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

@MattDavis,

Quote:

I agree that they are very different things. My impression has been that you wish to dismantle the evil empire of prescriptivist grammar teaching,

Most assuredly I do, those parts which are "evil".

Quote:

but that you offer no way to rebuild. I've asked for your alternative and apparently this is "too broad a question".

I don't recall saying that this particular issue was too broad, Matt. When a body doesn't understand a subject well, they tend to make all sorts of assumptions and draw impressions that don't exist.

I offered the Pinker article, a bit long I admit, and lots to think about, but it offers an excellent description of the problem. It knocks down, with great precision, the main silly prescriptions, the ones that leap to the fore when anyone is asked.

I note that you haven't offered up any of the language rules you were most assuredly exposed to over your lifetime.

[all quotes are from the Pinker article]

Quote:

I hope to have convinced you of two things. Many prescriptive rules are just plain dumb and should be deleted from the usage handbooks. And most of standard English is just that, standard, in the sense of standard units of currency or household voltages.

Okay, here we have it. The vast majority of prescriptive teaching can remain because the artificial aspects of language, writing and encompassed in that, reading, were born of and need prescriptions that have to be memorized.

Real language, with its immensely complicated system of grammar, never has to be memorized. If you recall, rules that have to be drilled [and are then mostly forgotten] are alien to the natural workings of language.

That brings us back to the "many plain dumb prescriptive rules", the ones that you have avoided bringing into the discussion. So much valuable time is wasted on these pieces of arrant nonsense. There is so much to learn about language that is really intriguing.

Identifying artificially named parts of speech and then parsing sentences is no way to even learn ABOUT a language. It has its place to be sure, but not at the introductory stages.

The real intriguing aspects of language is to be found in Pragmatics. These are things that we all already know - we deploy these immensely complicated grammar structures with no conscious thought to effect tiny nuances that still baffle researchers.

It no big deal to identify the present perfect - the really big deal is discovering why and when it is used. Did your teachers tell you about the four reasons we use the present perfect?

Did your teachers inform you as to the past tense of 'may', of 'shall', of 'can'?

Did your teachers let you know why we backshift when we tell somebody what someone else said,

A: I'm going to the store.

B: C, what did A say?

C: She said that she was going to the store.

Quote:

It is just common sense that people should be given every encouragement and opportunity to learn the dialect that has become the standard one in their society and to employ it in many formal settings.

Okay, we've got this covered. It's a good thing for as many people as possible to learn how to use SWE/SFE.

Now stay carefully tuned for the the big caveat, the one that really causes all the problems.

Quote:

But there is no need to use terms like "bad grammar," "fractured syntax," and "incorrect usage" when referring to rural and Black dialects. Though I am no fan of "politically correct" euphemism (in which, according to the satire, "white woman" should be replaced by "melanin-impoverished person of gender"), using terms like "bad grammar" for "nonstandard" is both insulting and scientifically inaccurate.

Now that not only applies to rural and black dialects, it also applies to all Nonstandard English, the kind we all use for the vast majority of our lives, even for those who are heavily involved in SWE situations, academia and newspaper [newspaper as a catch all word for well, you know.]

Nonstandard English [NSE] isn't to be measured against SWE/SFE because they differ in their rules. It would be like comparing apples and oranges and saying that apples have to resemble oranges in every respect. That'd be really silly, would it not? And yet this is what we are taught when we get into school to learn SWE/SFE.

Really, Matt, it boils down to rectifying some pretty basic things. I asked FrankA, [he took the usual FrankA position of not addressing any issue] if he thought it wise to teach "bits of folklore [disguised as language rules] that originated for screwball reasons several hundred years ago and have perpetuated themselves ever since" to students either learning a language or learning about a language.

Do you feel that that's a wise decision?

2 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

A: I'm going to the store.

B: C, what did A say?

C: She said that she was going to the store.

personally, regardless of what a teacher may or may not have taught, i would say "she said that she IS going to the store."

due to things beyond my control when i was young, i never got a chance to properly learn grammar at school (and nowadays i have too much that i'm trying to learn to include grammar) so don't ask me to back it up grammatically lol, however i think i am good with language, regardless of the rules.

"she said that she WAS going to the store" to me implies that she originally planned to go to the store, but changed her mind, or that she has been and returned already.

"she said she IS going to the store" implies she has just said it, and still intends to go.

it depends when "b"asked. was it straight after "a" said it, or some time after?

i would go with "there were 2 mini coopers" as it's the pluralisation of the cars outside your house.

e.g. "there was 2 sausage on my plate" just sounds wrong

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Really, Matt, it boils down to rectifying some pretty basic things. I asked FrankA, [he took the usual FrankA position of not addressing any issue] if he thought it wise to teach "bits of folklore [disguised as language rules] that originated for screwball reasons several hundred years ago and have perpetuated themselves ever since" to students either learning a language or learning about a language.

Do you feel that that's a wise decision?

