Grammar

I'm sure you're reading the title of this post and groaning, I don't know many people who like grammar or even the idea of grammar but as I'm reading the first chapter of The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, (I know, sounds like enthralling reading eh?) I'm trying to formulate my opinion regarding prescriptivism and descriptivism in regards to grammar.

Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on how you look at it) my opinion on prescriptivist versus descriptivist gramar ends with one word that can be used in many many different areas of life; balance. According to the text modern grammarians/linguists agree with me, there should be a balance of some sort between prescribing rules and describing patterns. In the past I have always fallen on the more prescriptive side of the house, and I still correct people's grammar (especially my children and sometimes my wife). However, I'm not blind nor am I an idiot. Language change happens and there's nothing we can do about it. The academies set up in several European countries (noticeably NOT in England, and NOT in the US) failed to stop language change. According to the text I'm reading even the LAW in France couldn't stop the anglicization of French so some degree. The realist in me says if they couldn't stem the tide of language change what makes me think that I can? The traditionalist (read: conservative) in me says NOOOO, language has rules and grammar for a logical reason, so that we can all understand each other and have a common framework with which to communicate.

Reading this text, and in no small way, my recent Korean review class; I've decided to try to be a little more openminded toward language change. My current postulate on the issue is such: Teach correct grammar, syntax, spelling and other language rules, and when anomalies occur when they've been accepted by the general public and are commonly understood by the general culture, accept them as language change. Then after an anomaly has become accepted by culture to the point where everyone understands it and has used it for a long time ('long time' being subjective on purpose) then incorporate it into teaching. However, that all being said there should be plenty of recorded history of language as it once was. The comprehensive dictionary, (of course limited dictionaries will have to pare down their lists of words to fit in compact volumes) for example, should NEVER take out words, words that have fallen out of common usage should simply have some kind of note stating such. I'm sure some of my ideas are already in use, especially the one about archaic words being noted as such in the dictionary, as I've seen such notations in the dictionary in the past.

Much of my reservations on this topic stem from our future generations' becoming even worse than we are at forgetting our traditions and history. I feel that we, as a global society, are constantly losing touch with our history. The pervasive thought (seemingly worldwide) is that newer is better and older is worse. A funny quote that I've only heard in the children's cartoon movie The Incredibles, one of the final scenes two old men are talking:

"See that?"
"Eh"
"That's the way to do it, that's old school."
"Yeah, no school like the old school."

Morality and Marriage

It's an interesting paradox that I chose to name my blog "Life Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness" because many people would use that quote to defend homosexual marriage.  I read an interesting opinion piece from The New York Times about how the author changed his opinion about gay marriage.  Accordingly I thought I'd take a crack at the topic.  I know it's a hot topic that gets people up-in-arms quite quickly.

My first thought when reading that opinion piece was that many of the points the writer made were actually great arguments against gay marriage.  I.e. "...children have the right, insofar as society makes it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world. I didn’t just dream up this notion: the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which came into force in 1990, guarantees children this right."  I have also been reading a small pamphlet about what the Bible says about various social issues.  The chapter on gay marriage what written by Answers in Genesis' Ken Ham.  A respected author that I admire.  His comments on the subject were, not surprisingly, rooted in the Genesis account and started off with the old atheists' attempt at casting doubt on the Genesis story about Cain and Able; "Where did Cain get his wife?"  While that might not really seem to be connected to the issue (other than the question is about marriage) he easily turns question around and links the issue of gay marriage with a much deeper issue of morality.

I used to say something to the effect of; if our country/culture which is built on freedom defines marriage as any person with any other person then as the majority decides, so be it.  So as that New York Times opinion article is titled, I have also changed my view on gay marriage.  Of course my opinion has changed in the opposite direction, I now feel that, as a nation we should resist the loss of morality as evidenced in the acceptance of gay marriage.  I'm not going to go on any rampage and protest or join the crazies from Westboro Baptist Church (which by the way if you've never looked into it, is actually very politically motivated).  It's still a biblical mandate to love one another and to show God's love but I do not accept gay marriage at all.

There are many other arguments against gay marriage including a very simple biological argument that says, two people of the same gender cannot reproduce, therefore it is not natural that two such people should have that type of relationship.  There's another, albeit less viable argument that says, children raised in same gender homes have developmental problems.  The main problem with that argument is that it hasn't been completely proven to be true.

So, I'm going to stick to my guns on this issue.  God decides what is right and wrong, and has clearly stated that homosexuality and gay marriage is wrong.  Therefore it is wrong and should be abhorred.  Any trip down the road towards a loss of morality only leads to a more debased culture/society and eventually a breakdown in society itself.  Without a moral standard, a clear statement of right versus wrong, all reasons and foundations for rule of law are worthless.  Without the rule of law society breaks down and there's nothing but anarchy.