I was moved to action this morning as I read an extremely perceptive yet error-ridden Facebook note. Granted, that action consisted solely of complaining about the state of things on my Facebook status, but it was nevertheless action:

I’m depressed by the state of the English language as seen online. No capitalization, misspelled words and missing apostrophes (or–worse–apostrophes in the wrong places). Yes, maybe I’m a snob, but this language evolved over thousands of years and we’re killing in a tiny fraction of that. Rapid de-evolution. What can we do?

To be clear, I’m not talking about a typo here and there, or the accidentally forgotten apostrophe in it[']s. I’m talking about a systemic and willful ignorance of the basic rules of good grammar.* As I see it, we’re faced with two problems here: one of legitimacy and one of legibility.

First, legitimacy. We’ve all been trained in the ways of good grammar. So when I see a comment that completely ignores the rules of grammar I can assume one of a few things about the author:

1. He or she didn’t pay any attention in school.
2. He or she is lazy.
3. He or she doesn’t care enough about the language (and society) to make an effort to preserve it.
4. His or her life is too busy to waste the extra millisecond typing the necessary letter or symbol.

None of these options are particularly flattering. The fourth option is, perhaps, excusable on occasion from a mobile device. But, let’s be honest, how many of us are actually that busy?

How does this relate to legitimacy? Making the assumption that the commenter is not a troll, we can also assume that he or she wants the comment to be read and accepted as a legitimate contribution to the discussion. In discussions people tend to pay attention to those who they think well of.

As we saw above, bad grammar makes you either stupid (by self-imposition, mind you), lazy, or uncaring. Needless to say, if someone is stupid, lazy, or uncaring, I am less prone to think well of him or her and, therefore, less prone to accept his or her contribution as legitimate. Voilà, we have a problem of legitimacy.

Second, legibility. Even if I was to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and not think ill of badly composed comments, we still have a problem of legibility.

Maybe it’s that “your dead” instead of “you’re dead.” (Suddenly instead of simply incurring someone’s wrath, you’ve become a necromancer.) Or perhaps it’s that “there shoes are over their.” They’re where? Or, “were contemplating this or that.” Oh, are you? Does that mean the contemplating was in the past, that you want to know “where” you are contemplating and lost your aitch, or that you have invented some new sort of werecontemplating (remember, you are a necromancer, after all). See my point?

Missing apostrophes, mixing up spelling, and downsized capital letters makes for a hard time reading. If I have to spend a few seconds every other sentence sorting out what exactly the author meant, we have a problem of legibility. And even if I don’t think ill of him or her, I’m probably going to be inclined to not finish reading whatever was written.

So, what is to be done? I’m not entirely sure. At the very least, I think all sane people need to do their best to keep the grammar good. It’s there for a reason; use it. And rest content in the knowledge that you are making the world a better place.

Evidently the word was originally spelled “complement,” having derived from Latin through French. Sometime between 1650 and 1725, however, the French word “compliment” supplanted the second definition of “complement.” Thus, by the mid 1700s English had developed two different words:

Complement: that which completes or makes perfect

Compliment: polite expression of praise or flatter

Of course those are only two of several definitions of each, which both have noun and verb forms, but they are relatively representative on the whole.  Upon inspection, it does seem clear that having two different words is useful here.  But that doesn’t change the fact that the French “compliment” staged a hostile takeover of the English language.