Did teaching grammar make us stupid?

On Guard for Thee · May 6, 2015

Grand protestations aren't necessary, OGFT.

Of course you wouldn't discuss it (grammar and/or the workings of the English language) here because you can't discuss it (the same) here because you are not at all competent to do so.

Hence the title of the thread.

I thought you said you were busy.

I am.

BubberMiley · May 6, 2015

You are advancing S&W's incompetence as competence so you describe and show how their little guidelines work.

No, you are advancing S&W's competence as incompetence, so you should describe and show how their guidelines work.

Could you explain what you have against scholarship?

Absolutely nothing, but I'm not debating with articles. If you want to make a point, make it. Don't throw out a link and hope it advances your point.

Je suis Omar · May 6, 2015

BubberMiley:

No, you are advancing S&W's competence as incompetence, so you should describe and show how their guidelines work.

Omar: I did show how their guidelines don't work, with my own explanations and some from noted language scientists, grammarians and linguists. All of which you studiously and continuously ignore.

BubberMiley: Absolutely nothing, but I'm not debating with articles. If you want to make a point, make it. Don't throw out a link and hope it advances your point.

Omar: One doesn't debate with articles. One debates the issues found within articles, grammar books, scientific studies, ... that are highly pertinent and right on topic, of the very thing that is under discussion.

Your point is fatuous. You don't want to address arguments from experts in the field, from articles you won't read, that are pointedly on the topic at issue, but you want me to go thru the "toxic little compendium" to point out the two boobs' nonexistent guidelines; guidelines that they couldn't follow themselves. Guidelines that no human being, save those acting in a robotic fashion, and only after it was pointed out to them, could ever follow.

The linguists at Language Log have numerous scholarly discussions on the incompetence of S&W. If you don't understand what they are saying, ask politely and I'll offer whatever assistance I can.

You really have a limited understanding of how language works, BubberMiley.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Je suis Omar

BubberMiley · May 6, 2015

Omar: I did show how their guidelines don't work, with my own explanations ...

Could you point that out to me again? Looking myself, I have to wade through a whole bunch of poorly articulated taunts about OGFT's chosen line of work and links to other sources that have a better grasp of the issue than you have.

Je suis Omar · May 6, 2015

... and links to other sources that have a better grasp of the issue than you have.

That's a given, BubberMiley. I'll admit that I'm not one of the authors of the CGEL or LGSWE.

But that raises the question, why are you so studiously avoiding the experts while flailing about trying to defend the incompetents, Strunk & White?

Je suis Omar · May 6, 2015

Looking myself, I have to wade through a whole bunch of poorly articulated taunts about OGFT's chosen line of work ...

I see now that reading comprehension is your problem.

That is not OGFT's "chosen line of work". He specifically said that it was for beer money. He has in other threads described other work.

But you certainly are his equal in inane, diversionary tactics.

BubberMiley · May 6, 2015

But that raises the question, why are you so studiously avoiding the experts while flailing about trying to defend the incompetents, Strunk & White?

I'm not. I'm defending the general advice that writing in the active voice is clearer and more interesting to read. Using it when you can is good practice.

Do you have original words that counter my position? I'm still waiting for the link to the post where you claimed to have some.

Edited May 6, 2015 by BubberMiley

BubberMiley · May 6, 2015

But you certainly are his equal in inane, diversionary tactics.

You're just self-conscious about how hard you're trying to divert attention from the non-existent argument you claimed to make and now can't provide. :lol:

Je suis Omar · May 6, 2015

Omar: But that begs the question, why are you so studiously avoiding the experts while flailing about trying to defend the incompetents, Strunk & White?

I'm not. I'm defending the general advice that writing in the active voice is clearer and more interesting to read. Using it when you can is good practice.

Omar: Just repeating the same vacuous nonsense doesn't constitute a defence of anything. This clearly is not a notion you devised on your own. And yet you steadfastly refuse to go to the "toxic little compendium" and retrieve these "guidelines" from your two grammatical incompetents.

BubberMiley: Do you have original words that counter my position? I'm still waiting for the link to the post where you claimed to have some.

Omar: You have no position, BubberMiley. You admitted so in your first sentence. Why are you so petrified about providing S&W's guidelines for this downright silly prescription?

BM: I'm defending the general advice that writing in the active voice is clearer and more interesting to read.

Omar: Oh, so now it's general advice! Where are your "guidelines"?

Even your "general advice" is vacuous.

