I've too frequently seen arguments that "language evolves" and thus notions of "correctness" are "unscientific" or "unobjective" and should thus be abandoned in favor of "description." I see criticism of what is called "linguistic prescription" far more than I read defenses of it. What was once the fringe belief of professional linguists has become a vulgar excuse to abandon clear writing altogether. To defend the values this site is built on (love, charity and truth), what follows is a defense of "prescriptivism" or as i'd like to call it: correctness. In other words, what follows is a defense of the notion of better writing and speaking. A defense of correctness, and its necessity for communication and truth.
In the course of your education, you may have heard that "America is a country of laws and not men." What does this mean? Sam Adams thought it meant "one rule of justice for rich and poor. . ." Another source considers it a principle in which "[all] are accountable to laws that are publically promulgated, equally enforced, independently adjudicated." Fair and impartial. But how does one go about impartiality?
Nobody is impartial on an empty stomach. A difficult job indeed. Before we treat like as like, we must figure out whether things really are alike
It means we are committed to the belief that the law is written, and what is unwritten is where freedom begins. This is best seen in Amendment 10 of the US Constitution:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.Better yet, "All that isn't surrendered is retained." Illustrated more explicitly: one cannot be convicted of a crime unless the crime exists, and a crime exists by being made into law.
Yet the law is so frequently obscured by lawyers, judges and journalists. In my own experience, the average person is uncomfortable trying to parse the meaning of something like Amendment 10. But it can be understood by anyone. Lawyers and judges interpret the law according to consistent rules, rules which are articulable and thus communicable, rules of interpretation that can elucidate the meaning of all sorts of texts. But why would the common man desire such knowledge? Isn't that the domain of attorneys and judges, English teachers and literary critics?
To this, my answer is straightforward: You will be easily duped, confused, and abused if you don't know how to read. Furthermore, is the world perfect? Would you not change a single thing? Those who suspect a better world is possible, and those who are ambitious enough to try to change it, will likely try to do so by trying to change the law. If you ever wish to improve the world in this manner, that is, If you ever wish to change the law, you must know how your writing will be interpreted. Literacy is civic duty.
Reading the law is much like any other reading, although the stakes are much higher.
It consists in a few assumptions, often about the fact that laws are designed intelligently and should be interpreted as such.What else is law? The promises you make and the promises others make to you. The promises businesses such as insurance companies and landlords and HOAs make with you. The rules you articulate to your children and the boundaries you set with your significant other. Knowing common methods of interpretation will help you understand others' promises and will give you more confidence about holding others accountable. Knowing common methods of interpretation will help you make better promises and rules. Knowing common methods of interpretation will make you a better reader and writer. The clarity of mind such techniques give will perhaps even make you a better, more orderly thinker.
An orderly mind is the best defense against a world which so often deceives.
As I tell nervous law students "plenty of morons have passed the bar."
Louie the Librarian the Litigator Literati or the Literary