Age and grammar

[Kulindahr]

What gives me optimism is the degree to which skilled communicators can interact with clumsy ones. In any other endeavour, stronger skills win out. I expect the same effect from the fluidity brought about by the net; the stronger communicators will gain a certain advantage in conversation, others will learn from that, and the general quality of English (and other languages) will go up.

Maybe. My sister the quality engineer talks about something in manufacturing called (hope I'm remembering this right) the minimum sufficient grade. It means doing something to the minimum sufficient to achieve its purpose, rather than aiming for excellence. Usually (she says) manufacturing lands at the m.s.g. and stays there unless and until something of a higher grade comes along that exceeds the existing performance by enough that broad dissatisfaction with the m.s.g. But the move is not, at that point, to the level of quality established by the new, but only to a new m.s.g. that's high enough to get by.

I think online grammar will rise only to a minimum sufficient grade.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's true to an extent. But without a firm understanding of grammar, your language can be mediocre, at best. Two people may not be able to clearly communicate what they are saying to each other and ambiguities will form unless there is a common set of rules to follow.

That set of rules comes from the structure of language, without any specific language being involved. Subject, object; nominative, genitive; singular, plural; optative, vocative; these aren't arbitrary categories made up to organize a language, but names for the observed manner in which all languages function.

That's why the best way to understand the grammar of your own language is to learn two foreign ones: the moment you grasp the common pattern of structure in those two foreign ones, the way your own one works will become evident.

 

[frankfrank]

Might as well start studying now.

You remembered the toilet, but you forgot the pot leaf.

 

[Benvolio]

The rules of grammar shoul be charged to eliminate unnecessary complications. Who vs whom, may vs can, shall vs will.
TV is part of the problem as bad grammar ads verisimilitude and viewers hear as much bad English as good. Amazing how many misuse I and me. Me and him went. Myself and him went.etc
I am not sure our schools care having been captured by the far left, grammar seems white and therefore racist. More important to teach political correctness.

 

[Kulindahr]

Would you contend that education has risen, fallen, or remained constant in the general population, compared to 50 years ago?

By basic literacy, we're up a little; I think the rate is 99%. But by standards for employment, it's bad -- one in seven can't handle things like instructions with medications, manuals for electronics, or guides for using equipment.

Functionally, we've gotten worse by making schools bigger. Even half a century ago the indications were there that big school meant lower performance and students falling through the cracks, but schools, and class sizes, have gotten larger. A strong indication there is that dropout rates are higher in larger high schools -- and with lots of large high schools, rates can pass one-third. Another is that parents get involved at a lower rate in larger schools.

I think, but wouldn't swear to it, that we've had grade inflation, too. I know about thirty years ago it was common to hold kids back a grade; if they didn't cut it, they stayed, and that was that. Now that doesn't seem to be common, and my impression is that it's because no one wants to "scar" the kid -- which amounts to deciding to let him feel good because he's with his friends but fail later in life because he didn't really get the education.
Of course that whole situation could be avoided if we'd get away from the factory/military model of schools and do something rational.

So overall, I'd say things are down some.

 

[Kulindahr]

The rules of grammar shoul be charged to eliminate unnecessary complications. Who vs whom, may vs can, shall vs will.
TV is part of the problem as bad grammar ads verisimilitude and viewers hear as much bad English as good. Amazing how many misuse I and me. Me and him went. Myself and him went.etc
I am not sure our schools care having been captured by the far left, grammar seems white and therefore racist. More important to teach political correctness.

How about "they", which can now mean third person plural, but also third person singular -- in other words, when the word it head, it might be meaning "he", "she", "it", or "they"?


BTW, our schools haven't been "captured by the far left". They've drifted left, certainly, but I haven't noticed grade schools reading books filled with quotations from Marx, Lenin, Mao, or Che.

 

[altlover85]

I think how one writes depends on many things. On the internet, you have to consider that many people are are likely to be lax in their grammar because it's an informal enviornment. In general, everyday conversation and writing, I would think factors like education and class would have the most weight in determing grammatical differences, as opposed to age.

I'm sorry for any grammatical errors in this post.

 

[blackbeltninja]

The rules of grammar shoul be charged to eliminate unnecessary complications. Who vs whom, may vs can, shall vs will.

Except that may and can, and shall and will, actually mean different things.

Who and whom seems like semantics, I agree, but the other two have entirely separate meanings.

-d-

 

[JayHawk]

y u need more?

 

[DonQuixote]

Another great topic covered well and in depth by the contemplative philosophers and sage academicians of JUBland.

I fear it is definitely education based, not generational, aside from the general decline and malaise of our education system.

