Gramcracker

crumbs

Take this mr. grammarian. I be to show you something. That something be, tenses be not to need. Everything one need to say can be say without conjugation. Be it the present, the past, or the future. Be it concurrent, continuous, or with limits. There be no need for tenses. They be redundancies, perhaps for good, but not necessary for communication, clear communication. It seem weird, it sound strange, but it communicate.

I be to realize this from the study of a second language. Years ago I want to learn italian. The process not be fun. It frustrate me, then and now. Much thought I put into the question of how to learn language. How do children learn their mother tongue? Well, . . , they not start with a book. They not start with grammar. They not start with lessons. They not start with study. They start with ears. At first they only listen, then single words they say, then short phrases, but not until many years pass they begin full sentences, and even then, they make mistakes. The type of mistakes that be exceptions to the grammur rules they infer from the regular patterns they hear. After years to hear certain patterns, the ‘correct’ grammir be finally learn. Of course, after they start school, the rules of language be teach to them, and those who not learn to follow the grammerien’s rules be wrong, or look down on, or be call uneducate, or worse, sound stupid. However, not every rule be universal. There be exceptions to the exceptions. The standards not be everywhere all the time, and to make matters more confuse, not all grammaryans agree.

The conclusion be, if you want to learn to speak a new language, there be three rules.

Rule #1 : Listen

Rule #2 & #3 : Ditto

If you want to learn about a language, to read a language, to analyze how a language be to write, the language theory; then to get a book.

Please not bother me with grammor. People not speak gramar. And it be possible to construct a perfectly grammatical sentence that be completely incomprehensible, or to have, to make, to do, to take, to give a meaning different than one intend. I believe you understand all I say. It not matter if the structure be acceptable by miss grammar. To communicate, that be the function of language.

Wow! That was difficult to write and to proofread. Why? Not because I’ve broken the rules, not because it’s wrong, but rather, I was using a different rule : use only the infinitive. And by that rule, the grammar used above is one-hundred percent correct. It’s hard to read because it’s a standard we’re not accustomed to using. That makes it sound wrong. It is not wrong, it’s only different. “Ain’t” is perfectly grammatically correct for some communities. There are many other examples of the same ‘mistakes’ and ‘bad’ grammar that are simply colloquial variations. Correct grammar is simply the rules artificially set by some self-proclaimed authority that deems any variation from their way of speaking/writing is wrong. Spelling is another wacko mess in many languages, and english is a prime example. Grammarians can post hoc rationalize whatever they want to justify their absurd rules of grammar and spelling. If spelling were phonetically consistent, and grammar logically consistent, there’d be no justification necessary.

Take that mr. grameriin.