Enough of this Ridiculousness

Greene is a self-proclaimed "descriptivist" - someone who describes language as it is used, while Garner is apparently a "prescriptivist" - someone who focuses on how language should be used. Greene claims that Garner would call him a "permissivist" - someone who is very lenient toward or indulgent of a wide variety of social behavior.

The debate is interesting to read, yet at times a bit difficult to follow. I don't know the difference between restrictive and non-restrictive clauses and had no idea that you weren't supposed to use "which" for one of them or "that" for the other. The intricate grammar details in the debate were completely lost on me. However, I did manage follow the two different sides and then come to the conclusion that they really aren't very different at all. Both Greene and Garner are moderates of their respective labels, so really only slight technicalities differentiate the two. Basically, very basically, Greene believes that the language that is used is correct and will overpower any set rules while Garner believes that even native speakers can commit errors in language and that we must have rules to guide these. Its a close one, but I'm going to have to side with Garner.

I think its ridiculous that the "that" vs "which" debate is a very legitimate thing and many important writers have thoughts on it, because honestly no one cares. Details as small as that one are not noticed by the general public, and even then usually forgotten by the people who made them up in the first place. And most of those really old rules from when they were writing the bible definitely should not continue to apply - times have changed. However, other than the old and ridiculous ones, rules in language should exist. They may be regional, I'm not saying that people speaking English in India have to abide by exactly the same rules as people speaking English in Canada, but in general guidelines must exist. Its like the Pirate Code from Pirates of the Caribbean, "they're more like guidelines anyway." People can't just talk any old way they please and claim to be correct because they are native speakers. I'm a native speaker and I often make mistakes in grammar as well as say "yall" on a daily basis. Yet I know when I commit errors in grammar (or sentence structure or whatever it may be) because of the guidelines set in my head regarding my language. It doesn't mean to say that people without these guidelines are illiterate or dumb, just that they haven't had the proper education, but without the basic grammar rules they are still incorrect.

If people just spoke any old way they wanted to, no one would understand each other. If we spelled any old way we wanted to, it would be impossible to understand the difference between "know" and "no" or "there", "their", and "they're". The point of language is that it is common, that it allows communication. If you let people in different areas just do whatever they want with it, eventually no communication will be able to occur. Loose rules should be in place, yet reasonably so with cultural and global aspects taken into consideration. Basically, the way things work right now.