The Savage Surrenders: Grammar

       

I surrender! 

       I confess, I can definitely be described as a "Grammar Nazi"--so to speak-- but I've read some enlightening literature lately that has opened my eyes and I have decided to attempt to initiate a more laissez-faire approach to the english language. Honestly, this is not actually a surrender. I am not nor will I ever be happy about ending sentences in prepositions, subject-verb disagreements, nonsensically misused figures of speech, or homophone errors but I will attempt to look at them with more positivity and understanding from now on. I suppose this is less of a surrender and more the outlining of my demands for a mutually beneficial treaty.              There is an argument among linguists that there are no real rules as to how a language, especially a living one such as english, should be spoken or written and that there are guidelines that must be followed in order for it to be understood but that's all they are: guidelines. A language, one could argue, is most beautiful if a writer or orator takes into consideration its unique guidelines and then strives to make it his or her own. William Shakespeare, for example, one of history's most successful storytellers, invented countless words and phrases to conform to his personal style and to fit into his signature iambic pentameter and the result was some of the most beautifully written plays and sonnets in history. Shakespeare was not wrong, he was simply different and all it takes to understand his version of english is to get used to its patterns. Therefore, one can argue that to use the unsophisticated and ugly "how come?" (a term that makes absolutely no sense) as a synonym for "why?" is no different than Shakespeare using the super sophisticated and elegant sounding "wherefore?" 

       As a more modern example, consider Anthony Burgess's A Clockwork Orange in which Burgess created an entirely new dialect for his vagabond characters. The novel is incredibly difficult to understand for the first few pages but after about the first chapter it becomes second-nature. Of course, I am not arguing that Burgess's invented slang is beautiful by any stretch of the imagination but it is very clever and expertly characterizes the psyche of Alex, our humble narrator. Similarly to Shakespeare, no one has criticized A Clockwork Orange for its poor grammar. On the contrary, the dialect used in the novel is almost certainly on the the largest contributing factors for the novel's success. So perhaps terms such as how come, what for, gonna, 'cause are not the pestilent, inbred scum of the english language, but simply the next generation, not incorrect, simply new and different. 

P.S. I accept this post to be a legitimate argument, but I still do not like it. Consider my arms crossed, my shoulders elevated, and my bottom lip pouty and protracted.