From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: Can I axe you a question?
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 00:59:58 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.143936.21872@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>>If I write "asterisk" and decide to pronounce it
>>"saterisk" for no reason other than that it's comfortable to say, it
>>doesn't assume validity because I add it to my idiolect.  
>
>When the people you're speaking with understand you, then it *has*
>assumed validity.

Riiiiiiiight.  And if I replace the word "Automobile" with the word "Voiture"
and the word "Computer" with the word "Ordinateur" and the verb "to be" with
the word "etre," after a while you're not speaking English, even if the folks
around you happen to understand you.

>>We have copy editors, spell checkers, and english teachers for this reason.
>
>All of whom are generally utterly ignorant of the structure, history,
>and processes of language change.  Copy editors make rules, to be sure;
>but they do so in order to make their work easier

That's utter BS.  People don't edit copy to make their work easier.  If they
wanted to make their work easier, they wouldn't edit at all.  They edit 
copy so that it reads well.

>and to enforce a
>particular style acrossthe things they edit.

Hardly.  Ever read a magazine the contents of what have been contributed by
free-lance authors?  The style of any such periodical is not uniform.

>Grammarians, on the other hand, have actually bothered to study the
>matter at hand, instead of assuming that their having grown up
>speakingthe language, plus their secondary school diploma, somewho
>made them instant experts in a complicated area of linguistics.  

Linguistics and good language skills have little to do with each
other.  I've read plenty of papers by fine linguists that were very
poorly written. 

>>Psychologists tell us that a child's communications skills are in place by
>>age 5, and after that, even if left alone, the child will develop usable
>>communications skills no matter what you do.  If what you say is so, if
>>standards are so unimportant, why bother teaching grammar?
>
>Good question.  
>
>On the other hand, you haven't yet addressed a question of grammar,
>either.  You've been talking about pronunciation and style, mainly.
>
>Children do learn grammar naturally.  Ever heard a 5-year-old place the
>article after the noun?  Can't be done.  That *would* be a mistake, and
>nobody makes it.  

Gee, Roger.  *Why* would it be a mistake?  If I wrote "Bear the stood on
mountain the" instead of "The bear stood on the mountain," you'd understand
it just fine.  How many people would have to do that before you'd suddenly
admit that form to the canon of acceptable English?

>Why teach grammar?  Good question.  Shakespeare did just fine without
>it.  So did the writers of the KJV.

I'm glad you're not running the school system.  I guess we shouldn't teach
score preparation to music students and we shouldn't teach mathematical 
notation to engineers.  Just give 'em all the essentials to get by and
forget about form.


--
Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings 
gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu       to be seriously considered as a means of 
N2GPZ in ham radio circles        communication. The device is inherently of
72355,1226 on CI$                 no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877
Xref: sparky alt.usage.english:6432 soc.culture.british:11563