Launch Date Announced 🚀 The brand-new GoComics will be unveiled April 1! (No fooling). See more information here. Subscribers, check your
email for more details.
This is a something of a rant. Sorry. But (outside of, say, a publisher’s house style guide), there are NO immutable rules to language.
People should consider where their “correct grammar” came from.
The bottom line is that a few individuals (“educated”, upper class individuals at that) unilaterally sat down and laid out their perceptions of the “rules” the language was, or should be, following (and it’s worth stressing that this is the version of the language that THEY spoke – not one of the MANY other versions spoken by other people elsewhere, and definitely not the equally rich language spoken by those “uncultured louts" over there). Even with those restrictions the results weren’t a perfect fit, because language isn’t ultimately interested in being logical, so they threw in quite a few personal prejudices as baggage along the way (including importing irrelevant “rules” from other languages entirely). And even their version of the language has mutated quite a bit in the intervening time, because that’s what language does. But they published their results, and other (also “educated”, upper class) people picked them up because they were “obviously” useful for things like teaching. Fast forward a century or two, and way too many people believe that those “rules” are somehow the only correct way to use our language (including many of the teachers who perpetuate the myth).
Any grammar is at best a tool. A model. And the model is not the thing. It is inherently out of date, flawed and (massively) incomplete. It’s still useful for teaching and analysis, but what it most certainly isn’t, is definitive or prescriptive, and people need to remember that. So feel free to use it as such – but to expect people to slavishly follow it, or to insist that something is “wrong” because it’s “not grammatic”, is to leave the realms of common sense far behind. Language is defined entirely and only by what people ACTUALLY use.
I disagree – adequate information to have a suspicion is normally in your hands quite early (hence my comment about “get halfway” through the book). It may need more salient information to flech it out and make it definitive (which is fair, given that half the book wouldn’t be relevant otherwise), but the fundamental information is almost quite early in the story.
Genuinely close to my theory of solving Agatha Christie mysteries. It’s not a servant (unless they’re not who they seem). After that, get halfway through the book, think about all the characters, find the one(s) you’ve been ignoring because they couldn’t possibly have done it, and work out how they did it.
For some value of “fairly and even handed”, sure. But if you get in the ref’s hair too often, however good they are, don’t be surprised if they’re watching you more closely than the other side.
“Answering machine? Look at mister Got to Have the Latest Gadgets here! I mean – who really needs an answering machine? What are family for?!? And if no-one’s in and it’s important, they can call back.”
(Jokes aside, I grew up in the rotary era. The first actual answering machine function I had was built in to the base station of the first set of cordless handsets I owned.)
This is a something of a rant. Sorry. But (outside of, say, a publisher’s house style guide), there are NO immutable rules to language.
People should consider where their “correct grammar” came from.
The bottom line is that a few individuals (“educated”, upper class individuals at that) unilaterally sat down and laid out their perceptions of the “rules” the language was, or should be, following (and it’s worth stressing that this is the version of the language that THEY spoke – not one of the MANY other versions spoken by other people elsewhere, and definitely not the equally rich language spoken by those “uncultured louts" over there). Even with those restrictions the results weren’t a perfect fit, because language isn’t ultimately interested in being logical, so they threw in quite a few personal prejudices as baggage along the way (including importing irrelevant “rules” from other languages entirely). And even their version of the language has mutated quite a bit in the intervening time, because that’s what language does. But they published their results, and other (also “educated”, upper class) people picked them up because they were “obviously” useful for things like teaching. Fast forward a century or two, and way too many people believe that those “rules” are somehow the only correct way to use our language (including many of the teachers who perpetuate the myth).
Any grammar is at best a tool. A model. And the model is not the thing. It is inherently out of date, flawed and (massively) incomplete. It’s still useful for teaching and analysis, but what it most certainly isn’t, is definitive or prescriptive, and people need to remember that. So feel free to use it as such – but to expect people to slavishly follow it, or to insist that something is “wrong” because it’s “not grammatic”, is to leave the realms of common sense far behind. Language is defined entirely and only by what people ACTUALLY use.
Even if it’s wildly “ungrammatic”.
Rant over.