Again, you are using someone else`s authority to prove a point meanwhile my whole point was opposite of that. Grammar is a reverse engineering process and it will never be a perfect copy of the original language.
Most of the literature mankind admire were written in times when grammar was not imposed on man like this. I hope it makes sense.
Having lived in the States for a while I see that especially here the English grammar is imposed on people and used as a tool to create unintentional class divisions and social lines. Because it ends up like those who can speak the language well(means those who follows the grammar) and those who can`t.
In last 200 years the mankind learned alot more about languages, sounds, grammar etc and but are we speaking better than those who did 2000-1000 years ago? The more you try to talk a perfect language the more robotic it would be. And compared to the words of past I am sure many will recognize how infertile our language structures has become, in our native tongues or others.
No child in the world learn a language through grammar and elitist rules. There is really no grammar there are only organic vague patterns in languages and those patterns should not be imposed on people. And those are the patterns picked up by children naturally. Do you think that Mr Pinker learned the universal grammar before the English language when he was 2 years old?
i'm out of touch, but having read things like Steven Pinker's The Language Instinct some years back i don't think it's right to say grammar is an artificial construct. Seems quite innate, with an underlying "universal" grammar that all languages grow from.
(i'm sure there will be DCer's around here that know far more about it. i bet Mr. Pinker isn't even the champion of that movement anymore.)
Erm, is "universal grammar" Chomsky's thing? i know i've heard it somewhere.