Johanna Rubba <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

 

Brad and other "correctionists" worry about "bad grammar," but
we 
need to keep in mind that language changes, and tense/aspect
systems 
change. It is very hard to stop linguistic change. Some changes
may 
lessen the communicative effectiveness of the language, but
context 
usually resolves this. We have to remember that human
communities 
have invented their languages and will not allow them to decline
to 
the point of nonfunctionality -- communication is too vital to
human 
society. As I always insist, language is a reflection of
thinking; if 
language degenerates, it is because thinking degenerates. A
society 
will have a language that satisfies its needs and desires, and 
reflects its thinking habits.

People sometimes claim that grammar improves thinking, but I
think 
this is not so much because grammar introduces "better" thought
 
patterns, but because, as a pursuit, it cultivates analytical
habits 
of mind, and that is what improves thinking. Also, like other 
analytical pursuits, it reveals to the student the complexities
of 
world phenomena that we take for granted, thus enriching the 
student's knowledge base and encouraging analytical thinking
about 
other topics. Those of my students who don't mind linguistics
often 
make remarks reflecting the latter effect.

Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D.
Associate Professor, Linguistics
Linguistics Minor Advisor
English Dept.
Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407