Pedants' Favorite Grammar Rules are Probably Fake

Re:Pedants' Favorite Grammar Rules are Probably Fake by scotchmi_st on Wednesday August 19, 2015 @02:19PM (#10087401)

I would say that unless you know the rules (imaginary or real), it's not possible to break them in a way that is interesting. A programming example: PEP 8 makes no difference to whether or not your Python code will run. You can quite happily code all day without knowing anything about it. There are also plenty of times when you shouldn't follow it religiously. But without reading it and taking on board what it means, people will find reading your code more tiresome, and you won't know when to break the rules in a way that's helpful or interesting for the reader. The same, I believe, applies to English grammar.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pedants' Favorite Grammar Rules are Probably Fake by bjt on Wednesday August 19, 2015 @02:28PM (#10087451)

I see a few distinctions between code and prose.

Code is written with two kinds of readers in mind: the computer and other humans. Prose is written just for humans.

With code, there is a very precise set of rules determining whether the code will be readable by a computer. There is no correspondingly precise set of rules for understandability by humans.

I can see the analogy between PEP 8 and grammar rules, but I think there's an important distinction in the provenance of those rules. PEP 8 is a formal proposal adopted by the BDFL. There is no mechanism for submitting or approving formal proposals for English grammar rules. So the spoken language is always the authority on what's correct and what isn't.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pedants' Favorite Grammar Rules are Probably Fake by scotchmi_st on Wednesday August 19, 2015 @02:44PM (#10087576)

> Code is written with two kinds of readers in mind: the computer and other humans. Prose is written just for humans.

I don't think the fact that code is also meant to be read by a computer is relevant in this context. But let's take another example if that doesn't work for you: the novel Trainspotting by Irvine Welsh. It's written in a phonetic Edinburgh style. By 'normal' english standards, it doesn't make any sense. If someone was to write in the same style way without any knowledge of English grammar and spelling, you would just assume they couldn't spell. But that's why, in the context of a novel written by a talented author, it's actually a great bit of prose. I could give thousands of other examples.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pedants' Favorite Grammar Rules are Probably Fake by evanpw on Wednesday August 19, 2015 @02:39PM (#10087537)

> There is no mechanism for submitting or approving formal proposals for English grammar rules.

Yes, but to some extent that's a peculiarity of English: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_language_regulators.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pedants' Favorite Grammar Rules are Probably Fake by bsummer4 on Wednesday August 19, 2015 @02:34PM (#10087496)

Sure, but in this case "knowing the rules" is equivalent to being fluent in a language, not some document that you can read.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pedants' Favorite Grammar Rules are Probably Fake by rayiner on Wednesday August 19, 2015 @02:27PM (#10087442)

That's a fantastic point. You can communicate a lot by using one rule instead of another, or purposefully breaking a rule. But that doesn't work if you don't know the rules in the first place.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pedants' Favorite Grammar Rules are Probably Fake by mkr-hn on Wednesday August 19, 2015 @02:44PM (#10087568)

I didn't even know about PEPs. I have some reading to do.

[ Parent | on HN ]