Jeff's words here bring into sharp focus the differences between the
linguists' take on grammar and, shall we say, a more traditional take:

[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> ... the "elegance and style" inherent in such elements as the
> subjunctive ... that orderliness emerges from using the appropriate case
> for pronouns ...
>
> Keep teaching the subjunctive.  Keep reminding students that "their" is
> better used as a plural.

"Elegance and style" are in the eye of the beholder. Plenty of languages
in the world manage to be elegant and stylish, and orderly, without
having a subjunctive form of verbs or case in any form at all. It is
quite  denigrating to say that a language will lack elegance if it
doesn't have the subjunctive or mark pronouns for case. Is English less
elegant than Russian because Russian marks not only pronouns, but also
nouns for case? Is Russian more orderly than English? English is
changing from a language that had subjunctive forms and varied case
forms to one that doesn't have either. Like it or not. Trying to
preserve these forms through grammar teaching has very poor chances of succeeding.

As to 'their' being 'better used as a plural', the general public thinks
differently. It realizes the need for a non-sexist third-person pronoun,
and has returned to the age-old English solution, accepted until Latin
grammar became the model for English, of using 'they' as a singular.
Nobody objects to singular 'you' and 'your'! Why not? 'You' and 'your'
are just as grammatically plural as 'they' and 'their'. They don't
object because this singular use of a plural pronoun was accepted by the
earliest grammar authorities, and because it has remained a part of the
grammar of prestigious English.

What I find objectionable about attaching elegance and style to the
presence of a particular construction or principle in someone's grammar
is that it revives the old idea that teaching 'correct' grammar will
clean up a person's thought processes -- make their thinking more
orderly. I do believe that teaching grammar helps train a person in
analytical thinking, as will training in any kind of detailed analysis,
but connections between the lack of a certain construction and the lack
of certain thinking abilities have long been proven spurious. I consider
it quite dangerous to perpetuate this idea; it has long been used as a
justification for prejudice against the language of the lower classes.
Suggesting that students' thought processes are disorderly because they
don't know the rules for 'whom' is, I believe, insulting. It's also
unrealistic to assume that learning the rules for 'whom' will improve
disorderly thought processes. Disorderly thought is not a linguistic problem.

Many aspects of the current changes underway in English grate on me,
such as loss of the past perfect; I feel the need to correct a simple
past when used to mean past perfect, and to replace a 'would'
construction with a subjunctive. But that's an emotional reaction, not a
rational one. Rationally, I know that the past perfect and subjunctive
are on their way out, and that the language will manage perfectly well
without them.

There's a saying that, in a democracy, people get the government they
deserve. Well, a culture gets the language it 'deserves' -- if a culture
needs to express sophisticated meanings, it will develop its language to
do so without the help of grammar teachers. If a culture doesn't care
for detail, the language for expressing detail will fall by the wayside.
We may lament the poor quality of communication in our culture, but
don't blame it on loss of grammatical constructions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba   Assistant Professor, Linguistics
English Department, California Polytechnic State University
One Grand Avenue  • San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Tel. (805)-756-2184  •  Fax: (805)-756-6374 • Dept. Phone.  756-259
• E-mail: [log in to unmask] •  Home page: http://www.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
                                       **
"Understanding is a lot like sex; it's got a practical purpose,
but that's not why people do it normally"  -            Frank  Oppenheimer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~