There is an idea that human culture first started with ritual. That repeated actions, given a sacred importance, allowed groups of our ancestors to bind themselves together in ways beyond the fundamental instinctive ties of family and friends.
The language of a particular culture acts in the same way, allowing us a common bond that helps organise a society. The grammar of any particular language is recognised and mutally accepted by speakers and used in a ritualistic way. You only have to observe the common reactions of speakers to anyone uttering the wrong incantation, anyone getting the steps wrong, anyone not exhibiting the necessary reverance, in order to get a sense of its importance in group cohesion.
But hold on...
Grammar: Exactly what kind of beast is it?
.jpg)
There are a number of definitions of grammar, including:
the whole system and structure of a language or of languages in general
the system of rules that governs how a natural language is structured and used,
the study of the classes of words, their inflections, and their functions and relations in the sentence
So, grammar, like any information, has more than one idea. Let's try to get a clearer idea of the creature we are trying to observe...
Etymologically, grammar has its roots in magic, indicating the grimoire of the wizard and the glamour of the witch*. Along with other words like spell, chant, and curse, we can get an idea of how the concepts of language and magic have always been simmering together in the same cauldron.
And this is not just in English. In traditional Indian cosmology, Sanskrit is the language of the gods, representing a great and powerful magic that those who work with it can tap into*, and In Japanese, there are obvious connections between （ma-hou) 魔法 (magic), (bun-pou) 文法、(grammar）、 and (jyu-mon) 呪文, (curse) illustrating how an adept can use these powerful tools if they understand the way they work...,
So how can we understand how grammar works? Here is one classic example, that, much like its origin, is not as popular as it was a half a century ago...
Captain Kirk's famous utterance "to boldly go" has often been cited as a "split infinitive" (like: "to slowly eat") which was considered by many experts to be bad grammar, something wrong. The sensible reaction of: I understand it perfectly, what's the problem? (allied with the demonstrable fact that the idea is perfectly clear) illustrates the two basic ideas of grammar: prescriptive grammar, where there are rules to be followed, and descriptive grammar, where grammar is instinctive and serves the purposes of the Fundamental Organic Process of communication.
In any human endeavour, there are two basic formats that our brains take care about. The first, most basic and most important, is the instinctive way that something works. Almost anyone can kick a football, slide downhill on skis, or breathe by themselves, however with some elementary knowledge of how these things work, and practice of the necessary basic skills, we can improve.
The second format involves style. As there is no avoiding our fundamental animal communication that responds so strongly to appearance, so much so that a fancy hat can often work better than a helmet in deflecting an awful lot of questions.
Anyone wearing a hat like that has to know what they are talking about...
.........you there! Don't even think about splitting an infinitive! Why? Because I said so!
(The idea of the split infinitive being wrong stems from grammarians hundreds of years ago trying to force rules of Latin onto English. It was taught as standard for over a hundred years. Obviously, by the time the 23rd century rolls around, we will have a more sensible view of grammar...)
Ignoring all the dusty tomes written by self-important meisters, and instead looking at grammar in terms of its most basic conjurations, offers us the chance to catch glimpses of basic building blocks that are often obscured by capacious fancy hats. If grammar is basically the way a language works then it must follow the Fundamental Organic Process of communication: Information -----> idea, which, as it is also the FOP of the brain, also suggests that grammar actually is as has long been suggested, universal .
So what evidence would there be for this, erm, universal grammar?
One example we might consider is languages' response to the universal question of where?
Looking at the information of prepositions (in/on/at etc), what idea(s) do they give?
Prepositions basically work like this:
in (something)/on (something)/at (something).
So:
in a park/ on a table / at school
In any human endeavour, there are two basic formats that our brains take care about. The first, most basic and most important, is the instinctive way that something works. Almost anyone can kick a football, slide downhill on skis, or breathe by themselves, however with some elementary knowledge of how these things work, and practice of the necessary basic skills, we can improve.
The second format involves style. As there is no avoiding our fundamental animal communication that responds so strongly to appearance, so much so that a fancy hat can often work better than a helmet in deflecting an awful lot of questions.
Anyone wearing a hat like that has to know what they are talking about...
.........you there! Don't even think about splitting an infinitive! Why? Because I said so!
