Prescriptive Grammar does more harm than good

"We also have a 'supreme source' to go to for definitions of words, but that in no way stops them from acquiring new meanings and connotations and losing older ones. " Right, and we have supreme sources to document new definitions. Same thing with grammar. It's a lot like science. Grammarians document the current understanding of the language. This understanding is what gets put in the textbooks, which children learn and use for their lives. "On the other hand, all speakers exposed to some language construct a grammar of their own based on what they hear, even if the input to which they are exposed is incomplete or contradictory. " And that's why we have grammarians to tell us what the rules are. You keep on talking about "common grammars. " Well, the most common grammar, as I have said, is the grammar which we've all been taught. The reviewer I mentioned above is probably not very educated, and because of this lack of education, it is extremely hard for me to communicate with her. In fact, I suspect it would be hard for most of us to communicate with her. My opponent thinks it is better for this reviewer to inefficiently communicate. But it is clearly in the interest for this reviewer to learn prescriptive grammar. "Prescriptive grammar doesn't automatically make people comprehensible to others. " Prescriptive grammar, however, is a big help. "Grammatical prescriptions are not inherently more coherent than spontaneously arising conventions. " If the convention does not contradict logic, and if it becomes pervasive, then that convention *becomes* the prescription. As I've stated, grammar is intersubjective. Prescriptive grammar and grammatical consensus are not mutually exclusive. "See how ridiculous prescriptive grammar is? You obviously had no problems interpreting or understanding that sentence, yet picked it apart for being 'wrong'. " I like how you use British style for your quotes. Anyway, I apologize for wrongly correcting your spelling of "demonization. " I will say, though, that your use of "its," although clearly understandable in context, did throw me off for a second. At first, I read your sentence as a noun phrase and a prepositional phrase stuck together: "Its use in most romance languages. .. " It was just a little inconvenience. But if you want to maximize your communication, I strongly suggest sticking with prescriptive grammar. "The problem is that there is no objective truth to be found. " I think you mean "inherent" truth. Inherent truth is truth determined solely by the object, while objective truth is an interplay between a subject and object. In any case, there is inherently correct choices: "you are better than I at the game," for example. "Furthermore, grammatical prescription does NOT proceed like science, 'discovering truths'. " Grammar is more of a social science, really, discovering the truths of what makes society best function. "Grammarians declare certain things to be right or wrong based off their own ideas of what language 'should' be like- IOW, what it was like when they were kids" Nu uh. Is there some bias? Sure. But that's true for everyone doing anything, like a scientist exaggerating lab results. There is still an objective basis to grammar: how to most efficiently and proficiently communicate. That is how, for example, I'm able to argue that the pronoun 'yall' should be considered acceptable (. http://www.debate.org...). And while I understand it is currently unacceptable, it is a battle I fight every day. I argue for this usage through my speech, through using the word 'yall' when appropriate. "Black communities as a whole tend to speak BEV, and thus children in these communities aren't exposed to standard english at all until later in life, when their different grammar and manner of speaking is already a handicap to them. " I find this offensive. My opponent is implying that black children who grow up in predominantly black communities are somehow linguistically challenged. I submit that anyone, regardless of race, can study hard and learn to speak well. "He refuses to admit that prescriptions are in fact conventions that are imposed on everyone, and that such conventions would arise naturally without such imposition. " What? I've been saying that prescriptive grammar is intersubjective since the second round! "He also seems to take a certain kind of pleasure in citing a 'supreme authority" in grammar when he admits that the authority is arbitrary in many cases, and that there is no basis for any person or group to have such power. " A fringe scientist doesn't agree with the theory of natural selection. Yes, he will be laughed at. Similarly, I do not agree with the mainstream that the relative pronoun 'which' can't be used in restrictive instances. And yes, I deserve to be laughed at. So what? I'll keep on arguing. "He has not adequately addressed the harms arising from the imposition of prescriptive grammars on diverse groups of speakers. " On the contrary, even if you, the audience member, do not agree that I've demonstrated that prescriptive grammar is good (not my burden of proof anyway), my opponent has not shown the harm of prescriptive grammar. She has merely asserted it, and she therefore fails her burden of proof. She has not created a valid case.