My shooting instructor shows me how to control my breathing.

“Like in yoga?” I ask.


She responds with a nod, a chuckle, a shrug. Breathe in, breathe out, wait a beat. Fire. I see a yellow flash spark over the blackness of the XDm 9mm semi-automatic’s slide. I can feel the pistol recoiling in my hands, but not the terror I expected to feel. My shot lands well inside the target’s center square—a guileless sheet of paper printed with a vaguely human form now has a bullet in its chest.

“Congratulations! You just fired a real gun.” The sweet-faced and aptly named Amy Shotwell, my instructor at Ashburn, Virginia’s Silver Eagle Group, grins.

I set the gun down on the bench ahead of me, carefully pointing it downrange. A few lanes over, a middle-aged man in a white polo shirt empties his magazine, the drill of gunfire pelting his target so fast, it flutters like a leaf in the whipping wind.

“Want to take a minute?” Shotwell asks, eyebrows raised with some concern. “You okay?”

I shake out my arms. “I want to do it again.”

It’s almost four months to the day that I stood alongside my daughter and PETA volunteers, protesting the National Rifle Association’s tacky and ludicrous press conference a week after the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre. That week, NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre poked fingers at video game violence, lambasted the media, and recommended armed guards in our schools. Just blocks from the White House, he ranted in a hotel ballroom while my baby slept bundled in her snowsuit and stroller with me outside. I held a sign that said “Teach kindness, not killing.”

Now, I gather up the surprising lightness of my rented gun, take aim, and fire again. Another slug blasts through the middle of my paper friend.

It has been a strange few months.

Immediately after the Newtown, Connecticut, shootings, I found myself compulsively tucking and retucking my kids into bed. “There but for the grace of God go I” flickered in my brain like a short-circuiting neon light. I hovered extra long over my son, a preschooler, my mind teetering precariously into macabre horrors—bullets flying, frail, lifeless bodies. Simultaneously, I was swallowed by fear and incensed with outrage. I mouthed off about right-wing gun nuts. I shuddered as more news broke about Adam Lanza and his paperback copy of Train Your Brain to Get Happy, his holiday check from his mother for the purchase of a C183. I emailed my editor at GOOD a copy of the letter that I’d written to the president demanding gun control, hoping whatever power either held could spur some action and stop the guns.

Now, at the behest of that same editor, I’ve stepped into foreboding new terrain. When I first learned that people like me were gravitating towards firearms at a moment like this, I was revolted. I’d come to equate every American gun owner with Lanza, with James Holmes, with Seung-Hui Cho. Mine was a perspective that not only lacked nuance, but that had strayed from reality. My own rhetoric had become a shorthand in which merely owning a gun threw a person into a camp of those who were cavalier with deadly weapons, whose personal rights trumped public safety, and who were politically alien to me.

Despite a debate that often seems to crack along hard lines of cultural stereotype (think weeping, anti-gun mom vs. NRA card-carrying wacko), an individual’s political affiliation is not ipso facto an expression of their attitude towards guns. According to a 2011 Gallup poll, 40 percent of Democrats said they have a gun at home. But perhaps more interesting, after 2012’s highly publicized mass shootings, anecdotal reports suggest that many on the left are increasingly embracing firearms. In Cleveland this winter, Kim Rodecker’s concealed-carry classes saw a modest increase in liberals among their ranks. Kelly Whitlock, owner of the Portland Gun Club in Oregon, says he’s noticed a shift in the sorts of people walking through his doors over the past year or so. He sees an abundance of lesbian couples and “a lot of younger guys that have the hair that stands up taller than Elvis’s would have, in skinny jeans and scarves.” But it’s not just Portland hipsters, true to form, defying type.

In the time since Sandy Hook, the partisan divide on guns—as it’s been portrayed in our media, our advocacy alerts, our dinner-table spats—has appeared to have become only more polarized. In the days following the shooting, 72 percent of liberals responding to a Washington Post-ABC News poll said they favored stricter gun control laws in the United States. But being neatly boxed in by ideological lines has set some liberals looking farther afield to define their own position on guns. While the trauma of mass shootings has sent many on the left—like Gabrielle Giffords and her family—into an out-front appeal for gun control, another subset of liberals have careened off in the other direction.

