeff,

From a modern linguist's standpoint, the whole prescriptive/descriptive debate is not entirely on point. Language is defined by its usage, and it can change. On the other hand, language also reflects its own rules, and when it changes, it is because those rules are changing. The linguist's job is to figure out what those rules are (a work in progress), and then to figure out how exactly those rules are hard-coded into your brain (a project barely begun).

When I say that language is natural, I mean that there is a significant chunk of your brain that is specifically devoted to language. When you go through the process of "learning" a language as a child, your brain does not act as a blank slate where everything is assembled de novo. It is more like a set of yes/no questions, or switches, that are set during the learning process. The questions already exist, hard-coded into your grey matter--and this is why language is fundamentally natural. To clarify a point, though, this analysis extends to phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics, not the lexicon--which is to say that the structural framework of language exists before the learning process begins, but the task of amassing a vocabulary of individual words is a separate requirement.

Your analogy doesn't work, because your brain isn't coded with a decision tree that is devoted to building a house. It IS coded with a decision tree that is devoted to communicating via language.

Katherine,

Well, not exactly. I'd suggest reading any of Steven Pinker's excellent books on linguistics, as he provides a readable version of Chomsky's work. What exactly are you distinguishing as the difference between "the deep structure of linguistic imprinting" and language itself? I believe Chomsky's early work posited that EVERYTHING about language, including the lexicon, was part of the brain's decision tree structure. He moved away from that point with regard to the lexicon, but the rest still stands.

Language is limited? Only by the imagination. This discussion is taking place by the use of pure language, without the slightest bit of non-verbal, or even tonal, cues. Somehow I don't think that 80% of the available information to be communicated is lost here. Once again, I strongly suggest reading some of Pinker's books if you want a solid introduction to this topic.

So, Sam, are you a linguist, or just a linguistics maven?

Sam:

When I say that language is natural, I mean that there is a significant chunk of your brain that is specifically devoted to language.

Which I acknowledged.

Your analogy doesn't work, because your brain isn't coded with a decision tree that is devoted to building a house. It IS coded with a decision tree that is devoted to communicating via language.

Well, I'm obviously not making my point clear.

To understand what I'm trying to say: you certainly don't believe that the English language is coded into our brains at birth, do you?

If not, then grammar and vocabulary are artificial, no matter how natural the ability. And, thus, rational analysis of their structure apart from simple description is a valid enterprise.

But we've already agreed on that.

From a modern linguist's standpoint, the whole prescriptive/descriptive debate is not entirely on point.

Correct. Which is just another way of saying that grammar and linguistics are two separate, though related, disciplines.

Dean,

Well, I'd be overstating my credentials to call myself a linguist...I got my B.S. from MIT in Biology, with a minor in Linguistics. I've heard both Chomsky and Pinker lecture, although I didn't take classes from either of them. Pinker is part of Course 9 (Brain & Cognitive Sciences), and Chomsky only teaches graduate level classes in Linguistics--I think he is at least semi-retired by now. A couple of Pinker's books are used as supplemental textbooks in the Linguistics Department, and I've read 3 of them cover-to-cover (The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, and Words and Rules). I could probably accurately claim to be an informed hobbyist, at best. :)

Jeff,

I'm not making the claim that rational analysis is an invalid approach to grammar--FAR from it. Rational analysis is the only way to really progress in the field. I am sticking to the point that the toolkit for producing grammatical sentences IS an inborn trait of humans, but I'm certainly not saying that specifically English grammar is inborn to anyone.

Let me take a specific example. All languages may be described as either "head-initial" or "head-final." When you have a phrase (such as the prepositional phrase "in the house"), some languages put the "head" of the phrase at the beginning and others put it the end. English is a head-initial language, so the prepositional head of the phrase goes at the beginning (_in_ the house). Japanese, on the other hand, is head-final, so the same phrase would be structured as "the house _in_."

