We're starting to think Intern Craig needs his own alias! What should  his icon look like? Send your suggestions to word@weeklyreader.com, and help us decide. In the meantime, enjoy another of his fascinating posts. Happy summer!

It is necessary to know grammar, and it is better to write grammatically than not, but it is well to remember that grammar is common speech formulated. Usage is the only test. -- William Somerset Maugham, The Summing Up, 1938

   I don't know about you, but I'm a stickler for rules. I always use the crosswalk when crossing the street, I always wear a seatbelt while driving a car and I never talk in a movie theater. I never agreed with the mantra that rules are meant to be broken, in life or in grammar! When I write, there are certain grammatical rules that I always obey: I don't split infinitives, I don't end a sentence in a preposition and I don't use double negatives. Until recently, I didn't know why I was so comfortable blindly following the rules laid out by my elementary school teachers. For the first time in my life, I began to question grammar! How can we justify these rules? Who came up with them? What are his or her credentials? The more I thought about these questions, the more heated I became. There was probably some giant council of old dudes that arbitrarily made decisions about English grammar. And, that made me mad. I don't mind following rules, so long as I can see actual value in doing so. It makes sense to wear a seatbelt when traveling in a large metal box at speeds upwards of 60 miles/hour. I don't see the utilitarian benefit, however, in substituting well for good in the sentence, "I'm doing well." What gives? 
   With my frustration building, I began an Internet search to determine the origin of English grammar. Maybe, I thought, there will be some legitimate answers to my questions out there in cyberspace. It didn't take too long before I had my Ah ha moment! You know, the moment when you realize that your annoyance won't go unnoticed, your queries won't go unanswered? 
   The grammar that we learn in primary school is not the only kind of grammar out there! Our teachers only show us one side of the English coin. The rules that are imparted upon our young, sponge-like minds fall under the category of prescriptive grammar; this refers to the structure of a language as certain people think it should be used. But, there is another kind of grammar unnoticeably absent in my 2nd grade classroom: descriptive grammar. Descriptive grammar refers to the structure of a language as it is actually used by speakers and writers. While this term is mostly associated with linguistics, the study of language, rather than academic language arts, I find it to be a crucial element in our understanding of the English language. Somewhere out there are people who care about our natural speaking and writing tendencies! They don't care about whether or not we use who incorrectly in place of whom. Their interest lies in understanding how the English language functions and not policing our "correct" use of it.
As content as I am to have gained some insight into the descriptive/prescriptive grammar distinction, I cannot say that I am 100% ready to rid myself of my prescriptive ways! The grammar rules that we learn in school are important. But, it's nice to know that adherence to them is not absolutely mandatory. The existence of descriptive grammarians means that there are people who break prescriptive rules in their speech and writing. In certain instances, ending a sentence in a preposition sounds less forced and more appropriate. Now, I understand why some say that rules are meant to be broken; they are descriptivists fighting for their right to be heard. And, from now on, I promise to not follow any rules blindly without first asking where they come from!

Here's another great addition from intern Craig Nadler. Hope you enjoy!

   With the (unofficial) start of wedding season upon us (June-September), it's of no surprise that today marks the wedding anniversary of Irish playwright, George Bernard Shaw. Shaw wrote more than 60 plays during his lifetime (1856-1950) and on this day, June 1, in 1898, he married Charlotte Payne-Townsend. What I find most interesting about the Shaw-Payne-Townsend nuptials is that both professed distaste for matrimony! At the time, both George and Charlotte were in their early forties and their marriage was a marriage blanc, which means that it was made for economic or financial reasons. Regardless of the motivations, the two were married for forty-five years! The length of Shaw's relationship still baffles biographers to this day. 

    George Bernard Shaw was a socialist, meaning that he fought for equal economic opportunities for all people as well as the cooperative ownership of different economic systems. He wrote many brochures and speeches advocating his socialist ideals. In his writing, Shaw examined education, marriage, religion, government, heath care and class privilege; ultimately, he found them all defective! Shaw wanted to see equal political rights for men and women, fewer abuses of the working class and a universal European healthy lifestyle.

    One of Shaw's most famous plays is Pygmalion, written in 1913. Pygmalion was adopted from Greek mythology and examines complex human relationships in the social world. In the play, phonetics professor Henry Higgins tries to refine the speech and manner of a Cockney girl, Eliza Doolittle. "Cockney" refers to the Londoners living in the East End of the city. Usually, the Cockney dialect is considered to be an uncivilized form of speech. Before her lessons with Professor Higgins, Eliza's speech chock-full of certain features that characterize the cockney form: H-dropping ("Consider yourself at 'ome"), the substitution of me for my ("'At's me book you go 'ere") and the use of the double negative ("I ain't seen nothing"). 

    Shaw's play has had such an impact on the world that it has been adapted and retold in various forms throughout history! Has anyone seen the musical My Fair Lady? Or seen the movie She's All That? Both are retellings of Shaw's play! However, I don't think that these modern adaptations would receive George's seal of approval. After all, both films end with the Higgins and Eliza characters in love! And, as proven by his marriage blanc to Charlotte, Shaw was not a fan of mushy endings. It's a good thing that he stuck to writing and left the love stuff to cupid!