At the same time the elementary school massacre had me Googling “bullet-proof backpacks,” Adam Hilliker, from Newton, Massachusetts, was typing “liberal gun owners” into his search engine. Hilliker, a father of 2- and 4-year-old kids, is a liberal who says he felt conflicted about guns—a couple of bachelor parties at shooting ranges had piqued the interest of the mechanically inclined software engineer. After the Sandy Hook shootings, he went through the natural horror any parent would, but then also found himself repelled by the anti-gun sentiment he heard on the news. “It happened, and it was terrible, and the media just wouldn’t let it go…then there was the NRA’s ridiculous response, and then everybody’s backlash against that, and it just got bigger and bigger.”

Despite having grown up in an anti-gun household, “after the Newtown shootings, there was such a crazy backlash about it that I just needed some perspective,” he says. When Hilliker found other liberal gun owners online, he decided to take a class. Exploring firearms became a two-part quest to master a difficult skill and unravel a liberal taboo. By March, he’d applied for his gun license.

Outshouted by the vehement cocksure-ness of the NRA, liberal gun owners from all over the country quietly gather in groups like The Liberal Gun Club, an education and outreach organization that Ed Gardner, LGC director of operations and chair of the group’s education committee, says draws gun-owners who “do not want to be identified with that sort of rabid, anti-government, frankly, Republican-supporting-base.” LGC is not alone. There’s the Liberal’s Gun Corner podcast on the Gun Rights Radio Network. There’s the Blue Steel Democrats with caucuses in multiple states and the snappy bumper sticker motto: “Democrats don’t want your guns—we’ve got our own.”

Not so much a silent majority, but a quiet yet noteworthy block once I discovered them, liberal gun owners represented a unique entry point into a world I didn’t think I’d be able to understand. Rather than the boogeymen I imagined, these were people who in most respects were like me.

[image position=”standard large” id=”536878″]

There are myriad reasons I’d never touched a gun before my trip to the shooting range in Ashburn. I tend to drop things. I abhor violence. I possess a collection of distastes for loud noises, unpredictability—not to mention anything that can puncture my flesh. Thus, I began my intellectual walkabout with gun-owning liberals wondering, foremost, how anyone could be drawn to weapons at a cultural moment like the current one.

For Brandon E. Cox, it has been a lifelong puzzle. A backpacker and high-rigger, the Arizona resident was raised never even to play with toy guns. “And I had kind of just a knee-jerk reaction to guns.” Yet, in adulthood he got into firearms when a good friend took him shooting. It was fun. He’s a gearhead. It fit. Still, he understood my concerns when we talked about last year’s massacres.

“They are horrors, I mean, in the strictest sense of the word… they’re horrors in the most visceral and human way possible.” Cox’s tone was gentle. “But reconciling that with logic, and just putting numbers together, it doesn’t add up.”

Despite the high-profile mass shootings, and enough guns for every adult in the U.S., according to a Pew Research Center analysis of government data, the homicide rate is down 49 percent since a 1993 peak. By 2011, other violent crimes with firearms—assaults, robberies, sex crimes—were down 75 percent from 1993. According to the Centers for Disease Control, each year in the United States, approximately 11,000 people are killed in gun homicides. Nearly 20,000 die in gun suicides. Cox reminded me that in comparison more people (35,000) die in car accidents each year. According to data derived by Stephen Dubner and Steve Levitt in their book Freakonomics, a child is about 90 times more likely to die in a swimming pool than by gun.

For some liberals, doing the math—aligning policy with the available data— feels like a natural extension of their political philosophy. Marlene Hoeber, a “glorified mechanic” at a biotech firm, is a gun owner who describes herself as a “lefty feminist.” To Hoeber, the gun debate is the only time she sees the American left treating numbers and evidence as completely irrelevant, as though there is no reasonable political discussion to be had. Her characterization reminded me of years of willful denial of climate change on the right. But, says Hoeber, “the strategy of chipping away at rights looks an awful lot like the anti-choice movement to me.”

