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

[camlok]

She wasn't the one I was referring to...

She has to be the one, Red, because you can't possibly be this confused. She, nota bene, is the militant grammarian, the one who is trying to defend totally specious, invented in the 18th century, false grammar rules, without ever really addressing anything specific. She is all over the map. She is making specious accusations that are couched in the very thing prescriptivists decry, writing that is unclear and unfocused.

Obviously, you are confused, badly. You came rushing in here making wild, totally unclear accusations, when you don't have the foggiest notion of which you speak.

 

[RedAkston]

She has to be the one, Red, because you can't possibly be this confused. She, nota bene, is the militant grammarian, the one who is trying to defend totally specious, invented in the 18th century, false grammar rules, without ever really addressing anything specific. She is all over the map. She is making specious accusations that are couched in the very thing prescriptivists decry, writing that is unclear and unfocused.

Obviously, you are confused, badly. You came rushing in here making wild, totally unclear accusations, when you don't have the foggiest notion of which you speak.

It's quite clear to anyone reading this disaster of a thread except you that you're the one who is confused. You didn't even know the gender of the one you have an issue with even though it's clearly marked on her profile in plain sight for all to see.

Perhaps I should take your approach to debating in the future where I reference someone who is an expert in one field and use them as a source in a completely unrelated field?

 

[SirGareth]

For what?

Good for not ending a sentence with a word like "for" for.

 

[zyzygy]

Good for not ending a sentence with a word like "for" for.

Up with which you will not put.

 

[Fledermaus]

Good for not ending a sentence with a word like "for" for.

:lol:

 

[Fledermaus]

She has to be the one, Red, because you can't possibly be this confused. She, nota bene, is the militant grammarian, the one who is trying to defend totally specious, invented in the 18th century, false grammar rules, without ever really addressing anything specific. She is all over the map. She is making specious accusations that are couched in the very thing prescriptivists decry, writing that is unclear and unfocused.

Obviously, you are confused, badly. You came rushing in here making wild, totally unclear accusations, when you don't have the foggiest notion of which you speak.

Projection in its purest form.

 

[camlok]

It's quite clear to anyone reading this disaster of a thread except you that you're the one who is confused.

Red, please, a "grammarist". You clearly do not even understand who the militant "grammarists" are. Why have the mods let all these people rant on about "no examples of grammar errors" when the link discusses many?

You didn't even know the gender of the one you have an issue with even though it's clearly marked on her profile in plain sight for all to see.

nota bene's gender is of no importance to the discussion, even if someone as confused as you on these language issues thinks it is.

Perhaps I should take your approach to debating in the future where I reference someone who is an expert in one field and use them as a source in a completely unrelated field?

You don't have a clue what you are talking about as regards Pinker's expertise. That was a nota bene red herring, purposefully set out so she wouldn't have to talk about the actual issue, the false grammar rules.

That is all she has done in this entire thread is red herrings.

You don't know anything about this language grammar issue so why do you keep on pretending you do.

STEVEN PINKER

Curriculum Vitae


Steven Pinker is a Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University. He conducts research on language and cognition, writes for publications such as the New York Times, Time and The Atlantic, and is the author of ten books, including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, The Blank Slate, The Stuff of Thought, The Better Angels of Our Nature, and most recently, The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person's Guide to Writing in the 21st Century.

Steven Pinker is an experimental psychologist who conducts research in visual cognition, psycholinguistics, and social relations.

https://stevenpinker.com/biocv

Language Log: The Culture of Polarization, Linguistics Style

... people seem disinclined to give up their cherished preconceptions about language, from their conviction that African American Vernacular English is slovenly and without rules to their certainty that Elizabethan English persists in Appalachian hollows. (For a catalogue of these canards, see Laurie Bauer and Peter Trudgill's collection Language Myths.)

Is what we have here just a failure to communicate?

