Digging At The Roots of Grammar
George Corneliussen
BTW, LOL, 24/7, correct grammar or popular usage? When did grammar begin to morph into the self-defined format it occupies in today's world of citizen journalism ?
Archaeologists often determine when something started by determining when what preceded it ended. When did traditional grammar begin to end? Nothing gets an archaeologist's blood percolating more than a good clue from the distant past.Recently, I came across a clue that points toward a point in time when the traditonal grammar had not yet begun to fade.
Return with me to the year 1979(also known as the end of the Polyester Age)and a periodical called Time Magazine ( March 26,1979 Vol. 113 No. 13 ). On page 80,there is an article titled, " Grammarphone, Dial U for Usage". The article opens with this paragraph:
" Should you write "in the 1960s" or " in the 1960's " ? Is it "a U.S. Representative" or " an U.S. Representative " ? Where does the apostrophe go in " the Smiths' ( or Smith's ) car ? Fifteen times a day, on the average, telephone callers put these questions to an Emporia State University English instructor with the appropriate name of Faye Vowell."
In 1979, not only did Emporia State University offer free grammar guidance in the form of a writer's hotline, but so did the University Of Arkansas,the Johnson County Community College near Kansas City.
In the Time article, English Instructor Michael Montgomery from the University of Arkansas says:" We get several calls a week from California alone".
The article goes on to say, " The most common questions concern the correct use of who vs. whom and which vs. that. The most frequent callers are secretaries struggling with their bosses' dictation. But college faculty members and local magazine editors have also rung up the helpfully unsilent Vowell and her colleagues."
At the time this article was written, these hotlines had been in use for two years. The article also says something interesting toward the end of it:
" Since it is easier to phone somebody than to look something up, the hot lines may prove more of a debilitating crutch than a boon to education".
So,twenty-seven years ago, proper traditional grammar was mainstream enough that three colleges provided free grammar hotlines manned by living, breathing, education professionals,a service that was available to anyone who needed it, not just students.
For kicks, I ran an Infobel check on the 1979 phone number given for the Little Rock hotline, but it came up as a dead number. I Googled "Faye Vowell" and " Emporia State University" and, wouldn't you know,it seems she's still there.
In our quest to find a dividing line between tradtional grammar and the "grammar to go" that populates the Internet today,we can safely say that the line was not crossed in 1979. Looks like it's an 80's thing.Or is that 80s thing ? Or 80sthing ? Or Ate-E's-Ting ? Or 8E's Tng ?
* Just for kicks, the answer to the grammar questions posed in the opening of the Time article are: 1. Either 1960s or 1960's is correct 2. "a Representative" 3. "Smiths' car." ( these are the 1979 answers)
Faye Vowell And Friends
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 52
I'm particularly taken with the image you posted. Miss Vowell and the Mummy both have their hands full.
I would say the 80's thing, or the 80's were the last gasp. Email and chat became the thing in the 90's. That seemed to be the end of grammar and spelling.
Interesting, fun and thoughtful George.
Thanks. It strikes me that at the same time we claim to be more inclusive than ever, our grammar usage seems to more elite than ever.
Years ago, an English teacher I had told me that poor grammar was a sign of disrespect for the reader. Her reasoning was that a writer should not expect the reader to guess what the writer means. In other words, the writer works for the reader; the reader does not work for the writer.
Your example of no periods after mr. or mrs., to me, is an example of forcing the reader to adapt their point of view in order to participate. This has to alienate some readers.
Change is usually a good thing, but there has to be a reason for that change in order for it to be good. Casual grammar, in itself, is not a bad thing. It can help express ideas quite well. But, if the casual grammar is intended to build a wall around the writer that only a chosen few can penetrate, that is not a good thing. That creates enemies over time.
In reality, there ain't no rules; there are only guidelines.
Ah, the 90's, nostalgia for the not too distant future. I argee with you that the "letters for words" program kicked in during the " I ain't got time to think, I'm too busy making money" heyday of the 90s.
I loved this and and I think as long as the Smiths collectively own the car nothing has changed since 1979.
Sandy, the no period after Mr Mrs etc was already acceptable here before I left highschool. (coincidentally this was 1979) The theory posited at the time was that if the abbreviation ended with the same letter as the full word no period was required. It still looks weird to me though.
Thanks.
"Grammar has a tradition"
Now there's an interesting topic for discussion. What is the basis for grammar's traditon ?
Too me, a common use of grammar simply makes understanding each other all the more simple. Noting that understanding does not mean;" to agree with".
