English Darwinism

       A “descriptivist" tries to describe language as it is used. A “prescriptivist,” focuses on how language should be used. After reading and reflecting about this article I agree with Robert Greene and his descriptivist ideas. The English language is ever-changing and should not follow all the ancient grammar rules like: "Which" introduces a "nonrestrictive" relative clause, and "that" introduces a restrictive clause. These ancient rules are complex and in my opinion do not form part of the "normal" usage of the english language. I am sure that if someone with good modern grammatical knowledge traveled 400 years back and attended an English lesson there would be an outrage, teachers and scholars would complain about his inappropriate use of grammar. This language is suppose to evolve along with society. I agree with Greene's proposed meta-rule "When a proposed rule and actual usage conflict, the proposed rule is false, and actual usage should be our guide". 

       By no means am I saying that grammar is not important. It is an essential part of writing, and especially formal writing. Proper grammar rules should be taught at every school and it is important we all know our grammatical basics. All I am saying is that people have to be open to the changes in our language and should not try and shove ancient rules down our throats. 

       It seems to me that language, having its roots in the spoken word rather than the written one, should be judged by how it is spoken in our every-day lives. It is wrong to reject our evolving language while trying to enforce unused rules which might seem ridiculous to us now. The point of grammar rules is so that our messages are conveyed clearly, but if we can do so without the old complex rules than that is fine.

Making a Mountain Out of a Molehill

       In my past post I insisted that our English language is ever changing and old strict grammar rules are being used less and less; however, I believe that  Matthew J.X. Malady is going too far by saying that commas will not be used in the future. Yes it is true that rules should change if we no longer use them, but the problem is that we still use commas a lot. These essential punctuation marks make our writing flow nicely and be more clear. The "Let's eat grandma" and "Let's eat, grandma" is a silly example, yet it explains how powerful commas can be in affecting the meaning of a sentence.

       I had not noticed this until someone pointed it out in class, but Malady managed to write his article without commas. This just shows how a clear essay can be written without commas and still flow; nonetheless, I am sure that he did not do this naturally. Matthew probably had this in mind and tried to avoid commas while writing the essay, which made it harder for him. So why would we stop using commas if they help us? The argument that Robert Greene used to fight the importance of complex grammar rules was that we no longer used them. Commas we use everyday, even when we pause during speech and while we text (at least me and my friends do).

       I also find Malady's "Ketchup" and "Mustard" analogy of commas lacking a lot sense. According to him, ketchup and mustard are things we love but do not need, just like commas (I agree with this). However, because we love them and use them so much they have not disappeared. I am sure these sauces have been around for longer than 10-20 years, yet we still use them today (and a lot). For this same reason we will not witness the vanishment of commas, because although we don't need them we like them. As you can see, this post is FILLED with commas which made the writing process much easier. SO WHY GET RID OF THEM???

Consequences

       After lighting himself on fire, Brent cannot handle the heat so he calls for help. Craig, his little brother, runs and dials 911. Ambulances and firemen finally arrive to aid Brent. Disturbed at this sight, Craig begins to cry and punch the wall. This might have something to do with the fact that Brent had told him about his suicidal plans, yet he did not care, probably thinking Brent was not capable of doing so.

       Brent doesn't seem to be too concerned about his own health but more about what is happening around him. It might be the adrenaline. He begins to have all these sidetrack thoughts and on the helicopter ride he even says: "I wonder if I'm going to the hospital near where my dad works. I could het a ride home with him later, oh, but he's in Arkansas or something. I wonder where he is."(page 19). This shows how he does not appear to understand the severity of the incident, yet.

       At the hospital, It takes him a while to gain full consciousness after waking up and falling asleep several times. He is under the effect of morphine, but still in great pain. Brent then catches sight of a rod in is side. Here we see that he experiences a massive change already: "If they unplug me, I'll die. I could die. Maybe I should ask them to unplug me. But I don't want to die anymore."(page 28). This is huge because we already know that he has wanted to die for quite a while know and this suddenly gives us hope. So what caused this realization? Was it the painful surgeries he has gone through? His brothers angry reaction? Or his mother's loving eyes when he is lying burnt on the kitchen floor? Whatever it was, I am glad he has had this epiphany.

Saturated (adj) page 32: soaked, impregnated, or imbued thoroughly; charged thoroughly or completely; brought to a state of saturation.

Why Would You Do That?

       At first glance, Brent seems to be quite normal. In fact, he is actually quite popular, or at least he claims so. "I really started to hate GT (Gifted & Talented group of students). I started calling it Goobers and Twerps because all of the kids that were in it were real dorks. None of the cool kids were in it, None. Well, one, if you count me"p. 8. Although he might have a problem with being humble, he did seem "cool". Brent was funny, he had friends, and he was good with the girls (especially with Abby, whom he got quite intimate with on the bus ride). 

        However, he begins to tell us that he has suicidal tendencies and has tried to kill himself a couple of times already. This is the part that really confuses me. He is not bullied or mistreated by anyone, so why do this? Even if you are a victim of bullying it is no excuse for suicide, nevertheless Brent Runyon was normal and popular. It really makes me wonder what is going through his minds. Life is a precious thing that we all must value and appreciate.

       After an incident in gym class where he purposely started a fire in the locker room, Brent seems to have gotten in a lot of trouble. The school claim they will expel the person responsible. Brent finds out that they will use fingerprints to find whoever is guilty. Suddenly he decides he is going to burn himself. First I thought he was joking, but when he gets home Brent pours gasoline on himself and lights a match.

Vocabulary:

1) arson: (noun) the act of intentionally or recklessly setting fire to another's property or to one's own property for some improper reason

2) clot: (noun) a mass or lump, as of coagulated blood

Did You Really Think You Are Safe?

Click here for documentary on safety around CNG