That's the view of many linguists, who call for more and better efforts at popularization. But it seems to me that linguistics has been pretty well served by its popularizers, from from Robert A. Hall to modern linguists like John McWhorter, Steve Pinker, Geoff Pullum, Mark Baker, Deborah Tannen, Jean Aitchinson, Ray Jackendoff, Neil Smith, Donna Jo Napoli, David Crystal, John and Russell Rickford, John Baugh, and many others. And that's not to mention the informative documentaries of Gene Searchinger and Robert McNeill. Pound for pound (we're a small discipline, after all), I'd stack that line-up against the popularizers of any other science.

Steven Pinker describes many of these false grammar rules, the ones that nota bene studiously avoided, as did everyone except Sweden and, I believe, one other poster.

You never noticed, did you, how nota bene selectively chose things from S Pinker's CV to give the false impression she tricked you into believing.

 

[camlok]

Quote Originally Posted by SirGareth View Post
Good for not ending a sentence with a word like "for" for.
Up with which you will not put.

Up with which you will not put.

Is this really the total extent of the "knowledge" of the prescriptive crowd?

Here, we have zyzygy, and others, denying that there are false grammar rules, and then he chats about one of the more famous ones.

All that study, with Cambridge grad English teachers and all, seems to have all been for naught.

 

[Fledermaus]

It's quite clear to anyone reading this disaster of a thread except you that you're the one who is confused.

Red, please, a "grammarist". You clearly do not even understand who the militant "grammarists" are. Why have the mods let all these people rant on about "no examples of grammar errors" when the link discusses many?

You didn't even know the gender of the one you have an issue with even though it's clearly marked on her profile in plain sight for all to see.

nota bene's gender is of no importance to the discussion, even if someone as confused as you on these language issues thinks it is.

You don't have a clue what you are talking about as regards Pinker's expertise. That was a nota bene red herring, purposefully set out so she wouldn't have to talk about the actual issue, the false grammar rules.

That is all she has done in this entire thread is red herrings.

You don't know anything about this language grammar issue so why do you keep on pretending you do.

Steven Pinker describes many of these false grammar rules, the ones that nota bene studiously avoided, as did everyone except Sweden and, I believe, one other poster.

You never noticed, did you, how nota bene selectively chose things from S Pinker's CV to give the false impression she tricked you into believing.

The CT types always select non-experts as their "experts"....

 

[camlok]

The CT types always select non-experts as their "experts"....

Just two posts before, in bold, extra large print for those whose inability to digest English is well known;

That's the view of many linguists, who call for more and better efforts at popularization. But it seems to me that linguistics has been pretty well served by its popularizers, from from Robert A. Hall to modern linguists like John McWhorter, Steve Pinker, Geoff Pullum, Mark Baker, Deborah Tannen, Jean Aitchinson, Ray Jackendoff, Neil Smith, Donna Jo Napoli, David Crystal, John and Russell Rickford, John Baugh, and many others. And that's not to mention the informative documentaries of Gene Searchinger and Robert McNeill. Pound for pound (we're a small discipline, after all), I'd stack that line-up against the popularizers of any other science.

============

You don't even have a clue as to that list of whose who linguists, F. What makes you incapable of reading such easy to see material? Are you flat out lying? There is no other reasonable explanation.

 

[Fledermaus]

Just two posts before.....

The CT types always select non-experts as their "experts"....

From Dr. Pinker's CV:

Education

Doctor of Philosophy (Experimental Psychology), Harvard University, 1979.
Bachelor of Arts (First Class Honors in Psychology), McGill University, 1976.
Diploma of College Studies, Dawson College, 1973.

 

[Quag]

The CT types always select non-experts as their "experts"....

From Dr. Pinker's CV:

Education

Doctor of Philosophy (Experimental Psychology), Harvard University, 1979.
Bachelor of Arts (First Class Honors in Psychology), McGill University, 1976.
Diploma of College Studies, Dawson College, 1973.

So he's Canadian eh? Well then I guess he is actually better at English than most Americans after all that's kinda like half way to actually being English. Heck they still have the queen on their money

 

[zyzygy]

So he's Canadian eh? Well then I guess he is actually better at English than most Americans after all that's kinda like half way to actually being English. Heck they still have the queen on their money

I believe that Canadians do not use Webster's misspellings.

 

[Quag]

I believe that Canadians do not use Webster's misspellings.

