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

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Which of course leads me to another thought...

Really. I hadn't noticed.

@fresco,

Quote:

As an ex-researcher in psycholinguistics, and as an active presenter of philosophical papers, I would comment that phrases like "How language works" is a simplistic one-liner whose status depends entirely on where you are coming from.

I think I've made it abundantly clear where I'm coming from, Fresco. And I venture that you are getting way way off topic.

Quote:

Nor does "descriptiveness" tackle the primary roles of language in either communicative or cognitive functioning. For that you might to turn to writers like Halliday, Sapir, Heidegger, Bernstein, Wittgenstein, Rorty and Derrida.

Do they discuss the lies that prescription has advanced over the centuries?

0 Replies

From the outside looking in on this linguistic battle (Splendi will of course say "orgy").
It seems that this prescriptivist/descriptivist row is over differing placements of value on the utility of language.

1. Language's utility in communicating "thought" [I don't mean this as in invitation to a deconstructivist tangent.]
Example: Used to explain the Pythagorean theorem to a child.

2. Language's utility in socializing (particularly in distinguishing the relationship of persons to each other).
Example: If you want to get into a good university you must "dot your i's and cross your t's".

So....
Is it absolutely morally right to judge someone's "worthiness" based on the style of communication?
Does having a standard of communication make understanding each other less difficult?

"Obviously a false dichotomy" says the unworthy American. Wink

What is your description?
What do you prescribe?

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5261327)
Quote:
If a person comes into this forum and ask a grammar or language question...that person, more than likely, is asking for a "prescriptive" answer. We can discuss this all we want...but to answer the question asked (or inferred)...we must go to the prescriptive answer to be of help.

1) You've never explained how lying to that person would be of help, Frank.

It won't...which is why I do not do it. When I do it, I simply offer what I consider to be the answer they are looking for.

Quote:

2) What part of prescriptions are "bits of folklore that originated for screwball reasons several hundred years ago and have perpetuated themselves ever since" don't you understand?

I understand all of it. Why do you think that I don't?

Quote:

3) Actually, when you notice [don't know how you've missed this either, except for your plain pigheadedness] just how bad you are at describing the workings of language, one wonders why you wouldn't try to bring yourself up to speed before offering advice.

I don't try to explain "the workings of language." I try to answer a question asked. Don't know why you think I am pig-headed, but that is something you have to deal with, not I.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Not what Chomsky meant by "grammatical competence" which axiomatically divorced itself from social contexts other than that of the nebulous "native speaker".

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

It won't...which is why I do not do it. When I do it, so now you admit you sometimes do lie

Quote:

I simply offer what I consider to be the answer they are looking for.

Now that's a teacher and a half! Instead of giving an honest answer, one that reflects the truth, one that would actually help the person learn about language, you give "what [you] consider to be the answer they are looking for".

Quote:

I understand all of it. Why do you think that I don't?

Because you continue to suggest it advisable to offer these bits of folklore, developed for screwball reasons [that you, the guy who knows so much about language refuses to actually ever discuss] as sensible options for "the answer they are looking for". Rolling Eyes

Quote:

I try to answer a question asked.

With "bits of folklore that originated for screwball reasons"

Quote:

I don't try to explain "the workings of language."

Of course not, because you do not understand the workings of language. If you had the slightest notion of same you would not offer "bits of folklore that originated for screwball reasons".

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5261581)
Quote:
It won't...which is why I do not do it. When I do it,

so now you admit you sometimes do lie

I didn't go any further than this, JTT.

Jerky on your part to assume the "it" referred to lying...rather than to responding to a question.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
Which of course leads me to another thought...

Really. I hadn't noticed.

Yes, really. Ideas and words are very much connected by association. One might even claim, that all of their meaning is contextualized. Wink

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

It won't...which is why I do not do it. When I do it,

Quote:

Jerky on your part to assume the "it" referred to lying.

You actually understand pronoun referents better than this, Frank, if and when you let your internal grammar do its job. It's only when you get into your prescriptivist clothing that you make egregious errors wrt language use.

jtt: 1) You've never explained how lying to that person would be of help, Frank.

Frank: It won't...which is why I do not do it. When I do it

What is the antecedent for the three it pronouns in your response, Frank?

Quote:

.rather than to responding to a question.

You only asked one question and I responded to it. You made some other fatuous assertions which I addressed.

But you still haven't explained how "bits of folklore that originated for screwball reasons several hundred years ago and have perpetuated themselves ever since" could ever be counted as anything but lies/falsehoods/fabrications /... .

Yet you seem to think there is some, as yet unexplained, reason to offer them as
advice to those learning English as a second language.

3 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Communicative competence has no need of grammatical competence, Fresco?

Quote:

It has if what is being communicated is a clause in a tariff agreement.

If you weren't so blinded by your juvenile intent on trying to show me up, you wouldn't make these obvious blunders.

How did you miss the question mark, Spendi? I've put it in bold for you this time.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Yes, really. Ideas and words are very much connected by association. One might even claim, that all of their meaning is contextualized.

Would that entail that one brings oneself up to speed on the issues one seeks to discuss?

0 Replies

@JTT,

Hey - while you were arguing about the two Mini Coopers parked in front of your house, a traffic policeman came and had them both towed away!

1 Reply

@spendius,

You don't appreciate irony, Spendi?

By the by, old feller, where are you in these discussions, other than having your behind firmly squatted in the peanut section?

0 Replies

@JTT,

Hey JTT,
I don't mean this question as a facetious one:
Are all "lies" wrong (morally).

1 Reply

@vonny,

Thanks, Vonny. They weren't mine anyway. Crappy little Brit cars. Smile

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Hey JTT,
I don't mean this question as a facetious one:
Are all "lies" wrong (morally).

Way too wide a question, Matt. I have neither the time nor the inclination to get into that.

2 Replies

@JTT,

I presume you mean a way too troublesome a question JT. It's not that wide.

Lies are not always morally wrong. Everybody knows that. And it doesn't take much time to say it considering how much time you have spent on trivial matters.

The inclination is a separate issue.

1 Reply

@spendius,

There we go, Spendi, and I didn't have to lift a finger.

Impressive summation too, I might add.

0 Replies

@JTT,

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.

Quote:

For the three year old, most assuredly. There's no danger of 'runned' becoming the lifelong past tense for him. His internal grammar will adjust just as all children's internal grammars adjust to the irregular forms.

No, he will learn the irregular form.

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. There is nothing "internal" about saying "ran." A child learns the irregular form by imitation and direct instruction.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

You said it for me.

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