1. The dentist removed the infected tooth.

2. The infected tooth was removed.

Now which one is clearer, BubberMiley, 1 or 2?

"... more interesting to read."

Can you explain why scientists would write in a voice that was boring for them to read?

Can you explain why native speakers, upon reading a passive sentence don't yawn and put the book down? Upon hearing a passive, don't fall asleep?

Can you explain how native speakers, including you and all the other unthinking S&W acolytes, find them completely unremarkable and read right over them without even noticing?

Can you explain how no native speaker ever follows this fatuous prescription, let alone knows anything about it until they are exposed to the grammar geniuses, S&W?

Can you explain why, if this was a real rule of English grammar, all the native speakers of English prior to its introduction, around the early part of the 20th century, never followed it or even knew of its existence?

You are doing an excellent job of illustrating just how fatuous these silly prescriptions are.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Je suis Omar

Je suis Omar · May 6, 2015

Do you have original words that counter my position? .

You sound like a high school student parroting their teacher's "in your own words!"; "use your own words!"; ... .

All the linguists I have quoted used "original words".

BubberMiley · May 6, 2015

1. The dentist removed the infected tooth.

2. The infected tooth was removed.

Now which one is clearer, BubberMiley, 1 or 2?

#1, obviously. The second doesn't even say who removed the tooth.

Can you explain why scientists would write in a voice that was boring for them to read?

Because, in the context of the writing, it was preferable or unknown what force was doing the action (e.g., removing the tooth), so a passive construction allowed them to avoid reference to it.

Can you explain why native speakers, upon reading a passive sentence don't yawn and put the book down?

If there are too many and they are unnecessary, they do.

Can you explain how native speakers, including you and all the other unthinking S&W acolytes, find them completely unremarkable and read right over them without even noticing?

Your writing is too vague. What are you referring to by "them"? The native speakers? Strunk and White? The guidelines in their books? Strunk and White caution against such ambiguous construction.

Can you explain how no native speaker ever follows this fatuous prescription, let alone knows anything about it until they are exposed to the grammar geniuses, S&W?

unremarkable and read right over them without even noticing?

People don't use the active voice? I disagree.

Can you explain why, if this was a real rule of English grammar, all the native speakers of English prior to its introduction, around the early part of the 20th century, never followed it or even knew of its existence?

It's not a rule; it's a recommendation.

You are doing an excellent job of illustrating just how fatuous these silly prescriptions are.

Thank you, but it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

BubberMiley · May 6, 2015

All the linguists I have quoted used "original words".

Obviously I should be debating with them then.

Je suis Omar · May 6, 2015

You're just self-conscious about how hard you're trying to divert attention from the non-existent argument you claimed to make and now can't provide.

Why are you, the person who so diligently follows prescriptions designed to create clear, concise writing, ignoring the fact that you were wrong about OGFT's chosen line of work?

You seem hell bent on producing here, everything but clear, concise writing, the very thing you mistakenly believe your prescriptive mentors exhort you to churn out.

BubberMiley · May 6, 2015

Why are you, the person who so diligently follows prescriptions designed to create clear, concise writing, ignoring the fact that you were wrong about OGFT's chosen line of work?

That is a deflection for the ages. :lol:

Je suis Omar · May 6, 2015

="BubberMiley: #1, obviously. The second doesn't even say who removed the tooth.

Omar: The first one doesn't say who removed the tooth either. Are you, as a budding young strunknwhitian, going to write a rule/recommendation against using the active voice without a proper name citing the lack thereof as too unclear.

BM: Because, in the context of the writing, it was preferable or unknown what force was doing the action (e.g., removing the tooth), so a passive construction allowed them to avoid reference to it.

Omar: Now, after you have once again so clearly set out just how silly the rule is, describe yours or S&W's rule for deciding which to choose, when to choose?

BM:If there are too many and they are unnecessary, they do.

Omar: That is clearly nonsense. Only those steeped in S&W's arrant nonsense ever raise this grammatical non-issue. Most of those S&W know nothings can't even correctly discern passives/actives.

But the same thing can be said about any inappropriate bit of syntax. This nonsense non-issue has been addressed a number of times.

But, once more:

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

The passive is of course perfectly respectable, and there is no reason to try to avoid it. (To say that it shouldn't be over-used, or it shouldn't be used where it is inappropriate, doesn't distinguish it from any other construction or expression.) It would be quite peculiar for there to be a way of constructing clauses, well known to everyone, that was generally not appropriate for use. If everyone who understood how to use the language well could see that the passive was not fit to be used, its survival down the centuries would be almost inexplicable.

