From: maynor@Ra.MsState.Edu (Natalie Maynor)
Subject: Re: "Grammar" & "Usage"
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 14:55:40 GMT

thayes@desire.wright.edu writes:

>I have read, with growing uneasiness, Roger's defense of the grammar/usage
>distinction, how any usage is basically cool as long as someone understands
>the message, an so on.  I have two points.  First, a question for Roger:

<sigh>  I guess I should stop my recent habit of hopping over to usenet
and reading a few postings since I seem to keep hitting the ridiculous
ones and thus am probably getting a false view of what goes on here.
The one I'm quoting from now shows no understanding whatsoever of anything
I've ever read from Roger.  Granted, I tend to read only a few postings
on my occasional ventures into usenet.  I think, however, that I've read
enough from Roger (who strikes me so far as about the only person in
this discussion with any knowledge of language) to know that he has been
misunderstood.  What he has written has seemed quite clear to me.  I'm
not sure what's causing the twisted inferences.      

>what in the world did you do as a copy editor (a job you mentioned you held)?
>In anticipation of your response of, "I edited copy" (or something close
>to that), I ask, For what purpose?  Wouldn't any old slop do?

He edited copy to make it conform to the standard dialect because a standard
dialect is useful in some contexts, especially in print.

>You would think Gabe some sort of weenie for insisting on good -- at least
>standard -- writing skills in his employees. 

Many (most?) employers expect adherence to the standard dialect in certain
(most?) settings.  I don't think Roger said anything to the contrary.

>I believe this is inappropriate because you presume everyone starts at an equal
>level of ability, and thus "creative" usage/grammar is ripping fun since we

I'm not sure what you mean by "ability," but I think Roger would agree that
not everyone starts with equal opportunities for making it in the business
world or in academia or in most other areas associated with  "success"
in our society.  Standard dialects in most languages, including English,
are determined by political and social factors, not linguistic ones.
SAE is a dialect of power.  Those who want to move up need to learn to
use a dialect as close as possible to the standard.  Democratic?  No.
True?  Yes.

>*honestly* think that there is no need for this person to re-learn the basics
>of grammar and usage?

Relearn?  Do you think that writing sample is a result of the student's
having forgotten something?  I doubt it.  Students should be expected to
learn how to use the standard dialect.  The knowledge will help them in
various situations.  That is not to say that they do not already know the  
basics of grammar and usage of dialects that are just as sophisticated, just 
as useful (in other circumstances), just as "good" as SAE.  There's no way
anybody can prove that SAE is *linguistically* better than any other
dialect of English.  It's simply more useful in some circumstances.

Has Roger said otherwise?  Sorry for putting words into your mouth, Roger.
Your words are quite adequate.  I'm fading out of the a.u.e. scene again
now.  Y'all have fun.
--
   Natalie (maynor@ra.msstate.edu)