Help
- Thread starter LawrenceU
- Start date
- Status
LawrenceU
Puritan Board Doctor
It is laziness. In truth rules of grammar are fixed. I know, I know that is not the theme of the day in the halls of English departments today, but it is a fact. In the past twenty years the nihilism that has invaded the study and practice of grammar has led to a generation of 'educated' people who cannot communicate well.
I recently read a paper in which an English Prof. was defending the fact that a sentence, 'The dog bit the Postman.' did not of necessity mean that a member of the canine species affixed his teeth to a body part of an employee of the Postal Service. And, he was deadly serious. He extrapolated that the sentence had no meaning in and of itself and that the words meant whatever the author intended. Thus, the sentence actually meant something that I will not write on this board because it is so vile.
JBaldwin
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Well, that explains a lot. I know this may be a little off topic, but if this is the way people are thinking about language today, it explains why Congress is walking all over the Consititution. They have decided it means whatever they want it to mean. And our president? He say one thing and mean completely the opposite. No wonder things are in such a mess.
Jonathan, I'm surprised you didn't take issue with the American rule for punctuation, seeing that the English rule only includes punctuation within the quotation marks if it is in fact in the quoted text.
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Lawrence,
Try redoing the word order of this sentence so that you don't end it with a preposition. I've done it in my mind and I find it quite humorous.
What should a married woman do about a husband who insists on saying, "Me and John went to town?" Should I correct him now, after 40+ years of marriage? His grammar, other than "Me and--" is not bad. He's a PhD (chemistry). In Ethiopia it doesn't matter, but in an educated social setting it's awful. Have you any suggestions as to how to soften the blow?
Jimmy the Greek
Puritan Board Senior
he beholds
Puritan Board Doctor
That is colloquial grammar. I'm from Western PA, and we only say, "The car needs fixed." It is not laziness or ignorance, though perhaps it was first used because of such. Today, it is the way to say that the car is broken and is in need of repair, in that region.
Grammar is most certainly NOT fixed. Strunk and White wrote what they saw commonly practiced, not what they decided was proper.
I'm pretty sure we've had the descriptive vs. prescriptive argument here before.
I believe that God ordained language to be fluid, perhaps only since the fall of the tower of Babel. Maybe we read from scripture that prior to then, language was static, and thus all people shared a common language and probably a common grammar. But since we no longer speak the language that man spoke at creation, I do not think we can claim that it is supposed to be one way. If the rules of grammar are truly fixed, when did they become so? Was language wrong up until now, and the rules we have now are finally the right ones? Or are the archaic rules the ones that are fixed, and thus they are the rules we need to get back to?
We have language in order to communicate ideas with others.
If you know what I mean when I say, "I'm doin' good," then I have communicated successfully. The problem is, some people may genuinely think that when I say, "I'm doin' good," I mean that I am doing some good deed. In that case, I have not communicated successfully. But to the majority of people to whom I speak, it will be clear that I mean that things are going well for me, or that I am happy, or I am fine, etc...
If my meaning IS correctly understood, then why exactly is the way I've expressed it incorrect?
I think your only obligation when speaking to someone is to be certain that what you say will be rightly understood by the person(s) you are saying it to.
Therefore, I think studying grammar is good because it helps us know what our audience will understand.
However, some audiences can understand more than others. For instance, my mom, who is not college educated, would understand what someone means when he says, "I am doin' good." On the other hand, someone else may even have a doctorate degree, yet he will not understand that the person is in no way claiming to have done good deeds.
Therefore, I do admit that the person answering, "I am doing good," will have to know his audience before he answers like so, because confusion may erupt, and I agree that confusion is NOT the goal of language.
I disagree. I think those people walking all over the Constitution do not believe that the meaning of the document itself is static. I think they see it as a living and breathing document that should rightly change with the times. Case in point: I am a person who thinks language is fluid, (I mean, we all know that to some extent, b/c none of us are demanding that we speak Old English) and yet I firmly believe that we should uphold the constitution.
Sorry if I'm being a bull dog♥ Although I am a former English major/former English teacher who married a former English major/current English teacher, somehow my pet peeve is still English majors.
kidding, Lawrence. P.S. I like your new avatar!
Ah, but in American eastern mountain country (populated by Scots), it is common for "need" to be used as an auxilliary verb, and then you follow with a participle (either past or present). It's also not unusual in the UK.
When I was in Plymouth England years ago, I often heard things like "your clothes need washing" or "you need your hair cut."
LawrenceU
Puritan Board Doctor
That sentence is a great example of idiomatic speech that is perfectly acceptable, even though it violates a rule of grammar.
Serious? Yourself doesn't know what a reflexive pronoun is?
Myself could tell you, but then myself would be showing off.
Reflexive pronouns are pronouns that refer to something already mentioned. They have proper usage, as in:
"I gave myself a break." Subject is I, object is myself.
