Prescriptive Grammar does more harm than good

"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." Haha. You should tell that to my aunt (born in the USA with a white father), who absolutely refuses to watch British movies without subtitles. On a more serious note, though, might I suggest that the reason grammar doesn't fluctuate much is that we have supreme sources to look up to? I'm part of a writing forum in which aspiring writers post their work and critique others' work, in a sort of mutual critique workshop. Recently, I posted the first part of a short story which sets up the pieces for a (hopefully) kick @ss romantic revenge story. This is part of one of the critiques I got: "To be honest, I didn't enter into your story. I read the whole part but not with pleasure and excitement, except at the end when I was wondering : well, how is he gonna to react ? What is he gonna to do ? Yet, you are often introduce paragraphs in your text that stand apart from the main action/description/plot, without being linked to the rest of the story. Examples : the book, the plane ... Besides, I'm a bit lost about Harvey's thoughts : on one hand, while his future ex-girlfriend shouts him, his ideas are dragged by a plane which flies over them, which means he doesn't care at all about her ; on the oder hand, he can't even bear the approach of his ex-girlfriend with a kunk, which is supposed to show that he really misses her. I had to point this contradiction which bothered me." Now, far be it from me to be judgmental, but I think we all agree that this quality of review won't end up on the New York Times Book Review. And I'm open to criticism, but what the heck is this person trying to tell me? I am very lost. Suppose I thought this person was worth my time to talk to. We are clearly on different fields of communication, and it would be extremely inefficient for us to try to talk with each other. I could explain, for example, that in my story the book and the plane are symbols. But then I'd have to explain what symbols are and what their purposes in literature are. It would be much simpler if I simply pointed this person to an English classroom. Moreover, after learning from this supreme source, this person would be able to communicate more proficiently and more efficiently with a lot more people. You've got to adhere to an supreme source to communicate well. Otherwise, it's not only annoying but just plain inefficient. "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." Yes, people want to be understood. That doesn't mean people always achieve their goals. "Any claim that one form is more 'correct' than another is entirely baseless." The more correct grammar is the one that is most easily understandable. The most easily understandable is the one that everyone's been taught since their first days in school, the one dictated by supreme sources--although, let me add, the supreme sources are very much influenced by what society believes is correct. It's not really subjective, as my opponent tries to suggest. It's more intersubjective, a combination of what makes inherently logical sense ("it is I") and of what society likes at any given moment in history. "Whats [sic] the 'objective component' to the demonization [sic] of the double negative? Its [sic] used in most romance languages." It can be confusing, an objectively confusing thing. Bob: "You grammarians are pretentious? Aren't you?" Joe: "No... wait, what?" I should note, however, that the double negative isn't always a mistake: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com... "The fact that you can come up with a rational explanation for some grammatical rules doesn't negate the fact that they are arbitrary." Which rules are arbitrary? Okay, okay. I won't play dumb. There are some rules which I think are extremely arbitrary. For example, I disagree with the mainstream opinion that there is a difference between the restrictive uses of the relative pronouns "that" and "which" (http://www.debate.org...). But others disagree with me. Others say that the rule isn't arbitrary! But isn't that part of the fun? We disagree. We argue. We convince. Eventually, when there is enough consensus, grammarians can write something objective down in the rule books. Bring the stone tablets from down the mountain. You know? And then the silly debate can be resolved, and better communication can arise. Well...I guess the debate will just be resolved *UNTIL* it's brought up again. But like I said, that's part of the fun. "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" David Levithan, in his newest book co-written by John Green, doesn't capitalize, either. So, you might have a case. This literary author agrees with you. However, I think the reason capitalization is so widespread (at least among all the Romance languages) is that capitalization is useful. Although minor, it is a subtle hint to the reader that we're starting a new sentence. Levithan writes in a sort of stream of conscious style. So, his reason for not capitalizing anything might be that he wants all his sentences to flow more freely. I don't know. Ask him. In any case, if you think capitalization is useless, then spread the word. I strongly disagree, but who knows? Maybe one day capitalization will be the thing of the past. Maybe grammarians will one day be against capitalization. I doubt it, but it could happen. "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." Ummm... my Cantonese parents immigrated to America in their late twenties. My mother speaks the accent of a Hollywood stereotype, and my dad, although much better, slips often. I turned out okay. It's all about education. As you've conceded, mastery of prescriptive grammar is indicative of a high education level. I encourage children who have linguistically challenged parents to study real, real hard. (: "Creative and intuitive thinking are most fruitful when the area one is working in is extremely familiar." My opponent has conceded that to be a great writer, one must study prescriptive grammar. Thank you for this wonderful debate.