liosama Wrote:

gfb345 Wrote:Nowadays every scientist is a complete layman relative to all science with the exception of a relatively small area of expertise. But he/she, even as a layman, retains that scientific stance towards his/her ignorance. Science education will succeed only when it gets everyone to be like a "scientist outside of his/her area of expertise."

Is that not inevitable though?

you lost me... what exactly is inevitable? if you're referring to the success of science education, no i don't think it's inevitable, quite the contrary. if you're referring to the fact that scientists (too) are laymen wrt most of science, well that could be a deeper question than i can handle, but in any case it is unrelated to my point. i don't lament the need for narrow specialization; i was just giving a concrete, hopefully vivid illustration of the distinction between "science-as-expertise" and "science-as-philosophical-viewpoint". My point is that the failure of our educational system to impart "science-as-expertise" is the direct result of its more fundamental and more complete failure to impart "science-as-philosophical-viewpoint."

auxetoiles Wrote:*cough* I give a damn. "Me and him" vs "him and I" is a moot point, as both are grammatically incorrect. It's "he and I". And "haich" vs "aitch" tends to be divided along class lines (at least in the Eastern states). Draw from that what you will.

There's nothing wrong with using grammar incorrectly in a casual setting, so long as you know how to use it correctly when the need arises. Unfortunately, fewer and fewer people seem to possess that knowledge.

I used to be a grammar-nazi such as yourself; but now I've come to resent people who act as if language abides to laws of nature, usage is the only thing that I base correctness on.

That's the point I'm raising, "correctness" is merely a matter of opinion. Language only evolves due to changes in usage over time, so the fact that one can claim that a commonly used grammatical pattern is "incorrect" because it strays from past usage, or academic snobbery, is completely illogical. No society of grammar-holics or prestigious grammar encyclopedias can define the rules of language.

gfb345 Wrote:you lost me... what exactly is inevitable? if you're referring to the success of science education, no i don't think it's inevitable, quite the contrary. if you're referring to the fact that scientists (too) are laymen wrt most of science, well that could be a deeper question than i can handle, but in any case it is unrelated to my point. i don't lament the need for narrow specialization; i was just giving a concrete, hopefully vivid illustration of the distinction between "science-as-expertise" and "science-as-philosophical-viewpoint". My point is that the failure of our educational system to impart "science-as-expertise" is the direct result of its more fundamental and more complete failure to impart "science-as-philosophical-viewpoint."

I was speaking of the inevitability of becoming a layman in other areas of science. But yes I agree with you, I mainly got the science as a philosophical viewpoint during my studies at university and nothing at all from high school.

auxetoiles Wrote:*cough* I give a damn. "Me and him" vs "him and I" is a moot point, as both are grammatically incorrect. It's "he and I". And "haich" vs "aitch" tends to be divided along class lines (at least in the Eastern states). Draw from that what you will.

There's nothing wrong with using grammar incorrectly in a casual setting, so long as you know how to use it correctly when the need arises. Unfortunately, fewer and fewer people seem to possess that knowledge.

Auxetoiles: How a native speaker of a language not speaking grammatically seems like a paradox to me. The examples you mentioned are merely artificial constructs to 'english grammar'.

thecite Wrote:I used to be a grammar-nazi such as yourself; but now I've come to resent people who act as if language abides to laws of nature, usage is the only thing that I base correctness on.

That's the point I'm raising, "correctness" is merely a matter of opinion. Language only evolves due to changes in usage over time, so the fact that one can claim that a commonly used grammatical pattern is "incorrect" because it strays from past usage, or academic snobbery, is completely illogical. No society of grammar-holics or prestigious grammar encyclopedias can define the rules of language.

I'm not a grammar Nazi - it's a waste of energy when so many people lack any understanding of grammar, spelling or pronunciation If I went around correcting everyone's grammar on the boards, that would be grammar Nazism. It's lazy and defensive to apply it to anyone who makes a single grammar correction.

The reason I picked up on what you said was that you were providing a flawed example - you contrasted two phrases as though one was grammatically correct and the other not, when they were both incorrect. If you had simply used one in the course of a reply, I would have left it alone, given that it was not central to what you were discussing and you would have got your point across.