For those on the left, party-line antipathy around guns is a phenomenon of recent history. According to the massive General Social Survey, in the 1970s and 1980s, more Republican households owned guns than Democratic ones, but the distance between the parties’ ownership didn’t widen considerably until the early 1990s, around the time of the legislative fight over the Brady Bill.

Gardner at LGC also explains that being a Democrat between 2000 and 2008 was complicated. “If you weren’t with us, you were against us,” she says. The political divisiveness of the Bush/Cheney years made it tricky to be the sort of liberal who frequents a shooting range. Says Gardner, “For many years, obviously, this particular segment was dominated by the NRA, and as things got politically charged…folks of our political persuasion were increasingly unwelcome.”

For years they hid their love of firearms, but the block of liberal gun owners is slowly becoming more vocal. Since software engineer Hilliker has taken up shooting and began telling his liberal friends about his adoption of the sport, he’s discovered many were privately gun enthusiasts. “We didn’t really talk about this stuff because it’s pretty taboo, but then, when I started bringing it up, there were more people than I thought who were into guns.”

I joke with Hilliker that confessing to a love of firearms must, for some liberals, feel a lot like coming out—baring some private fact about yourself. He corrects me, “Yeah, except I think if I were coming out, it’s something I would feel more proud of.” Guns have a more negative stigma. “I feel like supporting gun culture isn’t as righteous as supporting gay culture.”

By most estimates, Americans own between 262 million and 310 million firearms, and as the drumbeat of gun control legislation has thumped louder, gun sales have only skyrocketed. Whitlock of Portland Gun Club regularly sees people showing up to class with guns still in the box, coming straight from the store. When I ask him why he thinks that is, he answers simply, “because they think it’s possible they won’t be able to have them anymore.” It’s an interesting time for Whitlock, a conservative who says his shooting slots are filling up increasingly with liberals. “They’re definitely not of the same mindset that I am by any means—and you wouldn’t normally picture them with guns, because their party is the one that wants to take them away from us.”

Hoeber says she finds the partisanship over gun rights perplexing. “I find it very odd that I have to make a political choice between people whose politics support all of the other civil liberties, or people who support gun ownership as a civil liberty, but none of the others. I mean, it’s a very odd political divide that doesn’t make a lot of sense, isn’t it?”

It’s a divide that has been perpetuated by one of Washington, D.C.’s strongest lobbies, the NRA, which has been cozying up to the Republican Party since the 1970s—often leaving those on the left, when it comes to guns, in a reflexive fighting stance.

Former staff writer for The New Yorker, self-described son of New Jersey Jewish Democrats, and Gun Guys author Dan Baum brought up a common, but worthwhile trope among gun owners when we spoke. “We just had this bombing at the Boston Marathon. You know if that had been done with a gun, we’d be talking about guns, but because it wasn’t done with a gun, we’re talking about alienation, trying to figure out why these guys did it.” After Sandy Hook, public discourse touched briefly on mental illness, and, says Baum, “I personally think it makes more sense to have the kind of conversation we’re having after the Boston Marathon bombing—why would young people do such a thing, rather than ‘let’s ban the guns.’”

[image position=”standard large” id=”536880″]

Perhaps overcoming a plague of alienation and violence is precisely where progressives are most needed at this moment of cultural upheaval. The violence in Newtown got those of us who don’t regularly experience violence thinking about it in a personal way, if briefly. But as Hoeber aptly pointed out to me, “You know it, nobody gives a shit about all the black kids that get shot in West Oakland, but you shoot 26 middle class white children in Connecticut, all of a sudden it’s a big fucking deal. And all of a sudden it’s about the big scary guns.”

