Je suis Omar

Not at all, BM. In fact, the dearth of folks offering their pet grammar peeve illustrates exactly what the title says - teaching grammar has made folks stupider. Now, it doesn't mean that folks are stupid, it only means that the "grammar" that was taught was stupid, exceedingly so.

Not everything, but a large measure of it was bogus. By and large they were wasting your valuable time with these non-issues, when there is so much of real interest in the study of language. Why do you think that there is no mention of this BIG DEAL in 3000 plus pages of two real grammar books? Are you retired now, Teach?

I appreciate that, Jacee, but this violent nature that is endemic to the USA is very pertinent to the issues being raised here. How many of those police officers are ex-military, folks who are used to and comfortable with murdering/executing civilians with no adverse consequences? This has been US policy for over two centuries - kill innocent civilians with impunity. There's something immoral or amoral about us sitting around discussing these "issues" like we are responsible adults and ignoring the giant elephant in the room that is largely responsible for so much carnage.

You have this habit of just paraphrasing the previous poster's remarks, trying to create an illusion that you are being original. BubberMiley would like to see some new prescriptions/bogus grammar rules. Do you know any, Mr Editor?

BubberMiley: So can we move on to the plethora of other bogus rules you keep saying exist but refuse to identify? May we? Omar: Most assuredly we can. If you want to raise another one, then by all means go ahead. I'm going to wait a bit. It illustrates my point better than spoon feeding all those who have been turned in grammar whizzes by the fabulous teaching that has gone on for the last few hundred years. Why don't you ask MLW's resident editor, OGFT, to post some of his invaluable money making grammar rules?

You have been defending the bogus rule regarding may/can with a terribly specious argument. I fear that you may be/may have been that putative teacher and now you are trying to wiggle your way out of decades of deception. These situations arise/have arisen countless times over many many decades and no one is ever confused as to meaning. Why? Because everyone knows intuitively that CAN, like all modals, has many nuances, one of those nuances denotes PERMISSION. Your "good teaching", like all the "good teaching" for these bogus rules just doesn't take because what you suggest is unnatural. As I have pointed out, little children are aware of this. As an adult, why aren't you? How rare? For permission: MAY, less than 50 instances per million words, while CAN has more than 800 instances per million words.

BubberMiley: Because one rarely knows whether another person's urethra is clear of any obstructions, "May I go to the washroom" is simply less open to misinterpretation. Omar: Have you, in your lifetime, been that putative teacher, BubberM? BubberMiley: This clearly illustrates my contention as described in my previous post. The silence is proof positive. One would think you could describe a "rule" that is bogus but you don't dare. Omar: I described one, illustrated how it was bogus and now I watch you continue to defend the bogus rule. You described one, which you tried to defend by suggesting that there aren't many idiots still advancing said bogus rule. You've probably scared off OGFT because that's one of his big money makers. BubberMiley: You claim so many rules are "fake" but you can't even describe one example. All you can do is latch on to the split-infinitive bone I threw you and demonstrate confusion between lexicology and grammatical structure. Omar: Now you resort to outright lies. I described one, we've discussed it and yet you deny its existence. BubberMiley: I'd defend them if you had the intellectual honesty to identify them. But all you do is cower and call other people scared. Omar: And you have the gall to speak of "intellectual honesty".

Thank dog for small mercies. Do you think that you might be a little confused because you aren't privy to the facts. Are you aware that that is a commonplace occurrence for you?

A typical lame OGFT response when he/she finds he/she has once again driven him/herself up a stump. There's no need to teach correct grammar to the denizens of this website. I've seen many of those folks. Such a venture would be impossible. But that was exactly my point. We all know and use correct/appropriate grammar because we have a mental grammar that was filled in in early childhood. It is infinitely more reliable a grammar than is the nonsense that you are now falling all over yourself to avoid discussing, even though you initially jumped right in thinking that you did indeed want to discuss it.

This quote from you illustrates, unless you are being purposefully obtuse, that you and the putative, ignorant, prescribing teacher are one and the same. Three year old children know that CAN is used in the English language to ask permission. Three year olds know that modal CAN has a number of nuances and they are not at all confused by them. This clearly illustrates my contention as described in the thread title. People have been made more stupid by studying English grammar. The silence is proof positive. I know there are many who could describe a "rule" they have learned but they don't dare. Really, what did they learn, what were they taught? OGFT accepts money to correct others writing but he can't even describe one example. Some editor! Is the internet making people stupider? On language and grammar, it most assuredly is, unless they go far past the first hits which are nothing but god awful repetitions of all these nonsense rules that no one is willing to defend.