What you seem to be suggesting is that if enough people use a certain incorrect grammar structure, it becomes correct purely by virtue of extensive usage...? Why should we all have to drop to the level of the lowest common denominator? Just because bogans think the plural of you is 'youse' (and you'll hear that all the time in western Sydney or Melbourne - yuck yuck yuck), or the past tense of bring is 'brung' do not make these things grammatically correct.

Yes, language is fluid and ever-changing, but the only people who use that an excuse for mistake-riddled English tend to have wobbly grammar to begin with. You don't see many people with solid grammar suggesting that other native speakers just 'use whatever grammar gets the point across - language is fluid, after all'.

auxetoiles Wrote:What you seem to be suggesting is that if enough people use a certain incorrect grammar structure, it becomes correct purely by virtue of extensive usage...? Why should we all have to drop to the level of the lowest common denominator? Just because bogans think the plural of you is 'youse' (and you'll hear that all the time in western Sydney or Melbourne - yuck yuck yuck), or the past tense of bring is 'brung' do not make these things grammatically correct.

Yes, that is what I am suggesting. I don't particularly care for the term "youse" either, but if it extended beyond regional usage and became used by a large portion of the global English speaking population, then I see no reason why it couldn't be classed as 'correct' grammar. As for 'brung', I think the term is so commonly used among English speakers now that it could easily be classed as just an alternative form of brought.

I'm sorry, I used the term 'grammar-nazi' merely to refer to the kind of people I used to be one of - those with very strong opinions on what grammatical usage is correct and incorrect, and who get very annoyed when anyone strays from these beliefs. Perhaps I overestimated your grammatical zeal. For the record, I hate misspelling, and think grammatical usage and misspelling are two completely different issues.

I hardly hear anyone say "brung." While incorrect grammar irks me, it doesn't bother me much anymore because it's pointless correcting people who just don't give a shit. I think it's a poor excuse that just because it's become common usage it automatically becomes "correct" more or less.

Sure, in casual everyday situations, who cares if people are taking shortcuts or using less common grammar (even if it isn't technically correct). Hell, what native speaker of a language doesn't? However, I'm of the opinion that people who are constantly using these "less accepted or flat out incorrect" grammar and usage rules everyday time after time and are completely oblivious to the established usage rules, are going to carry these habits over from casual speech into situations where formality and the technical "correctness" DOES matter.

I'd like to see someone take their notion that "because it's common it's correct" into an interview or a high class restaurant and use words like "brung" and "youse." You think there aren't people stupid enough to do that? I've seen it happen, lol. I saw much of the same issues when I was in public speech class. The way some of the kids were talking for formal speeches being graded was horrendous...

It's even worse in written form. During speech most of the ignorant folks are spared because mistakes such as there/their/they're, its/it's, than/then, etc. can't be heard.

I'm not disagreeing with either of you guys, and I'm no grammar nazi, but I'm of the opinion that (at least in my experience) a solid amount of people who use less common grammar don't know the standard accepted rules set forth that are common in many aspects of life.

I don't really know why I didn't know so many grammatical rules that I apparently had been messing up my whole life.

While studying for SAT today I learned that "fewer" is used for countable things, and "less" is used for uncountable things.

I had no idea. I probably use the two interchangeably.

auxetoiles Wrote:

thecite Wrote:I used to be a grammar-nazi such as yourself; but now I've come to resent people who act as if language abides to laws of nature, usage is the only thing that I base correctness on.

That's the point I'm raising, "correctness" is merely a matter of opinion. Language only evolves due to changes in usage over time, so the fact that one can claim that a commonly used grammatical pattern is "incorrect" because it strays from past usage, or academic snobbery, is completely illogical. No society of grammar-holics or prestigious grammar encyclopedias can define the rules of language.

I'm not a grammar Nazi - it's a waste of energy when so many people lack any understanding of grammar, spelling or pronunciation If I went around correcting everyone's grammar on the boards, that would be grammar Nazism. It's lazy and defensive to apply it to anyone who makes a single grammar correction.

The reason I picked up on what you said was that you were providing a flawed example - you contrasted two phrases as though one was grammatically correct and the other not, when they were both incorrect. If you had simply used one in the course of a reply, I would have left it alone, given that it was not central to what you were discussing and you would have got your point across.

