Dick,

Great response to the article on traditional grammar.  All of the
traditional grammar teaching in the world cannot stop languages from
changing, nor can it force-feed prescriptive dictates upon a
non-receptive audience.  

I would suggest that, if students several generations ago were better
writers--and I think they were, it was because they _read_ a lot more.
They were better writers in spite of traditional grammar, not because of
it.  (Just for the record:  I certainly favor grammar instruction, but
NOT traditional grammar.)

John

>From: "Veit, Richard" <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: From the Washington Times
>Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:45:34 -0500
>
>I would like to know when that wonderful time was when people didn't
make
>grammatical errors, when Americans were routinely literate, when
students
>could write fluently, when no one had problems with the who/whom
>distinction or used "criteria" as a singular noun. Folk wisdom says it
was
>about a generation ago. Of course, that's what folk wisdom has always
said.
>
>A generation ago (as folk wisdom would have it) the English language
was
>just fine and people used it well. Today, however, the language is
>deteriorating, and people no longer speak or write it properly. That's
a
>common complaint in 2004, and it's easy to find other similar
complaints
>today--just as it was easy to find them in 1975, and in 1950, and in
1925,
>and in 1800 and 1600 and 1400. People seem always to have believed the
>language was on the decline and to have expressed that belief in almost
>identical terms ever since there has been an English language. Harvey
>Daniels did a nice job of presenting these complaints through the ages
in
>his 1983 book Famous Last Words: The American Language Crisis
Reconsidered.
>The evident conclusion is that such fulminations have their origin in
the
>human psyche far more than in objective reality.
>
>If our language were on a thousand year downward slope, we'd all be
>muttering gibberish by now. But just because past Jeremiahs were wrong,
>that doesn't prove that now isn't the one time in our history when our
>language really is falling apart. The odds are against this hypothesis,
>however, and before accepting it, we need to see objective evidence and
not
>the glib anecdotes that Charrow presents.
>
>Dick Veit
>UNCW English Department
>
>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface
>at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>and select "Join or leave the list"
>
>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/