Purpose

I should disclaim I'm a proponent of destroying language. So long as it's understood. Previously, as in gradeschool, I defended the misused grammar moreso than a yo momma joke. Insult her all you want, but don't mess with my semicolons.

Recently, my mind has been paraphrasing Rudyard Kipling's "If"... you can walk with kings, nor lose the common touch...the earth is yours and everything in it (anybody with the actual quote can give me the actual thing. i'm on dialup.) And how Kipling suggests the duality of language, and its ability to create borders, can make you a king and/or peasant. But like royalty, such privilege is afforded to a very, very few. There also would be many kingdoms, some plutocracies, matriarchs here, theocracies there. Kipling's kingdom is different from my kingdom, yours, or anyone else; it's all relative. Such is language. Likewise, there would be many commoners with their respective stories of how uniquely engineered their caste was created.

I'm not saying I've the ability to walk with kings, nor that I have the common touch. In fact, I'm awkward. Universally so. What I am saying is that language should not be given heavy evaluation on face value. My fear is that it will distract from the content. I even understand that understanding a sentence with horrible grammatical structure and content implies having the mindset to understand such syntactical fallacies. But. If you know what the damn sentence says, admit it. You understand the dark side of language.