3 deleted 10 characters in body
source | link

Grammar is merely a social consensus on how to express oneself in order to be easily understood by others and to understand them.

It is not to be represented as stemming from "natural law" or representing any political orthodoxy, or else a program(-me) to devaluate or impair other languages.

There are, of course, many examples of abuses in recent times particularly with the reinvention of national identities in the nineteenth century -- when nationalist policies in education were aimed both against foreign (typically imperial languages) and other languages and dialects within the nation-state (deemed "inferior"). There was, in some cases, an element of "social darwinism".

It is very possible that the mystique of grammar and fear of making mistakes is traceable to educational methods that were punishing children for using dialectal expressions or inflections, instead of the standard "national" canon. It is obvious that this fear was not conducive to better speaking or writing in the long term, but to frustration, revolt and eventually deliberate avoidance of grammar. It has led as well to the transformation of "minority languages" into political weapons to claim political autonomy or independence (and, in some cases, restartingto restart the whole cycle of linguistic oppression).

On the other hand, let us guard ourself against a fallacy: abusus non tollit usum. There are very functional reasons why a consensus has to emerge somehow about grammar and be relatively stable in time: if anything, so that we can understand each other unambiguously in daily conversation and correspondence, and so that we can understand the regulations of our society, and possibly decypher texts written one or two centuries ago.

Grammar is merely a social consensus on how to express oneself in order to be easily understood by others and to understand them.

It is not to be represented as stemming from "natural law" or representing any political orthodoxy, or else a program(-me) to devaluate or impair other languages.

There are, of course, many examples of abuses in recent times particularly with the reinvention of national identities in the nineteenth century -- when nationalist policies in education were aimed both against foreign (typically imperial languages) and other languages and dialects within the nation-state (deemed "inferior"). There was, in some cases, an element of "social darwinism".

It is very possible that the mystique of grammar and fear of making mistakes is traceable to educational methods that were punishing children for using dialectal expressions or inflections, instead of the standard "national" canon. It is obvious that this fear was not conducive to better speaking or writing in the long term, but to frustration, revolt and eventually deliberate avoidance of grammar. It has led as well to the transformation of "minority languages" into political weapons to claim political autonomy or independence (and in some cases, restarting the whole cycle of linguistic oppression).

On the other hand, let us guard ourself against a fallacy: abusus non tollit usum. There are very functional reasons why a consensus has to emerge somehow about grammar and be relatively stable in time: if anything, so that we can understand each other unambiguously in daily conversation and correspondence, and so that we can understand the regulations of our society, and possibly decypher texts written one or two centuries ago.

Grammar is merely a social consensus on how to express oneself in order to be easily understood by others and to understand them.

It is not to be represented as stemming from "natural law" or representing any political orthodoxy, or else a program(-me) to devaluate or impair other languages.

There are, of course, many examples of abuses in recent times particularly with the reinvention of national identities in the nineteenth century -- when nationalist policies in education were aimed both against foreign (typically imperial languages) and other languages and dialects within the nation-state (deemed "inferior"). There was, in some cases, an element of "social darwinism".

It is very possible that the mystique of grammar and fear of making mistakes is traceable to educational methods that were punishing children for using dialectal expressions or inflections, instead of the standard "national" canon. It is obvious that this fear was not conducive to better speaking or writing in the long term, but to frustration, revolt and eventually deliberate avoidance of grammar. It has led as well to the transformation of "minority languages" into political weapons to claim autonomy or independence (and, in some cases, to restart the whole cycle of linguistic oppression).

On the other hand, let us guard ourself against a fallacy: abusus non tollit usum. There are very functional reasons why a consensus has to emerge somehow about grammar and be relatively stable in time: if anything, so that we can understand each other unambiguously in daily conversation and correspondence, and so that we can understand the regulations of our society, and possibly decypher texts written one or two centuries ago.

2 added 9 characters in body
source | link

Grammar is merely a social consensus on how to express oneself in order to be easily understood by others and to understand them.

It is not to be represented as stemming from "natural law" or representing any political orthodoxy, or else a program(-me) to devaluate or impair other languages.

There are, of course, many examples of abuses in recent times particularly with the reinvention of national identities in the nineteenth century -- when nationalist policies in education were aimed both against foreign (typically imperial languages) and other languages and dialects within the nation-state (deemed "inferior"). There was, in some cases, an element of "social darwinism".