What you seem to be suggesting is that if enough people use a certain incorrect grammar structure, it becomes correct purely by virtue of extensive usage...? Why should we all have to drop to the level of the lowest common denominator? Just because bogans think the plural of you is 'youse' (and you'll hear that all the time in western Sydney or Melbourne - yuck yuck yuck), or the past tense of bring is 'brung' do not make these things grammatically correct.

Yes, language is fluid and ever-changing, but the only people who use that an excuse for mistake-riddled English tend to have wobbly grammar to begin with. You don't see many people with solid grammar suggesting that other native speakers just 'use whatever grammar gets the point across - language is fluid, after all'.

Wrong actually, most linguists (academics) are vehemently descriptive when it comes to grammar. Not surprisingly, most prescriptivists are pompous bourgeois who think they know a thing or two about langauge, but don't.

Offshore Wrote:However, I'm of the opinion that people who are constantly using these "less accepted or flat out incorrect" grammar and usage rules everyday time after time and are completely oblivious to the established usage rules, are going to carry these habits over from casual speech into situations where formality and the technical "correctness" DOES matter.

I'd like to see someone take their notion that "because it's common it's correct" into an interview or a high class restaurant and use words like "brung" and "youse." You think there aren't people stupid enough to do that? I've seen it happen, lol. I saw much of the same issues when I was in public speech class. The way some of the kids were talking for formal speeches being graded was horrendous...

This also happens the other way. Sometimes people use not-so-formal language is a rather formal setting and come out sounding very good. For example, people who are actually funny can give humurous talks even in formal settings, often including not so formal language, and the audience will generally love them for it.

You can see something similar very often in books that are based on lectures. Often the speaking style is rather informal, and the fact that the style of speech is not so serious makes it easier for the reader to understand the concepts, and it also makes it a more enjoyable read. Compare Kripke's Naming and Necessity, a very famous philosophical work in the form of a lecture, to any other descriptions of theories of proper names and common names by any other analytic philosopher. It's probably the most important work in the field, and the informal speech helped it rather than hurt it. Or compare something like Feynman's "The Character of Physical Law", also a lecture, to non-lecture-based books with similar themes. A more formal style is preferred by convention, but in reality a less formal style is more useful in getting your message across, as well as keeping your audience entertained. Philosophy, for example, would be a lot less of a pain in the ass (and would get a lot more accomplished) if a lot more people based their writing style on Kripke's lectures rather than on books by people like Kant or Locke.

jcdietz03 Wrote:You don't still know the Krebs cycle because it has never come up in your life after you first learned about it. I still know the fact "Krebs cycle = method used by mitochondria to produce energy" but that's about it.

Actually, Mr. Krebs or whoever it was named after has been dead for a while now, so fewer and fewer people are calling it that.

I predict that within another generation everyone will be calling it the "citric acid cycle," and no younger people will have any idea what you mean when you say "krebs cycle," no matter how well educated they are.

I appologise for this off-topic and irrelevant post

Offshore Wrote:--

The, their vs they're ordeal is to do with spelling and not grammar. It's not like the person actually thinks that they are using 'their' in the non-possessive context. Perhaps I understood you wrong?

Lastly, to think that there is one all mighty unchanging book that says what is grammatical and what isn't is right and what isn't for eternity, not unlike the bible etc, is absurd. Linguistic history speaks for itself. The same grammarian arguments have popped up time to time, and are not new at all.

i don't understand why anyone would choose to pay more attention to the way a message is conveyed than to the actual content just because of some snobby sense of what is correct grammar. Languages evolved to serve human communicative needs. English is a Germanic language that has deviated from its Germanic roots in all manner of strange ways. At what point did English cease to be butchered grammatically incorrect ちゃんぽん of Germanic/French/Norse etc and become acceptable standard English? If you ever try teaching English, you'll understand just how absurd English is in so many ways. If you're going to be a grammar Nazi why not promote a complete reform of the standard English grammar and spelling?
for example:
You are Tom. -> Are you Tom?
You play tennis. -> Do you play tennis?
Why don't we just say "Play you tennis?" like in other Germanic languages. The 'do' is completely redundant.

another example:
I am happy.
You are happy.
He is happy.