But it is never used as the subject, and it isn't used as an object if it isn't "reflecting" someone or thing already mentioned.
Bad: "He gave the money to Joe and myself." (Because "myself" doesn't reflect anything.)
OK: "He gave the money to Joe and me, and I used my share to buy myself a book."
But even if OK, it is often superfluous. Use sparingly.
End of lesson.
Jimmy the Greek
Puritan Board Senior
Yeah. I'd say, my car needs fixin'. Or, better yet, here in Texas, I'm fixin' to go to the store. Or, Let's fix a sandwich. haha!
Or, Let's fix a sandwich. haha!
LawrenceU
Puritan Board Doctor
Let me be clear. I believe that grammar rules need to be taught and that there are fixtures in grammar. The parts of speech are fixed. Style, which is what Strunk and White addressed is another matter. Style changes. Idiom exists. Idiomatic speech is wonderful and is part of the cultural milieu that God has give to us. But, structures are necessary in a language in order for communication to take place.
Add to that the fact that there various situations in which we speak and write and the topic becomes even more interesting. I am a Southerner. My speech patterns are distinctly Southern. I a Southerner who is of Scottish and Cherokee extraction. Those influences shape my speech patterns and how I write. When I am at the feed store I don't speak like I write. When I write a letter to a friend I don't write in the same manner in which I do when writing a doctrinal paper. When I preach I don't use the same diction and idiom as I do at the feed store. Even the grammatical structures change. But, educated people should be able to know the rules and when they are violated.
I have been teaching a younger man. He has a college degree in a field that required extensive reading and research. I loaned him a volume on the nature of God that was written in the late 18th century. Its syntax is different, but not difficult. He had such a difficult time with the book that he could not read it. Frankly, I was surprised. When I began to enquire it became obvious; his lack of grammatical knowledge hindered his ability to comprehend the authour. I am more frequently running into this.
I'm not a grammar prude. Just ask anyone who sits with me for a while. I'm a laid back Southern Country Boy. But, I do think that folks should be taught well.
Add to that the fact that there various situations in which we speak and write and the topic becomes even more interesting. I am a Southerner. My speech patterns are distinctly Southern. I a Southerner who is of Scottish and Cherokee extraction. Those influences shape my speech patterns and how I write. When I am at the feed store I don't speak like I write. When I write a letter to a friend I don't write in the same manner in which I do when writing a doctrinal paper. When I preach I don't use the same diction and idiom as I do at the feed store. Even the grammatical structures change. But, educated people should be able to know the rules and when they are violated.
I have been teaching a younger man. He has a college degree in a field that required extensive reading and research. I loaned him a volume on the nature of God that was written in the late 18th century. Its syntax is different, but not difficult. He had such a difficult time with the book that he could not read it. Frankly, I was surprised. When I began to enquire it became obvious; his lack of grammatical knowledge hindered his ability to comprehend the authour. I am more frequently running into this.
I'm not a grammar prude. Just ask anyone who sits with me for a while. I'm a laid back Southern Country Boy. But, I do think that folks should be taught well.
LawrenceU
Puritan Board Doctor
Yeah. I'd say, my car needs fixin'. Or, better yet, here in Texas, I'm fixin' to go to the store.
Yep.
he beholds
Puritan Board Doctor
If you cannot ignore it, I would try to teach him a way to remember which way to say it:
If you would say, "I went to town," then it would be, "John and I went to town." But if it would be, "Are you going with me?" then it would be, "Are you going with John and me?"
Cover the other person's name and say the sentence. If you use, I, then use I, or if you use me, then use me.
I know you know this, Leslie, but maybe your hubby needs an easy way to remember
Wannabee
Obi Wan Kenobi
Serious? Yourself doesn't know what a reflexive pronoun is?
Myself could tell you, but then myself would be showing off.
Reflexive pronouns are pronouns that refer to something already mentioned. They have proper usage, as in:
"I gave myself a break." Subject is I, object is myself.
But it is never used as the subject, and it isn't used as an object if it isn't "reflecting" someone or thing already mentioned.
Bad: "He gave the money to Joe and myself." (Because "myself" doesn't reflect anything.)
OK: "He gave the money to Joe and me, and I used my share to buy myself a book."
But even if OK, it is often superfluous. Use sparingly.
End of lesson.
Can't it also be used emphatically?
"I drew that up myself."
"Jesus, himself, taught the Sermon on the Mount."
PresbyDane
Puritanboard Doctor
Me don`t not know `bout Y`all but this all talk, `bout gramma an stuff is gettin me sleepy
That particular rule, it seems to me, was a strategic regulation, and not an enunciation of a grammatical or logical fact: as such we are all free to ignore it and probably ought to do is the slightest pretext.
- Status
