A Case Against Bad Grammer and Free Speech

Leading Constitutional scholars agree the First Amendment should be modified to mandate that speech is free unless you continually insert “had” into your sentences, in which case it is perfectly fine to beat the speaker with a rock.

Okay. Maybe they don’t advocate that exactly, but, if they don’t, they should.

Example: “Delbert had said to me he couldn’t find Old Rex because Old Rex had ran off after Rupert had set off them fireworks behind him? Then he had went …”

Thwok! Rock to noggin.

Thwok! Thwok! A couple more for the good of the country.

This punishment may seem overly harsh until you realize bad grammar can be as dangerous as yelling “Fire!” in a theater or, more to the point, yelling: “Run! Someone had set the theater on fire!”.

Here’s an example:

I recently read a post on a Facebook farming group that enraged a lot of people to the point I feared for their blood pressure. The author of the post seemed like a perfectly pleasant person. She did not say anything controversial or rude, yet she was the target of any number of nasty grams. Her post simply showed a picture of a bunch of chickens standing in her yard. The text above the picture read: “Our flock has grew!”

The response was amazing. That four-word sentence absolutely enraged the usually genteel members of the group. You would have thought she suggested using day-old chicks as golf balls. The kinder responses simply contained one word: grown. The not-so-kind responses suggested something along the lines of: How long have you been speaking English you moron?

I hate to admit it, but grammar that egregiously bad torqued me, too. I didn’t respond to her, because I am a kind and considerate person who puts the thoughts and feelings of others before my own, but mainly because I was too busy listing my proposed modifications to the First Amendment.

For instance, here’s another change. It tackles word pronunciation. We might want to add a clause where a lengthy stretch of incarceration would be imposed on anyone who routinely says “supposably” or “libary.”

Example: “Maynard supposably had went to the libary to get a book but it turns out he had wandered off looking for Old Rex.”

Thwok! One for Maynard.

Thwok! One for Old Rex for running off and causing all this trouble in the first place.

I don’t know about you, but lately I’ve noticed a growing trend in YouTube posts with titles like “Ten Celebrities Who Died While Sunbathing Naked” where the first “t” in words ending with “tant” is silent. Words like “important” are pronounced “impor ant.” This same crowd pronounces fountain and mountain as “foun-in” and “moun-in.”

It annoys me to the point I would love to give the speaker a good, old-fashioned butt kick-in.

Example: “While sunbathing naked at Happy Day Spa, the voluptuous Ima Badactor rolled off the ‘moun an’ and nearly perished when she busted something ‘impor ant.’ The members of Cub Scout Troop 42 who witnessed the sight of a naked starlet rolling a few feet past them had to be hosed down with cold water from a ‘foun an.’ It is feared many will never be the same.”

It wouldn’t hurt if we tossed in a sub clause forbidding the use of the phrase “emotional rollercoaster.” It seems every other interviewee on the news today books passage on an “emotional rollercoaster” and I, for one, wish it would derail.

Example:

Reporter: “We now go to Emma Klotsberg, a mother of one of the Cub Scouts who witnessed the nude Ima Badactor roll by. Mrs. Kltotsberg, what has it been like for your family since the incident? Dare I say it’s been an … emotional rollercoaster?”

Klotsberg: “That’s exactly what it’s been, Dave – an emotional rollercoaster. We’re hoping for the best, but we’re afraid little Herman’s eyeballs will never stop bugging and the doctor says that grin on his face may be permanent, too.”

Thwok! That wasn’t a rock to the head. That was little Herman’s left eyeball popping back into its socket.