Apart from the fact that language does indeed continually evolve, there is sometimes a need to hang on to the bits that work really well and not just throw them in the bin due to a passing fad (like the mangling of written English by “text-speak” using mobile phone messaging). As another writer mentions, abusing grammar for artistic purposes is fine, buggering it up due to ignorance is vile.

Oh, I’m also in complete agreement with the US spelling of “aluminum”, and I apologise profusely for some of our more arcane spelling and pronunciation here in the UK… ;-)

Another thing is the sheer weight of the reast of the world upon you English grammarians. I bet there could well be more of us non-native speakers (or users?) than there is of you natives – though that would depend on what exactly one is willing to consider English usage. ‘neways, it’s a losing battle, obivously. You shall all be ate up, and 500 years from now we’ll all speak Mandarin Chinese. (A Marvel of the Modern Medicine if there ever was one.)

“How are you?”/”Fine, and yourself?”

English is a Germanic language, as anyone who has ever read Beowulf in the original Old English should know (þæt wæs god cyning!).

Middle English introduces some Latin influence, but only through Norman French (Me thynketh it acordaunt to resoun / To telle yow al the condicioun).

English has no direct grammtical route to Latin, and in no way should need to resemble it.

Sorry. The things you learn in college…

The bugaboos such as split infinitives etc. were introduced in the 18th century to latinize English, as John suggested. While there are still a few sticklers who spout Fowler, for the most part these rules have been discredited. Rules dealing with dangling clauses and comma usage have not, and the people reading what you write know this. While content trumps correctness, why add a black mark to your work by making yourself look like an amateur?

Along the same lines, “Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuationâ€? is a horrible book to use as a grammar reference. The book is English and from what I’ve read, no changes have been made to the American Edition to reflect the differences between English and American punctuation. The British are grammar conservatives; Americans are not. That’s why you are given a theatre programme in Britain and a theater program here. That’s also why people on the island go out of their way to refer to a given datum or criterion, while data and criteria are more or less accepted as singular here. A Briton would never refer to Bush’s cohorts, but his cohort.

Of course, the biggest difference between British and American punctuation occurs with quotation marks. For example, in British English punctuation can go in or outside of a quotation mark depending on whether the punctuation is part of the quote. But while, “I hate grammar”, may be fine in England, it’s just plain wrong here.

Anyhow this post is entirely too long, but grammar is important and that book is a horrible thing to foist on writers who want to learn it. Better resources are listed below.

“Woe Is I” by Patricia O’Connor “Strunk and White” Available free on Bartelby.com “Style: 10 Lessons in Clarity and Grace” by Joseph Williams “The Copy Editor’s Handbook,” by Amy Einsohn

And of course the penultimate grammar guide, the Chicago Manual of Style (not for the faint of heart).