On the Subject of Grammar

I intend to be unreasonable. Utterly, irrefutably and unapologetically unreasonable. Because, really, the only way to deal with the threat being posed to the sanctity of language is to meet it head-on.

As far as it goes, preserving the sanctity of language need not refer to the kind of obscure pedantic quibbling that would only interest Henry Fowler and Samuel Johnson. One can pass over conjunctions that begin sentences and prepositions that cavort at their ends (and pronouns which fill in for Mephistopheles), and if one's will is firm enough one can do so without wailing and gnashing of teeth. 

However, when a chap intends to say that he stood his old school friend dinner, and says instead that he indulged in cannibalism - which, in addition to being an uncouth practice that is frowned upon in civilized society, is a criminal offence that would draw the stiffest of punishments anywhere in the world - one begins to have strong doubts about the future of the human race.

The worst of it, really, is that people do not care. Tell them that "lesser books" are books whose quality is being called into question, point out that "high time" is either the time just before tempers are lost or time as measured by a giraffe on stilts, and they will look at you as though wondering how you managed to evade the mental-health authorities all this while. What is worse, they will then say, in the tone one uses to calm a hyperactive toddler, "It is all right. Really. How does it matter?"

Partly to blame, of course, is the proliferation of the Internet. I do not deny that it is a useful tool, but I can also not deny that some time ago I saw a website alleging - in cold blood; not referring to it as only one of the many legends surrounding the animal and assuredly not joking - that Bucephalas was a unicorn.

They had proof and everything.

If I had a rupee - and not a bright shiny one-rupee coin but a cheap forgery made of glued-together paper and silver paint - for every time someone has shown me a website maintained by "Cool Guy 01" or "JKSP in College" and used it to back their claim that "red" is a noun or the past tense of "beat" is "beated", I could put all the money  in the bank and live comfortably on the interest for the rest of my life.

You can excuse people for not knowing the difference between "your" and "you're" (by blaming it partly on SMS for encouraging them to write "ur" either way and partly on their primary school English teachers for failing signally in their duty to the next generation), but it is difficult to condone their stubbornly continuing not to know, and for no reason other than sheer perverseness. 

For some reason, people seem to think that not knowing science or mathematics is worse than not knowing grammar. This has always puzzled me; it seems incredible that being unable to state Boyle's Law would be frowned upon by a society that routinely permits supermarkets to get away with "5 Items Or Less".

Don't get me wrong. I'd be the last one to oppose the pursuit of knowledge in any form, and if a chap wants to know what colour the inside of an electron is then good luck to him. My only objection is to people using a desire to be engineers or scientists as an excuse not to learn good grammar, as though knowing where to put an apostrophe would somehow debar you from joining the Mathematics Club.

If only one could ask for donations of money and time to the Appropriate Apostrophe Society or the Proper Preposition League without subsequently being forced into expensive and unnecessary sessions with a qualified therapist.