Newspapers and magazines do not use the serial comma (the comma at the end of the last item in a series is left off) - for example, red, blue and green dogs); whereas, the Chicago style book uses the serial comma (red, blue, and green dogs)...
Ditto what George said if there are grammatical mistakes in my comment this morning. I've not even had ANY coffee, yet.
To comma or not to comma, that is the question. More coffee is the answer.
(see, while you guys are still drinking coffee, i'm coming close to midnight with far too many wines.. so now you know..)
Thanks ! I will check it out.
PS: Have you quit your wining yet ?
A good book on the topic is "The Elephants of Style" by Bill Walsh.
Feel adventurous ? Try this:
vowellf@email.wnmu.edu
No Starbucks defense ?
"The Elephants of Style" the title alone warrants a look.
I very much enjoyed your article and congratulations for catching language change in action. I think few of us are really aware, at least when we are young, of how fast language does change. The book "The Unfolding of Language" by Guy Deutscher really opened my eyes to the bigger picture, not just that language changes but why--because we are always looking for economy and freshness of expression. Four hundred years ago the modern progressive tense, going and coming, etc. did not exist. The verb " to like' meant "to please" as it still means in Spanish. And most importantly, since modern spelling has been largely locked into place since 1611 when the King James Bible was released, English has become very difficult to spell simply because pronunciation has drifted into new forms that no longer match the spelling. You made me remember these and more ideas and I appreciate the reminder. Languages will always flow and there is no way to stop that process; we can only slow it down a bit from time to time.
Great comment.
" Languages will always flow and there is no way to stop that process; we can only slow it down a bit from time to time."
As long as we understand each other, "it's all good".
I emailed Faye Vowell, who is featured in the 1979 Time magazine article this post is based on. The following is her reply:
Thanks, George. I enjoyed this blast from the past. I am in NM now at Western New Mexico University and have shared this with my colleagues in the English discipline.
Faye Vowell
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
Western New Mexico University
vowellf@wnmu.edu
Pretty Cool, Huh ?
It's a small after all, It's a small world after all.
Simple, I've had this magazine since it was new. It's really nice having your own archives.
I think saying PC for computer is fine, saying or using "puter" is like stamping ones forehead with "dumb/lazy/wanna be"
It is a good idea to understand slang words and terms, just don't use them unless writing dialog that warrants the use.
I have had many arguments about using words according to their dictionary definitions, not some personal idea of what a word means.
I could easily slip into the role of the old, witchy grammarian linguist.
Now I will shut up and go back to my own sloppy, and error filled communicating style and habits.
I believe language is no different than seasoning in food. The right amount enhances the flavor, too much destroys the flavor. As long as people use words as seasoning and their goal is the best taste possible all words have their place.
A sentence like, " I wonder if Abraham Lincoln commemorated his election to the office of President by giving the little lady some bling." adds flavor without abandoning basic language.
Excellent article.
You've written a good, informative article. I personally love words, all of them, in all their dumbness or glory.
No offense, there's plenty of room in the kitchen for everybody.
Yeah, all the world's a potential article.
Each to his own. To each his own.
"words"- the ultimate mind game.
I feel that as long the writer doesn't lose the ability to communicate their ideas to all readers, the format they use can be very flexible.
The problem I have with many Internet-based uses of grammar is that in the process of shorting the words, sometimes the message and emotion gets lost.
Why have these so called professionals fallen down? It really irks me to hear the TV news anchor mention "kids" are home from school. Did he mean young goats are now attending school or did he mean "children"? I realize that kid has become synonymous with child in the last 20 years but in my mind it is still slang.
I was always taught that proper usage is something to aspire to, and professionals were good examples to follow. This is just one more reason to turn off the idiot box.
Is it education that is failing? Or each generations desire to leave their fingerprints on the language?
I believe that anything is acceptable in dialogue. The writer knows what his characters said. However, I'm convinced that the rules of punctuation and grammar we lived by in the 60s and 80s are still best today. While some changes may be acceptable to many, they can distract other reader's attention from the story.
Agreed, it's all about balance.
" Why have these so called professionals fallen down?"
Part of the answer is because when push comes to shove in the world of commecial journalism, publications automatically pander to the latest trend.
This has been happening for so long that the foundation of good journalism/grammar has been partially buried.
Thanks. The response to this article has been a pleasant surprise.
The world needs "grammar nerds";keep at it !
As long as there's method to the madness, all will be well. It's the insanity as a form of entertainment I worry about.