As an avid reader of stories here, and poster in assorted fun threads, I have seen, and worked with as coach, cheerleader, and outright editor for many of our young aspiring authors. Most have a genuine desire to improve their grammatical skills, recognizing that good grammar makes it much easier to convey one's message in a powerful and compelling manner.

I have seen, first hand, with my kids, their friends, and my nieces and nephews, what a decent school system and caring, active parents can produce, versus what more financially disadvantaged and/or agrarian districts might produce.

I can get down and play with the best of them, but I inherently look with a critical eye for typos and such.
(That "might" have something to do with my son competing, nationally, in Forensics (speech and debate) in high school, and being enlisted as a judge.)

 

[Kulindahr]

The directions say simmer for 5 minutes and then fluff with a fork.

What do I use to fluff it and the fork?

Why do I want to fluff the fork?

 

[DonQuixote]

Kuli,
Youse a bad boy, but I like it, lol.

Wait, where's Norm Crosby when you need him?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS3a4iSy038[/ame]

 

[yhtang]

I fear Sloppyseconds has the answer.

I thought he is the personification of the problem!

 

[teadrinker]

All right, I'll bite.

I'm 51, and my job involves a lot of writing and speaking, and a lot of that to people whose own English is poor. I therefore have to be as precise as possible, and I like to think that most of the time my writing, if not Shakespearean, is at least serviceable and grammatically correct.

What I've noticed more and more is institutionalized poor grammar, such as on business signs. The other day I drove for some time behind a mobile dog-wash van that had been clearly professionally sign-painted; part of the sign on the back of the van promoted the excellence of dogs being washed "in there own home".

Probably in another generation or two we might spell all homophones the same: we don't distinguish "their" and "there" in speech and we manage fine; why do we need the difference in writing? However, it's as well to put up some token resistance to arbitrary change. Some commentators on English usage have claimed that resistance might in the end be futile, but at least such resistance tests the changes and makes them prove their worth.

-T.

 

[pigface]

The Internet was better in the 1970s when only university graduates had access to it.

 

[DonQuixote]

JP,
Hakuna Matata - no worries for the rest of your days.
You make an effort.

English, as a polyglot language, confuses and befuddles many, if not most.

There is a humourous piece somewhere on the internet about homonyms of varying origins. Some were pointed out in frustration, earlier in this thread.

What can make the exploration of this language we call English, is those very nuances, and making them one's own.

At least we restrict ourselves to 26 letters, no doubles, no tildas, accent grave or ague(?), no circumflex, trema/umlauda(sp).

On the other hand, not being the effite snobs in linguistics that other languages are, we eagerly embrace, and make our own, just about any word out there.

 

[Kulindahr]

At least we restrict ourselves to 26 letters, no doubles, no tildas, accent grave or ague(?), no circumflex, trema/umlauda(sp).

Thereby guaranteeing that written English will be mispronounced.

 

[HunterM]

^ Hilarious! Good one.

 

[frankfrank]

Probably in another generation or two we might spell all homophones the same: we don't distinguish "their" and "there" in speech and we manage fine; why do we need the difference in writing? However, it's as well to put up some token resistance to arbitrary change. Some commentators on English usage have claimed that resistance might in the end be futile, but at least such resistance tests the changes and makes them prove their worth.

-T.

What about words which **ARE NOT** homophones, but which are now treated as though they are?

I think I spent most of the ensuing evening trying to pick up my jaw from the floor (where it had gone so quickly, in utter disbelief, that it had BONDED with the floor), after I saw this $2,000 Jeopardy! Question-and-Answer in the "HOMOPHONES" category on February 16:

[for Jeopardy! fans, you can visit this website http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=3831 which has thousands of Jeopardy! full games of the entire Answers and Questions, going back as far as the debut of the modern Jeopardy! series in 1984]

ANSWER: The state of the atmosphere, or a conjunction that introduces an alternative

QUESTION: [scroll down]


























keep going...




























keep going...























keep going...
























more...


















you're almost there...




















QUESTION: What is WEATHER [WHETHER]?

THOSE WORDS ARE **NOT** HOMOPHONES!!!!

No more of a homophone than WHICH and WITCH are...

Why (or is it wye?) has the "WH" disappeared from our spoken language? I still use it, and I always will. WHISTLE is not pronounced "wissel."

A guess that a Canadian might think that the missing "h" sound (from WHETHER) migrated to words like TISSUE and ISSUE - which, in Canada, are pronounced as they appear, but in the USA they're pronounced "tishew" and "ishew."

 

[HunterM]

A guess that a Canadian might think that the missing "h" sound (from WHETHER) migrated to words like TISSUE and ISSUE - which, in Canada, are pronounced as they appear, but in the USA they're pronounced "tishew" and "ishew."

I'm from the US. I don't understand the ishew?