That will depend on what "bits of folklore [disguised as language rules]" are to you. Can you express to me more explicitly what those are. You do a pretty good job of explaining to the linguistic laity (me) how awful they are, but I have no idea exactly where your finger is pointing.
I mean... I really would like to know if there are demons among us, who those demons might be.
You have me very frightened that my future children may be subjected to screwball superstitious mumbo jumbo, how is a father to react to this?

1 Reply

were/was aside...shouldn't the word "cooper" be pluralised anyway, i.e. in both cases?

1 Reply

@Berty McJock,

Ironically, I think the discussion will ultimately boil down to your use of "should" in your question rather than "cooper". Wink

Ask a prescriptivist if you can trust those devils. Twisted Evil

Ask a descriptivist if you think they can give you a straight answer. Drunk

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Can you express to me more explicitly what those are. You do a pretty good job of explaining to the linguistic laity (me) how awful they are, but I have no idea exactly where your finger is pointing.

I've asked you a number of times to pick a "rule" that you have been exposed to in your lifetime, be it in school, from friends, enemies, parents, aunts, uncles, granny, granpa, ... . Maybe try to remember one that you were corrected on, but really any one will do.

1 Reply

@JTT,

The word "well" should be used as an adverb form of the adjective "good".

How are you doing?

I am doing well. [means that the "doing" was done well]
Non-literally, something like: My actions are going without complication.

I am doing good. [means that the noun "good" is being done]
Non-literally, something like: I perform actions whose consequences are good.

We arrive at the second "translation" by virtue of knowing the prescriptivist rule. We know that "good" is not being used as an adverb, so it must be a noun in the sentence. It must mean "a good".

1 Reply

@Berty McJock,

Quote:

personally, regardless of what a teacher may or may not have taught, i would say "she said that she IS going to the store."

Bingo, give that [lady or gent] a kewpie doll!!

But it can be either 'was' or 'is', Berty.

Backshifting [going back one tense shift] is used in English as a way to mark that the speech is reported, or in other words, it's not a direct quote.

That there must be a backshift has been one of the prescriptions of English that was false. This was led by another falsehood, the so-called Sequence of Tenses, which errantly believed that the tenses had to match. The prescriptivists failed to understand the reason for backshifting in reported versus direct speech.

Quote:

due to things beyond my control when i was young, i never got a chance to properly learn grammar at school (and nowadays i have too much that i'm trying to learn to include grammar) so don't ask me to back it up grammatically lol, however i think i am good with language, regardless of the rules.

See how this notion persists, Matt.

Berty, you missed very little. Grammar isn't taught at school. The simplistic gobbledygook that passes as grammar instruction in school can't hold a candlestick to what you knew about grammar by the time you were five years old. At the age of three you were a grammatical genius.

Had you the chance you think you missed your head would be full of useless prescriptions/concocted rules that don't describe the English language.

2 Replies

@JTT,

Have you ever taught in a class room JTT?
Have you ever taught children?
Do you have children?
-----------------------------------------------
I don't mean to get too personal with the question, I just think you have no idea what is involved in educating the very young.

You do realize that not all children are as brilliant and talented as you probably were, at least I hope you realize that.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

The word "well" should be used as an adverb form of the adjective "good".

How are you doing?

I am doing well. [means that the "doing" was done well]
Non-literally, something like: My actions are going without complication.

I am doing good. [means that the noun "good" is being done]
Non-literally, something like: I perform actions whose consequences are good.

We arrive at the second "translation" by virtue of knowing the prescriptivist rule. We know that "good" is not being used as an adverb, so it must be a noun in the sentence. It must mean "a good".

I asked you to provide an example of a rule/prescription that you were exposed to in your youth for a specific reason, Matt. This illustrates just how pervasive the nonsense is. If I asked ten people, I would probably get ten prescriptions, aka falsehoods.

One of the major problems of prescription is the famous lack of scrutiny applied to these "rules". First and foremost, none of these prescriptions are reality based.

The conclusions that are derived completely avoid reality.

Quote:

I am doing good. [means that the noun "good" is being done]
Non-literally, something like: I perform actions whose consequences are good.

No native speaker of English, without the necessary content, and everyone who heard it would be shocked at such braggadacio, would ever understand the portion in bold, above, to mean what you suggest it means.

Your contention simply isn't reality based.

Both usage discussions, below, are from MW,

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/good?show=0&t=1361851840

Quote:

Usage Discussion of GOOD

An old notion that it is wrong to say “I feel good” in reference to health still occasionally appears in print. The origins of this notion are obscure, but they seem to combine someone's idea that good should be reserved to describe virtue and uncertainty about whether an adverb or an adjective should follow feel. Today nearly everyone agrees that both good and well can be predicate adjectives after feel. Both are used to express good health, but good may connote good spirits in addition to good health.

Quote:

Usage Discussion of GOOD

Adverbial good has been under attack from the schoolroom since the 19th century. Insistence on well rather than good has resulted in a split in connotation: well is standard, neutral, and colorless, while good is emotionally charged and emphatic. This makes good the adverb of choice in sports <“I'm seeing the ball real good” is what you hear — Roger Angell>. In such contexts as <listen up. And listen good — Alex Karras> <lets fly with his tomatoes before they can flee. He gets Clarence good — Charles Dickinson> good cannot be adequately replaced by well. Adverbial good is primarily a spoken form; in writing it occurs in reported and fictional speech and in generally familiar or informal contexts.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Such distinctions do not make much difference in casual dialogues,
however they do help prevent confusion in more rigorous discussions, as in the ones we are having regarding linguistics.

