Are Rules Absolute?

Among linguists, the word "impact" is highly controversial. A newspaper editor once said, "Only teeth can be impacted." Yet, we often see news articles where "impact" is used as a verb to describe how different factors affect the economy. Many grammarians and usage guides argue that using "impact" as a verb is nonsensical and unacceptable.

This argument is flawed. The verb "impact" has existed in English longer than the noun. In the early seventeenth century, it meant "to press closely into something." The noun "impact" only appeared in the late eighteenth century to describe the collision of two bodies. A few decades later, it started being used metaphorically to describe effects or influences.

Strict Rules on Figurative Language

Language experts are cracking down on the symbolic use of impact. The Modern Language Association insists that "impact" can't be figurative. Similarly 2001, 81 percent of the American Heritage Dictionary's Usage Panel voted that using "impact" to mean "to have an effect" is not permissible.

There are signs that usage rules are relaxing. By 2015, only 50 percent of the American Heritage Dictionary Usage Panel disapproved of using "impact" as a verb. So, is it okay to use "impact" as a verb? The response could vary: it hinges on context. Bodies such as the Usage Panel, which ceased in 2018, wield influence in determining acceptable language use in formal, edited settings. Their judgments are subjective, shaped by the group's language preferences and ideological biases. Their votes do not establish any usage as universally correct or incorrect.

"Political Correctness" vs. Inclusivity

Some examples of "politically correct" language can seem excessive - like using "vertically challenged" instead of "short". Critics use these examples to call political correctness silly or to say it's like censorship. However, they are missing the bigger picture.

The real issue in discussions about "pc" language is whether using inclusive language is beneficial or not. Do efforts to promote respectful, inclusive terms unfairly limit free speech, as some argue? Do they empower marginalized groups and promote respect for all? Discussions on inclusive and sensitive language boil down to who holds decision-making power. Our language and adherence to linguistic norms always mirror and uphold power dynamics, whether consciously or not.

Challenge Language Stigma

Certain words are stigmatized because of their association with marginalized dialects and social classes. For example, "ain't" is often looked down upon because it's used in African American English and Southern American English. However, "ain't" is not inherently more illogical or "uneducated-sounding" than other contractions. When marginalized groups call for more inclusive language, it's not about being "overly sensitive." It's about questioning the current situation and advocating for improved representation.

The term "Latinx" was introduced in academia but isn't universally preferred among Latina and Latino communities. Surveys indicate that many prefer "Latine" instead. To promote inclusivity effectively, it's best to ask individuals or groups which term they prefer.

The goal of creating a more inclusive language landscape is important. Rather than dismissing it based on isolated cases, we should approach language change with understanding and sensitivity, both as readers and writers.

Levels of fun: Fun, funner, funnest

Some words can bother people. Take "funner" for example. Saying it might make you cringe. But why does it sound so strange? It's quite interesting. Believe it or not, some people argue that "fun" should only be a noun, like in "I'm having fun," not an adjective. They say this because for about the first hundred years, "fun" was only used as a noun or a verb, not as an adjective. It wasn't until the mid-twentieth century that "fun" started being used as an adjective. Now we can say things like, "That was a really fun party."

"Fun" is widely accepted today as an adjective, but its comparative forms "funner" and "funnest" still surprise many. This is because "fun" is relatively new as an adjective. When used as a noun, we say "more fun" and "the most fun," which we are more familiar with. So, "funner" and "funniest" can sound strange. However, this could change soon, making "funner" and "funnest" the norm.

The Evolution of "Unique"

Is "more unique" a contradiction? Traditionally, something unique is one-of-a-kind, suggesting it can't be compared. However, over time, the meaning of "unique" has expanded. It now also refers to things that are uncommon or remarkable, alongside its original definition. This shift allows for phrases like "more unique" and "most unique" to be used, even though they might seem contradictory at first glance.

In formal writing, it's often advised to avoid phrases like "quite unique," but it's important not to dismiss these changes outright. Language constantly evolves. For instance, "nice" once meant "silly," and "lollygag" once meant "kissing" - and these shifts are widely accepted. They demonstrate how language can adapt and remain flexible.

To whom was the secret told?

An English professor faces a dilemma: should she use "who" or "whom" in her emails? "Whom" sounds too formal, while "who" can make people question her grammar knowledge. So, should she say "I wasn't sure to whom to send this message" or "I wasn't sure who to send this message to?" The rule is simple: use "who" when asking about the subject, like "Who invited you to the party?" And use "whom" when referring to the object, such as "Whom did you tell the secret to?" It helps to clarify who is doing the action and who is receiving it.

In today's English, the distinction between "who" and "whom" is becoming less strict. "Whom" often doesn't sound natural in everyday conversation. For instance, "Who did you tell?" sounds more like how we speak, even though "Whom did you tell?" is considered correct in formal writing.

