GRAMMARED BEAN

The construct of subject-object had been fundamental in a language’s speech. “Grammer”, appears to be changing its form along the geography of voices. Yet, a distinction between the doer and the deed remains constant across all domains of communication. Identification by labels turnout to be crucial in a communication that intends work. The overlapping definitions of “work-thought” duo could play along the lines of context. When muscular tensions equate to work, the brain fights to find its place in our anatomical classification. Similarly, when a synapse defines itself to be a thought, then would the muscles that carry them be a part of this thought process? Irrespective of this interchangeability, the paths of propagation or projection of the work-thought seem to be specific. In a standardized model, the expression is assumed to be more understandable. Once the model with a certainset of rulesfor speech gets established, the next chapter waits for vocabulary. Words that could potentially express an intensifying number of meanings, could be seen as a contrasting element to grammar. A single phonetic, that encodes within it, the meanings of many pre constructed sentences would indirectly minimize the use of a construct. But the usage of such phonetics could be of value, when a receptor aligns to an expressor. Or else, the purpose of communication could become void where vocabulary drifts from conveying meaningful sentences in words to flaunting meaningless terms for validation. At times, the purpose of a language seems to get ignored or at the least replaced, asthe derailing of grammar does not seem to be accepted even upon understanding the content that is been expressed. Grammer Nazis with their institutionally sharpened swords looks to be piercing judgements through the construct rather than the content.The grading of such expressive qualities that is quite often placed as a criterion to qualify for a higher degree of Intelligent Quotient, could be inappropriate. History has never failed to remind us about the technological advancements that wasn’t connected to any language in specific. Languages are mere tunnels for ideas to commute among individuals and societies. In fact, the quality of ideas could be a better evaluating metric in determining one’s quotient of intelligence. Moreover, the erosive tendency is greater for tunnelsthat are left idle. So, a constant flow of ideas is at ease when passed through a firm lingual construct. In a flexible set up, however, the probabilities for ideas to encounter fatal accidents is greater. But despite such a derailing, the beauty of a language seems to be encapsulated in the communities that construct them. This would ensure a dynamicity in structuresthereby flourishing diversity and eliminating stringency. Nevertheless, an adoption of basic generic structures would be helpful in expanding the reach of ideas within and across communities. Significance is shed on the balance of stringency and flexibility, where a stringent set of rules with polished vocabulary is not to intimidate fresh ideas while qualified ideas is not to travel in an extremely flexible construct with inappropriate vocabulary, as frequent accidents could potentially cause a loss of ideas. The striking of a fine balance is to be established, evolved and followed by the communities that walk along this tightly knit ellipsoid. In this focused journey of our speeches, coffee could accompany us in regulating the extremes by interchanging speakers and spectators. Finally, in any construct, do not forget to talk coffee and consume language.

Let grammar and vocabulary settle in the silent sips of a cup, while noisy judgements stay busy hovering through the dry throatsunable togulp.