LETTER TO THE EDITOR – Yale Professor, Hank Conlan.
In all honesty, it is preposterous that such an 'intellectual' like you can hold such a half-witted and ludicrous belief, as your entry articulates a very passé way of thinking. And, although you state that you have heard multiple comments that other professors at Yale have turned left towards this topic, the naked truth is that liberals have proven much more beneficial to society than conservatives! The justification of this lies in a popular example of George W. Bush (Christian) who followed the Bible, and therefore its 10 Commandments as well; whilst, in one its statements it said that "thou shalt not kill", which was ironic seeing as how Bush had started two wars. Can we not derive from this that most right-wing men and women are hypocrites in some fashion? Knowing this, it is easy to believe that the descriptivists point-of-view is the proper route when commenting on the multiple branches of standard English.
Furthermore, as you stated that "syntax and grammar rules [are] so that people can communicate clearly and effectively", which in many prospects is true, writing that the individuals who speak today's modern lingo are "uneducated" is surely not a bona fide statement, as, using the U.S as an example, their variations of sociodialects creates diversity within the country (something needed to be celebrated). Language is defined by what people do with it, Mr. Conlan! And, as you write that "any interpretation of history is correct" when comparing it to varying dialects, you unintentionally contradicted yourself in your absurdity. How? It is due to the fact that history is almost seldom truly confirmed as factual, as it is mostly just one person's judgment that many have chosen to follow. After all, where do you think conspiracy theories came from?
It is worth mentioning that, an article such as this can, in fact, deeply offend those who do have different manners of communicating as it will most likely dwindle their own self-esteem as stereotypes such as this link to others in the world (i.e. racism, sexism). If I had shown this article to an American friend of mine, they would surely feel offended and frankly flabbergasted that this backwards reflection on the 'bending' of English is still thought of in the present-day.
Quite frankly, the only thing that belongs in the Land of Oz is your mind, as you have clearly not caught up with our society where uniqueness in speech and in writing is positively acclaimed for its fascinating results of illustrating the evolution of language itself.
Furthermore, as you stated that "syntax and grammar rules [are] so that people can communicate clearly and effectively", which in many prospects is true, writing that the individuals who speak today's modern lingo are "uneducated" is surely not a bona fide statement, as, using the U.S as an example, their variations of sociodialects creates diversity within the country (something needed to be celebrated). Language is defined by what people do with it, Mr. Conlan! And, as you write that "any interpretation of history is correct" when comparing it to varying dialects, you unintentionally contradicted yourself in your absurdity. How? It is due to the fact that history is almost seldom truly confirmed as factual, as it is mostly just one person's judgment that many have chosen to follow. After all, where do you think conspiracy theories came from?
It is worth mentioning that, an article such as this can, in fact, deeply offend those who do have different manners of communicating as it will most likely dwindle their own self-esteem as stereotypes such as this link to others in the world (i.e. racism, sexism). If I had shown this article to an American friend of mine, they would surely feel offended and frankly flabbergasted that this backwards reflection on the 'bending' of English is still thought of in the present-day.
Quite frankly, the only thing that belongs in the Land of Oz is your mind, as you have clearly not caught up with our society where uniqueness in speech and in writing is positively acclaimed for its fascinating results of illustrating the evolution of language itself.
Comments
Post a Comment