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

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

BubberMiley: Your writing is too vague. What are you referring to by "them"? The native speakers? Strunk and White? The guidelines in their books? Strunk and White caution against such ambiguous construction.

Omar: Right after you write, "If there are too many and they are unnecessary, they do", you come up with typical prescriptivist claptrap to try to buffalo folks.

It won't work,BM. Anyone who has such a deep vested interest in trying to defend such obvious grammatical incompetents as S&W clearly illustrates just how deficient is their knowledge of the workings of the English language.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Je suis Omar

Je suis Omar · May 6, 2015

Obviously I should be debating with them then.

That might be possible if you knew how to debate. But it would be a laughably short debate.

You still haven't explained how anyone could make use of S&W's "what has morphed from a rule to now become a recommendation".

BubberMiley · May 6, 2015

Omar: The first one doesn't say who removed the tooth either. Are you, as a budding young strunknwhitian, going to write a rule/recommendation against using the active voice without a proper name citing the lack thereof as too unclear.

You really are trying to argue that it's ridiculous to suggest writing "The dentist removed the tooth" instead of "The tooth was removed by the dentist"? It's a suggestion. They are guidelines. Why do people have to see a guideline and then take it as a black/white, all-or-nothing complete and total repudiation of every use of the passive voice ever? Is it because people can't debate these days without defining positions in absolute terms? S&W themselves said that this "does not, of course, mean that the writer should entirely discard the passive voice, which is frequently convenient and sometimes necessary." But student writers often tended to overuse it and that is what they were cautioning against. It appears you thought it was a directive from on high that the passive voice should always be eradicated, and then based this entire thread on your misunderstanding. :lol:

Now, what were you saying about incompetents who are clearly illustrating their deficient knowledge?

Je suis Omar · May 6, 2015

BubberMiley: Now, what were you saying about incompetents who are clearly illustrating their deficient knowledge?

Omar: I have spent considerable time describing these Strunk & White incompetents, BubberMiley, as has the folks who study these issues in depth, you know, linguists, grammarians, language scientists.

It's abundantly clear who the incompetents are. They are those who refuse to directly quote, discuss and defend the crap they unthinkingly absorbed, which has now become for them, gospel.

You still, after a great deal of prodding, haven't once described the SW guidelines for using this rule/guideline/prescription/old wives tale/abysmal piece of ignorance.

Considering your highly misplaced passion, it must be that you have absorbed a number of these fictions/prescriptions/false grammar rules, that you are indeed a dyed in the wool Strunk &Whitian.

As I have mentioned, this is so so sad, the fact that so many brains had to suffer through so many centuries of so much crap when there is so much that is truly fascinating about language and how it actually works.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Je suis Omar

BubberMiley · May 6, 2015

BubberMiley: Now, what were you saying about incompetents who are clearly illustrating their deficient knowledge?

Omar: I have spent considerable time describing these Strunk & White incompetents, BubberMiley, as has the folks who study these issues in depth, you know, linguists, grammarians, language scientists.

I think you mean: I have spent considerable time describing these Strunk & White incompetents, BubberMiley, as ~~has~~ have the folks who study these issues in depth~~, ---~~you know, linguists, grammarians, and language scientists.

I can see from the above sentence why you avoided talking about verb agreement. :lol:

But I have explained precisely why active construction is better. It's clearer, more efficient, and more pleasant to read. S&W caution against using more words than necessary and, once again, they offer excellent advice. Nobody wants to waste time reading more words than they have to.

Now that you're aware that S&W didn't actually dictate that the passive voice should be eradicated, you still haven't explained why you think using extra words in the passive voice (the tooth was removed by the dentist) is always as acceptable as using the crisp, active construction (the dentist removed the tooth). Try to prove you knew what you were talking about all along!

Je suis Omar · May 6, 2015

BubberMiley: You really are trying to argue that it's ridiculous to suggest writing "The dentist removed the tooth" instead of "The tooth was removed by the dentist"?

Omar: No, I'm not suggesting anything remotely as ridiculous as what you are attempting with your highly misleading nonsense. What I did say and quote was,

Omar: That is clearly nonsense. Only those steeped in S&W's arrant nonsense ever raise this grammatical non-issue. Most of those S&W know nothings can't even correctly discern passives/actives.

