Language as an Allen key or crowbar?

My status updates on the increasingly ubiquitous Facebook platform don’t normally generate much in the way of interesting, meaningful discussion. Admittedly I’m probably to blame for that as I have a tendency to post stream-of-consciousness snippets that nobody understands, for my own amusement, or as a small marker of thought in time. At least I’m being truthful when I fill in that little “what’s on your mind?” box, even if I’m missing out on the big comfortable leather couch that Hollywood has convinced me is normally present when that question is being asked.

The other day though, I outdid myself, and asked a question that sparked quite a lot of debate. I asked: “Am I being pedantic by expecting people to differentiate between ‘your’ and ‘you’re’?” Well, the responses to that were certainly varied. They ranged from the jokingly belligerent “yes, ‘your’ being pedantic” to the tongue-in-cheek (at least I hope so) “they should be shot at dawn” to earnest reasoning as to why I wasn’t being pedantic, to essay-length rebuttals of rigid language rules. The discussion ended up bordering on hostile confrontation, which led me to think it warranted a piece on Thought Leader, where contentious ideas are welcome.

Now, before anybody dismisses this as a trivial debate, I must point out it most certainly isn’t one. The reason is, our philosophically based decisions as a society regarding language and its usage, will be handed down through both official and unofficial education to the generations following us. And considering that language is the key to all further education in other subjects, it’s quite an important issue. Language is the refined form of communication that allows us to share complex ideas with each other. You can be a genius, but if you lack the necessary mastery of a language to communicate your ideas in, you will be seen as a fool. Not always entirely fair, but true. I’m still convinced that a lot of racism in South Africa, for example, stems from that fact. Perfectly cognitively capable people were and are treated like morons, simply because they don’t speak the language of their oppressors. So, it’s safe to say that language should be cherished and its power to cause confusion respected.

With that in mind, how much can we attempt to safeguard the boundaries of a language? We know all too well that those boundaries are, and should be, constantly expanding, as our collective consciousness does. We also know that functional communication is possible without being grammar Nazis, and without every language variant being identical. I, for one, don’t share the antagonism towards American English that many of my writing colleagues in the United Kingdom and South Africa do. In fact I admire the Americans for finding a way of shaping a language that is uniquely theirs, while still being intelligible to the rest of the English-speaking world. They also did away with a lot of fluffy bits, which in all honesty, are quite useless. The “u” in “colour”, for example. Noah Webster had a vision which saw language hangovers from French and Latin as being pretentious, and he was probably right.

I still prefer to use UK English though. Perhaps that makes me pretentious, but at least I admit to it. It’s a matter of personal preference for me, and fortunately not one that will ever make me unintelligible to other English speakers from around the world. So, obviously, I should be quite lenient in my views towards other people exercising personal preference in English or else I’d be a hypocrite. So then, you might ask, why am I still bothered by something like “your” and “you’re” being confused? Well, here’s the thing. I liken language usage to the manner in which we dress. Yes, there are times when casual dress or language are appropriate. And yes, a degree of personal preference and style is encouraged. But wearing a thong (and nothing else) to a boardroom meeting (unless you’re employed by Victoria’s Secret specifically to do so) can safely be considered completely inappropriate, and not make any sense. The same way “your” and “you’re” being confused makes no sense. They don’t even sound the same when spoken and one is a contraction of two separate words. Of course, I hope the reader is aware that I’m referring to deliberate interchanging of the words, and not genuine typographical errors.

No, I certainly won’t judge somebody who is unable to dress in a certain manner, and likewise I won’t judge somebody who has not been afforded an education in a language (or was, but for reasons of cognitive limitation couldn’t pass it). Ultimately, the issue is also rather subjective and open to flexibility, I won’t deny it. But I certainly don’t feel ashamed or unreasonable expecting somebody who received a matric certificate in an English-speaking school to differentiate between “your” and “you’re”. It’s a matter of intent, and the level of trying to work with what you have, that accompanies that intent.