In language, two and two can be four, or a foursome, or a quartet or maybe two couples, but it doesn't equal anything

I recently saw this extraordinary statement on a language blog:

We have often noted that often repeated language and grammar errors seem to become “correct” usage. Wouldn’t it be weird if math used that philosophy? When enough people said 2+2=5, it would! It would still equal 4, of course, but it would also equal 5.

Quite extraordinary! And I’m not referring to the frequency of the word often. Nor to the quotation marks around 'correct' and the corresponding lack of them round 'errors'. But to the fact that somebody would want to compare language to maths.

Now I’m no mathematician, even less a scientist, but as far as I understand it, maths, like physics, follows certain immutable laws, over which human beings have no control. We discover these laws, and maybe change our minds about them, but we do not make them. They would equally exist in a world without people.

Language, on the other hand, is purely a human creation. That is not to say that some of it may very well be wired into us, and governed by various cognitive processes and the physical apparatus we have for making sounds. But we only have to look at how the languages of even our neighbours vary grammatically to see that there is no single definitive grammatical system, although there may be many similarities in overall patterns. I imagine that most languages have nouns and verbs, for example.

What makes this even more extraordinary is that it was written by someone who has published a book on English, called ‘Literally, the Best Language Book Ever’. (I assume the hyperbole is meant to be ironic). So you would think he would have some idea of how language works.

I sometimes think that these people imagine that the English language arrived fully fledged, sometime in the nineteenth century, with its rules carved in stone, like the Ten Commandments. (Sorry, there’s probably a mixed metaphor in there somewhere). Or that they accept that it has indeed developed over time, but only to reach some mythical state of perfection, again sometime in the nineteenth century.

Here are some examples of how so-called ‘grammar errors’ have become normal usage in my own lifetime. I won’t use the word ‘correct,’ because that implies there is only one way, which in these cases isn’t true. The old ways are still accepted, but increasingly seen as more formal. I should point out that I’m talking from a UK perspective; in other countries it may be different.

When I refer to ‘Swan’, I’m quoting from ‘Practical English Usage’, by Michael Swan, used by many TEFL/ ESL /ELT students and especially teachers for reference, and which I highly recommend as it is very clear and easy to understand. You can download a PDF sample here to see for yourself.

1. may vs can for permission
   
   When I was at school, if someone asked the teacher, ‘Please Sir, can I go to the toilet?’, the teacher would reply, ‘I don’t know. Can you?’ - can was for ability; you had to use may for permission. Nowadays, when used in conversation, may can often sound over-formal and a bit old-fashioned.
   
   
   Swan: ‘In an informal style can and cannot / can’t are more common [than may and may not]’
2. to whom vs who to
   
   Which sounds more natural to you:
   • To whom should I give this book?
   • Who should I give this book to?
   For anyone in the UK under the age of about 100, the answer is undoubtedly the latter. The former sounds too formal and old-fashioned. (Note that for some people my use of the words former and latter, in that previous sentence, probably also sounds a bit formal and old-fashioned).
   
   
   Here is Swan again: ‘Whom is not often used in informal English. We prefer to use who as an object, especially in questions’, and he gives as one of his examples: ‘Who did you go with?’, at the same time pointing out that if you do put the preposition first, then you need to use whom: ‘With whom did you go?’, which he calls ‘very formal’.
   
   
   I actually saw a comment on another ‘grammar’ website, which said that the sentence: ‘Who is this book about?’ is incorrect, and that we should say instead: ‘About whom is this book?’. Nobody, but nobody, speaks like that. If you said something like that, people would either wonder which planet you’d just arrived from, or think that you were trying to sound clever.
3. if I were vs if I was
   
   This use of were in second conditional sentences is one of the few instances in English where subjunctive is still used. I’ve written about the subjunctive before, but basically over the centuries it has been gradually disappearing from the English language. And in this context, in the UK at least, it is increasingly being replaced by past simple, except in fixed expressions such as ‘If I were you’.
   
