h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

oh, and . . .


can we get this smiley, please?

http://www.mixhard.ca/forum/images/smilies/grammar.png

That would liven things up a bit.
Put a bit of spirit into the pedants we used
to be able to count on to keep this site vital.
Give 'em the tools and they will do the jobby.

~jwf~

PS: Funny how the balance of red and black and a
little geometric tension can turn a symbol into
an icon. It's like a yin and yang have been froze
in mid-fangulation, a maze on maise or maison 'maze.

I have no problem with dialect or local variations, in whatever language.

I do have a problem when people are being unclear and expecting me to do some kind of linguistic gymnastics in order to understand what it is they are trying to tell me. I'm likely to and if it's a convo here or elsewhere for fun/pleasure. However if it's someone trying to impart information (especially if it is their job) then it is their job to make it understandable to native speakers of the language they are using.

That French (German, Russian, Korean...) grammar is irregular? Who'd have thunk it?

There's a difference (especially places like this) with the people who just can't resist posting "it's 'their' stoopid" rather than engaging in the conversation - well they're just pedantic twonks if that's all they do and I go back to and . If they are pointing it out because it made what was being said ambiguous and needed clarification, well, I'm more inclined to say.

I can make myself understood in Russian, but it's a heck of a job for the listner. So I try not to inflict it on Russian speakers. Now there's a language with grammar that makes sense and (I love this) makes word order a thing of art (IIRC)

The point is: languge IS fluid (and I'd say spoken more than written, or maybe written language just takes longer to catch up, probably less-so in the internet age. BUT: communication is the point of it. So just stop trying to be obscure and speak properly.

I reserve my right to correct my children's grammar when they get it wrong. In English and German.

>>It never cease to puzzle me why some folk get agitated about 'Korrect English'.

It doesn't puzzle me. They were instructed about what is 'correct', either on pain of being caned, or under fear of being ridiculed by other pedants, and so they experience some of that pain when they encounter what they imagine is 'incorrect'.

However, there is genuinely 'poor' English, and it is that which results in poor communication.

Ed

<@Alfster:

If 'whom' stays, I'm fine with that. If it goes, I'm fine with that too. There are too many variables to call it.

Maybe a better question is whether we need to spend curriculum time drumming it in?>

Firstly, there is a certain irony of you tarting the post with:

@Alfster when '@' is a Twitter requirement for amining a message back at a cetain poster(I beleive) and it has absolutely no point in a forum post...it's not as if I would bypass the post had you jst put 'Alfster'.

As for spending time on whom/who...I don;t think htey ever did for me. My grammar schooling was jst a few lesons I've had to teach myself grammar...personally I would have prefferred to have more lessons on grammar.

I'm not dismissing your points by the way - a balance is what is needed.

As they say in French: "je serais pas été plus avancé si j'aurais lu tous les livres".



>>Well it's a novel argument, Bel, that a language should be written for the convenience of non-natives.<<

For their convenience, probably not. However, when lots of non-natives speak a language, inevitably the finer linguistic points get lost (fewer/less, share between/among, etc)



Regarding Andrew's geese (Post 36): the same example would be exactly as confusing when spoken. I suspect in both cases, context would make it clear what is meant (or not, for example if the confusion is a deliberate comedy effect).



End with a webcomic: http://abstrusegoose.com/445

anhaga:

>>"opera" *is* plural.

Aaaaaand you are the lucky winner of the International All-Comers Stating the Bleeding Obvious Prize.

Surely you meant opera *are* plural?

I'm sure anhaga meant the word "opera" is plural. The works themselves are irrelevant

Please, please everyone. Read what I'm actually saying rather than what you assume I'm saying.

There is a Standard English. It is useful as a mode of common communication, both for native speakers and internationally ( to Bel and toybox). It should be taught. I wish to be plain about these points one more time. Sheesh - you wouldn't think I'd been speaking English.

