Grammar makes little difference to a phrase's meaning and clarity

Let me start by saying I appreciate correct grammar. I enjoy a phrase more if it is written well as opposed to poorly. I do not, however, believe grammar is often vital to a phrases’ meaning or clarity. I think grammar is important and should definitely be stressed, but rarely is it fader for confusion. The reason many people have a misconception about the correlation between grammar and coherence is the writer. People – writers-- who have great things to share nearly always take the time to proofread their work for grammar; and they should. Good grammar matters when considering what the reader is expecting. Coherence and grammar, however, are not cause and effect like many people think. This can be shown in the way we judge a piece of writing. When one reads a book and comes across a typo, he or she is rarely if ever confused at what is being said. The only feeling he or she has is the subtle sense of superiority and contempt for the writer of the book. It doesn’t matter how minor the grammar error is or how little -- if at all -- it affects what is being said; some people will not take you or your ideas seriously. This can be used as evidence for the lack of causation grammar actually has to our understanding. How quickly we are to discount the quality of ideas based simply on grammar is outstanding. One of the reasons correct grammar is sought after is consistency. People like rules they can follow because it quickens how fast they can understand; not if they can understand. People don’t want to have to work any harder than they have to. Examples of this are contractions in words. They hardly save any time at all yet if one never used them he or she would sound dreadfully slow. Grammar is much the same way. People don’t want to waste their time trying to understanding how something is being said; the “what” is already enough. But at the core of understanding, grammar is almost always limited to making a grammatically incorrect phrase sound “funny”. Another case against the need of grammar for understanding is the amazing human ability to interpret the tone of a phrase. We don’t read each word individually but the sentence as a whole. This allows us to “fill in the blank” if we come across a grammar error and put in something which fits. Any grammatically incorrect phrase can be reasoned, usually very easily, and be made to make sense. Many of the grammar errors made are arbitrary which don’t need reasoning at all. The most often made mistakes are the easiest to fill-in with the correct usage. Common mistakes include: you’re instead of your, a instead of an, using the incorrect form of a verb, their there they’re, and many more. If a phrase’s meaning is completely dependent on a single punctuation mark or the correct usage of a word above, it is probably a bad phrase to begin with. Even in the case of dangling modifiers, the phrase should have enough context to know what is being said. We aren’t going to be eating Grandpa anytime soon. Grammar is a very important component of writing but it has little affect on our ability to understand what is being said. If I had said effect just now, you would still understand what is being said. It probably wouldn’t even affect your speed of understanding because they sound the same when we read. Finding obscure instances in which correct grammar usage is vital to the understanding of a particular phrase does not discount my thesis. Very few times is this true in practice. Grammar is no more than a glorified time-saver.