In linguistics, there is a field of study that is called pragmatics. It's all about illocutionary intent. That is, it's all about what the speaker (writer) intends to communicate, and how he or she does that.
Fine grammar skills are really only useful when they enhance communication and minimize miscommunication. Aside from this, fine grammar may have some degree of aesthetic value to those that appreciate it, but at the end of the day, is not intrinsically valuable.
If one is able to communicate effectively what he or she is attempting to communicate, and the listener (reader) is able to get it, then the purpose of the communication is achieved and grammar is secondary.
Case in point, perfectly grammatical structures can also be nonsensical or irrelevant: "The monstrous, non-existent chicken ate an inedible turkey while not standing on the moon as a representative of rock-kind and as an ambassador inside tinseltown."
But no. Grammar nuts are not destined to any sort of hell, except the one they inflict on themselves by getting worked up about rules whose ultimate purpose is only to ensure more effective communication, and not to be an end unto themselves.
In short: Some anons are better at positing curious and quirky questions that ultimately illustrate examples of the poignancy of human life.
In linguistics, there is a field of study that is called pragmatics. It's all about illocutionary intent. That is, it's all about what the speaker (writer) intends to communicate, and how he or she does that.
Fine grammar skills are really only useful when they enhance communication and minimize miscommunication. Aside from this, fine grammar may have some degree of aesthetic value to those that appreciate it, but at the end of the day, is not intrinsically valuable.
If one is able to communicate effectively what he or she is attempting to communicate, and the listener (reader) is able to get it, then the purpose of the communication is achieved and grammar is secondary.
Case in point, perfectly grammatical structures can also be nonsensical or irrelevant: "The monstrous, non-existent chicken ate an inedible turkey while not standing on the moon as a representative of rock-kind and as an ambassador inside tinseltown."
But no. Grammar nuts are not destined to any sort of hell, except the one they inflict on themselves by getting worked up about rules whose ultimate purpose is only to ensure more effective communication, and not to be an end unto themselves.
In short: Some anons are better at positing curious and quirky questions that ultimately illustrate examples of the poignancy of human life.
Mic drop.
:D