*However* language does not work in the simplistic, rule-based, top-down way that some people seemingly imagine. It just doesn't, I'm afraid. Those who study it know this. Rather, what we think of as 'grammar' or 'lexicon' are a consensus of what people agree amongst themselves works. That's what makes it a standard, not a set of pre-ordained rules. And because the whole process is sloppier than a set of fixed rules it is naturally more variable than some would like and can't be stopped from changing over time. To add to the complication, the rules are so damned complex that linguists can make a lifelong study of little sub-facets of them. Why do you think natural language processing has this far defeated even software engineers? And yet - mirabile dictu - humans can do it *without even being taught how*.

This has significance for what we tell people about our language, how we teach it and how we use it ourselves. It is neither useful nor accurate to say to people 'These are The Rules. Stick to them or else nobody will be able to understand you. And besides...you'll be in Big Trouble.' Rather, we should tell the truth. 'OK - this is English. There are all sorts of ways of putting it together. Let's consider some of the patterns. In such-and-such a situation, people generally speak like this... And if you want to be understood across the country and internationally and if you want to get on in life, this is how it's best to speak.'

But it would be stupid in the extreme to pretend that this standard consisted of fixed rules. It would be stupid to teach that 'shew' or 'thou' are part of mainstream English. It would be stupid to teach that 'optimize' and 'organize' and 'proactive' and 'write me' are not. Or that 'Ten items or less' is incomprehensible gibberish when we damn well know it makes perfect sense, causes no confusion and - this is the clincher - is what the majority naturally say..

Now - the way English evolves is by natural selection. If orthographical differences between 'there', 'they're' and 'their' find an ecological niche it might be because there is survival value in being able to distinguish the meanings in written (if not spoken*) English. Or they may just be words that got lucky - linguistic coelecanths. ('won't'?). There will always be a healthy tension about what's in and what...and the splenetic railings of misguided and miseducated self-appointed guardians of linguistic rectitude are all grist to the mill. If people throw conniption fits at misplaced apostrophes they may well cease to be misused in much the same way as King Cn*t so successfully turned back the waves. But they should at least acknowledge that they are not arguing from logic, merely from personal taste. Which is fine! I had another thread on words that I don't use.

An' thats yous tellt.






* In some dialects. In Standard Scots, for example, 'they're' is not homophonous with 'their' and 'there'.

perhaps you should be clearer and write shorter messages

Wasn't it Macauley who said that?

"Regarding Andrew's geese (Post 36): the same example would be exactly as confusing when spoken."

Right. And that's a bad thing, so should we abandon the written clarity that the apostrophe provides?

Opera exists as two words, one is singular (the dramatic work). The other is plural (musical compositions). 'Operas' is the plural of the first form.

Please don't argue or I'll post links.

That's tautology, Icy.

'We use a Latin plural noun to indicate something singular therefore it's singular.'

What I say is...I don't care. I use using it to illustrate the insanity of those few who correct words such as 'symposiums'.

I'm not sure tautology is the right word for it. When has English ever followed a defined set of axioms to logical rigour?

@Mr 6. re Andrews Geese.

All I'm saying is that it is hard to argue that it's anything more than arbitrary. I would be most surprised that the name was chosen with the intention of removing ambiguity against the possessive in written but not spoken communication. Odds on that within ornithological history at least one person has mistakenly added an 's without the least consequence. I suggest you've stumbled across an interesting quirk. That's all.

So we keep the distinction with geese. This is absolutely fine with me and I have no wish to change it to bring it in line with Grevy's zebra Pere David's Deer, Berwick's Swan...etc. Hell - never mind that: on my own I don't even have the power.

Just asked Mr Google, to see if Andrew Geese might be named after their geographical distribution (like Weddell seals, Humboldt penguins. Humboldt squid).

Cannae find. Elucidatify me?

Havant red th baklog.

From the OP: "- Who/Whom. 'Whom' is definitely on the way out - and we won't miss it. 'Whom did you give the book to?' 'I gave it to Philomena?' 'Whom?!!'...'Whom are looking at'? No."

