"There was two Mini Cooper parked in front of my house", or "there WERE two mini coopers"?

@JTT,

Back to the assertions eh?

I am quite capable of deciding what the best situations are for me to be in.

Your cheap smears are pathetic.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Getting to bed is my next situation. Well drilled.

0 Replies

Is this a correctly worded sentence:

I didn't understand Fresco's joke and was happy Spendius asked for an explanation, but I didn't understand the explanations even more than I didn't understand the joke.

Or do you think that should be shortened in some way?

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Matt wrote:
That's a matter of perspective.
It's about that simple if you want to get a job at Google.
Not that simple if you want to wax poetic about a subject.

I think that your understanding of teaching a language is as full as your understanding of the issues surrounding prescriptivism/descriptivism.

Since there are billions of possible permutations do you consider it wise to show ESLs all the impossible ones as a way to get them speaking the possible ones?

I consider that patently unwise and not at all equivalent to presciptivism.
That would be the task of a descriptivist who is trying to construct a prescriptivism.
I think it may be wise to give an ESL speaker some tried and true strategies for constructing English forms from the concepts that are already in their non-English-formed minds.
I find it ironic that Pinker appeals to the work of Chomsky regarding linguistic equivalence, and yet you use his (Pinker's) paper in defense of a position that denounces linguistic translation as a method of understanding English.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Is this a correctly worded sentence:

I didn't understand Fresco's joke and was happy Spendius asked for an explanation, but I didn't understand the explanations even more than I didn't understand the joke.

Or do you think that should be shortened in some way?

I don't want to prescribe anything, but if democracy in language is something you value, here is my vote:

Fresco's joke made reference to things outside my semantic world view, causing me to feel hope that this incoherence could be reconciled by Spendius's efforts at clarification, however, ultimately my semantic world view became less coherent with the world view of Fresco.

Is that better? Wink

3 Replies

@MattDavis,

Holy ****! It is.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Thanks. I tried to translate it into Fresco.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

And you did a damn good job of it. My first thought was that Fresco could have written it...although he still would have used more words.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

I consider that patently unwise and not at all equivalent to presciptivism.

Then why did you post the question with the various permutations? Why haven't you addressed some of the "rules" that you think are of prescriptivism?

Quote:

That would be the task of a descriptivist who is trying to construct a prescriptivism.

Descriptivists don't waste their time with such nonsense. As I said, there is plenty to study about these things without doing things of that nature.

Quote:

I think it may be wise to give an ESL speaker some tried and true strategies for constructing English forms from the concepts that are already in their non-English-formed minds.

I don't think I understand your intent well enough to address this, Matt.

Quote:

I find it ironic that Pinker appeals to the work of Chomsky regarding linguistic equivalence, and yet you use his (Pinker's) paper in defense of a position that denounces linguistic translation as a method of understanding English.

Perhaps you could explain how I did that.

I didn't say that translation isn't/can't be an effective tool to help people understand English. But learning about a language and learning how to use a language are two very different things.

2 Replies

@MattDavis,

Frank
Is this a correctly worded sentence:

I didn't understand Fresco's joke and was happy Spendius asked for an explanation, but I didn't understand the explanations even more than I didn't understand the joke.

Or do you think that should be shortened in some way?

============
Matt

Fresco's joke made reference to things outside my semantic world view, causing me to feel hope that this incoherence could be reconciled by Spendius's efforts at clarification, however, ultimately my semantic world view became less coherent with the world view of Fresco.

==================
jtt
I got, with a quick count, 42 words in both. They contain the same number of words. But Frank didn't ask for a rewording, he asked,

"Is this a correctly worded sentence:"

and

Or do you think that should be shortened in some way?

1 Reply

@JTT,

I'll get back to you if you don't mind JTT.
I appreciate your patience. Very Happy

Going to spend a little time out in the physical world for a bit.

0 Replies

@JTT,

mine had more letters and phonemes

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Is this a correctly worded sentence:

I didn't understand Fresco's joke and was happy Spendius asked for an explanation, but I didn't understand the explanations even more than I didn't understand the joke.

It is not a correctly worded sentence because "didn't understand" is a limit and thus "even more" is a solecism.

I didn't understand Fresco's joke and was happy spendius asked for an explanation, but I didn't understand the explanation either.

Actually, I wasn't offering an explanation. I was speculating about why the scene in the movie reminded fresco of JTT and the only connection I could think of was the outlandishness of the brother's behaviour being of the same order of outlandishness as JTT's posture here: both deriving from the same psychological condition.

3 Replies

@spendius,

Not so much "outlandishness" as political naivity.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Unless the Hopi costume has some, as yet unknown, significance I think naivite is ruled out.

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
One thing is non-standard speech being acceptable on a personal level, whenever one chooses to do so. Another thing is telling a non-native learner of a language that non-standard speech is acceptable, and that prescriptions for standard speech are ignorant of the language. This second instance is derelict and irresponsible.

In your ignorance, Infra, which has caused you to wildly misrepresent both what I have said at A2K and what language science has said and continues to say, you have advanced another common lie. In your case, it's likely just the aforementioned ignorance.

What's the common lie that I've advanced, JTT?

Quote:

Quote:
The past tense form of "run" is illogical in the face of the regular past tense phoneme of English /ed/ which occurs much more frequently than the various irregular past tense forms of English.

"illogical"? Are you suggesting that the /ed/ rule is logical?

I'm saying that using the English regular past tense phonem /ed/ for all verbs is logical. It isn't grammatical.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

InfraBlue: The past tense form of "run" is illogical in the face of the regular past tense phoneme of English /ed/ which occurs much more frequently than the various irregular past tense forms of English.

jtt: "illogical"? Are you suggesting that the /ed/ rule is logical?

You never answered this, Infra.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
InfraBlue: The past tense form of "run" is illogical in the face of the regular past tense phoneme of English /ed/ which occurs much more frequently than the various irregular past tense forms of English.

jtt: "illogical"? Are you suggesting that the /ed/ rule is logical?

You never answered this, Infra.

Yes I did. I wrote, "I'm saying that using the English regular past tense phonem /ed/ for all verbs is logical. It isn't grammatical."

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

My apologies, Infra. I must have missed it.

0 Replies

@JTT,

Perhaps I've misinterpreted your position all along....

JTT wrote:

But learning about a language and learning how to use a language are two very different things.

For what it's worth, which apparently isn't much by your estimation...

JTT wrote:

I think that your understanding of teaching a language is as full as your understanding of the issues surrounding prescriptivism/descriptivism.

I agree that they are very different things. My impression has been that you wish to dismantle the evil empire of prescriptivist grammar teaching, but that you offer no way to rebuild. I've asked for your alternative and apparently this is "too broad a question".
I guess I will just have to take it on faith that in addition to your expertise in linguistics you also have an expertise in education. Thank you for that, I now have total faith in you. Swing that wrecking ball and know that I will not stand in your way, since you promise to build something better.

2 Replies

"There was two Mini Cooper parked in front of my house", or "there WERE two mini coopers"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know