A VERY rough draft

Before studying the different theories encompassing grammar by men like Mulroy, Pinker and Beason, I thought grammar was solely the study of rules the consensus of society had created in order for everyone to write similarly. My view of grammar now is that it is more of an abstract idea rather than a concrete theory. I too now believe that grammar is how we communicate in general and that even if we tried to exclude grammar from our lives, we would fail would have to see that our use of grammar is inevitable. Our body language and how we perceive the people and objects around us can be viewed as a form of grammar. While yes, “grammar” books we are given throughout our scholastic careers do indeed contain grammar and somewhat of a consensus on how we read and write, it utilizes only one very small aspect of grammar.
But, the old view I had of grammar should not be entirely discarded for the simple fact that grammar when it involves reading and writing does need an agreed upon way of enforcing it, learning it, and teaching it. Other forms of grammar such as body language are proof of this. There are break downs in communication everyday due to misinterpretation. When an abstract idea is properly written down and contains “good grammar,” grammar rules that most people tend to agree on, then more people can read the abstract idea and there is little room for miscommunication. People are able to connect to an even larger number of people and still not loose the meaning of their original thought. It can then even be translated into foreign languages and read and understood around the world. While all of this universality of grammar sounds great it really never be a flawless system. There is always a possibility that there will be some small disagreement that will slightly alter the meaning of the text. We are human after all trying to perfect a system of grammar via using an imperfect system to get to that point of perfection.

Mulroy Ch. 3

I know the title could be more creative, but I'm feeling frustrated with life in general so that's the best you're going to get.

Chapter 3 from The War Against Grammar by David Mulroy was a history lesson much like its previous chapter. However, I won't try to draw any deep meaning from it since I was way off last time. And the time before that and so on. You can see the pattern. My interpretting skills are shot to hell. Mulroy is more a mystery to me than he ever was.

Anyway, the assignment was to create two questions pertaining to this chapter. One that had a straightforward answer in the text and the second a question that was more thought provoking.

1) What period of time was grammar viewed as the essential academic discipline on which all others are based?

2) Is the growing number of students in universities contributing to the fall of grammar, or is it false to even say that there is a decline in grammar since grammar can never trully be removed from society?

The First Liberal Art

Mulroy thinks society should be grateful to the Greeks for having invented the alphabet. However, he likes to stress that the Greeks invented the alphabet, NOT written language. The alphabet was a simplified way of representing phonics or sounds instead of various symbols with complex meanings that most people could not understand except the scholars. It was evident that the alphabet was a positive thing after its creation. The Greeks began to thrive in all aspects of their life not just writing. Having a written system allowed them to advance more in mathematics and science because more complex and abstract ideas could be recorded thanks to the simplified method of writing; the alphabet. The Greeks new writing system was adopted by the Romans. And, the alphabet and modified forms of it continued to spread globally. If it wasn’t for the Greeks and their idea to make written works more accessible to everyone it probably wouldn’t be possible for you to read what I’m writing now. I hope more people can appreciate books. Just think of it this way, if no one ever read anything and continued to live ignorantly till present day we wouldn’t be surfing the net or texting people. What I thought was most surprising was that “Contemporary American educators” are unable to see how crucial grammar is to society and are “mystified” by those who do emphasize the importance of grammar.

Maybe phrasing it as ‘unable to see’ is kind of strong. Now, I think maybe they’re saying that people naturally understand grammar and can use it effectively so the tiny specifics on the rules of how grammar should be used is unnecessary since people have managed to communicate to each other successfully since the beginning of mankind.

Is that it?

Hopefully This Works!

I was told people were having trouble viewing my blog, but I couldn't find anything wrong with it. My homepage/dashboard-thingy didn't say there were any repairs being made and I certainly wasn't making any. Hopefully whatever was wrong is cleared up now because I'd have no idea how to fix....whatever it was.



Here's a test run to see if my new posts are being displayed--homework that's due Thursday:

The three blogs I left thoughtful comments on within the last week:

1) Chisticaruth
"Yes to SWE!"

2) Loose Lips of a Thug Life
"SWE..."

3) Aint Aint A Word And You Aint Suppsed To Say It
"Opus Duo: Confuses Hominus Consilio Ab Lingua. Mei Menda"

The classmate's comments on my last blog post that I responded to:

1) Tommy

2) Ray

3) Christi

Standard Written English..well, my interpretation anyway

Standard written English should DEFINITELY be taught in school. Understanding and correctly using standard written English makes it is easier for the student to communicate their ideas to others during their lifetime and also makes it easier for other people to understand them. Miscommunication causes lost job oppotunities, injuries, fatalities, useless arguments, and the list keeps going. I feel that our country's current economic crisis could have been prevented if there was better communication, which can be achieved through teaching people standard written English.

S.W.E. should be taught at an early age in grade school as its own class, but only at first. Around third or fourth grade when students are asked to do more creative writing, S.W.E. should be enforced in their written work. S.W.E. should be applied enough to make sure that their writing is clear and understandable, but the teaacher should not be so picky as to discourage the student. For example, the outdated rule that prepositions can't be at the end of a sentence should NEVER be enforced since it is a silly useless rule. Proper verb tenses, good punctuation, etc., should be the rules that are applied to the student's work and should be mentioned to the student respectfully when they are misused.

I think that pretty much sums it up. S.W.E. shouldn't be that difficult to agree on how it should be taught and applied. So, why does it seem like grammarians are sucking the life out of the issue?

Bill O'Reiley

Has anyone read Bill O'Reilley's newest book release A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity? I can't wait to read it. I was wondernig if any of you have and if you have any thoughts on the subject.

I love politics!

Mulroy, Pinker, and concepts I guess I don’t understand...

First, I want to begin with a little side note here. I've been sick. Really sick, because of some anitbiotics I've been on. I was sick all last week and I will be all this week since I have to take them for a full two weeks. So this is an apology to everyone in my grammar class. If I haven't commented on your blog yet, I will soon. I promise! I just haven't felt like doing anything because I've been so nauseated. But, moving on...

I read The Scandal of Prescriptivism, David Mulroy's response to Steven Pinker. Honestly, I don't know if I understood it. Mulroy's response was a little unclear to me. For example, the last line reads, "He [Pinker] is a brilliant linguist and author, but for teaching my children English, I'll take the schoolmarm," and I could not tell if Mulroy was saying he prefers the 'schoolmarm' because she secretly teachers her own children prescriptive standard English, or that he would choose the schoolmarm because she teaches more descriptive English in her classroom. His borderline sarcasm makes it difficult for me to decipher his true meaning.Also, I thought Mulroy was a prescriptive snoot but in this passage he speaks of elite Prescriptivists with what I interpreted as contempt or disdain as he blames them for the decreasing speed of the English language's evolution.Can someone, anyone, please help me get what this guy is talking about?