Dawkins and Bryson Synthesis

Dawkins and Bryson are both against against handbooks for grammar. While Bryson argues in more general terms for the fluidity of a language, Dawkins argues for the usage of punctuation for the rhetorical purpose. Bryson believes that English is too fluid in order to follow strict rules. He says that there are too many exceptions, or too many situations, for a handbook to cover. Joseph M. Williams states that the handbooks do not even follow their own rules shortly after stating them. Although, perhaps the grammarians, who wrote the handbooks, subconsciously did not follow them because the rhetorical situation at the time called for that kind of usage. Dawkins states that different ideas would call for specific emphasis and intended meanings. Nonetheless, the handbooks do contradict themselves, but it's because they contradict themselves that make Dawkins's argument even stronger. Bryson and Williams both agree that the only reason why grammarians stick to different rules is because one grammarian centuries ago or even a couple years ago said that it's "ugly" or "unprofessional." But to add regulations would only make English not the fluid language that it is supposed to be. Bryson contributes to the discourse that many of the grammar rules come from Latin, but unfortunately, Latin is not compatible as a base for English. English usage is too broad in order to apply the same rules. In comparison, Bryson and Dawkins both agree that the handbooks can not teach writers how to write; however, the difference is that Bryson believes that these rules, even though they are futile, can test the worth of the new usages and the constantly changing language.