My Language Spiel

I've been resisting this for a while now, but I finally would like to blog a little spiel about my perspective on language and grammmar.

If I think edible is a ridiculously illogical word because almost every other -able or -ible word just attaches the -able or -ible to the end of the word and I prefer to keep with the simpler system and say eatable because I don't see any good reason in the world that eat should be so special as to warrant it being treated differently than the rest of the words in the English language, then it's quite unfortunate that if I say eatable I'm perceived as being less intelligent than someone who says edible even if they are merely saying what they've been taught to say and did not actually put any thoughtful consideration into their choice of words at all.

These are the conjugations of the English verb "be": am, is, are, was, were. Now, look at their respective contractions:

were + not = weren't
was + not = wasn't
are + not = aren't
is + not = isn't
am + not = ?

It's unfortunate that that question mark is there because ain't would be incredibly useful in filling that gap. Yet, if I use "ain't" I'm considered unintelligent by many who, if asked, wouldn't even be able to tell you why it's bad. It's bad because over a century ago Joe Shmoe Grammarian wrote a book and said it was and everybody believed him. (Fyi, there are certain dialects of English spoken among upper-class British in which "ain't" is a perfectly normal, acceptable word.)

I find it strange that in a country often so proudly referred to as a "melting pot" because of its rich cultural heritage, in a country obsessively enamored with diversity in ethnicity, culture, religion, art, etc., we believe that everyone should speak the same way and have very little choice in how they express themselves and that people with different accents, dialects, and grammars are somehow less intelligent.

I find it strange that in a country where relativism and pluralism have permeated our lives, we think there is only one "correct" way to speak.

When people talk about "freedom of speech," they should actually say "freedom of content of speech" because the form of our speech is certainly anything but free. It is shackled.

And perhaps most unfortunately of all, many are not aware that language is one of the last bastions of discrimination and racism in our country. It is no longer acceptable to judge anyone based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc., but it is still very much acceptable to judge someone based on their accent, dialect, grammar, etc. If you associate a southern accent with being dumb or uneducated, no one will condemn you for it. If you associate African-American dialects with ignorance, you certainly won't stir up any controversy.

For most, there's nothing wrong with the fact that the European-Americans have dictated the "right" way to speak to the other ethnic groups. Well, I'm saying that it is wrong. Simply put, people should be able to choose how they speak. I would love to say how people might react if the shoe were on the other foot. What if we woke up tomorrow and everyone had to speak African-American Vernacular, and if you didn't, you were stigmatized as, at best, uneducated, at worst, a thug or a criminal? Hmmm . . .

Again, as simply as I can put it, people should be able to choose how they speak.

~Ken, Born of Fire