Comman Man (I promise, I will never make a pun that bad again)

This blog post is a response to the following article: Will We Use Commas in the Future?

I have always loved the ability of language to mold itself into what society demands of it. Although I had never before thought that there would be a possibility for language, and more specifically spoken English, to go through such a major transition as losing the comma would provide. Apparently though, there are even those who consider that English would “suffer so little loss of clarity that there could even be a case made for not using commas at all” (McWhorter).

This principle worries me. Because although I do argue that written language should in fact reflect spoken English, I would also argue that commas are in place to do just that. Matthew Malady argues in his article “Will We Use Commas in the Future?” that “we’re dropping commas more than ever because so much of our daily writing now consists of quick text messages and hastily typed emails” (Malady). And when it comes to the literal idea of dropping commas from these texts, the idea of the commas remain in place in even our most casual pieces of literature.

This is an idea that is even touched upon within the article. This occurs when,in the article, Malady includes a set of tweets that show how the comma is losing its purpose in modern-day language. Sure, at the surface the comment by Andrew Grow that “our generation uses “lol” like commas” argues that commas are losing their value in writing. Nevertheless, his comment is still enforcing the value of commas in writing. Because while commas may be disappearing in modern  texts, the concept of providing a cue to pause is not. 

Think about it. In text messages we may no longer be punctuating our sentences with commas, however we are still providing cues to the reader of said texts to take pauses in their reading. This may take the form of an lol, an emoticon, or even a new text message. Because if you think about it, sending multiple text messages or inserting an lol is giving the reader a clue to take a break, and in essence, you may as well be using a comma.

To sum up, I would argue that while in more casual forms of literature where the comma itself is disappearing, the concept lives on. And in more colloquial forms of writing where you would not want to be scattering lols throughout the paper, the comma itself continues to make itself heard.. And while, yes, it would be possible to achieve a comprehensive, colloquial piece of writing without the use of commas as with Malady’s “Will We Use Commas in the Future?”, it would be the exception to the rule. Because in the end we do not speak in a one steady stream but rather in packets of words that are separated by slight pauses or commas.

The Opinion of an Illiterate

Perhaps it is solely because I am an “ignorant and illiterate” (Garner) highschooler. However, nonetheless I must side with Robert Lane in this argument. I believe that language is a direct reflection of the era in which we are living and that it always has been. Consequentially,  I would also believe that to an extent prescriptivists are living in the past.  And while Gardner refers to his kind as “guardians of the language” (Garner) he never specifies what exactly he is guarding the language from. My guess would be that based on his attitude towards literature that he would be referring to the ignorance of people when regards to language. Moreover, if I am correct in saying that language is a reflection of the society in which it is birthed than Garner is in effect declaring that society as a whole is “disgraceful” (Garner).

This seems to be a popular opinion as of late. That all of society has somehow gone to (insert preferred expletive here).  However this opinion is itself a natural aspect of society. It is not as if these thoughts are at all new, however. In fact the people claiming that society is somehow doomed have existed virtually throughout the existence of civilized society. It is natural for there to be a haughty group of linguists in every era of society which believe that they are somehow above the times.

I suppose that for me, flow is more important than any rules of speech and will always be. Obviously basic grammar rules must always be heeded to ensure the literature is legible. However, as long as the ground-rules of modern English are followed, the flow is generally superior when using conventions popularized in society.

“When a proposed rule and actual usage conflict, the proposed rule is false, and actual usage should be our guide” (Lane). And the reason being for this, in my opinion, is that if litterature follows what is used in society then consequently society will more easily be able to follow the literature. It makes sense. After all, it is the connotation of words is always the meaning that is generally accepted in society. While the literal definition of bitch is “a female dog, wolf, fox, or otter” (Google),  nobody is going to go around a pet store asking to see the new bitches.