It's good to be correct, to a point. I used to subscribe to
Language Log a blog by linguists (I stopped because they were pretty spammy), and I was fascinated to find out that linguists are not interested in beating people over the head with a bunch of rules in a musty book printed a hundred years ago, but
how people actually use language.
Take the phenomenon of
Eggcorns for instance. For people who are too lazy to click:
|
Originally Posted by WIKIALITY
...an idiosyncratic substitution of a word or phrase for a word or words that sound similar or identical in the speaker's dialect. Characteristic of the eggcorn is that the new phrase makes sense on some level ("old-timer's disease" for "Alzheimer's disease"). Eggcorns often involve replacing an unfamiliar, archaic, or obscure word with a more common or modern word ("baited breath" for "bated breath").
|
Linguists have actually set up
a website to find and track eggcorns on the interwebs. Being able to Google Search for a phrase is a linguist's dream, apparently. I guess it makes sense -- they can see how real people are using language without any observational bias: people don't know they're being listened to. You can also see how many "ghits" a phrase has. It's pretty cool to watch linguists at work -- it totally shattered my mental model.
Anyway, my point is: nobody except a grammar nazi gives a shit if you occasionally make a typo or comma splice. The point isn't to have perfect grammar: the point is to
clearly and concisely communicate what you are trying to say. Language is a tool to communicate. The more smoothly, more clearly and more emotively you can do this the better, and that's the point. Who gives a fuck about an
Oxford comma? As long as it's not ambiguous and reads cleanly, you're good. Fret not.
Jam it back in, in the dark.