I am growing tired of those who tell me spelling and grammar don't matter. These rules exist for a reason.

First, if we have a common framework for communication it allows us to convey our thoughts precisely. If we can't agree on what precisely the word "dog" means, for example, some people will use it to mean a canine and others will use it to mean a horse. If we can't agree on a precise set of meanings then our communication becomes less precise, maybe even becoming completely meaningless.

Second, the rules we have are those that have stood the test of time. The rules of grammar have evolved over time because they have proven the most useful at conveying a precise meaning. Other noun and verb forms, even whole parts of speech, have vanished as our ancestors decided they were not needed. Of course, various languages have differed somewhat as to what is and is not important, so there are cases in some languages which do not exist in others. However, if one examines most modern languages, he will find that, in general, certain basics exist in almost all of them. The idea of nominative, accusative, dative, genitive, and insturmental/ablative/locative cases for nouns exists in most languages. Similarly the idea of an imperative, a subjunctive, of active and passive voices exist for verbs in most languages I can name. The list is much longer than that, and there are the rare exceptions, but in general there are certain basics which exist in all languages.

Currently we are seeing a rapid erosion of our rules of grammar and spelling. It is not a continuation of the evolution of language, though many try to sell it as that. Evolution is a slow process. For example, it is possible that the subjunctive may disappear from English at some date, as it has been slowly fading for decades. But, under normal circumstances, that process would probably continue throughout my lifetime, and into that of my grandchildren. The evolution of language is a slow process.

No, what we have seen over the past two decades or so is the destruction of language. It is, in essence, the linguistic expression of moral and cultural relativism and the permissive, infantile culture it creates.

Let me explain.

The whole relativist belief system is based, primarily, on the idea that one cannot judge another. Anything someone wants to do is fine, there are no moral absolutes. As this system favors those who push the boundaries the farthest, and as the young tend to be more likely to go to extremes, this relativism tends to produce an infantile culture. Anyone who doubts that look at the scatological humor and "torture porn" which form a large part of popular culture at the moment, both clearly phenomena of a juvenile society.* Whether this is a result or a cause of our worship of youth, as opposed to the historical veneration of age, is not important. What does matter is that once one starts down the road of relativism, one ends up venerating the most worthless and childish things.

And that is what I see in grammar and spelling. Perhaps, at some point in education, it is more important that children simply write than that they write correctly. I have had that argument with teachers, and I don't wish to get into that again. But, whether or not that is true, at some point these same children do need to learn proper spelling and proper grammar. One cannot pass through life writing "c u l8r" and hope to be understood. Yes, in some contexts abbreviations are appropriate, and in some settings rules of grammar can be relaxed, but only if one already knows those rules. Why? Because at other times one will want to be as precise as possible, and without a clear understanding of how to communicate, as embodied in our rules of grammar, he will find himself unable to communicate effectively.

For those who doubt me, and think one can communicate clearly without understanding grammar, let me draw an analogy. If one is going to attempt to perform mathematical operations, one needs to understand the rules of mathematics. No one can perform calculus without understanding algebra or even addition. We would not call someone a mathematician who could write numbers on a page but did not know that three minus two is one. So why do we claim someone can communicate if they do not understand the purpose of the subjunctive or why it is improper (in English at least) to end a sentence with a preposition?**

Of course none of us are going to speak properly at all times, and most of us will not explicitly recall all of the rules of grammar at all times. On the other hand, if we are surrounded by a culture which speaks properly, which says "if it were" instead of "if it was", even those who don't know the rules of grammar will speak better. When rules are observed, even those who don't know the rules tend to follow them simply by emulating those around them.*** This works for grammar as it does for any set of rules.

Then again, I am sure that many of my readers are wondering why I am wasting time with such unimportant topics. To many the rules of spelling and grammar are not important. But I must differ with them. The breakdown of grammar is not just a symptom of our generally permissive and juvenile culture, but also a driving force. When you cannot communicate clearly, you tend to be more susceptible to poorly thought out appeals to emotion. Those who cannot clearly express themselves do not expect clarity form others, and are, as a result, more open to vaguely defined ideas.

In other words, by dumbing down grammar, we dumb down society in general, with the end result being that society is ruled not by the best ideas by by those with the greatest emotional appeal. And that is why even such seemingly unimportant issues as spelling and grammar truly do matter.

-------------------------------------------------

* Of course, advertising, with its obsession with the 18-25 demographic, with their disposable income, and their belief that 14-30 is the ideal age tend to reinforce this, but it is society at large that allows advertisers to cater to the immature, so to blame Madison Avenue is foolish. They are, of necessity, simply a mirror of society at large.

** I confess to ending sentences in prepositions. I understand that a preposition must have an object, so it is improper to have one standing alone. On the other hand, I like to blame my childhood, growing up near Baltimore, where German immigrants have imported the detachable particle into English. Well, that is my story, and I am sticking with it.

*** The perfect example of this is New York City, where enforcing minor quality of life laws led to a decline in other crimes. It is apparent that those living in a lawless environment tend to become lawless, while those who live in an environment where even the most trivial laws are obeyed, tend to obey the laws. A similar process will occur with language. If most follow the rules, then those around them will follow the rules as well. It may not be pleasant to admit, but man does tend to behave like a herd animal in some respects.

-------------------------------------------

NOTE:

Before anyone faults me for sentence fragments, run on sentences, and a general disregard for the rules on composition, I will point out that I consider this a relatively informal setting and do not feel a need to abide by every rule. Also, as Orwell wrote concerning his rules in "Politics and the English Language", it is better to violate these rules than write something barbarous. At times, and I freely admit as much, the strict rules of grammar produce sentences which are simply ugly, and in those cases, I feel no hesitation in bending the rules a bit for aesthetic reasons. Of course, knowing the rules in the first place makes that choice possible. Those unaware that the rules even exist have no choice, they can only continue on writing the horrors they always write.

UPDATED 03/16/2008

I found a very similar essay on another blog. This perspective is not the same as mine, but I thought it would be of interest to anyone who enjoyed this essay.

UPDATED 03/16/2008

I forgot to link to my two earlier essays on spelling and grammar:

Spelling Nazi
HILARIOS DANCEING CAT

If you enjoyed this post, you may enjoy them as well.