And instead of dealing with so much else that is broken in this country, fear of those guns has instead translated into an attack on gun rights—rights that for many represent a fundamental and deeply felt freedom. The issue matters as much to some people—all along the political spectrum—as speech or religious freedoms matter to others. Baum tells me that most of us naturally understand the exceptionalism of the First Amendment: “We’re trusted to know things and speak and publish and print and broadcast. But it’s also very true in the context of guns, where we are trusted to own and operate these very dangerous weapons—and for gun guys [and girls], that’s an important thing.”

For LGC’s Gardner, Second Amendment protections matter, but don’t represent the whole of his political ideology. “I’m not a single-issue voter,” he tells me. “I care a great deal about things like marriage equality. I care a great deal about fairness in labor…I care about defense overspending. I do happen to care about Second Amendment rights.” He adds in summation, “I do shoot.”

When Hilliker wrote his gun license application letter to the police chief, he felt in some ways he was making an important political statement. He even wrote, “I think the more Democratic voters who are regis- tered gun owners the better, for the diversity of the conversation about gun ownership.” Later, at his licensing interview, the police chief let him know he thought his comment was pretty funny.

The right to keep and bear arms is serious business—for many it’s about self-defense. According to the Pew Research Center, while in 1999, just 26 percent of Americans owned guns for protection (49 percent had them for hunting back then), today 48 percent own guns for protection.

Hoeber’s perspective was sobering. Hoeber described herself as “Queer, trans…I have been in my life an outsider.” She says she doesn’t necessarily have the feeling that police are there to protect her, saying that if a fight broke out at a party at her house, “chances are I’m as likely to go to jail because it’s my house, and I’m me, as somebody who came to a party at my house and started a fight.” She adds, “The idea of ceding the monopoly on deadly force to the police or to the state or to the other authoritarian power structure, that’s completely fucking ridicu- lous to me.” Turning over that kind of power, to Hoeber, is a totally right-wing idea.

I was torn between an emotionally fraught rock and a rational hard place. I’d invested considerable time talking to lefty gun enthusiasts, then just hours before I shot a firearm for the first time, I spoke to Kim Russell, media director of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, the viral Facebook-group-turned-grassroots- movement. Russell herself was a victim of gun violence. In a mugging that turned fatal, her friend was shot, Russell dodged bullets, and finally had a gun held to her forehead by a 17-year old with a tragic family history who only wanted their watches and wallets. I pictured the final emptiness she described, the life leaving her friend’s eyes.

I also kept picturing tiny bodies mas- sacred in kindergarten classrooms or the teenagers much more frequently gunned down in the Chicago neighborhood where I used to live. In the same way that I can’t think “lemon” without also thinking “sour,” I couldn’t picture a gun without revulsion and fear.

“Fairness is an important, critical core value on the left,” Hoeber tells me. “And I think one of the ways that sense of fairness exists on a deeply emotional level is really strong and negative feelings toward bullies.” She sees the anti-gun impulse on the left as an association between guns and bullies. “The gun is the dangerous power of the redneck, the Klansman, and the bad cop, and the unjust military dictatorship.”

She uses “bullies” in the broadest sense possible, but wonders how few of us, since World War II, have had an experi- ence of guns and violence being used to protect us from bullies. Calling for patience, she reminds her fellow lefty gun owners that the anti-gun impulse among other liberals “comes from wanting to take the power away from those who would subjugate others.”

It’s immense power that can come from the mere flick of a finger. When I finally held a pistol, then a revolver in my hands, I could feel the potential costs of carelessness. It was an intimate handshake, albeit briefly, with the Grim Reaper. And I was clutching between the two palms of my hands both totem and taboo.

A gun, it seems, is a symbol of momentous heft.

I don’t know what runs through a hunter’s head when he or she looks at a Remington 700 .30-06. But I was begin- ning to see that the tension over guns was less a matter of political leaning, and more a matter of the gun’s place in a person’s imagination, a matter of which direction the barrel aimed: if it were your kids imperiled, or yours you were protecting.

I think of Russell, the memory ever- present in her mind of a muzzle pressed to her forehead. I consider Hilliker, a dad, making sense of tragedy by demystifying the gun. I see in my own hands the blast, the thump of fear and adrenaline in my veins, and my finger depressing the trigger again. I know that however much it still scares the hell out of me to extend my body into the thrust and trajectory of a bullet, were the threat of harm to come to me or my children, I’d want to stand on this side of the gun—not aiming to kill, never to kill—but to have some force behind which to salvage what I love.

