Did teaching grammar make us stupid?

[BubberMiley]

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

I described the run-on sentence rule; I described the verb agreement rule. Do you need more, or are you just going to go on pretending you had an argument and that you have the capacity to defend it?

(Shakes head emoticon)

[On Guard for Thee]

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

Not my rules. Sorry if you dot know them. Didnt someone here recently try and explain the split infinitive to you though...

[BubberMiley]

Omar: Actually, I never said either was bogus.

You admit you lied and yet you lack the decency to apologize.

(Shakes head emoticon)

Now, in desperation, you're making things up. If your reading comprehension were better, you would find that I simply said you have nothing to say to show that the grammar rules I provided are bogus. That was true and it's still true.

[Je suis Omar]

Not my rules. ..

But you tell us you use these rules, which you are too frightened to discuss, to take money from unwitting individuals who you believe you are helping.

That just doesn't wash, OGFT.

[On Guard for Thee]

But you tell us you use these rules, which you are too frightened to discuss, to take money from unwitting individuals who you believe you are helping.

That just doesn't wash, OGFT.

If you witnessed their grammar you would (maybe) understand why they gladly pay for the help.

[BubberMiley]

But you tell us you use these rules, which you are too frightened to discuss, to take money from unwitting individuals who you believe you are helping.

That just doesn't wash, OGFT.

He probably realizes it would be a waste of time to give you examples of grammatical rules because, unless you're spoon-fed one that fits your contention, you don't know what to say. I'm trying to help you with the serial comma tip though. If you look around, you might find some bogus prescription on that one. It's clear you're struggling with this one.

[Je suis Omar]

If you witnessed their grammar you would (maybe) understand why they gladly pay for the help.

If you're so good at this grammar stuff, having learned it all in school, or even a little good at this, you could, as I have suggested, describe an equal language situation with to illustrate what you mean.

But even armed with all this grammar knowledge, you are reluctant.

Why would learning "grammar" make you incompetent?

[BubberMiley]

Grammar is essential for clarity and consistency in communication. Without a knowledge of it, one runs the risk of going off on vague, unfounded tangents about how it is unnecessary, creating incomprehensible phrases like "describe an equal language situation with to illustrate what you mean."

[On Guard for Thee]

Grammar is essential for clarity and consistency in communication. Without a knowledge of it, one runs the risk of going off on vague, unfounded tangents about how it is unnecessary, creating incomprehensible phrases like "describe an equal language situation with to illustrate what you mean."

Talk about bad timing for a grammatical screw up eh!

[Je suis Omar]

Didnt someone here recently try and explain the split infinitive to you though...

No, you folks don't do grammar explanations.

Someone, who obviously doesn't know, (even here you are being slippery) tried to advance the ludicrous notion that said non grammar rule is unimportant, that it isn't being touted as a rule.

Either way, today the rule is a prominent superstition, a fossilised bogeyman of writing style. It squats atop the league of misbegotten grammar myths wherein lurk the taboos against starting sentences with conjunctions and ending them with prepositions. John McIntyre says the case against split infinitives has been

shot down, demolished, exploded and buried at a crossroads with a stake through its heart. It should be as dead as Marley, but it keeps coming back.

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

[BubberMiley]

No, you folks don't do grammar explanations.

Imagine how lost for an argument you would be if I didn't throw you that bone. But you weren't able to find bogus directives on the use of the serial comma? They do exist. Don't give up!

[Je suis Omar]

Imagine how lost for an argument you would be if I didn't throw you that bone.

I wasn't at all lost. With every post you keep proving my point - the nonsense grammar that was taught has made people dumber, not smarter about language.

This bears repeating;

//////////////////

50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice

By Geoffrey K. Pullum APRIL 17, 2009

April 16 is the 50th anniversary of the publication of a little book that is loved and admired throughout American academe. Celebrations, readings, and toasts are being held, and a commemorative edition has been released.

I won't be celebrating.

The Elements of Style does not deserve the enormous esteem in which it is held by American college graduates. Its advice ranges from limp platitudes to inconsistent nonsense. Its enormous influence has not improved American students' grasp of English grammar; it has significantly degraded it.

...

- See more at: http://m.chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497#sthash.mK4X885B.dpuf

But you weren't able to find bogus directives on the use of the serial comma? They do exist. Don't give up!

I think you're a bit overwrought. Aren't you being a bit of a batrachomyomachist.

[Je suis Omar]

Imagine how lost for an argument you would be if I didn't throw you that bone.

Which bone, BM, the one where you illustrate time after time that you are not up to speed on this issue/these issues. The one that you inaccurately described.

Item: The UK Telegraph published a post last month condemning someones ignorance for viciously (unobjectionably) splitting an infinitive. The same paper soon offered a more enlightened analysis from Tom Chivers, about which more below, but he shouldnt have had to correct such anachronistic peeving in the first place.

