• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which English grammar rules are bogus? [W:243]

Status
Not open for further replies.
You would think that he could present one here but he uses the same tactics in the CT forum. When he presents his full 911 theory there I will present a rule here.

There is no need for a 911 theory, the US government provided one that has not a lick of evidence to support it and myriad impossibilities within it that make it an impossible fable.

But this is the "Which English grammar rules are bogus?" thread.
 

It's cute but "Apparently even the meaning of 'grammatical rule' escapes you, zyzygy."

Why are you so terrified about providing a grammar rule that helped you along?
 
Testament to how poorly you understand the science of language. Your comparison is spurious.

Still no one can think of a "grammar rule" they were taught by mom, dad, granpa, their favorite English teacher, Strunk and White, Richard Lederer, William Safire, ... .

YOU are the one insisting "the vast majority" of grammar rules are bogus.

I have no difficulties with reading comprehension. Likely you are talking out your southermn passage.

YOU presented the double negative, yet that really isn't "bogus" as much as ignored by a subset of English speakers.

So you have presented NO supposed bogus grammar rules and your "vast majority" claim is BS.

Think traffic laws. A speed law can still exist and is valid even if you personally honk along at 80MPH.

What is "spurious" about the comparison?
 
There is no need for a 911 theory, the US government provided one that has not a lick of evidence to support it and myriad impossibilities within it that make it an impossible fable.

Blatant lies.

But this is the "Which English grammar rules are bogus?" thread.

It is YOUR CLAIM "the vast majority" of grammar rules are bogus...

YOUR CLAIM.

One which you refuse to back up.

We can conclude you were talking out your posterior...
 
YOU are the one insisting "the vast majority" of grammar rules are bogus.

We will conclude that the opposite is true. Thread over unless he provides some examples.
 
YOU are the one insisting "the vast majority" of grammar rules are bogus.

I have no difficulties with reading comprehension.

You surely do because I have never said the vast majority of grammar rules are bogus. I have said that the vast majority of the rules people like you think are grammar rules are bogus. You can't even grasp that simple distinction.

These would be the ones that you all are too petrified to put forward.
 
We will conclude that the opposite is true. Thread over unless he provides some examples.

Mr Language, who speaks three languages, cannot come up with a grammar rule he learned from granny. Amazing. Why are you always so frightened about providing any evidence/proof, zyzygy?
 
He is attempting to turn the education forum into a conspiracy forum.:lamo:lamo
 
He is attempting to turn the education forum into a conspiracy forum.:lamo:lamo

Not even a single rule granny taught you, zyzygy? But your emoticons really help your case. I think with three you'd have won the day.
 
The vast majority of the "rules" of English grammar that most people remember or better, "fail to remember" were never actual rules of the English language. They were simply prescriptions, made up rules that have persisted not so much in actual use but in the harangues of folks steeped in this mythology.

One was discussed in another thread, the "double negative/negative concord".

There seems to be a great reluctance on the part of folks to actually discuss them.

All language 'rules' are human creations and subject to change over time. And location; I heard on the BBC the other day that one English university -Sussex? - has a professor of Englishes, studying the various varieties of the languages spoken in various places. So a 'rule' is only what is currently used and taught in a particular place.
 
All language 'rules' are human creations and subject to change over time. And location; I heard on the BBC the other day that one English university -Sussex? - has a professor of Englishes, studying the various varieties of the languages spoken in various places. So a 'rule' is only what is currently used and taught in a particular place.

True. Therefore the grammar rules that I was taught were not lies.
 
Terrible reading comprehension, Fledermaus.

Yes. We agree. You have terrible reading comprehension.

THREAD TITLE:

Which English grammar rules are bogus?


Well? Which ones are?

The vast majority of the "rules" of English grammar that most people remember or better, "fail to remember" were never actual rules of the English language. They were simply prescriptions, made up rules that have persisted not so much in actual use but in the harangues of folks steeped in this mythology.

What are they?

If you don't know that is likely because you know nothing about the grammar of English and how most of what has been taught were/are lies.

What are the lies?

Name pretty much any "grammar rule" you were taught and it will likely be one of the lies. I've covered some in this thread and in another about language.

What are the lies?
 
Last edited:
All language 'rules' are human creations and subject to change over time. And location; I heard on the BBC the other day that one English university -Sussex? - has a professor of Englishes, studying the various varieties of the languages spoken in various places. So a 'rule' is only what is currently used and taught in a particular place.

Excellent, Sweden. The problem is that there are a number of "language grammar rules" that are not these natural rules of grammar you speak of. These are the ones that everyone seems scared silly of discussing.
 
What are they?

The ones that I described, which you obviously have failed to understand, almost certainly, as I have noted a couple of times, from your ignorance with respect to the English language.

Didn't your granny tell you any?
 
True. Therefore the grammar rules that I was taught were not lies.

Exactly. Not lies, just fictions. Or norms if you like - we were taught what people thought liked at the time.
 
Speling is a seperate isue from grammar. Thr preceding sentence is grammatically correct.

You folks should listen to Sweden.
 
Quote Originally Posted by zyzygy View Post
True. Therefore the grammar rules that I was taught were not lies.

Exactly. Not lies, just fictions. Or norms if you like - we were taught what people thought liked at the time.

First, zyzygy would have to note which rules he considers to be grammar rules. Because there is no doubt whatsoever that he and every other speaker of English has, at some point in their lives, been taught "grammar rules" that were outright lies, which is another word for fictions.

These are the ones that no one wants to put forward.
 
Speling is a seperate isue from grammar. Thr preceding sentence is grammatically correct.

I agree. Can you assist camlock? Were you taught any lies about English grammar? I am rereading my copy of Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage and I have not come across any lies yet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom