Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1exp 11/4/83; site ihuxs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihuxs!okie
From: okie@ihuxs.UUCP (B.K. Cobb)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: good grammar
Message-ID: <440@ihuxs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 21-Dec-83 09:13:56 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxs.440
Posted: Wed Dec 21 09:13:56 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 23-Dec-83 01:43:30 EST
References: <428@ihuxq.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 24

A minor interjection, just to fan the flames...

English grammar did, in a sense, "come down from above."  The English
grammar we have today is not remotely like old English, which was an
inflectional grammar.  Modern English is positional -- where the words
are has much more meaning than how they're inflected.  The change was
partly evolutional, but the major changes occurred in the 16th century
through the auspices of a number of scholars.  Many of the "rules" we
have today came from these scholars, most of whom tried to parallel
English and Latin (two unrelated languages) for structure and precision.
To be honest, rules such as the one governing the use of "well" and "good"
and the one forbidding double negatives were totally arbitrary.

Don't get me wrong, though -- I'm not advocating that we try to "get back
to the roots of our language."  We've had a few hundred years of exposure
to the development of present grammar, and it's natural to us by now.  I
just wanted to throw a sidelight on the issue.

(and please make "16th century" above "17th and 18th centuries" -- I
just looked up my references and found I was a bit early)

B.K. ("Got a match?") Cobb
AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL
ihuxs!okie