Issue with "Whom" in Modern English

Modern English relies heavily on word order to determine subjects and objects in sentences. In questions, question words like "who," "why," and "how" always start the sentence. For instance, "Whom did you tell?" appears confusing because "whom," which is the object, seems like the subject. This can confuse our brains.

Despite its long history, "whom" faces an uncertain future. Confusion over "who" versus "whom" dates back centuries, yet more people now opt for "who" across the board. If you're a stickler for grammar, choosing "who" in emails is wise to avoid sounding overly particular or out of sync.

"This book is dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand, and God"

If you've been on the internet, you've probably heard about the Oxford comma debate. It's that comma before the "and" in lists, like "eggs, milk, and cheese." The Oxford comma is crucial because it clears up confusing lists. Take this example: "This book is dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand and God." Without the Oxford comma, it seems like the writer's parents are Ayn Rand and God!

In the United States, the use of the Oxford comma remains a contentious issue among people. Research indicates a clear divide on its necessity. According to many editors, the choice itself isn't critical; what truly matters is sticking to one style consistently. But is this consistency as crucial as they claim? To find out, let's briefly explore the broader history of punctuation.

Evolution of Punctuation: From Chaos to Rules

In ancient Rome and throughout the Middle Ages, manuscripts often lacked punctuation entirely. When punctuation did appear, it mainly served as a guide for reading aloud. The advent of the printing press in fifteenth-century England marked a shift toward more standardized written English, including punctuation. Though it took time to settle, by the eighteenth century, grammarians began establishing stricter rules for punctuation usage. Now, we're left with all those tricky guidelines on where to place commas.

Considering how arbitrary these "rules" are, why not rethink how we use commas, including the Oxford comma? What if we used it when it's helpful and skipped it when it's not? What if we applied this flexible approach to all commas? Maybe unconventional punctuation could be emphasized differently or enhance the flow of writing. It's important to remember that writing conventions aren't absolute truths; they're choices made by editors and language experts. As English evolves, we might benefit from being more creative with punctuation.

Writing flows smoothly

"Flow" in writing is often praised as a sign of good writing. But what does it mean for writing to "flow" - or to be "choppy"? A choppy piece of writing lacks clear connections between sentences. This confusion can jar readers, as their expectations about where the writing is going aren't met. To grasp this issue fully, let's delve into the concept of the "known-new contract." This idea means that sentences should start with familiar information and smoothly lead to new points. Writers use this principle to help readers follow their ideas seamlessly.

A recent study by Mueller and Oppenheimer reveals that people recall lectures better when they write notes by hand instead of typing them. Today's adolescents often struggle with short attention spans, prompting a need for our educational system to adapt to new technologies. Could this be the right time to reintroduce the pencil?

Improve Text Coherence

The passage shifts abruptly between topics, with each sentence introducing a new idea without returning to the initial topic of handwritten notes until the fourth sentence. This makes it challenging for readers to follow how these ideas connect.

A recent study by Mueller and Oppenheimer reveals that people retain information from lectures more effectively when they take notes by hand rather than on a computer. Surprisingly, simply knowing about the downsides of typing notes doesn't enhance their quality. Even when students are cautioned beforehand, it doesn't change the outcome for those who choose laptops for note-taking. To simplify, remember that expressing complex ideas doesn't need to be complicated. Following basic guidelines, like the "known-new contract," helps us create sentences that are clear and easy to understand, even while maintaining deep meaning.

We started with conjunctions

Starting sentences with words like "and" or "but" is a common rule taught to many. However, this rule is not as strict as it seems. Back in the 1920s, grammar expert H. W. Fowler dismissed the belief that beginning a sentence with "and" is a superstition that persists today.

English teachers historically promoted a more formal writing style to steer students from using too many simple sentences with "and," resembling their spoken language. This preference for formality is a recent change in English. In Old English, written texts mirrored speech more closely, with fewer rules on sentence beginnings.

Accept Sentence Variety

Today, programs like Microsoft Word often mark sentences starting with "and" and "but" as errors. However, it's common to find such sentences in both formal and informal writing. You can see them in academic papers, literature, and even in the Bible. Using a variety of sentence structures, including those beginning with "and" or "but," can enhance writing's engagement and effectiveness.

In spoken language, the word "so" acts as a signal in conversations. It's a kind of word that shows what the speaker means instead of the actual words. It can show what the speaker wants to say or help with how the conversation goes. For example, "So" can show the speaker is excited to share. Like this: "So, when I drove to work this morning..." Think twice before criticizing someone for starting a sentence with "so," "and," or "but." Experienced speakers and writers often bend these "rules" to create the right tone and flow.