Dawson and McGill are both Canadian. Both are actually in Montreal but I suppose he could have come from elsewhere :shrug

 

[camlok]

I believe that Canadians do not use Webster's misspellings.

Here is a dandy example of how prescriptions became established - like all prescriptions, based on a fundamental ignorance of the English language.

People spell as their dialect dictates and as people grow older and wiser, obviously there are some who lack on the latter, they spell as they see fit, choosing whatever spelling works for the occasion.

This illustrates that speech is primary for language and that writing/spelling are artificial aspects of language. This is precisely how the silly prescriptions arose, people who knew/know nothing of English grammar simply created nonsense rules.

People down thru the centuries who know even less of English grammar perpetuated these nonsensical "rules".

How can you tell a nonsense rule from a real rule of English grammar? If someone "corrects" you on a rule of grammar, ask them to explain the reasons for it. They will have no clue whatsoever, as seen from all the prescriptivists who are here, too frightened to defend their "rules".

Or they will give you some totally lame nonsense that make no grammatical sense whatsoever.

It's the same for pronunciation. People pronounce words as their dialect dictates.

Another silly prescription, the demand for 'his' rather than 'their'.

Everyone brought HIS gear. versus Everyone brought their gear.

A totally silly rule, which is what all prescriptions are.

 

[camlok]

If you can read this post then it's good English.
Who cares about sentence structures and proper grammar as long we can all enjoy the discussions.
If we are afraid to speak then expressing ourselves will not happened.

This isn't a thread that is focused on the notions you discuss, PTF. It is a discussion of the centuries long lies about English grammar that were advanced and perpetuated by people who knew little to nothing about the English language or English grammar.

You have to have been corrected, either personally or seen someone else corrected in your lifetime. These grammar duds spouting their grammar nonsense are everywhere. There was the Grammar Lady, 'was' the operative word. She had a website that attracted all the usual grammar idiots. She was actually a professor at some US college/university, but that's nothing new for US colleges and universities have long been hotbeds of these same grammar idiots.

Have you ever heard of Strunk & White?

 

[zyzygy]

Dead thread.

 

[camlok]

None of us use perfect grammar.

Again, highly illustrative of how little you know of language, zyzygy.


The point is that there are no grammar rule lies.

"For here are the remarkable facts. Most of the prescriptive rules of the language mavens make no sense on any level. They are bits of folklore that originated for screwball reasons several hundred years ago and have perpetuated themselves ever since. For as long as they have existed, speakers have flouted them, spawning identical plaints about the imminent decline of the language century after century. All the best writers in English have been among the flagrant flouters." Steven Pinker

Prescriptive rules that make no sense on any level can be nothing but lies. Rules that are invented are not followed by native speakers, which clearly illustrates that they were lies when they were invented just as they are lies today.

 

[camlok]

Dead thread.

You have brought nothing of any value to this thread so obviously your offerings are dead.

 

[JMR]

I think that English is the only language where a sentence like " Mother, why did you lock that book that you were reading to us out of up for?" could be constructed. Somebody please correct me if I am wrong.

Actually I don't think you can say that...you've ended a sentence with a preposition. And got (sic!) lots (sic!) of other stuff not needed also too.

Mother, why did you lock up that book you were reading to us? expresses that thought a little better. ...I think?

 

[JMR]

Here is a dandy example of how prescriptions became established - like all prescriptions, based on a fundamental ignorance of the English language.

People spell as their dialect dictates and as people grow older and wiser, obviously there are some who lack on the latter, they spell as they see fit, choosing whatever spelling works for the occasion.

This illustrates that speech is primary for language and that writing/spelling are artificial aspects of language. This is precisely how the silly prescriptions arose, people who knew/know nothing of English grammar simply created nonsense rules.

People down thru the centuries who know even less of English grammar perpetuated these nonsensical "rules".

How can you tell a nonsense rule from a real rule of English grammar? If someone "corrects" you on a rule of grammar, ask them to explain the reasons for it. They will have no clue whatsoever, as seen from all the prescriptivists who are here, too frightened to defend their "rules".

