A gripe at grammar

We have Bill Bryson to blame for this post, and indirectly, Simon, who gave me the book. The book being, that is, Mother Tongue, by Bill Bryson.

Being one for rules and that, I like the idea that one can learn grammar. I'm learning otherwise. It's not sitting very well with me.

I mean, if traditionally unapproved structures are adopted by society (e.g. "I'm well hungry"), or even to an extent, if you can make yourself unambiguously understood without employing perfect grammar (e.g. "Me go market now"), what's to say that these are 'wrong'?

I like to write using unfamiliar syntax, justified by the idea that it is 'idiomatic', or something, and yet I'll still strive to be grammatically correct. But what does that even mean? Who decides whether or not we can split an infinitive? When did it become acceptable to say, "I'm going, aren't I?" and yet we can't say, "I'm going, are I not?" It does concern me that I will find myself on a slippery slope if I continue to think about these things - it's one thing to edit every comma that gets published on a personal blog; another to debate the validity of every word that hits the page.

As far as written conventions are concerned I'll refuse to substitute cant for can't and dont for don't, yet I'm not about to write piano', 'phone or Hallowe'en. At what point can we accept change in our language? When will we agree that we can say, "Ten items or less", "To boldly go", or "I'm well hungry"? Or have we already done so?