December 12, 2016



The Insulting Notion That Grammar Is Too Much To Ask Of Disabled People

I never took a grammar class. I have an innate knowledge of a good deal of grammar and spelling from reading a fuckton of books as a kid.

However, I was in a special program at school, so I went out and labeled trees while other kids were taking grammar -- learning what the subjunctive is, among other things.

These days, I'm wildly lucky to have a grammar ninja at my disposal -- David Yontz, who copyedits my science-based syndicated advice column. He also caught all my mistakes and unclear ways of saying things in "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck."

Despite ADHD's effects on my memory, I manage to retain a few of the things he corrects me on -- like how "were" should be used to indicate something that might happen.

Understanding that, I was a little surprised to see a @BookRiot promo on Twitter for a book called "If I Was Your Girl."





Yes, even as somebody who threw "F*ck" on her own book cover, I'm a bit disturbed by the "was" in this title.

I tweeted to Dave:

@amyalkon

@davidyontz is there some grammar boat I'm missing here, or should this be "were"?

It was Sunday night, and I don't talk to Dave until Tuesday, so I did a little poking around.

At GoodReads, John Hanscom asked this question about If I Was Your Girl:

Why did you use improper English? This might be the world's greatest book, but the title, which should be "If I WERE Your Girl," immediately turned me off.

Another reader responds:

Megan

The subjunctive is a verb form used for unreal or hypothetical statements. Was is grammatically correct. It's possible she will be come his girl, therefore the subjunctive tense doesn't apply.

Another reader also responds:

Allie

Well, in Spanish, it's standard to use subjunctive for something you want to happen. "Que te vaya bien". The problem with the OP's criticism isn't that "were" would be wrong here. It's that 1) "was" is perfectly common and therefore also correct, and 2) more importantly, it doesn't matter whether it's "correct" so long as it communicates its intended meaning and grammar policing is classist, racist & ableist. (less)

"grammar policing is classist, racist & ableist."

Wha?

I do think that on Twitter, going after somebody's grammar is asshole-ish.



However, I find it completely insulting to hold people who are, say, in wheelchairs to a lesser standard of grammar...

...Or to intimate that people of certain races -- I'm guessing she means people who are "of color" -- can't manage nice, grammatical English.

Again, I'll bring up my late, formerly wheelchair-powered cartoonist friend, John Callahan. He hated how people would treat disabled people with kid gloves -- meaning, not joking about them and behaving like we would with people who have, say, two working legs. People we can't joke about aren't quite "one of us" in the same way everybody else is. So, basically, by treating disabled people as off-limits for jokes or criticism, we treat them like they're less human.

if there's anything that's really ugly and alienating, it's that.

P.S. Dave did tweet back:

‏@davidyontz

It definitely should be "were." Sometimes Britons flout the rules of the subjunctive, but I think this writer is American.

UPDATE: I forgot to post this bit last night. Dave's great grammar podcasts are here.

*