(The idea of the split infinitive being wrong stems from grammarians hundreds of years ago trying to force rules of Latin onto English. It was taught as standard for over a hundred years. Obviously, by the time the 23rd century rolls around, we will have a more sensible view of grammar...)
Ignoring all the dusty tomes written by self-important meisters, and instead looking at grammar in terms of its most basic conjurations, offers us the chance to catch glimpses of basic building blocks that are often obscured by capacious fancy hats. If grammar is basically the way a language works then it must follow the Fundamental Organic Process of communication: Information -----> idea, which, as it is also the FOP of the brain, also suggests that grammar actually is as has long been suggested, universal .
So what evidence would there be for this, erm, universal grammar?
One example we might consider is languages' response to the universal question of where?
Looking at the information of prepositions (in/on/at etc), what idea(s) do they give?
Prepositions basically work like this:
in (something)/on (something)/at (something).
So:
in a park/ on a table / at school
But, hang on, also:
in a minute / on Wednesday / at 6 pm....
What might be the connection?
Well, the general theory of relativity as developed by Einstein (and then further developed by a bloke called Hermann Minkowski who doesn't get the credit he deserves) suggests that space and time are essentially bound together, and for the purposes of relativity best described as one entity: spacetime.
So, we can observe In terms of fundamental grammar:
in a minute / on Wednesday / at 6 pm....
What might be the connection?
Well, the general theory of relativity as developed by Einstein (and then further developed by a bloke called Hermann Minkowski who doesn't get the credit he deserves) suggests that space and time are essentially bound together, and for the purposes of relativity best described as one entity: spacetime.
So, we can observe In terms of fundamental grammar:
(somewhere) -----------------------------------> in a park
(sometime) -------------------------------------> in a day
We describe both space (somewhere) and time (sometime) in the same basic way!
But hold on, let's check...is this just English? How about in French?
(quelque part) -----------------------------------> dans un parc
(quelque temps) ------------------------------------> dans une journée
(sometime) -------------------------------------> in a day
We describe both space (somewhere) and time (sometime) in the same basic way!
But hold on, let's check...is this just English? How about in French?
(quelque part) -----------------------------------> dans un parc
(quelque temps) ------------------------------------> dans une journée
How about in Japanese？
(どこか) -----------------------------------> 公園に
(いつか) -------------------------------> 一朝一夕に
Ok, now let’s check a language I have no knowledge of, say, Swahili:
(mahali fulani) --------------------------------> Katika siku moja
(wakati fulani) --------------------------------> Katika bustani
It does seem as though there is, pre-set, an acknowledgement in the human brain that space and time have a special relationship. It seems as though modern physics has caught up with something we always knew instinctively...
The whole system and structure of a language or of languages in general
as noted previously, the Fundamental Organic Process of communication ensures that any information can have more than one idea, the grammar of language helps make the connected idea(s) clearer.
In English, if we have only the information of "dog" it is unclear whether we are talking about an animal or bothering someone. Given some grammar, which necessarily includes the matrix of connections between information and idea that is context, the connected idea(s) can be brought more sharply into focus:
a dog ---------------------------------------------> an animal
although, without any more context, it could possibly be a hot dog+, or a bad car#
dogged by autograph hunters -------------> a star**'s experience
Grammar also offers a hand in distinguishing the general from the specific, a sorting process vital for understanding the world around us.:
a dog or dogs vs. the dog, the dogs, my dog(s), this dog, these dogs etc.,
Grammar conjures ideas of when?:
(do something) ----------------------------------------> (usually)
(did something) ----------------------------------------> (in the past)
(doing something) ----------------------------------------> (now/in the future)
(done something) ----------------------------------------> (in the past and the result of the action is now)
Gives weight to the laws of whose?:
my/hers/The King's
helps explain: why?
because/as/for
and: how?
by (vehicle)/with (a tool)/slowly/
as well as acting as the social glue by allowing the awarding of points for style:
Can I go to the toilet? ----------------------------------------> I don't know, can you?
To whom am I speaking? ----------------------------------------> Oooooh, posh!
10 items or less ----------------------------------------> fewer!
Grammar then, is used to clarify ideas or add dressing to social ritual. It offers power when we wish to describe and explain the universe and all the things in it, whilst offering a reflection of the way that universe most basically works.
It also offers ways to bring back the dead and conjure waking dreams.
Ritual, ideas, relativity.
Foresight, minds wide, magic imagery.
.jpg)
.jpg)