Why don't we just stick with one form of the verb 'is'?

I could go on, but my point is that the rules we follow when we communicate are pretty arbitrary a lot of the time and often far from optimal so they don't require any enforcement by grammar Nazis.

edit:
I just remembered, I was having a discussion with other English teachers and it came up that a lot of teachers were annoyed that in the Japanese Junior high School textbooks sometimes sentences are started with "but" or "and", which is something a lot of people are taught not to do in school. But is there actually any good reason for this?

Let's just say it's more of a cultural stance. If you like a language as it is, you'll try to promote its rules so it doesn't change that quickly.

EratiK Wrote:Let's just say it's more of a cultural stance. If you like a language as it is, you'll try to promote its rules so it doesn't change that quickly.

I is happy with that. lol.

nadiatim Wrote:I just remembered, I was having a discussion with other English teachers and it came up that a lot of teachers were annoyed that in the Japanese Junior high School textbooks sometimes sentences are started with "but" or "and", which is something a lot of people are taught not to do in school. But is there actually any good reason for this?

As long as it sounds flowing, there's no reason not to use them at the start of a sentence. The only reason I can think of why that rule came about is because "but" and "and" at the start of a sentence can sound very inconsistent and non-flowing. Popular authors even use them at the start of a sentence when it works.

nadiatims Wrote:I just remembered, I was having a discussion with other English teachers and it came up that a lot of teachers were annoyed that in the Japanese Junior high School textbooks sometimes sentences are started with "but" or "and", which is something a lot of people are taught not to do in school. But is there actually any good reason for this?

I've always thought it was because sentences are supposed to make sense on their own without the sentence before. I don't know if this is true mind.

liosama Wrote:Wrong actually, most linguists (academics) are vehemently descriptive when it comes to grammar. Not surprisingly, most prescriptivists are pompous bourgeois who think they know a thing or two about langauge, but don't.

Funny, I worked at a major Sydney university for many years (finished up last week, moving to Japan on Saturday), and none of the academics in Linguistics with whom I was in contact used incorrect grammar. Yes, they studied language, and they didn't walk around being so-called 'Grammar Nazis', but at no point did I experience the inner cringe induced by grammar clangers when talking or emailing with them...

Prescriptivists have a place in the world, just like any other group. They wouldn't have come into existence if generally understood 'rules' of a language had never come into being, and they help maintain a balance with the "Grammar? Pfft, we don't conform to no rules!" people at the other end of the spectrum.

People who get excessively wound up over other people's approach to grammar (or life, for that matter) to the point of name-calling tend to give the impression of having a rather large chip on their shoulder.

thecite Wrote:I'm sorry, I used the term 'grammar-nazi' merely to refer to the kind of people I used to be one of - those with very strong opinions on what grammatical usage is correct and incorrect, and who get very annoyed when anyone strays from these beliefs. Perhaps I overestimated your grammatical zeal. For the record, I hate misspelling, and think grammatical usage and misspelling are two completely different issues.

No worries I used to have excessive grammatical zeal. These days I reserve it for situations where it's necessary - helping younger siblings with essays and speeches for school, proof reading documentation and correspondence at work, assisting non-native speaking friends when they request it. Correcting people constantly is an excellent step towards losing friends and alienating people

Offshore Wrote:I think it's a poor excuse that just because it's become common usage it automatically becomes "correct" more or less.

THIS. Also, in agreement with most (if not all) of your comment.

Going to have to bow out of the thread now. Only 27 hours till I leave for Osaka and I haven't started packing :o

Another prescriptive/descriptive grammar discussion! Time for a flashback of the last 10000000 discussions on the matter on this forum.

Processing...

Processing...

Processing...

Yep, nothing new here, plus further developments to this train of thought in other threads.

^_^

Travel safe, auxetoiles.

It'd be cool if everyone who has flown to Japan described for us non-travellers the logistics of their journey, so we can imagine a clear picture of what it might be like. One of these days I shall surely go.

Well I took up a linguistics course, and 3 of the academics there were as such, and their grammar was fine, just like any other native. I like chips.