Labyrinth post=18.72733.771341 said:
A few of the many..
"Spelling and grammar aren't important!"
Actually, a lot of grammar rules have no real reason to be besides some self-made authority suggested it should be true, usually because that's how it worked in Latin. Hell, the first English grammar books were written in Latin because it would be unthinkable to stoop to English. For example: no split infinitives (that is, putting an adverb in between 'to' and the verb it's being attached to to make an infinitive - "to quickly run"). This 'rule' came about because a grammar book that became influential merely suggested that not splitting infinitives was better, because in Latin such a thing was inconceivable. Just to show how ridiculous the split infinitive is, consider that no one complains about the split nominative of "the good man" - splitting the definite article "the" and the nominative "man" with an adjective. English grammar is so maddeningly complex and impenetrable to outsiders - and insiders - mostly because of self-appointed authorities rigidly following the decrees of previous self-appointed authorities who rigidly followed the rules of earlier self-appointed authorities who thought English grammar should be more like Latin.
Another example of English craziness: "Why were you ["you" the singular in this example] running down the road?" This is entirely grammatical and also entirely illogical. "Were" is the plural past tense but here it's being used as the singular past tense. A few centuries ago logic and grammar were one in this case - "Why was you running down the road?" - but today anyone who chose consistency over custom would be frowned upon simply because that's not the way things are done. Funnily enough, this particular quirk was also instituted because a self-appointed grammar authority decided English looked nicer with another irrational and unnecessary rule.
Spelling has its own set of problems. For instance, it no longer accurately represents the sounds it
should represent. How the hell did "shood" become "should" and why is "ould" suddenly "old" in "boulder"? This specific issue is because pronunciation has changed since English was first set into writing but spelling, for various reasons, hasn't. "Flood" was once pronounced literally "floood", not "flud", and "knight" was originally pronounced "kuh-ni-guh-t". As for whether proper spelling is important, Shakespeare couldn't even keep his last name straight - once he spelled it five different ways in one document. While standardised spelling is nice, the early tradition of English shows it's not actually necessary.
While we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water, there's something to be said for choosing common sense over rigid (and silly) laws.
Edit: Let's also not forget that if it weren't for some pragmatists applying the -s rule of plurals to "eye" and "cow" - where the 'correct' plural was totally originally irregular - we'd talk about a pair of "eyn" and a group of "kine".