But the same thing can be said about any inappropriate bit of syntax. This nonsense non-issue has been addressed a number of times.

But, once more:

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

The passive is of course perfectly respectable, and there is no reason to try to avoid it. (To say that it shouldn't be over-used, or it shouldn't be used where it is inappropriate, doesn't distinguish it from any other construction or expression.) It would be quite peculiar for there to be a way of constructing clauses, well known to everyone, that was generally not appropriate for use. If everyone who understood how to use the language well could see that the passive was not fit to be used, its survival down the centuries would be almost inexplicable.

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

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

BubberMiley: It's a suggestion. They are guidelines.

Omar: Why are you having so much difficulty describing these guidelines, which have been morphing into suggestions, ... .

The quote directly addressed your guidelines/suggestions and showed just how fatuous they are. They provide no guidance that anyone can use to discern when to use the passive or not.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Je suis Omar

On Guard for Thee · May 6, 2015

I think you mean: I have spent considerable time describing these Strunk & White incompetents, BubberMiley, as ~~has~~ have the folks who study these issues in depth~~, ---~~you know, linguists, grammarians, and language scientists.

I can see from the above sentence why you avoided talking about verb agreement.

But I have explained precisely why active construction is better. It's clearer, more efficient, and more pleasant to read. S&W caution against using more words than necessary and, once again, they offer excellent advice. Nobody wants to waste time reading more words than they have to.

Now that you're aware that S&W didn't actually dictate that the passive voice should be eradicated, you still haven't explained why you think using extra words in the passive voice (the tooth was removed by the dentist) is always as acceptable as using the crisp, active construction (the dentist removed the tooth). Try to prove you knew what you were talking about all along!

An old writer friend of mine once made a comment with reference to the use of those excessive words saying,...I like to murder my babies, discussing how he weeds them out during proofreading his work. A bit graphic perhaps, but it got the point across.

BubberMiley · May 6, 2015

The quote directly addressed your guidelines/suggestions and showed just how fatuous they are. They provide no guidance that anyone can use to discern when to use the passive or not.

The quote created a strawman argument, pretending that S&W declared that the passive voice was not "perfectly respectable."

Your quote said "there is no reason to try to avoid it", which is ridiculous. Of course, it should be avoided when it isn't necessary, when it's overused, and when it just makes for awkward sentence construction.

Your quote then said "To say that it shouldn't be over-used, or it shouldn't be used where it is inappropriate, doesn't distinguish it from any other construction or expression." Except that when S&W wrote their book, it was commonly being overused. People thought it gave their writing gravitas. (It was thought by many that the writing they produced was given a gravitas by this construction.) They advised avoiding it when the active voice can be used instead (and, yes, they provide plenty of guidance as to when this is appropriate). As I have demonstrated cleverly in my posts, that doesn't mean avoiding it altogether.

Then your quote said "It would be quite peculiar for there to be a way of constructing clauses, well known to everyone, that was generally not appropriate for use." That's true. And it would be even more peculiar if S&W said it was not appropriate, but they did not (see quotation in post #192). Once again, it's a strawman argument.

But it's not even your argument. It's someone else's.

Edited May 6, 2015 by BubberMiley

Je suis Omar · May 6, 2015

Is your old writer friend incompetent at grammar too, OGFT?

Have you finished your "editing"? Did you advance any prescriptions/old wives tales?

Edited May 6, 2015 by Je suis Omar

BubberMiley · May 6, 2015

Is your old writer friend incompetent at grammar too, OGFT?

His sentences are well constructed; you say things like "as has the folks". :lol:

Je suis Omar · May 7, 2015

Except that when S&W wrote their book, it was commonly being overused. People thought it gave their writing gravitas. (It was thought by many that the writing they produced was given a gravitas by this construction.) .

It should have been explained to folks here (by BubberMiley) that "your quote", which BubberMiley sneakily uses, refers to Geoffrey Pullum, one of of the co-authors of the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.

BubberMiley's fanciful tale, above, comes from BubberMiley, who eschews sources in favor of fanciful tales.

An entirely separate kind of grammatical inaccuracy in Elements is the mismatch with readily available evidence. Simple experiments (which students could perform for themselves using downloaded classic texts from sources like http://gutenberg.org) show that Strunk and White preferred to base their grammar claims on intuition and prejudice rather than established literary usage.

- Geoffrey Pullum

http://m.chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid Grammar/25497#sthash.Y1Dfatha.dpuf