I'm going to take a break from grammar specifics for a day and talk about grammar in general. John McIntyre, who writes You Don't Say, and works for the Baltimore Sun, has an interesting post about the Language Log.

Here is the quote from John's blog that I wish to expound upon:

There is always more to be learned, and sometimes one learns that it is possible for linguists and reasonable prescriptivists to clasp hands in agreement.

What does this have to do with grammar? Everything.

Prescriptivists - as I've mentioned before - believe that there are hard and fast rules about how language ought to operate and doing things differently ruins the world (well not really, but they can be melodramatic about it sometimes). Descriptivists have a tendency to try and prove to the world that rules only serve to put constraints on how we operate. They're both right, and they're both a little wrong.

Here are my thoughts about, and my response to, the quote from above.

To me, the true intention of grammar is to alleviate ambiguity in communication. If I say that a comma needs to be placed somewhere in a sentence, I'm not doing it for the sake of causing my reader strife; I'm doing it because there has been put in a place a rule that says to put that comma there to clarify what the intent of that written statement.

A lot of writers respond with "but you know what I meant, right?" Sometimes - honestly - no, I didn't. That's why I needed the grammar rule for clarification.

On the flip-side of things, Descriptivists have it right, too. Language changes every day, and we're constantly modifying it as our culture evolves. We have to recognize that words will crop up and become part of the language, and that words will change meaning over time.

However, there has to be a happy medium that recognizes both of those schools of thought. Rules are good, especially when you're trying to communicate with someone. If everyone is on the same page with the rules, then everyone communicates well. When Group A knows them and Group B doesn't, then problems will arise. That doesn't mean that Group A has to disregard the rules to understand Group B; nor does Group B have to spend years learning what Group A knows. No, it just means that you have Group C who sits in the middle and interprets them both. That's what editors are; that's why the world needs us. (Ok, yeah, so that's a bit of a self-promoting analogy, but you know what I mean, right?).

Communication is essential to us as a culture. Knowing how to effectively do so is a learned skill. You don't have to be an expert on either side of the debate. However, if you are, you should at least understand that you're both part of the same process, and you both have something to learn from the other.