Illustrations by David Schwen

  • Voice actor explains why Americans instantly trust people with British accents, even if they’re lying
    Photo credit: CanvaA traditional town crier, left, and a happy, applauding audience, right.

    Americans have this strange love of British accents—so much so that even when someone is speaking absolute gibberish, we find ourselves transfixed and absurdly trusting them.

    Tawny Platis, a professional voice actor and content creator, expertly captured the phenomenon in her YouTube video, “Why Americans Love This Accent.” In the video, she analyzes why Americans find Billy Butcher’s voice so compelling despite the character’s violent and morally chaotic behavior on the TV show The Boys.

    Americans trust and love rough, working-class British masculinity

    “So Karl Urban is a New Zealander doing a Cockney, working-class, East End London accent,” Platis explained. Regardless of how well the actor nails the accent for his character, Butcher, Americans buy right into it anyway. “That’s because working-class English masculinity is coded in American media as authenticity,” she added.

    She goes on to give examples to help substantiate her point: “Every Guy Ritchie movie, British gangster film, and working-class antihero from Michael Caine to Tom Hardy has trained American audiences to hear that voice as unfiltered and honest.”

    A 2024 study published in SAGE Journals found that listeners unconsciously form social biases based on accents. People rapidly make assumptions about personality and identity.

    decision making, accents, familiarity, credibility
    A young businessman speaks into a microphone.
    Photo credit: Canva

    Make ordinary information sound important

    The accent becomes a shortcut the brain uses to make immediate decisions about intelligence, honesty, confidence, warmth, and even competence. When it comes to characters like Butcher, the key detail isn’t so much the “Britishness” itself—it’s the association.

    “Butcher is using the working-class Brit voice to showcase honesty,” Platis said. “Butcher is a liar who manipulates Hughie, hides things from his team, and is willing to take out children. But the audience keeps forgiving him because his voice sounds like a man who’s earned the right to do all that, when he very much hasn’t.”

    Psychologists believe part of this effect comes from something called “processing fluency.” A 2023 study published in Scientific Reports found that increased exposure to certain accents reduced listeners’ cognitive effort. As a result, people made more positive social judgments about the speaker.

    Accents that feel familiar after years of movies, television, and media unconsciously influence people. Audiences automatically attach credibility and trustworthiness to them. Simply put, people mistake familiarity for truth.

    A 2024 study found that Americans rate the standard British accent most positively, strongly associating it with traits like intelligence, status, and competence. The Northern English accent is viewed slightly less favorably. Scottish accents are considered strong and friendly. Meanwhile, the Welsh accent falls somewhere in the middle, depending on how well the listener recognizes it.

    factual, educated, casual interactions, performance
    Blocks spell out the words “fact” and “fake.”
    Photo credit: Canva

    Accent bias sways people’s opinions

    The same instinct that makes one accent sound “trustworthy” can also make another sound “unreliable.” In real-world interactions, working-class accents can be perceived as less intelligent or less educated. This can affect hiring decisions and even workplace promotions.

    A 2024 study focusing on “Americanness” found that accented speakers were perceived as “less American.” In simulated hiring scenarios, they were less likely to be hired, demonstrating that an accent can override other judgments.

    When a person speaks, people instantly begin building a story about who they are. Many decide whether a voice sounds trustworthy long before consciously realizing it. Platis points out that a lifetime of exposure to social media, movies, and television has shaped that perspective.

    “Butcher’s accent is the most effective because it’s the only one many viewers don’t even recognize as a performance,” Platis said. Which basically means somewhere out there right now, a confident British accent is talking nonsense that feels totally believable.

  • Italian man claims to be ‘human cheetah’ with lightning-fast reflexes
    Photo credit: CanvaA man with fast reflexes.

