Probably the wosrt question ever

Why is it proper grammer to have an I but not an A. Are we really that selfish?

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with grammar promoting introspection. Saul Williams puts it far better than I could:

[i]to aim
is to take oneself too seriously
by focusing without instead of within

rearrange and remember

aim…i am

the right letters are there
it’s the wrong composition[/i]

The point here is that focussing on the self or ‘I’ is actually more humble and better directed than focussing on external objects in the belief that you project some sort of great human aura on to them. That’s why I think it’s appropriate that we have an ‘I’ and not an ‘i’, as it reminds us what’s important. However, Williams might disagree here, given that he uses ‘i’ in his poetry. That doesn’t ruin the argument though - deconstructing his work suggests that there is tension between the way he sees himself and the way he feels that he ought to see himself. Anyway, I’m all for the ‘I’ though I have no idea how it originated.

I’m confusing myself here…can anybody help?

Could it be that “I” is a proper noun (of sorts) whereas “a” is not?

No idea really, just postulating. :confused:

it seems to me like grammer is a way of keeping people in line. There’s a ‘proper’ way to do something. It’s ‘accepted’. However, if people are going to understand each other it makes sense that we have something in common and hopefully the words we are using mean roughly the same thing to everyone who uses them [thinkykid opens a can of philosophical worms]
so in one way, speech seems like a class thing, if you don’t say something the ‘right’ way, your not educated. However it also seems apparent that we need something shared otherwise we loose any sense in communication…


The more the obscure laws of language and grammer go unquestioned, the funnier it is when they’re completely ignored.

Add to this, a sprinkling of Joycean magic, and a ridiculous Irish accent :

Reading the above posts I was reminded of something I once read from an unknown linguist on the difficulties of the English language.


Reasons why the English Language is so hard to learn:

  1. The bandage was wound around the wound.
  2. The farm was used to produce produce.
  3. The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.
  4. We must polish the Polish furniture.
  5. He could lead if he would get the lead out.

6) The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.

  1. Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present.
    :sunglasses: A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.
  2. When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
  3. I did not object to the object.
  4. They were to close to the door to close it.
  5. To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.
  6. After a number of injections my jaw got number.

Let’s face it - English is a crazy language. There is no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine in pineapple. English muffins weren’t invented in England or French Fries in France. Sweetmeats are candies while sweetbreads, which aren’t sweet, are meat. But if we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig. And why is it that writers write but fingers don’t fing. grocers don’t groce and hammers don’t ham? If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn’t the plural of booth beeth?

One goose, 2 geese. So one moose, 2 meese?

His essay goes on, but it is pretty long. So if anyone is interested I will post the rest but I wish not to impose a great long essay when there is no interest.

What’s your take?

My english teacher handed that out on a ditto. She ended the exact same spot too go figure. But galliger (dont know spelling) had a comedy skit about that too.

Why is it proper grammer to have an I but not an A. Are we really that selfish?

Probably because Ego supercedes article, except alphabetically speaking.

Russian is humbler, it has an A an E and an I (which is not capatalized in the middle of a sentence). Probably demonstrates national character; individualist vs collectivist societies.

“Proper grammar” is the blank canvas and the pallette of paint of conversation. What you do with it, at times, requires artistic license, and at times, ‘paint-by-the-numbers’ (proper grammar). The most expressive and deep sentiment can be poetically, alone, expressed. Where is ‘proper grammar’ in poetry?
It is a basic from which verbal communication can thus proceed.

“A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used.” -Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Psycho-aynaltic interpetations, nameless, maybe dervived about a people through their grammar. And on a smaller level, as you emphasise, about the individual.

I’d give you that the analysis of grammer can be a small tool for supplying some data about that wondrously deep and complex creature, man. But I doubt that it can get you too far.
It’s value, in context, cannot be denied.

The worst question ever just might be


The best question ever, “Should I really make a pointless post in this six year old topic?”.

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: Or perhaps we can ask:

"Why should I really make a pointless post in this six year old topic?

And you may perhaps have a point, as I am sitting here trying to come with a clever answer. But is there an intelligent answer?

As this is a philosophy forum, I will not answer that, being that all [t]ruth is relative, everyone may have a different answer and I will have to come back later with mine. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :banana-dance: :banana-dance: :banana-dance:

Truth can be relative and yet you still be wrong.