5 ms·
One point that most grammar discussions seem to miss is that grammar is a model of how people communicate, not the real thing. When a construction is labeled "
by tmoertel 14y ago
One point that most grammar discussions seem to miss is that grammar is a model of how people communicate, not the real thing. When a construction is labeled "ungrammatical," then, it could be, as the prescriptivists would have us believe, that the construction is indeed poor at communicating the intended meaning and side-tones. But it could also be that the construction is perfectly effective and the model has simply failed to capture that aspect of reality.
A large part of rhetoric, for example, is breaking grammar for effect.
- yarianluis 14y agoSo if breaking grammar provides certain effects, wouldn't the standardization of such constructs into canon grammar diminish the effect?
- devindotcom 14y agoIn other words, can exceptions to rules be rules themselves?
- tmoertel 14y agoI came, I saw, I conquered. Those words are powerful, but not because they form a comma splice. That is, their power does not derive from failing the model's rules. Rather, the model's rules fail to capture that those words are powerful. (Or even allowed.) Again, grammar is a model. A model that people don't actually use to communicate with one another. Nobody hears words and constructs a parse tree to figure out what they mean. So what's encoded in the model (or not) has little effect on the effect that the words actually have. Change the model all you want. Nobody will hear any differently. EDIT: P.S. When I wrote that rhetoric was "breaking grammar for effect," I didn't mean to imply that the effect of rhetoric came from breaking grammar. Rather, I meant that the focus in rhetoric is on the effect and, because grammar fails to admit many effective phrasings, rhetoric necessarily "breaks grammar" from the outset.
- devindotcom 14y agoBut would "Came I saw, conquered I I" have made as much of an impression? Deviating from a ruleset is different from failing to adhere to it at all.
- tmoertel 14y agoMy claim wasn't that there was no rhyme or reason to human communication but rather that grammar does not capture that rhyme and reason, just a small part of it. That is, there is no "rule set" in reality. Nevertheless, you can create a rule set that describes some of reality. Just don't start thinking it's the real thing.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- tgrass 14y ago?veni, vidi, vici failed the model?
- FreakLegion 14y agoNot the best illustration, as there's no such thing as a comma splice in Latin (or most other languages, actually, including English a century or two ago). There is however a rhetorical term for the construction: asyndeton.
- tmoertel 14y agoCan you help me understand why you believe that my example was a poor choice? I offered a sentence in English and made the claims that (1) it was powerful and (2) not admitted by the grammars that govern such constructions. I thought that these were necessary and sufficient to make my point. Do you believe that either of these claims is false (or somehow depends on what's true or false for Latin)? Thanks for your help!
- FreakLegion 14y ago
- mbetter 14y agoCWWWWW we w W SSS Crrr rrrrrr vv sda Sdf That means "more anything can mean anything descriptivist nonsense." Please let me know when your model has been adjusted.
- hythloday 14y agoPlease let me know when your model has been adjusted. Perhaps when you stop having to explain what it means? :)