English Grammer

Dear Fellow Critic,
We see we have managed to attract yet another critic of our contributions to the Letters to the Editor column in The Sabine Index. We find it interesting to note the fact there are some who seem anxious to reveal their lack of knowledge of the rules of English composition.

English grammar is composition is in itself an art form; as the rest of the world will attest to the fact that it is one of the most difficult language arts to master (one doesn’t have to look far to verify this fact).

We were taught by some inspirational instructors that the use of grammar in English composition is governed by a set of grammatical rules. These rules, when applied, makes for “proper English,” a goal we were taught to pursue.

In assisting our critic, we will revisit the grammatical rules governing the use of “collective words”, specifically the noun “we” with the regards to plurality or singularity of its use in a sentence. If no distinction is made in reference to “we” the people as a collective in our letters, the singularity of the word “we” is implied. We remind our critic of the advanced rule called the “editorial we” rule which is used by editors and other writers as a circumlocution (a round about way of speaking) for the repetitive and too personal word “I”. We were taught by our teachers to avoid being personal when conveying our thoughts in writing and to be as creative as possible by avoiding redundancy.

Aside from that, we will point our we consider it presumptuous to imply a difference between our “we the people” and our critics “we the people”. This infers divisiveness which our “we the people” recognize as a weakening social plight that is working feverishly to destroy our country. Certain agitators use social sensitivity such as “race” to keep “we the people” as a whole divided intentionally to keep our voting power diluted. This is not happenstance, it is by design. Why a lot of people, in our opinion, do not see this is because a lot of people still allow their feelings (emotions) to govern their thinking rather than using common sense. This reason just might be responsible for our critics response to our letters.

Furthermore, we consider it portentous to presume to do anyone else thinking for them, as our critic seems to be implying. Likewise, we would consider it equally presumptuous for anyone else to imply they were thinking for us.

Now as far as the uneducated accusation of us misusing the term “we” instead of the word “I”, in the context we have been using has been dispelled, we will move on. We would suggest however that our critic look up one of his high school English teachers and request a remedial lesson or two on the subject. We will even consider helping out with the gas for the trips should he decide to take us up on our offer.

Oh, and by the way, no apology is necessary. We thank our critic for the opportunity to assist him.

Robert L. Rowe II
Belmont, LA