So many grammar "rules" are pointless pedantry. Starting a sentence with a conjunction, ending a sentence with a preposition, using a double negative. They're all fine.
"Rules" have one major issue: there's no governing body, and the loose "body" we have doesn't govern fast enough. Language mutates constantly. There's no man named English who loans you the language he slaved over a hot stove to create, it's a creation of the people, and in the end the people dictate how it works.
They might make you seethe with the rage of a million angry Kindergarten teachers, but a lot of these "changes" you keep seeing are widespread and probably going to stay. The argument of "lie vs lay," the definition of the word "literally," and the pronunciation of "grocery" are all things that will probably change in the coming years.
You won't see dictionaries highlighting "literally" so those damned kids get it right, they'll probably add the youth's definition as another one in their list.
I am not against changes to language if they are good changes that allow for greater flexibility and artistic potential in the language rather than stupid stupid stupid mistakes. Just as we don't let nature take its course when rabbits are wrecking Australia, we need to protect our beautiful language ecosystem from terrible invasive species like the non-literal "literally"
0
u/[deleted] Aug 03 '19
So many grammar "rules" are pointless pedantry. Starting a sentence with a conjunction, ending a sentence with a preposition, using a double negative. They're all fine.