This issue is deeply divisive, and I think the real problem often goes unstated. Here's my take on it. Traditional grammar - the kind you learn in American gra

This issue is deeply divisive, and I think the real problem often goes unstated. Here's my take on it. Traditional grammar - the kind you learn in American grammar schools for example - is kind of a mess. It's jumble of very different things: (reasonable and unreasonable) tips about usage, spelling mnemonics, advice about grammar that has more to do with Latin than English, personal pet peeves and (no doubt) some very good grammatical rules. This kind of grammar - traditional grammar - has nearly nothing to do with grammar as studied in linguistics departments at the university level. In fact, the scholars of linguistics are quite sure that much of traditional grammar is false, unhelpful and confused. (I'm on their side, but that's not really my point here. I'm just trying to sketch out why people keep fighting about 'grammar'.) The two groups spend most arguments talking completely past each other and (unfortunately for the rest of us) very very loudly. (A good test question, by the way, is the split infinitive in English. If you think it's a grammatical mistake, you're following traditional grammar. If you think it's entirely correct usage, you're probably someone with some linguistics training or background.) Anyhow, the Strunk & White book and Lynne Truss's Eats, Shoots & Leaves are the kind of rulebook that makes linguists spitting angry. See Louis Menand's review of Truss, for another example of this: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/06/28/040628crbo_books1 http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/06/28/040628crbo_books...