"This is the problem I have with most grammar mavens, that while I've spent a goodly part of my academic and post-academic life reading about languages and linguistics, they cannot be bothered with learning a bit more about language and linguistics, than what is presented in their old-fashioned and out-dated manuals of usage. That's all I'm saying. "
Then I think we agree. I've said similar things in the past, but not this exact point. I don't think I know enough about grammar to correct mavens. But I do understand well - and have believed for a long time - that sometimes gratuitously following rules can lead to ineffective communication. On the one hand, making a case for using imperfect grammar can sound like sour grapes coming from someone like myself who is not an expert in the subject. On the other hand, one has to make some effort to communicate effectively in some circumstances - and it has to go beyond the rules. Even if one were intimately acquainted with all of the rules, one couldn't assume that the person at the other end of the ether is equally familiar.
Some time ago I wrote a post about an acquaintance of mine who fancied himself an editor. One of his pasttimes was editing famous works of authors. He could take any piece of beautiful and perfectly understandable prose and turn it into a list of words that conveyed no more meaning than a list of physical properties would convey about one's perceptions of a rose. You know that scene in "The Joy Luck Club" where the boyfriend puts a bunch of soy sauce on the mother's best dish and thinks he's fixed it? That's how we felt as we read his edits. The first time I told this story I left out a detail - his additional commentaries were very enlightening and worth reading. It's strictly his edits that I had made us squirm.
