Did teaching grammar make us stupid?

Je suis Omar · April 29, 2015

Now you come up with one. I know you can't!

May versus Can for permission.

cybercoma · April 29, 2015

It is one of Canada's official languages, along with French and English. Jean Chretien famously and frequently spoke that language, example, "a proof is a proof is a proof is a proof."

Let's make fun of the francophone with the funny English accent and bell's palsy. Grow up.

BubberMiley · April 29, 2015

May versus Can for permission.

You're talking word definitions, not grammar.

Je suis Omar · April 29, 2015

You're talking word definitions, not grammar.

See, you don't even have a basic grasp of what grammar is. The deontic/social uses of the two modal verbs, can and may, are exactly what grammar is.

1. Use your pen.

2. Can I use your pen?

Notice how the addition of two words, notably the modal verb 'can', changed the grammatical/syntactic properties of sentence 1?

From OED:

grammar

1 The whole system and structure of a language or of languages in general, usually taken as consisting of syntax and morphology (including inflections) and sometimes also phonology and semantics.

------------

See how easy it was to come up with a bogus English rule. But all these grammar gurus steeped for long years in intensive grammar studies couldn't seem to recall any.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Je suis Omar

Je suis Omar · April 29, 2015

It is one of Canada's official languages, along with French and English. Jean Chretien famously and frequently spoke that language, example, "a proof is a proof is a proof is a proof."

Would you like someone to explain that sentence to you? You don't seem to have much of a grasp of the word 'proof'.

BubberMiley · April 29, 2015

See, you don't even have a basic grasp of what grammar is. The deontic/social uses of the two modal verbs, can and may, are exactly what grammar is.

As you cited, grammar is commonly described as "the whole system and structure of a language or of languages in general." But the rule regarding "can" versus "may" has nothing to do with the grammatical (structural) use of "can" as a verb; the rule is referring to the definition of "can" when used in a perfectly grammatical sentence. You could add the modal verb "can" or the modal verb "may" to the sentence you provided and it would change "the grammatical/syntactic properties" in exactly the same way. It's almost like you didn't know what you were talking about when you wrote this because it did nothing to prove your point.

A teacher prescribing the "can/may" rule, when asked "Can I go to the washroom?", would invariably say "I don't know, can you?" This is because they are defining "can" as "be able to", "know how to", or "be potentially capable of." They are rejecting the definition "be permitted to" for some reason and think "may" sounds better. This is lexicology, not grammar.

Punctuation, however, helps to define the structure of sentences. So it's hilarious that you would say punctuation has nothing to do with grammar, lexicology has everything to do with grammar, and I don't have a basic grasp of what grammar is.

Edited April 29, 2015 by BubberMiley

Big Guy · April 29, 2015

As to communications, I believe that the good communicator quickly establishes the comfort level at which the person (they are communicating with) is accustomed and use that as a basis for formulation your grammar.

What is "correct" is the level at which both are able to express and understand each other easily - that would include vocabulary as well format.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Big Guy

jbg · April 29, 2015

Let's make fun of the francophone with the funny English accent and bell's palsy. Grow up.

My name is not Kim Campbell. I did not make fun of the Bells' Palsy. One of my relatives has that.

Next.

BubberMiley · April 30, 2015

I don't think you'd have an easy time finding a prescriptive book of grammar rules that warns against using split infinitives anyway, so even that example I provided doesn't really work. Have another go?

Edited April 30, 2015 by BubberMiley

jbg · April 30, 2015

My name is not Kim Campbell. I did not make fun of the Bells' Palsy. One of my relatives has that.

Next.

Some people are overly sensitive these days when it comes to humour. Some jokes become funnier and funnier with repetition. I especially like the one about the Jewish lawyer from New Jersey.

Could you repeat the joke? I could use it on a few of those, including one who has my last name. I met him and he's an asshole. Thank G-d not related to me. Edited April 30, 2015 by jbg

Charles Anthony · April 30, 2015

Could you stop the thread drift? It is not even funny.

Could you folks stop responding and feeding the thread drift?

What in the world do you guys want???

Je suis Omar · April 30, 2015

I don't think you'd have an easy time finding a prescriptive book of grammar rules that warns against using split infinitives anyway, so even that example I provided doesn't really work. Have another go?

But it's those same no nothing idiots who had been espousing it. It even took OED until 1998 to see the light.

