I like this comment you made: “People will find any excuse they can to discriminate against others, and language provides an easy way to distinguish those in the know from everyone else.” It sums up nicely another peeve I have lately about strident “grammar nazis,” which is the way in which they tend to divide the world into “stupid people who don’t know grammar” versus “smart people who do.” It’s just not that simple, I think.

I agree that they’re needless, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they don’t provide any information; they simply provide information that’s already provided elsewhere. This sort of redundancy is harmless and may possibly be helpful if it helps a reader or listener anticipate what you’re going to say next. But any benefit is probably measured in milliseconds, so I’d say it’s a waste of time and effort to invent rules and then try to get everyone to follow them.

Strictly speaking, we don’t need rules like this, but I think that, to some extent, they’re inevitable. People will find any excuse they can to discriminate against others, and language provides an easy way to distinguish those in the know from everyone else. I think the only thing that can be done about it is to change the way we teach language in school, but that’s much easier said than done.

On a related topic, the less/fewer distinction, along with who/whom and other similar rules, strike me as needless — they don’t provide any information. They’re strictly niceties. In my mind, they will change soon rather than later, and English will be the better for it.

I’d like to hear your opinion (or a link) on this. Do we need grammar rules that serve little purpose other than giving people a reason to criticize us?