Did teaching grammar make us stupid?

BubberMiley · May 1, 2015

Omar: I described one, illustrated how it was bogus and now I watch you continue to defend the bogus rule.

It wasn't a grammatical rule; it was a dispute in lexicology. I didn't "defend the bogus rule." I pointed out that "May I go to the washroom?" has no possibility with misinterpretation and "Can I go to the washroom?" could be misinterpreted as a question about one's physical ability. If a teacher feels that a student should get in the habit of phrasing his words to guard against misinterpretation, I'd say that's some good teaching. So can we move on to the plethora of other bogus rules you keep saying exist but refuse to identify? May we?

Tell me what's wrong with teaching about subject-verb agreement, which is what most grammatical lessons I've seen focus on most.

On Guard for Thee · May 1, 2015

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.

As I have already pointed out, most of the denizens here dont require any help with their grammar. Up a stump. Ha ha... talk about lame.

Je suis Omar · May 1, 2015

It wasn't a grammatical rule; it was a dispute in lexicology. I didn't "defend the bogus rule." I pointed out that "May I go to the washroom?" has no possibility with misinterpretation and "Can I go to the washroom?" could be misinterpreted as a question about one's physical ability. If a teacher feels that a student should get in the habit of phrasing his words to guard against misinterpretation, I'd say that's some good teaching.

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?

Despite a well-known prescription favoring MAY rather than CAN for expressing permission, MAY is especially rare in the sense of permission.

Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English pg. 493

How rare? For permission: MAY, less than 50 instances per million words, while CAN has more than 800 instances per million words. Edited May 1, 2015 by Je suis Omar

Je suis Omar · May 1, 2015

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?

Edited May 1, 2015 by Je suis Omar

Je suis Omar · May 1, 2015

As I have already pointed out, most of the denizens here dont require any help with their grammar. Up a stump. Ha ha... talk about lame.

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 · May 1, 2015

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 did. You ignored it because you had nothing.

I'm going to wait a bit.

Yes, maybe eventually you'll find something that supports your point better than demanding that other oeople provide examples to support your point and then ignoring them when they do so because you have nothing and you want to save face.

Everything I learned from my teachers about run-on sentences was bogus. :lol:

Je suis Omar · May 1, 2015

Everything I learned from my teachers about run-on sentences was bogus.

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?

Big Guy · May 2, 2015

I believe that the English language is malleable and adjustable. Constant repetitive use of words and phrases makes them an acceptable part of our language.

We must look at leaders of our countries to instill in us the importance of clarity, brevity and precision in communications in their pronouncements. For example:

"It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. If the --- if he --- if "is" means is and never has been, that is not --- that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.... Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any knid of sexual relations with Ms Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true." - USA President Bill Clinton, 1998.

BubberMiley · May 2, 2015

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?

If you've read 3000+ pages of two real grammar books, you should have found an example that backs up your argument. Since you have nothing to offer but taunts, I'll assume you feel you lost this argument long ago.

GostHacked · May 2, 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.

CAN is also a noun.

GostHacked · May 2, 2015

I believe that the English language is malleable and adjustable. Constant repetitive use of words and phrases makes them an acceptable part of our language.

We must look at leaders of our countries to instill in us the importance of clarity, brevity and precision in communications in their pronouncements. For example:

"It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. If the --- if he --- if "is" means is and never has been, that is not --- that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.... Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any knid of sexual relations with Ms Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true." - USA President Bill Clinton, 1998.

That's not mailable, that is manipulation. Double speek to confuse you.

Je suis Omar · May 5, 2015

If you've read 3000+ pages of two real grammar books, you should have found an example that backs up your argument. Since you have nothing to offer but taunts, I'll assume you feel you lost this argument long ago.

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.

Je suis Omar · May 5, 2015

I believe that the English language is malleable and adjustable. Constant repetitive use of words and phrases makes them an acceptable part of our language.

That is absolutely true, BG. There's no one else that can invent/coin new words and phrases except for the people who use a language.

We must look at leaders of our countries to instill in us the importance of clarity, brevity and precision in communications in their pronouncements. For example:

"It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. If the --- if he --- if "is" means is and never has been, that is not --- that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.... Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any knid of sexual relations with Ms Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true." - USA President Bill Clinton, 1998.

Not only Bill, and really, how can he be blamed for using his language to try to get himself out of a jam. We all do it to some degree or other. This website is full of people using their language for all manner of deception, even outright, bald faced lies.

It was bamboozling for sure, but it was grammatical and accurate within the parameters he described.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Je suis Omar

Je suis Omar · May 5, 2015

CAN is also a noun.

What is the significance of your statement, GH?

Je suis Omar · May 5, 2015

If you've read 3000+ pages of two real grammar books, ... .

Why do you ignore the significance of the two major grammar books of the last quarter century completely ignoring this "great grammar issue"?

It's simply another good example of time wasted on a real non-issue, when there is so much more of real interest and importance.

Je suis Omar · May 5, 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?

I don't think that you are really as up to speed on these issues as you should be, BM.

...

So theres a rule in English, except its not a rule, but some people think it is, and others who know its not a rule obey it in case it bothers the people who think it is, even though it can cloud or change the meaning of their prose. Ah, split infinitives: what an unholy mess.

https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/how-awkwardly-to-avoid-split-infinitives/

BubberMiley · May 5, 2015

I don't think that you are really as up to speed on these issues as you should be, BM.

Still chewing on that bone I threw you? Still got nothing to explain why teaching about run-on sentences and verb agreement are bogus? Maybe you should start calling me a teacher again to deflect from the fact you don't have an argument. Keep going through that 3000+ page book. Surely you'll find something in there eventually that will make it look like you know what you're talking about. :lol:

Je suis Omar · May 5, 2015

Keep going through that 3000+ page book.

Highly indicative of how poorly you read and follow things.

TWO books, among the premier grammar books of the last 25 years, which would be the period of time when all these nonsense "grammar" rules were shot down.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Je suis Omar

Je suis Omar · May 5, 2015

Still got nothing to explain why teaching about run-on sentences and verb agreement are bogus? :

Actually I never said either was bogus.

Smallc · May 5, 2015

Someone obviously was taught a lot of grammar.

On Guard for Thee · May 5, 2015

I think most of us had a good knowledge of grammar by the time we finished public school. If you are still having troubles with it, I am sure you could study right here on the internet.

BubberMiley · May 5, 2015

Actually I never said either was bogus.

That's true. That would be stupid. Let me know if you ever find another example to back up your argument. I might even throw you another bone like I did with the split infinitive. I understand there are some teachers who say the serial comma is redundant.

Je suis Omar · May 5, 2015

Someone obviously was taught a lot of grammar.

And it wasn't students in English speaking countries "educated" over the last few hundred years, Smallc.

Do you remember any of your "grammar rules"?

Je suis Omar · May 5, 2015

I think most of us had a good knowledge of grammar by the time we finished public school.

Then why is no one able to describe any of your rules, OGFT?

KeepitSimple had this to say about you, OGFT, in the thread noted below. Right on the money, wouldn't you say?

KeepitSimple

"On Guard......you have become famous for drive-by comments that you cannot support.....and you simply ignore the replies and move on to the next drive-by. ... . "

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23461-effectsimplications-of-climate-change-on-jetstreams/page-14

Edited May 5, 2015 by Je suis Omar