This is whats meant by the term zombie rule: what should have been dead and put to eternal rest has proved impossible to kill. It shuffles obnoxiously on in the popular imagination, independent of reason and evidence. Its survival, however tenuous, testifies to the power of classroom folklore over common sense and established usage.

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

Edited May 6, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[BubberMiley]

If that's all you have, then you should have called this thread "Did the split-infinitive rule make us stupid?" Grammar is too wide a definition for one bogus rule.

I guess you might have called it that if you were consciously aware of the rule before I told you about it. I guess when you lack valid specifics, you need to cast as wide a net as possible.

Grammar lessons tend to focus a lot on phrasing to avoid ambiguity. Are these prescriptions at all bogus? (I'm trying to help you keep your argument from flaming out.

Edited May 6, 2015 by BubberMiley

[Je suis Omar]

If that's all you have, then you should have called this thread "Did the split-infinitive rule make us stupid?" Grammar is too wide a definition for one bogus rule.

You brought it up. You mistakenly described it as a dead prescription. I have only provided sourcing to illustrate how you don't seem to know much about these issues.

I guess you might have called it that if you were consciously aware of the rule before I told you about it. I guess when you lack valid specifics, you need to cast as wide a net as possible.

Grammar lessons tend to focus a lot on phrasing to avoid ambiguity. Are these prescriptions at all bogus?

Those two paragraphs are terribly ambiguous. So much for that grammar lesson/s.

[BubberMiley]

Earlier, you mentioned an article about The Elements of Style that was somehow supposed to prove your point. Did you find any good points about bad grammar rules in this article that would help you out in this debate?

[Je suis Omar]

Earlier, you mentioned an article about The Elements of Style that was somehow supposed to prove your point. Did you find any good points about bad grammar rules in this article that would help you out in this debate?

An article that you have obviously failed to read, even when it was twice presented to you. Had you read it you would know what is in it.

[BubberMiley]

Before it was even linked by you it was read by me. However, I wonder why the arguments are made by it and not by you. Maybe your thread title should have been "Is Strunk and White making us stupid?", and you could have forwarded any subsequent debate to the article's author.

Or can you provide an eloquent argument why the passive voice is not to be avoided and why you don't need to worry about an adjective's proximity to a noun or an adverb's proximity to a verb?.

[Je suis Omar]

BM: Maybe your thread title should have been "Is Strunk and White making us stupid?

Omar: That is a given. This thread has illustrated that in spades.

[BubberMiley]

Oh, I get it. That's why you won't defend your argument with examples. Good one.

Nevertheless, Strunk&White are most famous for cautioning against using the passive voice. This is, for the most part, good instruction. It makes for clearer, less evasive writing.

However, it is conceded that the passive voice can be useful when you don't want to identify who's making the concession.

Edited May 6, 2015 by BubberMiley

[Je suis Omar]

BM: Or can you provide an eloquent argument why the passive voice is not to be avoided ...

Omar: Sure I can, BubberMiley. There's 6 good reasons below, taken from your post why the passive voice is not to be avoided. (prior, in bold, is passive) ("taken" is also a passive.)

And one more in the sentence just prior, that has been underlined. That last phrase too, that was put in bold. (also, "that was put in bold".

EDIT: The underline function doesn't seem to work but nevertheless, there are many fine examples of the passive being used in a perfectly natural manner.

1. Before it was even linked by you

2. it was read by me.

3. However, I wonder why the arguments are made by it

4. ... and not (made) by you.

5. Maybe your thread title should have been (named) "Is Strunk and White making us stupid?",

6. ... why the passive voice is not to be avoided

Edited May 6, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Je suis Omar]

BubberMiley:Nevertheless, Strunk&White are most famous for cautioning against using the passive voice. This is, for the most part, good instruction. It makes for clearer, less evasive writing.

This is pure prescriptive poppycock. If it's such a grand instruction, why have you included so many examples of the passive in your post?

Edited May 6, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[BubberMiley]

Duh, I included it to show (obviously too subtlely) what I was talking about. You didn't also notice how awkward and vague the passive voice "concession" sounded? There are more S&W references that were included too. (There it is again!) Clue: check out my use of "however."

[Je suis Omar]

You didn't also notice how awkward and vague the passive voice "concession" sounded? ."

More nonsensical prescriptive poppycock, Bubber.

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

Fear and Loathing of the English Passive

Geoffrey Pullum

Abstract Writing advisers have been condemning the English passive since the early 20th century. I provide an informal but comprehensive syntactic description of passive clauses in English, and then exhibit numerous published examples of incompetent criticism in which critics reveal that they cannot tell passives from actives. Some seem to confuse the grammatical concept with a rhetorical one involving inadequate attribution of agency or responsibility, but not all examples are thus explained. The specific stylistic charges leveled against the passive are entirely baseless. The evidence demonstrates an extraordinary level of grammatical ignorance among educated English language critics.

http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/passive_loathing.pdf

...

Edited May 6, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Je suis Omar]

Everything you ever wanted to know about the passive.

http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/grammar/passives.html