On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:13:48 +0100, Adrian Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Often, one can correctly determine the meaning when the grammar is >inaccurate. But sometimes one cannot, and on some of those occasions >the resulting misunderstanding can cause serious problems. So >(unintended) inaccuracy is never a good idea. If one gets in the >habit of not bothering to be accurate, one will more likely be >inaccurate when it is important to be accurate. "Grammar" is not prescriptive but descriptive: it is a description of the way people actually use language rather than a set of rules. (I realise that you won't accept that view, so there's not a lot of point in discussing it.) Incidents where what you think of as grammatical "accuracy" are important are so rare as to be worthy of remark. I found one when reviewing a batch of writings by learned academics recently and it made me very happy, but most people don't need to know that sort of stuff. As for "more likely [to] be inaccurate when it is important to be accurate", most people are perfectly capable of being bilingual: of adjusting the formality of their writing to suit the context. Usenet is an informal medium; most of those posting here are native speakers of one or other of the main dialects of English; misunderstandings are extremely rare. bjg
