Language is often thought to be governed by strict grammatical rules: syntax, morphology, word order and logical distinctions that determine what is correct and not. However, in practice, speakers often use constructions which appear to contradict and break these rules. This turns the question on who governs language, if anyone were to, and whether “correctness” is determined by speaker usage or authority. Ancient discussions have taken place in determining the governing body of languages. In his commonplace book, Noctes Atticae 8.1, Aulus Cornelius Gellius records a debate over the phrase, “hesterna nocte”, (last night), using it to explore this question on a deeper level in the Roman world. Through this discussion, Gellius presents the model for determining the authority of language and its “correctness” as having established usage.
The Logical Objection
Critics argue that the expression hesterna nocte is logically problematic, since the adjective hesternus already denotes something belonging to “yesterday”, a category which associates something with the day rather than the night. On this view, the phrase appears conceptually confusing, as the night does not fit neatly into the boundaries of “yesterday” as strictly defined. Consequently, the expression seems redundant and internally inconsistent when analysed according to strict logical definitions.
Moreover, this objection raises a further question: who determines the limits of the night and day? If time in the early morning remains dark, can it still be classified as “night”, or does it already belong to the following day? Such uncertainties expose a tension between logical categorisation and the realities of linguistic usage.
The Response
On the other hand, critics argues that the expression is logical due to its commonality and usage by those in positions of authority. They do not attempt to resolve its logical difficulties, but by questioning whether logic is the appropriate standard that language should be judged by. Rather than redefining hesternus or clarifying the boundaries of the day, they appeal to authority and established usage, pointing to respected authors who employ the expression freely. The concept relied on, known as auctoritas, refers to the authority a person had, and the level of influence they had with public decisions. Therefore, usage by auctoritas outweighed any theoretical inconsistency, revealing a conception of linguistic tradition concerned with common usage over logic.
Linguistic thought in the modern world
The question of “correct” language has been debated from ancient times to the modern world. Defining rules for language is known as prescriptivism. This is the approach typically taken with Standard English in schools and other educational institutions. The concept of prescriptivism with English has been around since the 18th Century, with several books and dictionaries being composed specifically to target “bad English”. Such an example is, A new grammar, with exercises of bad English: or, an easy guide to speaking and writing the English language properly and correctly by Anne Fisher and Thomas Slack, who wrote about ideas such as “true” spelling and grammar rules pertaining to syntax and sentence constructions. These guides lay the foundations for modern Standard English, but in an increasingly globalising world, questions arise as to whether we should have a standard English.
In contrast to prescriptive approaches, modern linguistics increasingly recognises the legitimacy of vernacular forms of language. Vernaculars reflect how language is used within particular communities, shaped by social, cultural and regional contexts rather than formal regulation. Such an approach to rules of language is known as descriptivism, aiming to describe how language is used rather than defining rules. While such varieties are often dismissed as “incorrect” when measured against standard norms, they nevertheless function effectively as systems of communication. The persistence of vernacular speech challenge prescriptivism and suggest that language, as some ancient grammarians considered, derives authority from usage rather than imposed rules.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the ancient debate over whether language should be governed by authority, with a standard form, or if language should be described as used presents an interesting challenge in the modern world. Nowadays, linguists often take the latter approach, not defining strict rules, but looking at whether language does what it needs to do – communicate ideas and facilitate discussion. The descriptive approach to language accounts for vernaculars of language and opens broader opportunities for research into how humans convey ideas.
Mohammad Shehadeh 
Leave a comment