Je suis Omar · April 30, 2015

As to communications, I believe that the good communicator quickly establishes the comfort level at which the person (they are communicating with) is accustomed and use that as a basis for formulation your grammar.

What is "correct" is the level at which both are able to express and understand each other easily - that would include vocabulary as well format.

Everyone knows grammar, even little children. You're probably thinking of those "grammar rules" you think are grammar rules that aren't. The ones everyone is scared s**tless to advance.

Je suis Omar · April 30, 2015

As you cited, grammar is commonly described as "the whole system and structure of a language or of languages in general." But the rule regarding "can" versus "may" has nothing to do with the grammatical (structural) use of "can" as a verb; the rule is referring to the definition of "can" when used in a perfectly grammatical sentence. You could add the modal verb "can" or the modal verb "may" to the sentence you provided and it would change "the grammatical/syntactic properties" in exactly the same way. It's almost like you didn't know what you were talking about when you wrote this because it did nothing to prove your point.

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".

A teacher prescribing the "can/may" rule, when asked "Can I go to the washroom?", would invariably say "I don't know, can you?" This is because they are defining "can" as "be able to", "know how to", or "be potentially capable of." They are rejecting the definition "be permitted to" for some reason and think "may" sounds better.

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.

BubberMiley · April 30, 2015

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".

Good lord.

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. You were disputing its definition---that is, the contention that it is not used correctly when used to ask for permission.

But why are you s***-scared to provide actual bogus grammatical rules that teachers prescribe? I gave you the split infinitive, but that one isn't prescribed anymore so who cares. What are some other ones? And while you're at it, explain what I said that indicates I don't have a basic understanding of grammar (or lexicology, which you seem to think is grammar). If you can't give examples of what you're talking about, how can anyone take you seriously?

Edited April 30, 2015 by BubberMiley

Je suis Omar · May 1, 2015

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.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Je suis Omar

Je suis Omar · May 1, 2015

I don't think you'd have an easy time finding a prescriptive book of grammar rules that warns against using split infinitives anyway, so even that example I provided doesn't really work. Have another go?

And another example from 2013.

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4680

From 2014.

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=16090

Edited May 1, 2015 by Je suis Omar

Je suis Omar · May 1, 2015

What is it you refer to as false rules.

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.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Je suis Omar

On Guard for Thee · May 1, 2015

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.

I think learning correct grammar is not an intended function of this forum.

BubberMiley · May 1, 2015

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.

You are disputing its definition with the putative, ignorant, prescribing teacher, not with me. We agree it's a deontic modal auxiliary verb that can be used to ask for permission.

Regardless, it's probably good advice to say "may" rather than "can" because there is less possibility of confusion among those who wonder "I don't know, can you go to the washroom?" Clarity is the most important rule of communication.

But why are you so reluctant to back up your own contention and provide us all grammatical rules that are fake? Surely there must be more than the split-infinitive example I gave you. You're not just full of crap, are you?

Edited May 1, 2015 by BubberMiley

Je suis Omar · May 1, 2015

You are disputing its definition with the putative, ignorant, prescribing teacher, not with me. We agree it's a verb that can be used to ask for permission. ... Regardless, it's probably good advice to say "may" rather than "can" because there is less possibility of confusion among those who wonder "I don't know, can you go to the bathroom?"

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.

But why are you so reluctant to back up your own contention and provide us all grammatical rules that are fake? Surely there must be more than the split-infinitive example I gave you. You're not just full of crap, are you?

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.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Je suis Omar

Je suis Omar · May 1, 2015

I think learning correct grammar is not an intended function of this forum.

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.

BubberMiley · May 1, 2015

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :lol:

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.

I'd defend them if you had the intellectual honesty to identify them. But all you do is cower and call other people scared. Edited May 1, 2015 by BubberMiley

BubberMiley · May 1, 2015

But I'll call your bluff. Many of the grammar rules I learned dealt with agreement between subjects and verbs. For example, "His understanding and ability to express himself is terrible." Here, the verb should be are.

Is that rule bogus because every kindergarten student would understand the sentence, even with the verb "is"? Or is it bogus because you believe every kindergarten student knows intuitively that it should be "are"?

Je suis Omar · May 1, 2015

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. :lol:

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".

Edited May 1, 2015 by Je suis Omar