    At first glance, this probably looks like a camera trick. Ken Lee, an Italian content creator, has built a massive online following by doing something that doesn’t quite feel real. Viewers refer to him as the “human cheetah” because it appears he has near-instant reflexes.

    Grabbing objects out of the air with uncanny precision, flicking clothespins and lighters, and throwing a blur of punches and kicks at impossible speeds, it is easy to call him unbelievable. Half the audience thinks his viral speed videos are fake. The other half is just as convinced they are watching something incredibly rare.

    Hands so fast they blur time

    In the video above, a timer runs to confirm its authenticity. In what looks like half a second, he reaches out and snags the lighter from the table. To prove it is real, he does it twice.

    Having amassed millions of followers on his TikTok page, the identity behind the mysterious influencer remains largely unknown. Active since around 2022, with almost 100 million accumulated likes, Lee has cultivated a fandom around his self-proclaimed “Superhero per Hobby!”

    Do you believe it is real? Is this person the fastest human alive? Many followers cannot wait for the next video to be posted. Plenty of his fervent fans are Italian, so sifting through the remarks takes a bit of hunting. Here are some comments that sum up how much people enjoy the fun and the spectacle:

    “Ken lee the fastest and the best”

    “Most dangerous human”

    “Is this what the lighter sees before my homie steals it”

    “It was sped up during he grabbed the lighter, if u count up with the timer u would be off by like 0,5 seconds whenever he grabs the lighter.”

    “If the flash were human”

    “How is it possible to get such powers ?”

    “I blinked and I missed it”

    People love good entertainment

    The awe of peak performance attracts people to watch elite athletes, musicians, or even dancers. There is something that deeply satisfies all of us when a human appears to push a skill to its limit. Whether it is real or fake seems to matter less than the opportunity to chime in on some good entertainment.

    How far could any of us go by practicing and repeating a particular motion over and over until it is mastered? Beneath the flashy nickname and his viral speed videos, Lee’s content has a way of drawing people in. This is not a superpower. Just repetition. Focus. Obsession. And maybe some digital wizardry.

    Testing the science of speed

    If you wish to question the validity of Lee’s performances, maybe some basic science can help. Human reaction time is not just a reflex. A 2024 study found that the nervous system can fine-tune responses in real time. Practice can make movements appear almost automatic.

    It has been well established in research that the gap between seeing something and responding has a limit. A 2025 study concluded that the most elite extremes allow for reaction times of 100 milliseconds. At that speed, the human brain can barely process that something has happened.

    Science explains Lee is not necessarily moving as fast as we might perceive him to be. And therein lies all the fun of it. We cannot prove it is real, nor can we actually prove that it is fake.

    Maybe Lee is the “fastest man alive” or the so-called “human cheetah.” Or maybe he is just a remarkable entertainer. Either way, he has clearly tapped into something strange and fascinating: a blend of human ability and fantasy that people do not want to miss.

    To give context to Lee’s videos, watch this performance on Tú Sí Que Vales:

  • Despite all the likes, literallys and dropped g’s, English isn’t decaying before our eyes
    Photo credit: LisaStrachan/iStock via Getty Images Fear not: There isn’t anything that needs saving.

    As a linguistics professor, I’m often asked why English is decaying before our eyes, whether it’s “like” being used promiscuouslyt’s being dropped deleteriously or “literally” being deployed nonliterally.

    While these common gripes point to eccentric speech patterns, they don’t point to grammatical annihilation. English has weathered far worse.

    Let’s start with something we can all agree on: Old English, spoken from approximately A.D. 450 to 1100, is pretty unintelligible to us today. Anyone who’s had the pleasure of reading “Beowulf” in high school knows how different English back then used to sound. Word endings did a lot more grammatical work, and verbs followed more complicated patterns. Remnants of those rules fuel lingering debates today, such as when to use “whom” over “who,” and whether the past tense of “sneak” is “snuck” or “sneaked.”

    The language went on to experience centuries of tumult: Viking invasions, which introduced Old Norse influence; Anglo-Norman French rule, which shifted the language of the elite to French; and 18th-Century grammarians, who dictated norms with their elocution and grammar guides.

