Language Is Not Static
One of the things I notice in some topics are people arguing over the definition of words. Sometimes this comes in the form of words that have a colloquial versus legal definition, but for those discussions, it is simple, the legal definition takes precedence and its meaning is based on judicial decisions or legislative changes. Hate crimes legislation comes to mind, the definition of the word "hate" is irrelevant to bias crimes and how they are defined under law.
However, there are some words that have nothing to do with legalese, but are reflection of language usage. I just looked it up, but "google" is both a noun and a verb. Would anyone argue that you can't say google is a verb because it's simple the name of a search engine? No, because language evolves, it must evolve in response to how words are used or to help describe phenomena that did not exist previously.
One of the best examples I can think of for word evolution: bling. It's a made up slang phrase that is now part of the dictionary as everyday speech. Evolution.
I think the reference to music in this article is quite apt.
The application of grammar is a constant battle between the rules and the real world. Analogously, the dictionary is a reference for vocabulary, but if we are not careful it can be both a strait-jacket to constrain natural linguistic evolution, and a redundant source of stale meaning.
Language is not static. I seem to recall that the Random House "Word of the Year" (there's one of my pet peeves - over-use of quotes) for 2009 was "unfriend," and that this was not a new word but one resurfacing after several hundred years. And didn't Shakespeare not only spell his name inconsistently, but also add considerably to the English vocabulary? In a different wise, the most creative musicians of all time (in my book Bach, Mozart, Beethoven) all had encyclopedic knowledge and their creativity came out of intentionally breaking the rules to create new musical language. So it is with words, and to return to the question, grammar.
One of the things I notice in some topics are people arguing over the definition of words. Sometimes this comes in the form of words that have a colloquial versus legal definition, but for those discussions, it is simple, the legal definition takes precedence and its meaning is based on judicial decisions or legislative changes. Hate crimes legislation comes to mind, the definition of the word "hate" is irrelevant to bias crimes and how they are defined under law.
However, there are some words that have nothing to do with legalese, but are reflection of language usage. I just looked it up, but "google" is both a noun and a verb. Would anyone argue that you can't say google is a verb because it's simple the name of a search engine? No, because language evolves, it must evolve in response to how words are used or to help describe phenomena that did not exist previously.
One of the best examples I can think of for word evolution: bling. It's a made up slang phrase that is now part of the dictionary as everyday speech. Evolution.
I think the reference to music in this article is quite apt.