It is very possible that the mystique of grammar and fear of making mistakes is traceable to educational methods that were punishing children for using dialectal expressions or inflections, instead of the standard "national" canon. It is obvious that this fear was not conducive to better speaking or writing in the long term, but to frustration, revolt and theneventually deliberate avoidance of grammar. It has led as well to the transformation of the "minority languages" as ainto political toolweapons to claim political autonomy or independence (and in some cases, restarting the whole cycle of linguistic oppression).

On the other hand, let us guard ourself against a fallacy: abusus non tollit usum. There are very functional reasons why a consensusconsensus has to emerge somehow about grammargrammar and be relatively stable in time (if: if anything, so that we can understand each other unambiguously in daily conversation and correspondence, and so that we can understand the regulations of our society, and possibly decypher texts written one or two centuries ago).

Grammar is merely a social consensus on how to express oneself in order to be easily understood by others and to understand them.

It is not to be represented as stemming from "natural law" or representing any political orthodoxy, or else a program(-me) to devaluate or impair other languages.

There are, of course, many examples of abuses in recent times particularly with the reinvention of national identities in the nineteenth century -- when nationalist policies in education were aimed both against foreign (typically imperial languages) and other languages and dialects within the nation-state (deemed "inferior"). There was, in some cases, an element of "social darwinism".

It is very possible that the mystique of grammar and fear of making mistakes is traceable to educational methods that were punishing children for using dialectal expressions or inflections, instead of the standard "national" canon. It is obvious that this fear was not conducive to better speaking or writing in the long term, but to frustration, revolt and then deliberate avoidance of grammar. It led as well to the transformation of the "minority languages" as a political tool to claim political autonomy or independence (and in some cases, restarting the cycle of linguistic oppression).

On the other hand, let us guard ourself against a fallacy: abusus non tollit usum. There are very functional reasons why a consensus has to emerge somehow about grammar and be relatively stable in time (if anything, so that we can understand each other unambiguously in daily conversation and correspondence, and so that we can understand the regulations of our society, and possibly decypher texts written one or two centuries ago).

Grammar is merely a social consensus on how to express oneself in order to be easily understood by others and to understand them.

It is not to be represented as stemming from "natural law" or representing any political orthodoxy, or else a program(-me) to devaluate or impair other languages.

There are, of course, many examples of abuses in recent times particularly with the reinvention of national identities in the nineteenth century -- when nationalist policies in education were aimed both against foreign (typically imperial languages) and other languages and dialects within the nation-state (deemed "inferior"). There was, in some cases, an element of "social darwinism".

It is very possible that the mystique of grammar and fear of making mistakes is traceable to educational methods that were punishing children for using dialectal expressions or inflections, instead of the standard "national" canon. It is obvious that this fear was not conducive to better speaking or writing in the long term, but to frustration, revolt and eventually deliberate avoidance of grammar. It has led as well to the transformation of "minority languages" into political weapons to claim political autonomy or independence (and in some cases, restarting the whole cycle of linguistic oppression).

On the other hand, let us guard ourself against a fallacy: abusus non tollit usum. There are very functional reasons why a consensus has to emerge somehow about grammar and be relatively stable in time: if anything, so that we can understand each other unambiguously in daily conversation and correspondence, and so that we can understand the regulations of our society, and possibly decypher texts written one or two centuries ago.

1
source | link

Grammar is merely a social consensus on how to express oneself in order to be easily understood by others and to understand them.

It is not to be represented as stemming from "natural law" or representing any political orthodoxy, or else a program(-me) to devaluate or impair other languages.

There are, of course, many examples of abuses in recent times particularly with the reinvention of national identities in the nineteenth century -- when nationalist policies in education were aimed both against foreign (typically imperial languages) and other languages and dialects within the nation-state (deemed "inferior"). There was, in some cases, an element of "social darwinism".

It is very possible that the mystique of grammar and fear of making mistakes is traceable to educational methods that were punishing children for using dialectal expressions or inflections, instead of the standard "national" canon. It is obvious that this fear was not conducive to better speaking or writing in the long term, but to frustration, revolt and then deliberate avoidance of grammar. It led as well to the transformation of the "minority languages" as a political tool to claim political autonomy or independence (and in some cases, restarting the cycle of linguistic oppression).

On the other hand, let us guard ourself against a fallacy: abusus non tollit usum. There are very functional reasons why a consensus has to emerge somehow about grammar and be relatively stable in time (if anything, so that we can understand each other unambiguously in daily conversation and correspondence, and so that we can understand the regulations of our society, and possibly decypher texts written one or two centuries ago).