I DO judge you when you use poor grammar.

Over the last few weeks, I have spent a fair amount of time engaged in arguments with a friend about language.  Specifically, proper vs. improper usage of punctuation, "adverbjatives" (that's his, not mine), prepositions, and all the other pitfalls and minefields of modern American language.

Now, before I go any further, those of you who are howling in the background, "But you're a PhD student in English!", shut up.  I know that.  I know that my expectations of "proper" language usage are probably much higher than the average American.  However, I also think this gives me the ability to discourse knowledgeably on why "proper" language usage is so important, much like a computer programmer can discourse knowledgeably on the difference between C++ and Python.  The difference between the computer programmer and the hapless student of language is found in the seemingly-esoteric nature of programming: how many people actually know enough about the differences between C++ and Python to even discuss them (C++?  Is that extra "+" an accident?  And Python?  You mean Monty Python?), and then further, to have opinions about them?  Not bloody many.  So when a computer programmer offers his opinion, the layperson accepts it.  Not so with the student of language.  The minute language becomes a subject for discussion, anyone and everyone feels competent to discuss it.  If I hear, "But language is always evolving!" one more time, my brain might literally explode.  However - and this is an important "however" - it is far, far easier to develop a valid opinion of programming languages than language usage.  Yes, dammit, I said valid.

Now, I do not pretend to be a paragon of perfect speech.  Frasier still has a few-up on me.  I break the rules - frequently.  I split infinitives so often that bits and pieces of them litter the floor near my desk.  I happily incorporate words unrecognized by the OED into my speech all the time.  And I swear.  Often.

Yet my spine twitches when someone says "ain't" in an un-ironic fashion.  The ending of sentences with prepositions makes me a little violent.  The flagrant disregard of "ly" on the ends of adverbs leaves me cold.  The colloquial speech patterns of the South make it difficult for me to remember that just because they sound like total, unrequited idiots does not mean that they are.

The thing is, just because you use language doesn't mean you're qualified to speak about it as though it's something you've given a great deal of thought, and something you understand intimately.  I use my microwave every day (that's an embarrassing admission, but there you go), yet I would never presume to speak about what actually happens when I push the buttons, because I really don't know ("You mean it isn't magic?  There aren't little people in there roasting my food over very hot fires?").  And that whole "language-is-evolving" argument has become the reason for each and every bloody-awful lazy spelling mistake, or punctuation abuse, or sloppy grammar usage.  Yes, the language is evolving.  Apparently, what it is now evolving into is a morass of muddy, incomprehensible, and thoroughly-confusing attempts at communication.

I guess people want to return to an age where "as long as you understand me" is good enough, and where the beautiful subtleties of the language, the exquisite confections of construction, the perfect pairing of thought and written expression, are utterly forgotten.  Where it is no longer possible to appreciate the incomparable elegance of Nabokov's Lolita, or the haunting spareness of Graham Greene, or the lush images of Milton.  icanhascheezburger rules the day, apparently, and being able to understand something - even if only at the crudest level - is all that matters.

I refuse to believe that the only purpose of language is communication of immediate and shallow thoughts.  I'm not making the categorical statement that just because something is easily understood means that it's not complex, or worthy of careful thought.  No, I'm categorically siding with Heidegger, and saying that language creates thought, and that it is an expression of yourself in the purest form.  If you do not have elegant and subtle linguistic abilities, then how can you possibly construct elegant and subtle thoughts?  If you do not have the linguistic ability to construct a complicated sentence, then how can you construct a complicated thought?  Philosophy, for example, relies heavily on an understanding - an intimate understanding - of the relationship between thought and language, and that is certainly why so much of it is devoted to the exploration of that relationship.  How we think is inescapably influenced by how we speak.

So I guess, then, my point is that by not understanding how language works, we're shorting ourselves on our ability not just to communicate at a level higher than Koko, but also on our ability to create, to imagine, and to fully realize ourselves as independent, living, thinking human beings.

So there.  I'll judge you when you use poor grammar, because I'll be wondering if you are too lazy, sloppy, or just out-and-out unintelligent to realize that you're expressing yourself in the crudest possible way, without giving any thought to how you sound, and how other people will perceive your expressions.  I'll judge you because I'll wonder if you're incapable of coming up with a clearer, more accurate way of expressing yourself.  And I'll judge you because I won't be able to help but wonder if you really are only capable of communicating on the level of icanhascheezburger.