I'm not saying that any infant is born knowing whether the language of his parents is head-initial or head-final, which would be the case if English grammar could be inborn. I am saying that the question "Is my language head-initial or head-final?" IS inborn, and the language learning process clarifies the issue and sets that particular physical switch in the brain. From that point on, the infant knows that (in the case of English) his language is head-initial. Thus my assertion that grammar, at least, could not be described as artificial, since it amounts to a collection of settings in the brain--the settings themselves are inborn, but the values are filled in afterwards.

Grammar and linguistics are separate, but related, disciplines? I don't agree. Grammar is essentially syntax, although it extends somewhat into semantics as well. Both syntax and semantics are subfields of linguistics (I know, I took a class in syntax and another in semantics). Grammar as taught is essentially the same thing as linguistics, but without the useful foundation of scientific inquiry.

My linguistics professor worked with Chomsky on a project here in California. In regards to deep brain structure, Chomsky currently states that while it may be helpful to understand that the brain "may" implant initial codings this way linguistically in the very basic sense, too many factors enter into the mix after language is learned passed the babbling stage. Those factors include parental or caregiver interaction, culture, social mores etc. He also found some basic semantical differences that were not congruent in all people over time.

Thus, my contention that language as a state is natural and plastic while also being subject to the society it functions within--changeable. Thus the formal "she," which is where this conversation began in the first place does make sense. Our language must change because we need it to reflect not only who we are, but also who we hope to become. (My opinion, of course.)

Chomsky also found that not all people are either head final or head intial in their imprinting or implantation of language because at the deep structure level, there are no prepositional phrases in the intial level--that happens in levels later--check your notes. Example" My head hurts would be: me head pain my . That was how his initial work read. I have a pain in my head would also be translated the same way. The "in my head" part would be deleated until the fourth or fifth diagramatic stage--well past the deep structure.

I will read Pinker, thanks. Chomsky is a tough go. I also am intrigued that no one as of yet has discussed the psychological aspects of language and it's affects--i.e. why some people have certain self talk "I hate myself" or "I am great," and if this kind of thing is also implanted in the deep structure or is a social/psychological aspect. I asked my professor, and he said Chomsky stuck to the anthropological/linguistic aspects solely. Any leads?

Also, one last point-- anyone with your intelligence and wit is demeaned by using inflammatory remarks. In the south, we would say that it's "just so common, darling."

Impressive credentials...

Katherine,

Well, if I remember Pinker's take on the issue correctly, the formal "she" issue would be a shift in the lexical definitions of "he" and "she," respectively. He distinguishes the establishment of the lexicon rather sharply from the clarification of syntax and the other, more specifically structural elements of language. (Words and Rules is his book that most directly addresses this distinction.)

I don't really have any issue with linguistic drift over time, on the whole. Both lexical and syntactic/semantic shifts occur naturally, and I suppose my strong preference is for a laissez-faire approach by society. On the flip side, I've read 1984 and I agree with Orwell that allowing a group of elites to have control over language with the specific goal of directing the social progress of the "masses" can only lead to ruin. It is shocking to me that this approach, once exposed, is not universally condemned--well, ok, not shocking--but only because I'm not a naive idealist. After all, some people seriously advocated communism as a good idea once upon a time. (/tangent) Anyway, I think it's a really bad idea.

Studies on the psychological aspects that you're talking about probably wouldn't be found at MIT. The Linguistics Department there is more interested in the other half of the equation--linking linguistics to brain and cognitive sciences and from there to the biology and chemistry of the brain.

Impressive credentials? I guess...I know I'm a reasonably smart guy, but I've met and learned with so many truly impressive people that it's hard to take myself TOO seriously.

Thanks Sam.

WAITAMINNIT! Didn't you post something a while back about the proper use of the apostrophe? And now you endorse the ghastly "between you and I"? That thing hits my ear like a sledgehammer. Argghhh.

Sister Helen would frown. You don't want Sister Helen to frown. Trust me.