False rules are almost certainly many of those "rules" that you pretend to correct and then take money from unsuspecting people for having done so. OGFT: Apparently you dont know much of Shakespeare. Omar: I know enough of Shakespeare to know that Shakespeare never followed these false grammar rules, OGFT. The ones you think you know and get paid to correct but are too afraid to describe them here.

And another example from 2013. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4680 From 2014. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=16090

BubberMiley: The definition of the word "can" has nothing to do with grammar. That doesn't mean using the word in a sentence has nothing to do with grammar. It's still a verb. Omar: What a dictionary definition has to do with grammar is that it describes, long after the fact, (and sometimes poorly and erroneously) its place in the grammar of the English language. In the case of CAN under discussion (which you seem awfully confused about) it's a deontic modal auxiliary verb for permission. BubberMiley: You were disputing its definition--- Omar: I was not disputing its definition, which every four year old child knows much better than your putative, ignorant, prescribing teacher. BubberMiley: that is, the contention that it is not used correctly when used to ask for permission. Omar: Your confusion above. CAN is used for permission, grammatically, not to mention, much more frequently than MAY, by English speaking children the world over. My concern was of the teachers, parents, etc who resort to a fiction, ie. denying long standing, fully grammatical uses of CAN as a modal used for expressing permission, in order to force unrealistic language upon children.

That's your lame response to the "USA as an equal to the Nazis", BlackDog. These issues are central to what the USA is and has always been, a corrupt, vicious nation of violent, amoral people. Not all of course but more than enough to see through numerous holocausts. But you keep on being "one of the strongest critics of US "policies"" on this board.

Why'd you post a picture of a fat old cow who just happens to also be a war criminal and a terrorist.

Lots more sheeple. You are told from birth that you are the greatest, when in fact you are one of the worst countries, certainly among the most evil of countries, with scads of the most downright ignorant folks one could imagine. But stay deluded and proud. And stay there. That's the wish of so many of the poor of the world who wish you would stop murdering their children and stop stealing their wealth.

"law and order in America" is the quintessential oxymoronic phrase.

And what country is it that supports, and often installs, these brutal dictatorships, after overthrowing democratic governments, mostly for oil, but also for bananas, silver, gold, copper, ..., anything that it can steal from the indigenous population.

"Pro tip", that's pretty funny. You might want to consider doing some reading yourself because you sound like an apologist for war crimes and war criminals, for the greatest terrorist group of, at the least, the last sixty years. More diversion, which is just more apologist nonsense. Genocide is genocide. Holocausts are holocausts. These US actions haven't, don't operate in a vacuum. Those who have suffered from US war crimes and terrorism don't hurt any less than those who suffered under the Nazis. Really, do consider some reading. The USA's policies are, have always been pointed towards maximizing the potential to steal others wealth. Saving the oppressed is just not what the USA has ever done. Oppression, in ways that are truly the equal of Nazi brutality, has been the hallmark of the USA. And they were doing it long before the Nazis existed. Then the USA tried the Nazis for the same brutal crimes that the USA has been committing since before its inception as a "nation". The "other Empires" argument is fatuous. Real systems of law don't fail to prosecute current gangsters because others, even worse ones, existed before them.

How many countries has Iran invaded over the last two centuries compared to the USA, Shady? How many people has Iran slaughtered in that same time compared to the USA? How many times and for how long has Iran overthrown USA governments and installed brutal dictators in the USA, Shady? How many times and for how long has Iran overthrown any governments and installed brutal dictators in those countries, Shady? Compared, of course, to the bastion of freedom, the USA. How many times has Iran supported other countries in waging war against the USA, Shady? How many times has Iran supported the use of chemical weapons against the USA, Shady?

You consider vicious war crimes, unrelenting terrorism, murdering civilians, killing children and babies, stealing others wealth, genocides and holocausts, installing and supporting brutal right wing dictators, ... as "Pretty garden variety stuff". You have some other, different, more heinous US "policies" that you regularly criticize? Please enlighten us.

There are many who align themselves with gangsters, war criminals and terrorists. And there are many who believe the propaganda the USA has pumped out since its sordid beginnings. None of that changes the fact that the USA is the greatest war criminal/terrorist nation on the planet.

US "policies", cute euphemism! The Rape of the Philippines, the massive war crimes and terrorist actions against Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Hawaii, Indonesia, ... .

No, Nazis works quite well as a description for the USA. They are cut from the same cloth.

You say it has nothing to do with grammar (structural) and then you described that adding CAN "would change "the grammatical/syntactic properties" in exactly the same way". What "a teacher" is doing is badly misrepresenting language, essentially lying about language. It's a bogus rule, taught by folks who know nothing about language.