1
   

What to know to write well?

 
 
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2018 08:56 am
@camlok,
Quote:
it should be a piece of cake for US government truthers/conspiracy theorists to show the official fable is accurate.

Apparently, their faith in their ability to prove their point allows for not much more than sitting in the bushes blocks a way from the action and hollering out things like, "Dumb head," which is kind of entertaining, I guess.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2018 10:37 am
@camlok,
camlok wrote:
...which is [likely] also you using the innate grammar for a dialect of English.


Well, at least you inserted (only parenthetically, but still...) the word "likely" for once, in place of your usual blustery cocksure pronouncements, eh?

Ambrose Bierce wrote:
"To be positive: To be mistaken at the top of one's voice.


The more louder, the more positive, the more mistook, I always say.

I never knew that dialects had "innate" grammar. If the dialect is born with it's own grammar, then maybe I don't hafta be, ever think of that?
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2018 11:20 am
@layman,
Quote:
Well, at least you inserted (only parenthetically, but still...) the word "likely" for once, in place of your usual blustery cocksure pronouncements, eh?

'likely' was/is appropriate because I don't know of the grammar of all dialects of English and given your record of dishonesty, it might all be an act.


I never knew that dialects had "innate" grammar. If the dialect is born with it's [sic]own grammar, then maybe I don't hafta be, ever think of that?


You illustrate that there is much you don't know, yet you still stick your nose into issues where you clearly don't know.
layman
 
  0  
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2018 11:49 am
@camlok,
camlok wrote:

'likely' was/is appropriate because I don't know of the grammar of all dialects of English


I see. So you're still presenting "innate grammar" as an indubitable fact, eh?

You aint real quick on the uptake there, is ya, boy?
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2018 11:54 am
@layman,
You, by your own admission and by your involvement know little to nothing about the grammar of English. That holds true for the vast vast majority of Americans [and other countries] who also know virtually nothing about grammar yet they are able to function in this incredibly complicated venture.
layman
 
  0  
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2018 11:57 am
@camlok,
camlok wrote:

You, by your own admission and by your involvement know little to nothing about the grammar of English. That holds true for the vast vast majority of Americans [and other countries] who also know virtually nothing about grammar yet they are able to function in this incredibly complicated venture.


There ya go, contradictin your own damn self, again, eh? You're saying they don't know it, but they know it. Which is it?
layman
 
  0  
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2018 12:16 pm
@layman,
I'll answer my own damn question with an example.

Somebody can know a great deal about human psychology without ever going to school to be learned about it. Sheeit, all they got is a buncha chickenshit "technical terminology" which they make up as they go so they can act like they be knowin something you aint.

Aint nobody needs nunna that candyass crap. Just hang out on the corner for a spell. You'll soon see what peoples is up to.

Same damn thing with grammar, syntax, punctuation, parts of speech, and all that other pretentious ****. Only a cheese-eater would study on that. It don't help nuthin.

I remember Mizz Jonson tellin me in skool: "Here, layboy, diagram this here sentence."

I just said: Diagram this, willya?

She said: "What?"

I said: "I got your diagram right here, eh, Darlin?"

That's one of them there times I got throwed plumb out of school for a spell. It was cool. I headed straight for the pool hall, ya know?
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  2  
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2018 12:23 pm
@layman,
Quote:
There ya go, contradictin your own damn self, again, eh? You're saying they don't know it, but they know it. Which is it?


You don't understand the distinction because you are woefully ignorant on language science and English grammar, to name but two. But don't feel bad, that's how most folks are.

You can read the Pinker article, "Grammar Puss", which explains it well.
layman
 
  0  
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2018 12:28 pm
@camlok,
camlok wrote:

You can read the Pinker article, "Grammar Puss", which explains it well.

Steve Pinko is a damn chomskyite. Why would anyone read his commie-ass nonsense, I ax ya?
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2018 12:34 pm
@layman,
The typical cowardly approach of far right conservatives and those who support the US government official conspiracy theory.
layman
 
  0  
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2018 12:53 pm
@camlok,
What real linguists say about Chomsky, eh?

