posted
One day I may say "I am getting hungry", and that is the best way of phrasing what I feel. Some may want to argue that I should use the word "becoming" rather than "getting", to be more grammatically correct, and sometimes I would agree. However, the meaning of the two words in exactly the same place changes the feel of the expression, even if it is ever-so-slightly. Therefore, any other selection of words would not exactly convey my thought or feeling, other that "getting hungry".
This is why we have some many different words and phrases.
I think the words and or a phrase someone chooses partly demonstrates a person's personality and thought process pattern. So someone who has a very open or circular way of thinking may overuse general words. The world to them may seem to be a fast rolling unraveling ball of yarn, and they are the kitten chasing it. This isn't "wrong" in my option, but rather just shows something about the person.
On the other hand, someone may try to use only specific words, and this may show a person is a bit private or impersonal, or perhaps someone who sees or feels more detail. Perhaps this person is the cat who sits quietly, watching everything, waiting for a mouse to appear. (Or the world is not a metaphor, but IS and should only be descried as such.)
I think it is good to use correct grammar, but I believe it is more of a guide, not to prevent or erode common phrases of colloquiums. Grammar should be used to help people express themselves, not hinder or bind someone from true expression. Like Jesus said about the Sabbath being for man, rather than man for the Sabbath, so I believe verbal grammar is for man, to be a window into his thoughts, be them confusing, general, or specific.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Part of what bothers me about overused words like 'get' and 'do' is that they can be used in place of so many more descriptive words. In 1984, the reduction of the number of words in NewSpeak was intentional, on the theory that this reduction of words would also cause a reduction of thought, or at the very least make it more difficult for people to communicate anything against the government. I believe strong that language reflects thought, and that as a result language should not only reflect thought, but also strive to improve the minds that are performing the thinking behind the speech.
The word 'get' is used in place of many words, such as arrive, become, go, reach, catch, turn, grow, shrink, need, and must. In my mind, it is like painting a picture, but arbitrarily changing various colours to that strange brownish sludgy colour that one gets from mixing various paints. Some people say of the word 'get' that the hearer knows that the speaker means. Well, in a painting, I could also guess the colours based on the context.
On a side note, I think that this is not so much about grammar as it is about vocabulary.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, you should. If you use the wrong Grammer, you may end up calling up demons from entirely different belief systems, who will be unaffected by the precautions you have wisely taken; Japanese demons, for example, pay very little attention to crosses, salt, or rosemary. Then they will eat your soul and you will spend an eternity wishing you had used the right Grammer. Which would be very bad.
Unless, of course, you actually intended to write 'grammar' and just mis-spelled it. In which case you deserve whatever happens.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, you should always use correct grammar. You should also always spell words correctly. Of course, what is or is not "correct" is often a matter of some opinion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a friend who is studying to become a copy editor at Mizzou, and she's lectured me on more than one occasion about the Oxford Comma. I know there are a number of grammatical rules which vary depending upon what style you choose to be writing in professionally. Differences between MLA, APA, Chicago style, et cetera. But I would say that within whichever style you must write in, I think the general consensus is that correct grammar and spelling can be incredibly important for a variety of reasons.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you use the wrong grammar, there's a very real chance you'll just wind up with a syntax error.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
English grammar is useful... as an extremely simplified teaching aid for those with little experience in using the language.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Yes, you should. If you use the wrong Grammer, you may end up calling up demons from entirely different belief systems, who will be unaffected by the precautions you have wisely taken; Japanese demons, for example, pay very little attention to crosses, salt, or rosemary. Then they will eat your soul and you will spend an eternity wishing you had used the right Grammer. Which would be very bad.
Unless, of course, you actually intended to write 'grammar' and just mis-spelled it. In which case you deserve whatever happens.
posted
Everyone should always use the correct grammar. This is aided by insisting that language will never change.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only proper Grammer is Kelsey Grammer. Grammar, on the other hand, should definitely be used. Along with spelling.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Everyone should always use the correct grammar. This is aided by insisting that language will never change.
I never knw what to say to people who treat the study of language like the study of mathematics. "Right" and "wrong" being concepts somewhat anathema to, you know, the medium which is predominantly used to express arguments about right and wrong. In math you have invalid functions- you have equations that do not balance. In language, you have fragments shored against ruin. The only thing that matters I the thing that fails to balance.
If you actually take a reductionist view of this behavior, you end up about where George Orwell did in 1951: a language with a structure in which correctness is concommitant with form can only be used to express one set of ideas. And it's not like Orwell was suggesting that we were in danger of this happening in the future. He was convinced that this was already the case.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
