Kees, I never argued that manners and grammar weren't part of a larger whole; in fact, I indirectly referred to this whole when I mentioned that the entirety of humanity's history had brought us to the present state of language/culture/beliefs that contains both the measurable decline of proper grammar in written English and the highly varied values regarding manners found from individual to individual. They are absolutely a part a single whole.
What I did argue, predominantly in response to some of the people here who seem to be shaking sticks at declining manners and grammar as though they are two sides to a single issue, is that they are not "connected at the hip." What's implied here, hopefully obviously, is conjoined twins. My contention was that grammar and manners are not analogous to conjoined twins--that is, they are not similar to conjoined twins in that if one conjoined twin should take a dive into a pool his twin will necessarily follow but in contrast if either grammar or manners declines the other will not necessarily follow.
I do not think anyone with a casual opinion on the subject--including me, obviously--could with any soundness prove that manners and grammar have a direct causal relationship with one another. There are too many factors involved. I agree that an event within the whole has the potential to influence both grammar and manners, and I even stated that an event within the whole had the potential to push both grammar and manners in a single direction. However, in no way does this link them intrinsically or necessarily. This sounds like something you could agree with, since I agree entirely with the points you make here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kees /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I agree with you that there are far more, and probably more important, factors that determine the quality of communication.
The relative importance of any factor in communication is very difficult to establish. Moreso: it changes constantly.
Communication is very context dependent. The context changes with time and location and is also very dependent on culture. Even more important: the context is determined by the personal perception of any and all participants.
Which can change any moment.
This makes communication so extremely complicated.
This is also why I think that the main rule in communication is to be constantly, as well as you possibly can, aware of the perception of the other.
|
Regarding this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kees /img/forum/go_quote.gif
You didn't just replace parameters. You changed the context. The precondition in which they exist and function: being an integral part of a whole.
You did not only replace the pieces, you also changed the rules and the field.
|
I have thought about it and I agree that the analogies I used were no good. In fact they kind of sucked. But I will say again that context has less than nothing to do with whether or not a series of statements intended to be an argument is logical/valid. I honestly don't remember what kind of fallacy it is or whether it is even properly called a classical fallacy. I wasn't arguing with the content of your words; I was simply trying to say that your statement did not convey any actual information because it was not valid.
Allow me to explain myself one last time. If I fail once again I'll give it up. You said that:
a) good manners and grammar are an essential part of communication
b) decline of thoughtful communication would most probably result in the decline of both good manners and proper use of grammar
You set up (what appeared to be) a logical argument with two variables and then proceeded to draw a conclusion not from the variables themselves but by using what should have been the conclusive variable as a variable to create a proof regarding the original two variables.
manners = x
grammar = y
communication = z
good = true
decline of = false
If
x is true and
y is true then
z is true. If
z is false then
x and
y are false.
This statement is not valid because if
z is false it does not necessarily follow that both
x and
y are false. Either
x or
y may be false for
z to be false.
A valid argument, whether sound or relevant to our discussion at all, would have looked more like this:
a) good manners and good grammar are an essential part of good communication
b) decline of good manners or decline of proper use of grammar would most probably result in the decline of good communication
(If
x is true and
y is true then
z is true. If either
x or
y is false then
z is false.)
You said that you consider grammar the manners of language. At least equally fundamental to language is the proper use and understanding of argumentation.