Roger Schank wrote:
“The MIT linguist Noam Chomsky represents everything that's bad about academics. I don't like his intolerant attitude or what I consider tactics that are nothing less than intellectual dirty tricks.”

The main obstacle that we have today to clearly understanding the nature and origin of language is the overly formalistic, anti-empirical, anti-historical influence of Chomsky's paradigm for doing linguistics.”

“It has become very clear in recent years that Chomsky's generative calculus model of linguistics has no relevance at all to anything about actual language. It has also become clear that the main generative notion of the innateness of language is based on flimsy, non-existent evidence.”

“Despite this, it still remains true, that to the world at large, Chomsky's theories are somehow considered an important "scientific breakthrough."
layman
 
  0  
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2018 01:04 pm
@camlok,
Here's another perv:

Rowan wrote:
“The Chomskyan approach to language really is irrelevant to language; its claims empty, not explaining anything at all important about language, just some tricks of notation about its own made-up examples. It’s as empty theoretically as it is in its practical usefulness to language studies,which is nil.”

It can’t and doesn’t help at all in language translation, either practical or computer using, in computer speech recognition or language production, in language teaching – it is useless in teaching grammar in school -- and is totally irrelevant to understanding texts, discourses, conversations, language change, language history.”

Chomsky thinks you can understand the whole of language entirely through introspection – asking yourself questions about made-up examples without having to bother with the incredibly hard work of actually studying real language. Of course, his followers among linguists love this approach, because it’s so much easier to study made-up sentences, where you can find exactly what you expect to find, since you put it there, than to go to the trouble to actually immerse yourself in and study the real language that surrounds you.


In other words, Chomsky aint never spent no time on no street corner, eh?

Just the kinda guy you would love, eh, Cambo?
layman
 
  0  
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2018 01:16 pm
@layman,
You probably aint never even heard of Roger, eh? Here's a little introduction for ya:

Quote:
“ROGER SCHANK is a computer scientist and cognitive psychologist; director of the Institute for the Learning Sciences, at Northwestern University; John Evans Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, and professor of psychology and of education and social policy. He is the author of fourteen books on creativity, learning, and artificial intelligence, including The Creative Attitude: Learning to Ask and Answer the Right Questions, with Peter Childers (1988), Dynamic Memory (1982), Tell Me A Story (1990), and The Connoisseur's Guide to the Mind (1991).

“Marvin Minsky: Roger Schank has pioneered many important ideas about how knowledge might be represented in the human mind. In the early 1970s, he developed a concept of semantics that he called "conceptual dependency," which plays an important role in my book The Society of Mind.”

“Murray Gell-Mann; I know Roger Schank slightly, and I find that his work has many appealing characteristics. Working with the concept of scripts, he was led into a huge project in education, using computers. As I listened to his description of some of the ideas behind the project, I found myself in sympathy with many of them.”


0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2018 01:25 pm
@layman,
That sounds like you without the eloquence, layman, all hot air and no evidence. No wonder you have been so taken by the flimsy lies of the USGOCT.

In all that you have provided ZERO evidence. You do know what the word means, don't you?
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2018 01:30 pm
@layman,
Quote:
it is useless in teaching grammar in school --


Of course it is. It is as far from teaching grammar as is NOAA climate science work.

I'm guessing that this fellow has his panties in a bunch because he is POed at finding out that all the grammar he was taught in school was pure bunko.

There are many of these academic dinosaurs around. The USA system of teaching English grammar has been terribly faulty for over two centuries.



0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2018 02:00 pm
@camlok,
camlok wrote:

That sounds like you without the eloquence, layman..


Well, yeah, aint nobody gots eloquence like I do, but everybody knows that, eh? If you hold that against a guy, then everyone is suspect.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

You? Me? or All of Us? - Question by mark noble
The PLAN - Discussion by GorDie
Fanfiction Writing Tips? - Question by spacesword16
Help with College Essay - Question by marky8
how to write a good essay - Question by maivanthai94
Writing - Question by anonymously99
NaNoWriMo - Discussion by jespah
What is the value of obscure academic text? - Discussion by The Pentacle Queen
The A2K Bulwer-Lytton Contest - Discussion by Mame
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/17/2019 at 04:08:36