What is grammar?
Is grammar a set of rules or a description of how people talk and write. This is an often debated topic among grammarians and there is really no answer.
If grammar is a set of rules, who proposes them and who manages them?
If grammar is not a set of rules why do we complain about bad grammar when we see it?
Your thoughts would be fascinating.
5 Answers
Grammar is a bit like a music score.
If a musician can read a score they can play any piece of music. If not they can only play what they have heard
If someone knows the rules of grammar they can write anything. If not they can only write what they have heard or read.
It should be kept in mind that the "rules of grammar" were written after a language already existed. No language, with the exception of Esperanto, had any rules before it existed.
Without the grammatical terms it would be very difficult to talk about language.
Grammar is an invention of grammarians as part of a scheme to ensure their continued employment in this unsteady job market. But really, I think it is a set of rules, but a set of rules doesn't have to be proposed and managed by anyone in particular. It is proposed and managed by how it's used. In some cases, it technically is managed and proposed by someone in particular, like by the RAE. In that case, prominent literary types get together and decide what's right and what's wrong. But on a more basic level (and in some languages, like English, the only level) the rules of grammar and what's right are determined by usage and time, just like vocabulary. For example, 'flammable' is not supposed to be a word (and I say it still isn't, but that's beside the point). What people mean when they say 'flammable' is 'inflammable,' but 'flammable' is written on trucks and such for the safety of children and illiterates, so that they don't think 'inflammable' means 'not flammable' and lob grenades at trucks carrying chemicals. In a hundred years, I predict the distinction will be largely forgotten and both will be accepted ways of saying 'catches on fire'. Whether or not something is a word in English depends on whether or not it is a word. At least, that's the standard for getting into the OED, and that's the closest thing with have to an equivalent of the RAE. Obviously, it's not official, but it's the most widely agreed-upon reference. I think it's the same with grammar, but on a much slower time scale. A grammatical example would be the subjunctive in many cases in English. Most English speakers don't even know it exists. Another example is the distinction between 'shall' and 'will'. They used to mean very different things; Fowler's King's English has a bemusingly long section detailing their proper use, but they are not used that way at all now, at least not by most people.
Grammar is definitely a set of rules, although many times not followed.
It can also be considered a schematic of the language.
In the case of English, Oxford is who manages these rules and additions to the dictionary. It also seems that each year, they allow more bastardization into the language, as native speakers refuse to speak correctly.
A description of how people talk and write is totally apart from grammar.
I hope there is no rule that stops me answering my own question.
I get sad/furious/despairing when I read or listen to a lot of modern English. Many words are no longer usable simply because everyone misunderstands them. Prevaricate, infer, militate, decimate etc. etc. Few people seem able to use tenses which match or, heaven preserve us, moods. ("Mood - what's one of those?) I could wish for an "appointed" guardian of the English language like the Italian, French or Spanish academies (in order of their formations) instead of a somewhat self-styled guardian and protector.
Although I would like more bite to the rules of grammar, I must point out that they are like speed limits; lots of people know they exist while few pay attention to them. Actually it's worse than this; I suspect that only about 25% of English speakers even know that the OED exists. I don't recall ever seeing one. Do you? I've used the Shorter and the Pocket Oxfords often enough but they don't even have the same editoial boards as the OED.
Is grammar a description of what folk say and write? I asked. Let me remind you that Otto Jespersen's work was regarded for decades as the greatest exposition of English grammar and in the introduction he says clearly that it was derived from English writings, not from other grammar books.
So I'm confused like earlier respondents who vary from "a set of rules" to "a musical score".
The Wikipedia article on the Real Academia Española is interesting and telling. There is no doubt that it is all about rules and norms for the preservation and correct use of the Spanish language.
From the Wikipedia Article:
La Real Academia Española (RAE) es un organismo que se dedica a la elaboración de reglas normativas para el idioma español y a trabajar por la unidad del idioma español en todos los territorios en los que se habla, en coordinación con las restantes 21 Academias nacionales. Estas normas se ven plasmadas en el Diccionario de la Real Academia Española (DRAE) y recogen tanto gramática como ortografía.
