Prescriptive Grammar does more harm than good

"My opponent starts off her argument by asserting that prescriptive grammar is unnecessary because all that is needed for communication between two individuals is a "shared grammar." But my opponent seems to be missing the entire point of grammar." Unfortunately this is not what I was getting at. Or rather, it is an oversimplification. Because people communicate with multiple individuals on a daily basis, any analysis that applies to two individuals talking to each other holds for many individuals in regular linguistic contact with one another. Last round, I argued that morphological change is much more common in a language than changes in syntax. If you combine this with semi-regular linguistic contact between diverse populations, it follows that though the words and grammar they use may vary slightly, grammatically, they will not separate from one another to the point of unintelligibility. Slang terms of unknown meaning to outsiders are common in many groups. I challenge my opponent to come up with a "slang grammar" in English that is unintelligible to outsiders. Grammar simply doesn't vary that much, and small differences tend to die out in the larger linguistic community as long as regular contact is maintained. Given the sheer volume of media we consume these days, it is near impossible to remain in an isolated linguistic community for long. So differences in grammar will not persist. " 'Bob opened the crate of apples that had a birthday last month,' it is clear, though not at first, that it is Bob that had a birthday, not the crate of apples. But it's confusing." People have birthdays. Crates of apples do not. If someone was trying to imply that the crate had a birthday, they would explain themselves, as even a perfectly unambiguous statement to that effect would be confusing. I think my example is better in this context as "butter is than better margarine" makes it unclear which is better- and the meaning of the sentence hinges on that distinction. I could plausibly be trying to say either. However, as a competent speaker, I would (1) give context to my statement to make the meaning clearer (ie "because the risk of harm from trans-fats outweighs the danger of extra calories) and/or (2) clarify my meaning when it is clear others do not understand (ie wait WHICH is better!?). Prescriptive grammar is not necessary for that. And furthermore, as I said in my last round, and as you ignored, indecipherable sentences are not relevant to this debate. People WANT to be understood, therefore if the grammar they are using doesn't allow that to happen they will modify its usage to better suit their needs. Moreover, this process happens mainly unconsciously. There is no need for an imposed rulebook. "We have supreme sources to clarify what is and what is not correct to make thing easier." Again ignoring my previous round. Any claim that one form is more "correct" than another is entirely baseless. The fact that it annoys you less to give an arbitrary authority that "supreme force" doesn't change that fact. And indeed, I contend that communication is easy enough WITHOUT prescriptive grammars. I believe I have shown that to be the case, through demonstrating that workable grammars arise spontaneously in linguistic communities. And no, a linguistic community is not two individuals speaking to one another, it is comprised of all the individuals one person regularly communicates with, in addition to all the people THOSE individuals regularly communicate with, etc. A linguistic community can be extremely large. "So, grammar does change, and there is an objective component to it... so what? With more understanding, science changes. Is this somehow a problem for science as well?" Whats the "objective component" to the demonization of the double negative? Its used in most romance languages. The fact that you can come up with a rational explanation for some grammatical rules doesn't negate the fact that they are arbitrary. Furthermore, science is a discipline that discovers new facts about existing objects. Prescriptive grammar conjures "facts" out of thin air and attempts to impose them on weary speakers. "In closing, my opponent attempts to illustrate harm caused by prescriptive grammar, saying that those who have not been trained in prescriptive grammar are unfairly punished. <>" Since we're telling personal stories- I hate using my shift key. As I think you've probably noticed, on the forums and in PMs, I very rarely capitalize anything. I don't see the point. I have brought this attitude to many messageboards and I almost always get the same reaction- rejection. People conclude that because I don't see the point in capitalizing the first letter of every sentence I must be dumb. Some completely refuse to read what I have to say. I think my opponent would agree that I am not an idiot. And yet people assume I am and dismiss me simply because I don't see the value in following an inane social convention. Tell me, PoeJoe, is there anything rational in that? As for your punk site, that sounds like an aesthetic choice you made more than anything else. If you don't want to read so called "poor grammar", that is your choice. However, you could be missing out on reading someone like me! That would be a tragedy... On a more serious note, I would agree that a mastery of prescriptive grammar rules is indicative of education level, but it says little to nothing about one's innate intelligence. By insisting on a grammatical standard that is unique to highly educated individuals, you force uneducated people into a permanent linguistic underclass. Because children tend to absorb the grammar of their parents, the "poor grammar" of the lower class will be continually passed on within members of that class, making it that much harder for them to overcome their disadvantaged background and succeed in life. "You'll notice, for example, that the vast majority of the literary Gods had great control of prescriptive grammar. Might I suggest that this is not a coincidence." This implies nothing more than a thorough study and understanding of language. Creative and intuitive thinking are most fruitful when the area one is working in is extremely familiar. By knowing a lot about language and conventions within it, those authors are able to violate the conventions in startling and pleasing ways. However, this says nothing about the nature or use of prescriptive grammar; rather, it speaks to the importance of understanding your field thoroughly before embarking on serious innovations. Even without prescriptive grammar, linguistic conventions would exist. The difference is that variations from those conventions wouldn't be automatically and scholastically stigmatized.