How the debate could have gone

Ok, so I'm pretty sure that 80% or so of the blog posts this week are going to be typed up versions of our synthesis paragraphs if only because it's easier to do so. So I figured I'd just be a trailblazer and write one of the first blog posts (or I assume I'll be one of the first because most of us are probably just going to do it at like 8pm on Sunday). Unfortunately, I believe that my potential material is pretty limited because pretty much all the stuff discussed this week was pretty much punctuation or grammar; ergo, I am forced to write about punctuation anyway. But I promise it won't be a typed up synthesis paragraph! I don't even HAVE my synthesis paragraph to cheat off of anyway. Most likely this is going to an analysis of what I perceive are the strongest points on both sides and potential rebuttals (And perhaps rebuttals of rebuttals). This is going to be a very long post, so don't read this unless you truly want to hear what I have to say.

So let's start with a look at the argument of the most effective debaters of "the most effective debaters" (the pro-punctuation side of 2nd hour). As far as I can tell, their premise mostly revolves around the idea that punctuation exists to prevent miscommunications. This, of course, makes sense in theory. After all, no one wants to have "Let's eat, Grandma!" become "Let's eat Grandma!"

Cannibalism on a T-shirt. Brought to you by Punctuation and Google Images.

When I was thinking of rebuttals to this idea (and I did think of a lot of them, they just weren't used. As a result, I will be reiterating them here), two particular ideas came to mind. The first is more obvious; it simply goes along the lines of "No self respecting human being with a sense of context would be confused by this!" and most of the time, you'd be right. But the point of punctuation is that you are ALWAYS right. After all (God forbid), what if the narrator of this sentence was a cannibal? Then context would not be so useful. Is he inviting his grandmother to the table so as to enjoy a meal? Or is he really interested in eating his grandma? Punctuation would clear that particular situation fairly easily. So this particular rebuttal isn't infallible.

Another attack on this premise is that tighter punctuation rules means more rules, each of which have certain applications. As it goes, more rules = more chances to mess up = more miscommunications. I actually thought of this idea as a way to point out that less punctuation does not necessarily mean more errors. And clearly people mess up our current punctuation rules; that is why Grammar Nazis exists. The obvious response to this particular rebuttal is a trap; yes, it is true that Grammar Nazis nitpick on unimportant things and that the errors they point out are unlikely to cause miscommunications, but the context miscommunications above are equally unlikely. Thus, as the anti-punctuation side would have it, less punctuation and more punctuation cause equal amounts of miscommunications. And since less punctuation is so much simpler to type, there is no reason to keep the current amount of punctuation. There is a second response to this rebuttal, but I don't wish to bore you with the explanation. Long story short, it ends in a stalemate with a slight advantage on the side of anti-punctuation team as well.

But enough about the rebuttals of the pro punctuation argument. I have to attack the anti punctuation side as well to be fair. So first things first, let's look at the premise. As far as I can tell, the best premise available to the anti punctuation side is that the evolution of the English language is that English, like every other non dead language (coughLatincough) changes over time. However, it has also gained a lot of rather ineffective punctuation rules over time that have come and gone. Thus, it needs to be trimmed.

Well, because I lack the insight of the pro-punctuation group on what they would respond with, I can only come up with one rebuttal right now. I assume the most logical response is that our current punctuation system is a result of the evolution that I pointed out earlier and that if it changes, it will do so imperceptibly and thus there is no need to push it in a direction which history may regret. Of course, I doubt this is the route the pro punctuation group would push because it is too....moderate. What I just came up with seems to be a compromise of sorts. But you get the general idea.