A couple of years ago, I blogged about the New York Times’s decision not to use the word “tweet” in the context of Twitter. It was a classic case of denial – a refusal to acknowledge the oncoming train headed straight for the old platform.

Now we have the Associated Press and several respected dictionaries orchestrating a grammatical train wreck. Hyperbole? Perhaps. But we’re already on board that metaphor so let’s keep chugging. The Washington Post reported recently on the AP’s approval of the use of the adverb “hopefully” for “it is hoped” in addition to the established “in a hopeful manner.”

It’s one thing for word usage in conversation to devolve into disjuncts (clearly, frankly, and most annoying among them: “most importantly”), but quite another for respected purveyors of English language rules to sanction poor grammar.

Just because people say “It’s not too bad of a day” (the criminal, ubiquitous insertion of “of” is worth a blog of its own), or “The ship sunk two miles off shore,” or “He needs 60 votes or less to win” doesn’t make them correct. Just because more and more people use words incorrectly more and more often, doesn’t make the act any more acceptable. If anything, it makes it less so.

I understand the argument that languages are always evolving. Sumer is no longer icumen in, after all. Words are invented or lost, meanings change. The rules of language and grammar, however, are there to give structure, underscore meaning, as well as orchestrate melody and cadence.

Rules, of course, can be broken. When writing dialogue or dialect – or a blog – there is more leeway. Writing in a conversational manner often demands the rules are tossed out altogether. What we shouldn’t do is say there are no rules because no one’s following them – or teaching them.

I’ve disagreed with the AP Stylebook before. I favor the serial comma. AP advises against it. I use apostrophe “s” at the end of proper nouns ending with “s.” AP advises an apostrophe only. Even though I’m a former journalist, I grew up on Strunk & White. By the time I saw an AP Stylebook, I was already indoctrinated.

Given that the AP, the Oxford English Dictionary, Webster’s New World College Dictionary, and the American Heritage Dictionary all have bowed to “hopefully,” I’m pretty sure the aforementioned train has left the station. It is hoped, however, some will let it pass them by.

Felicia Knight is President of Knight Vision International, LLC

Image by Mactitioner

It’s the age of instant, global communication. We can Google, Bing, and Yahoo our way to information that used to take days or months to obtain. With the swipe of a smartphone we can whisper to a friend on the other side of the world. Communicating and informing has never been easier. Why, then, are we screaming at each other?

Many topics popped up over the last few weeks that had me itching to write: Rush Limbaugh’s reinvention of the word prostitute, Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin that worst of all obscenities, Katie vs. Sarah in the mornings, Keith Olbermann’s serial whining, birthers who won’t take their meds, and politicians who engage in a daily game of “I know you are, but what am I?”

Each of those topics – and many more – are ripe for the ranting. If you read this blog regularly (of course, I’d have to post it regularly for that to be possible), then you know I’m as capable of a good rant as the next person.

Maybe that’s part of the problem: with the world at our fingertips, we’re all too eager to join the public conversation. Except that the public conversation basically consists of “You’re wrong, I’m right.” “Yankees Suck.” (I’m actually okay with the last one.)

We’re not conversing. We’re not listening. We’re declaring victory and hitting “send.”

The Tea Party was borne of people outraged with government overspending and overreaching. Occupy __________ [pick a location] was borne of people outraged with economic disparity and social injustice. These were both relatively unorganized, grass roots movements with multiple factions within themselves deserving of attention and examination. Government has grown beyond what we can afford, it does interfere too much, there is no excuse for hunger in America, and we should all have access to affordable health care. Often the disagreement isn’t on the declaration, it’s on how to achieve a solution.

But instead of having actual conversations, instead of listening to each other to find common ground, politicians, media outlets, and, to some degree, the movements themselves have co-opted the zeitgeist to a point where we have a take-no-prisoners power struggle to reinforce and promote partisan agendas and increase page views and ratings.

The true believers and their fellow travelers don’t seem to tire of the rhetoric. They love the noise, the chaos, the fight. There was a time when I did too. But there comes a time when the reality of the world not being black and white – or, in current parlance, red or blue – gives rise to less certainty and more circumspection.

You tend to shout less, talk more. And above all, listen.

Felicia Knight is President of Knight Vision International, LLC