"i" Before "e" Except After "c"

Everyone remembers the "i" before "e" except after "c" rule. Except, is it always true? No, what about words like science or society? What about prescient or conscience? In grade school we are taught concrete rules that stick in our minds without learning the loop holes. Like Robert Klose said in "A Rarity: Grammar Lessons from Dad", blame must be put on someone and he simply places in on the schools. I believe he has a valid point, especially when he states that the younger teachers do not focus on the so called loop holes of grammar because they were not exposed to them either.

Grammar is misused millions or even billions of times each day. Some people consciously say "ain't" even when they know the proper way to put that thought into words is by using "isn't" or "aren't". People say "if I was you..." when the grammatically correct way to put that is "if I were you..."

Some of us were never taught the correct rules of grammar and some of us just never chose to accept them. And of course, some just slip up every now and then and say something incorrectly. Ignoring the correct grammar is the problem. Just like Klose illustrates in his essay, learning simple grammatical rules can be fun and easy if it is taught the right way. In a matter of seconds his son learned a grammatical concept and put it into practice immediately.

Accepting and learning grammar is not only about the intake of the knowledge but also about the output of that knowledge. How is the information presented? Does it seem interesting? It is very easy for someone to shut out something that is completely boring and uninteresting.

Though I have jumped around a lot in this post, my point remains: If grammar is being misused, there is generally a reason behind it. That reason may be one of many but there will be a reason. Whether it is basic ignorance or lack of opportunity to learn, correct grammar can be easily looked over.

Organized Disorder

"How big is the English language?" Bill Bryson asks.
No one knows. Even if someone devoted years and years to the study of how many words exist, they could not find the answer because new words are created every single day. Maybe for one moment, one brief moment, someone could know, but soon after a word or group of words would evolve into something else.

Of course people have attempted to estimate the number of words that subsist and to define each of them. Over the years, dictionaries and their authors have searched and researched every word possible. In the very first paragraph of "Order Out of Chaos" by Bill Bryson, he lists the different numbers of words in four different dictionaries. They all differ greatly in count. Are words like "whoa" and "cutie" actually defined as words? I mean, they are a part of many people's vocabulary, but are they correct depictions of words according to Webster or Random House?

There are also words that people know exist and do exist in the dictionary but people never use. Bryson makes an example of the words "inflationist", "forbiddance", "moosewood", and "pulsative". I agree with this because, yes, I know these words exist but I don't think I have ever used them and I probably will not anytime soon.

We have taken this chaotic pile of letters, sounds, and syllables and created some sort of organized system out of it. Does every single person have the same system? No, I don't think so. That doesn't mean many people won't have similar systems but no ones will be identical. Everyone has their own twist on dialect and jargon, but that is what makes someone individual and different. That is what keeps us from becoming robots and being exactly the same as everyone else.

Are You There?

I found the article about linguistic profiling very interesting. Unfortunately, I feel as if it does exist. If I were a businesswoman, and I was attempting to sell a piece of property or give a job interview over the phone, I would expect to hear clear and concise sentences. Many African Americans or Mexican Americans may speak with a different accent and use fragments and informal language. There is nothing wrong with that because just like we discussed in class: grammatically speaking, what they are saying is correct.

Those African Americans or Mexican Americans speak the way they do because of how and where they were born and raised. Many do not know any different. It is usually not that they are ignorant or uneducated, but that they were taught that their way of speaking was the right way. Is there really a "right" way to speak? Or has the white upper class really decided what the "right" way to speak is because usually they hold the most power?

In a previous blog, I referred to the Africana Studies class I am taking. We are actually studying something quite similar to this phenomenon. In the 1920s, the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) was formed by W.E.B. Du Bois, who was a black man. A few years later it was taken over by whites. The white men had forced themselves into positions of higher power in this organization. Consequently, the NAACP was more successful and was well run. Was it because the white men were smarter? Were they persuasive? Well, what my professor suggested is that people who were considering becoming supporters of the NAACP took it more serious when they saw a group of white men and only a few black men as the leaders. Even my own African American teacher said that he himself would take the NAACP more seriously if he saw more white men than black men running the show. Unfortunately, the stereotype that whites are greater and will always be greater than blacks is enforced in this case.

In that same way, when a white person calls to purchase property or interview for a job, they may be considered more seriously for what they are applying for than a black person may be solely due to the way they speak.