Or they will give you some totally lame nonsense that make no grammatical sense whatsoever.

It's the same for pronunciation. People pronounce words as their dialect dictates.

Another silly prescription, the demand for 'his' rather than 'their'.

Everyone brought HIS gear. versus Everyone brought their gear.

A totally silly rule, which is what all prescriptions are.

I think there is a movement to replace him/her with they and his/her with their to be more sensitive to gender issues. I don't know how far this will get along. I think it took 25 years to have "Ms." accepted in the common usage.

But if we are not adopting the usage for gender issue reasons, there should be agreement between the pronouns. Everyone is singular so his/her....

 

[camlok]

...you've ended a sentence with a preposition.

Another of the bogus rules of English, JMR.

 

[nota bene]

Another silly prescription, the demand for 'his' rather than 'their'.

Everyone brought HIS gear. versus Everyone brought their gear.

A totally silly rule, which is what all prescriptions are.

It's not a silly rule, and not following it can be terribly confusing for second-language speakers. The gradual acceptance of "their" for "one" has been, despite rationalizations to the contrary, an excuse for laziness.

It's about counting, camlok. "Anyone" means "one." "Anybody" means "any one body." "Everyone," "everybody," "someone," and "somebody" all take a singular pronoun because they all mean "one." So does "each," and "each" happens to be the real stumbling block for many.

So count. "One" means "one," and "they" means "more than one." If your goal is "gender fairness," you can always choose the feminine pronoun, and I remember when Dr. Spock rewrote his famed baby "bible" and laboriously changed all the old rule "he's" to "she's. Or you can do what my major professor recommended: Write a sentence that avoids the agonizing choice entirely: "They all brought their gear."

Problem solved.

 

[camlok]

I think there is a movement to replace him/her with they and his/her with their to be more sensitive to gender issues. I don't know how far this will get along. I think it took 25 years to have "Ms." accepted in the common usage.

I've heard this "gender issues" argument but it isn't at all accurate, JMR. The reason that this is a bogus rule, like all the prescriptive lies/rules are bogus is that native speakers never follow/never followed these rules in their natural language use.

"everyone" is grammatically singular, but it is notionally plural. If I say to a crowd of people, "Everyone, please stand up", I don't expect that I will have to address each person individually, and indeed, that fact has been revealed to be true countless times.

When one looks at the English language in all its forms, we find the use of notionally singular 'they/them/their' has a long long history of use among English users. The "rule" was invented sometime in the 18th century. People who think they can "invent" a new rule of grammar and that it will be followed have a dismal grasp of how languages work.

Do you think "Geoffrey Chaucer, Edmund Spenser, William Shakespeare, the King James Bible, The Spectator, Jonathan Swift, Daniel Defoe, Frances Sheridan, Oliver Goldsmith, Henry Fielding, ..."[1] and a host of other long dead English speakers gave two hoots about gender issues?

[1] Singular "their" in Jane Austen and elsewhere: Anti-pedantry page

 

[JMR]

It's not a silly rule, and not following it can be terribly confusing for second-language speakers. The gradual acceptance of "their" for "one" has been, despite rationalizations to the contrary, an excuse for laziness.

It's about counting, camlok. "Anyone" means "one." "Anybody" means "any one body." "Everyone," "everybody," "someone," and "somebody" all take a singular pronoun because they all mean "one." So does "each," and "each" happens to be the real stumbling block for many.

So count. "One" means "one," and "they" means "more than one." If your goal is "gender fairness," you can always choose the feminine pronoun, and I remember when Dr. Spock rewrote his famed baby "bible" and laboriously changed all the old rule "he's" to "she's. Or you can do what my major professor recommended: Write a sentence that avoids the agonizing choice entirely: "They all brought their gear."

Problem solved.

I like "All participants should bring their own gear."

Also...move the preposition to a more comfortable place in the sentence..not the end. Caveat....this is for formal writing, when you a presenting yourself as conversant with the language.

Speech is usually a bit less formal, and more forgiving.

It was mentioned earlier that even 5 year olds pick up proper grammar...but if they don't hear it, they will not.