   
   The use of ‘I wish’ for hypothetical situations follows the same rules as second conditional. Egypt’s tourism office ran a series of TV ads (no doubt made by a Western advertising agency) with the slogan, ‘I wish I was in Egypt’, and I can’t remember any great outcry of indignation. This is how many ordinary educated people speak nowadays.
   
   
   Swan gives as an example: ‘I wish that I was better looking’, but admittedly does goes on to say, ‘Many people use were instead of was, especially in a formal style.’
4. fewer vs less
   
   This is more about a change that seems to be in process right now, than one that has already happened. I imagine that most grammar books still agree: use few / fewer for countable nouns and little / less for uncountable nouns.
   
   
   I have few friends (c) and little money (u). I’m such a saddo. But somewhere there’s somebody with even fewer friends and even less money than me. Now that makes me feel much better!
   
   
   But increasingly people are using less where they ‘should’ say fewer. The most notable example is the supermarkets, who have check-out aisles marked, ‘10 items or less’, although one large chain, Tescos, has recently changed from less to fewer, bowing to pressure from the 'grammar police' (see below). I often catch myself saying less when I know it 'should' be fewer. At the moment I try and correct myself, but I suspect that in fifty years time or so, people will not worry much about the difference.
   
   
   Again according to Swan, ‘Less is quite common before plural nouns, as well as uncountables, especially in an informal style. Some people consider this incorrect.’ My emphasis would be on ‘some’.
   
   
   NB But in English exams you're better keeping to the formal rule: fewer for countable nouns and less for uncountable nouns. That way you can't go wrong.

This is how language develops. It has more in common with evolution than with maths, with rule changes taking the place of random mutations. These changes are probably tentative at first, and are maybe practised by only one part of the language community to start with, but gradually win common acceptance among a majority of educated people.

It is perhaps the closest we get to a real democracy. There is no absolute authority, except our common sense and our wish to be understood, accepted and not to be thought stupid, that can tell us what to do. (Which of course doesn’t stop some people from trying.) We make the changes ourselves, separately and together, in small groups and large, sometimes knowingly, often subconsciously, and over shorter or longer periods of time. This is what makes language so wonderful, and in all the original power of that word, awesome.

We live at a time when we have more contact with other cultures than ever before, when the rate of technological and social change is greater than ever before. To take some examples: fifty years ago it was common to call colleagues by their title and family name - ‘Good morning, Mr. Johnson.’, whereas nowadays first names are probably the norm. Secondly, email has completely changed the way we write to each other. And thirdly, regional accents are increasingly seen as part of the accepted, even preferred, standard. In short, our social interactions are becoming less formal. (And in case anyone is worried by that, formality has nothing to do with politeness or good manners).

Is it then reasonable to expect that language will remain static through all this? Or fossilised, more like, if the pedants had their way. Funnily enough, the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary gives this example sentence for pedant: - 'A pedant will always insist that you ask for "fewer" items rather than "less". '

This is a subject I have to admit I find fascinating, and that we will no doubt be returning to. Many times. Many, many times.

Links for Tescos and those signs

• BBC Magazine
• The Telegraph
• English-Test Forum

Incidentally the BBC article says that:

Tesco is changing its checkout signs after coming under criticism from linguists for using "less" rather than "fewer". (my emphasis)

I think this is highly unlikely, as linguists, that is those people who actually study language and linguistics, are usually pretty relaxed about this sort of thing, simply observing the changes. Very few pedants are linguists, or vice-versa.

Incidentally English has a bit of a problem with the word linguist, as it has two meanings:

• Someone who studies language or linguistics
• Someone who studies foreign languages and/or speaks several of them.

It is apparently not uncommon for a linguistics expert to be introduced to someone as a linguist, and to be asked , 'How many languages do you speak?'. 'Just the one', they reply, much to the confusion of the other person.