    In that time, English has lost almost all of the more complex linguistic trappings it was born with to become the language we know and – at least, sometimes – love today. And as I explain in my new book, “Why We Talk Funny: The Real Story Behind Our Accents,” it was all thanks to the way that language naturally evolves to meet the social needs of its speakers.

    From dropping the ‘l’ to dropping the ‘g’

    The things we tend to label as “bad” or sloppy English – for instance, the “g” that gets lost from our -ing endings or the deletion of a “t” when we say a word like “innernet” – actually reflect speech habits that are centuries old.

    Take, for example, “often.” Originally spoken with the “t,” that pronunciation gradually became less favored around the 15th century, alongside that “l” in “talk” and the “k” in know. Meanwhile, the “s” now stuck on the back of verbs like “does” and “makes” began as a dialectal variant that only became popular in 16th-century London. It gradually replaced “th” whenever third persons were involved, as in “The lady doth protest too much.”

    While dropping the “l” in talk may have been initially frowned upon, today it would be strange if you pronounced the letter. And the shift makes sense: It smoothed out some linguistic awkwardness for the sake of efficiency.

    If people learned to look at language more like linguists, they might come around to seeing that there is more than one perspective on what good speech consists of.

    And yes, that absolutely is a sentence ending with a preposition – something many modern grammar guides discourage, even though the idea only took hold after 18th-century grammarian Robert Lowth intimated it was a less elegant choice based on the model of Latin.

    Though Lowth voiced no hard and fast rule against it, many a grammar maven later misconstrued his advice as an admonition. Just like that, a mere suggestion became grammatical law.

    The rise of the grammar sticklers

    Many of today’s ideas about what constitutes correct English are based on a singular – often mistaken – 19th-century view of the forces that govern our language.

    In the late 18th century, the English-speaking world began experiencing class restructuring and higher literacy rates. As greater class mobility became possible, accent differences became class markers that separated new money from old money.

    Emulation of upper-crust speech norms became popular among the nouveau riche. With literacy also on the rise, grammarians and elocutionists raced to dictate the terms of “proper” English on and off the page, which led to the rise of usage guides and dictionaries that were eager to sell a certain brand of speech.

    Another example of grammarian angst reconfiguring the view of an otherwise perfectly fine form is the droppin’ of the “g.” It became so tied to slovenly speech that it was branded with an apostrophe in the 19th century to make sure no one missed its lackadaisical and nonstandard nature.

    Up until the 19th century, however, no one seemed to care whether one pronounced it as “-in” or “-ing.”

    Evidence suggests that -ing wasn’t even heard as the correct form. Many elocution guides from the 18th century provide rhyming word pairs like “herring/heron,” “coughing/coffin” and “jerking/jerkin,” which suggest that “-in” may have been the preferred pronunciation of words ending with “-ing.” Even writer and satirist Jonathan Swift – a frequent lobbyist for “proper” English – rhymes “brewing” with “ruin” in his 1731 poem “Verses on the Death of Dr. Swift, D.S.P.D..”

    Embrace the change

    Language has always shifted and evolved. People often bristle at changes from what they’ve known to what is new. And maybe that’s because this process often begins with speakers that society usually looks less favorably on: the young, the female, the poor, the nonwhite.

    But it’s important to remember that being disliked and bad are not the same thing – that today’s speech pariahs are driven by the same linguistic and social needs as the Londoners who started going with “does” instead of “doth” or dropped the “t” in often.

    So if you think the speech that comes from your lips is the “correct” version, think again. Thou, like every other English speaker, art literally the product of centuries of linguistic reinvention.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

Explore More Culture Stories

Internet

Italian man claims to be ‘human cheetah’ with lightning-fast reflexes

Culture

Despite all the likes, literallys and dropped g’s, English isn’t decaying before our eyes

Culture

10 boys and 10 girls were left alone in separate houses and the different results are just wild

Media

9-year-old girl asks Steph Curry why his shoes aren’t in girls’ sizes. The response was perfect.