@Robert Gentel,
Quote:I don't think that is a distinction that matters as much to anyone else. Whether you are criticizing their use of the language or their understanding of grammar is roughly the same in effect.
No, Robert, they are vastly different. "criticizing their use of the language" is prescriptive and I simply don't do that for at least a couple of reasons; I don't know all uses in all dialects; how someone uses language within their dialect and even within a narrower group is not up to me to decide. If an ESL asks about such, we can let them know that it's nonstandard but opinions do not drive language, they never have. If they did, then these prescriptions would be followed, they're not.
"their understanding of grammar" is a wholly different set of circumstances. And like any other topic here at A2K, there's nothing that should stop me or anyone from discussing someone's take on grammar.
Quote:It is a criticism of their grammar. Criticizing someone's stated grammar rules is to criticize their grammar. Grammar doesn't just encompass someone's use of the language but also encompasses the study thereof and the rules that govern it.
Just because you aren't picking out a live example doesn't mean it isn't part of their grammar. A claim about a grammar rule is someone's grammar.
No, it clearly is not. I gave one example, 'can vs may'. If and when people state that 'can' can't be used for permission, then those people are wrong; wrong in fact and wrong in grammar.
When people state that modals have tense then it most clearly is NOT part of their grammar because modern English speakers can't use the Historical Past Tense forms as an actual past tense, and they, all the time, use the Historical Present Tense forms to describe past tense situations.
There are many many more examples where those who choose to spout prescriptions are doing so not because they're part of their REAL grammar, it's because they are simply repeating old canards.