Are we preparing children for casual dialogue? (then I agree usually not necessary)
Major exceptions however for children with learning disabilities. Also children who do not have exposure at home to English. In my setting these are often children whose parents have recently emigrated from Mexico. Oh and heaven forbid, what if some poor soul has learning disabilities and also doesn't have home exposure to English.
These kids don't fit into you descriptivist utopia.
This doesn't even mention children who are just plain neglected.
But tell me JTT, what's YOUR experience?

Are we preparing children to communicate in academically rigorous fields? (maybe has some value)
I for instance have some difficulties with this personally in discussions of topics such as deconstructionist philosophy.
Don't have much difficulty buying a pack of smokes.

2 Replies

@MattDavis,

Matt,
I appreciate the points you are making about how some of the prescriptive grammar rules help us in discussions of a more rigorous nature than just casual conversation. In my opinion, you are absolutely correct.

JTT uses prescriptive devises in his posts (the positioning of nouns and verbs…order of subjects and predicates)…so despite his protestations…well, you can finish that sentence yourself.

Anyway, I notice that he/she wrote:

I would probably get ten prescriptions, aka falsehoods.

My guess is that most people would never refer to those kinds of things as “falsehoods.” That designation is merely there so that JTT can call any use of prescriptive grammar (by others) “lying”…which, of course, is on done so he can call the person using the language liars.

JTT has a pathological need to call people liars.

To pursue the line of contention with him that you are is futile…more futile than resistance is to a Borg.

Just sayin’.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Such distinctions do not make much difference in casual dialogues,
however they do help prevent confusion in more rigorous discussions, as in the ones we are having regarding linguistics.

This is no defense for the prescription you've repeated. Language doesn't operate in a vacuum, Matt. Those meanings extend to SFE too. If and when the meaning you described comes under discussion, the surrounding context will fill listeners in so that they gloss the intended meaning.

But this defiance of reality is not limited to this one prescription. It's a common feature of prescriptivism. These are the prescriptions that Professor Pinker noted are just plain dumb. You did read the discussions on the major ones found in his article, didn't you?

Quote:

Are we preparing children for casual dialogue? (then I agree usually not necessary)
Major exceptions however for children with learning disabilities. Also children who do not have exposure at home to English. In my setting these are often children whose parents have recently emigrated from Mexico. Oh and heaven forbid, what if some poor soul has learning disabilities and also doesn't have home exposure to English.
These kids don't fit into you descriptivist utopia.

Am I to understand that you are presenting these as arguments for the continuation of "bits of folklore that originated for screwball reasons several hundred years ago and have perpetuated themselves ever since"?

Do you think it necessary or wise to use dishonest scholarship [is that an oxymoron?] in efforts to prepare children for rigorous debate?

Quote:

This doesn't even mention children who are just plain neglected.

Yes, it does include those children as you have mentioned them.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

It is not a correctly worded sentence

Did your Simple Minded Linguistics for Genteel Folk tell you that, Spendi?

1 Reply

@JTT,

No. Common sense. Not understanding is a limit. You can't get "even more" not understanding than not understanding. Just as not being in the bath is a limit and even more not in the bath an absurdity. And as absurdities mean nothing, aside from demonstrating an absurd person, they break the fundamental rule of all language.

The sentence is incorrect and it being so has nothing to do with any cheapskate, irrelevant smears you introduce for the purpose of trying to win an argument whilst not engaging with it.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

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

Two assertions and more, Spendi, when one considers how casually you toss out 'solecism' without even making your intended meaning clear.

1 Reply

@JTT,

There are no unsupported assertions there JT.

Are you claiming that "didn't understand" is not a limit?

If not, then "even more" is an obvious solecism.

The meaning is perfectly clear.

Quote:

sol·e·cism (sl-szm, sl-)
n.
1. A nonstandard usage or grammatical construction.
2. A violation of etiquette.
3. An impropriety, mistake, or incongruity.

It covers the range in the case in question.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

The meaning is perfectly clear.

Quote:
sol·e·cism (sl-szm, sl-)
n.
1. A nonstandard usage or grammatical construction.
2. A violation of etiquette.
3. An impropriety, mistake, or incongruity.

It covers the range in the case in question.

It does, does it, Spendius? Did you hear that, Frank? You violated etiquette with your sentence.

Laughing

3 Replies

@spendius,

There is a "because" in my sentence. A word you usually, possibly always, fail to use when asserting something is "nonsense" or that someone is an "idiot". Which is why your statements including such epithets with a "because" are real nonsense and idiotic.

And they are solecisms under headings 2 and 3 in the above.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Of course etiquette was violated. The sentence made the assumption that we are all too stupid to notice the absurdity. Which is to say that it underestimated our intelligence. Which is a grave breach of etiquette.

0 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