Anderson: Taking the long view, Support history shows that word usage and grammar rules are constantly changing and evolving—sometimes resulting in entirely new languages. █████ ████ ████ ██████ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ █████████ █████ █████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██████
███████ ██████ ████ ███████ ████ ██ █████████ █████ █████ █████████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ███ ███ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ████ ████ ████ ███ █████████
Anderson says that we shouldn’t worry about enforcing grammar rules. In support, Anderson says that these rules will change over time anyway. And how do we know this? Because history shows that grammar rules are always changing.
Lipton’s argument leads to the unstated conclusion that we should enforce grammar rules. Lipton supports this by drawing an analogy between grammar rules and laws, since both change over time. However, Lipton says, it’s good to enforce laws—implying that it’s also good to enforce grammar rules.
We want to find a disagreement between Anderson and Lipton. The two disagree about whether we should enforce grammar rules.
The dialogue provides the most ███████ ███ ███ █████ ████ ████████ ███ ██████ ████████ ████ ███████
grammar violations should ██ ████████
a language can ██████ ████ ██ ████████ ███ ████████
users of a ████████ ███ ██████ █████ ██ ███████ ██ ████ ████████
people only rarely ███████ ███████ █████
languages evolve through ██ ████████████ ██ ███████ ██ █████ ███ █████