That would be "To whom did you give the book?" No prepositions at the end of sentences, thank you. "At whom are you looking?"



Personally, I don't think you'll ever get rid of grammar Nazism, any more than you'll get rid of exam results or judging people by the way they dress.

First impressions matter. First impressions *work*, enough of the time. If you can be bothered to give a good first impression, by having good exam results, checking the spelling in your CV and covering letter and wearing a suit to your interview, you will do better than someone who scraped some C grades, sent in their "Ciriculum Vitae", and turned up to the interview they somehow got in flipflops. (I've been presented with a "Ciriculum Vitae". He didn't get an interview.)

Their are two kinds of people in the world. People whom know how to use grammar proper, and those who can't.

And it's *useful* to be able to weed out people who lack the ability or inclination to bother to get things right *when it matters*. And worse, there's so little excuse for getting in wrong in these days of automated spelling and grammar checking.

Icy:

>>I'm not sure tautology is the right word for it. When has English ever followed a defined set of axioms to logical rigour?

Oi! That's *my* point, not yours. Very precisely put, if I may say. It's singular because people agree that it is.

SoRB:

From 'The Golden Girls'

Dorothy (to stuck up society dame): 'That's a lovely hat. Where did you get if from?'

Dame: 'Oh my dear! We *never* end a sentence with a preposition!'

Dorothy: 'Oh, I'm sorry. That's a lovely hat. Where did you get it from, bitch.'

Nope. The alleged rule (actually a late 18thC stylistic convention) had no functional purpose so it's pretty much dead. Correcting is, as a Nobel laureate for literature said, the sort of arrant pedantry up with which we will no longer put. Leave it! Leave it!

>>Personally, I don't think you'll ever get rid of grammar Nazism, any more than you'll get rid of exam results or judging people by the way they dress.

Totally, totally agree. I do not expect people to stop being arses. I'm simply not allowing them to lie about having logic on their side.

>>First impressions matter. First impressions *work*, enough of the time.

Sort of. But in reverse of the way that you imagine, perhaps. First impressions of language and dress do not allow you to distinguish between people who acquired the right surface details by dint of parental status and those who actually had to put in an effort.

I'm not saying there's anything we can do about it, other that - as I've strongly and repeatedly advocated - teaching a common set of mannerisms. But let's be honest about why.

>>Their are two kinds of people in the world. People whom know how to use grammar proper, and those who can't.

I'm not so sure. There are people who are just no good at language but who may have other exceptional talents. I've worked with many talented engineers who can barely string together a sentence let alone a report. Many people simply get by with pretty reasonable speech. Others live in a social bubble and speak in a way that only works inside that bubble (observe, for example, how the Windsor family say 'one' instead of 'I'). Others are dead into language. They read literature and poetry, do the odd bit of creative writing, are interested into linguistics, can move between different registers, know what the rules are and delight in bending and breaking them to achieve different effects. And all points in between.

This should be no surprise. If language worked top down (and it doesn't. Truly it doesn't) we wouldn't expect it to be able to generate the variety that it does. The algorithms ain't up to it.

>>And it's *useful* to be able to weed out people who lack the ability or inclination to bother to get things right *when it matters*. And worse, there's so little excuse for getting in wrong in these days of automated spelling and grammar checking.

I have some sympathy with that. Proper use of spelling checkers should be encouraged, now that we suddenly all have to use produce written communication in less time and unsupported by humans. And I have nothing whatsoever against standardised spelling*.

But is this really, *really* what people are getting het up about?

And grammar checkers are 'kin useless, I'm afraid. When they're not plain wrong they stop people writing clearly. No surprise: we haven't cracked natural language processing yet.

People should at least learn how language actually works before they start pontificating. That's my Modest Proposal.








* I used to be a good speller. No longer! The red lines have de-skilled me. I often have to google words that I used to know.