Long, Confusing Rant About Grammar

I've noticed in both myself and in others the tendency to write "everyday" when I want to say "every day.” For example, I may write "I waste lots of time jerking off everyday." I do this, and I imagine that other people do this, because of its similarity to the word "someday." But the situations are actually not the same, and it doesn't make sense to analogize the words "someday" and "everyday" to each other. Part of me wants to say that it's just a natural development of our dynamic, living language, and I should accept--nay, embrace--the change. But they way that english speakers think of "someday" and "every day" is very different. In the minds of english speakers "someday" is considered one word, while "every day" is considered two words. How can I claim to know how english speakers conceptualize these words? By the way that they speak them: the cadence at which "someday" is spoken is characteristic of the cadence at which english speakers naturally speak single words (stress on the first syllable, second syllable unstressed), while "every day" is spoken at a cadence characteristic of two words (stress on the first syllable of "every", and stress on "day"). If we thought of "every day" as one word, then we would pronounce it as one word, i.e. with a stress on the first syllable of "every", and all other syllables unstressed, including "day." Furthermore, there would not be a split second pause between "every" and "day"; instead, all syllables would flow together in a seamless fashion. Hence, "everyday" is an incorrect spelling of "every day," not just a new, but still grammatically correct, innovation.

It may seem strange that I feel the need to justify my objection to "everyday," instead of just saying that it is grammatically incorrect and accepting that that statement is enough justification to hate it. But I hate it when people who pride themselves on knowing the rules of grammar say such things. I hate it when people denounce different dialects of speech, different usages of the english language just because they don't conform to what they were taught in some school somewhere. I firmly believe that the rules of language are for the most part arbitrary, and if people want to change them, then who cares? Also, I feel that as long as I understand someone, then they are by definition using the english language correctly, because the whole reason we have a language is to communicate. If clear communication occurs, then the language was used correctly. This is one reason why one sees so many typos on my blog: I feel that as long as people understand me, then my goal was accomplished, and no further work is needed. The only time typos bug me is when they produce some sort of ambiguity, or when they sound unnatural (yeah, typos like that still are quite frequent in my blog. That's more due to laziness than anything else). So this is why I feel that I have an honest criticism of the word "everyday." Even though it does not produce any actual ambiguity, when I read the word "everyday" I read it as though it were one word, when that stress pattern sounding in my mind. It makes me pause for a split-second, because it does not sound like it would in natural speech, and even though I understand what is being written almost immediately, I feel as though I shouldn't. I feel, instinctually, that something different than "every day" is being expressed, even though I know that the meanings are the same. This slight pause and discomfort breaks the flow of the narrative for me, reducing my pleasure and engagement with the experience. I suppose this same argument could be made for all typos: they are outside of what is expected, which brings the readers back to themselves and outside the world of whatever they're reading.

Sigh...perhaps I should make more of an effort to spell words and use punctuation according to the rules laid down my grammarians, not because one spelling is inherently better than another, but just because the agreed upon spelling is more comfortable for readers. We have laid down a standard of how to use the written word because it makes our lives easier. If I want the things I write to be easy to read, I should follow those standards. I just don’t want to become one of those grammar-nazis, who look down on people who don’t write and talk in the way a bunch of white, privileged prigs decided they should. It’s intellectual colonialism, intent of wiping out all traces of any culture other than the dominant one. It makes me sick, because it’s damaging, and also very small-minded. But there are good reasons for a lot of the rules that have been laid down, and, more importantly, there are good reasons for having rules to follow in the first place.

But now that I know this I can use “bad” grammar effectively to suit my needs. If I want to call attention to something I can use a structure that is considered inappropriate, so that folks will pause for a moment. For example, sentences are not supposed to be begun with the word “but” for some reason. I do this all the time, because I think it reflects natural speech just fine: people often begin new thoughts with the word “but,” thoughts that deserve whole new sentences, not just a continuation of a different sentence. If everything else I write is strictly following the rules of grammar, then this sentence should stand out to someone who has a keen eye for such things; and although they will probably end up dwelling on the error, they will also probably read the sentence over again, thus putting greater emphasis on the ideas presented there.

Another trick I could use is to make the “mistake” reflect the meaning is some way, so that the meaning and the mistake are one and the same. Valentine cards do this all the time: one will have a picture of a happy, loving little bumble bee on it, and next to the picture will be the phrase “I think you’re BEE-you-ti-ful.” The mistake is calling attention to the fact that there is a bee on the picture. What bees have to do with love and beauty is anyone’s guess, so I wouldn’t consider this an effective use of what I’m trying to illustrate. In fact, I can think of any examples of what I’m trying to illustrate, because I find such things to be tacky and annoying. But if I did it more subtly? Who knows. Maybe I’ll think of a good use for it later.

And still, with all that, I still feel very little compulsion to go back and correct the typos in this entry.