Which English grammar rules are bogus? [W:243]

camlok said:

I've heard this "gender issues" argument but it isn't at all accurate, JMR. The reason that this is a bogus rule, like all the prescriptive lies/rules are bogus is that native speakers never follow/never followed these rules in their natural language use.

"everyone" is grammatically singular, but it is notionally plural. If I say to a crowd of people, "Everyone, please stand up", I don't expect that I will have to address each person individually, and indeed, that fact has been revealed to be true countless times.

Click to expand...

If you state "Everyone, please stand up" you are issuing a request to each and every person in the room. When I hear that I think to myself, hmmm do I want to? Must I? OK, yeah.

In court rooms, "All rise" is used, and pretty much says ALL you people need to rise.

And I have no doubt that many authors used language that suited their purpose. Actually knowing, or trying to be come aware of the grammar of formal English is not Pedantry. Also defending blatant misuse is not Anti-pedantry.

nota bene said:

It's not a silly rule, and not following it can be terribly confusing for second-language speakers. The gradual acceptance of "their" for "one" has been, despite rationalizations to the contrary, an excuse for laziness.

What is confusing for second language learners, is filling their heads with nonsense, nota bene.
It is a totally nonsensical rule, a lie in fact that has been perpetrated since the 18th century, done without informing all the English speakers who had been using this form for centuries.

It's about counting, camlok. "Anyone" means "one." "Anybody" means "any one body." "Everyone," "everybody," "someone," and "somebody" all take a singular pronoun because they all mean "one." So does "each," and "each" happens to be the real stumbling block for many.

You are flat out wrong. And in point of fact, corpus studies illustrate clearly that you are flat out wrong.

So count. "One" means "one," and "they" means "more than one." If your goal is "gender fairness," you can always choose the feminine pronoun, and I remember when Dr. Spock rewrote his famed baby "bible" and laboriously changed all the old rule "he's" to "she's. Or you can do what my major professor recommended: Write a sentence that avoids the agonizing choice entirely: "They all brought their gear."

Problem solved.

Click to expand...

That is not a problem solved and that is not a professor. That is a problem that isn't now in the English language a problem, nor has it ever been; just ask Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Jonathon Swift, F Scott Fitzgerald, Walt Whitman, George Orwell and the billions of other English speakers who have always ignored this total bit of nonsensical garbage.

"you" means one/singular and "you" means more than one/plural. 'are' is a plural verb and yet it serves the singular 'you' very well, with no whining at all from prescriptivists.

JMR said:

If you state "Everyone, please stand up" you are issuing a request to each and every person in the room. When I hear that I think to myself, hmmm do I want to? Must I? OK, yeah.

You are trying to make an argument that has no foundation, historically or in the language of English as it is used today.

In court rooms, "All rise" is used, and pretty much says ALL you people need to rise.

Which has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

And I have no doubt that many authors used language that suited their purpose. Actually knowing, or trying to be come aware of the grammar of formal English is not Pedantry. Also defending blatant misuse is not Anti-pedantry.

Click to expand...

You are operating on uninformed opinion. Study of the English language points out that this is not an issue of formal versus informal. It is simply a matter of a bunch of misinformed individuals making up a bunch of cockamamie rules that had no foundation in logic or language history.

JMR said:

It was mentioned earlier that even 5 year olds pick up proper grammar...but if they don't hear it, they will not.

Click to expand...

This illustrates clearly how wrong you are on these two language issues, JMR. All children hear all these forms, they have for centuries and the study of language has clearly shown that both prescriptions are lies about language.

" Most of the hobgoblins of contemporary prescriptive grammar (don't split infinitives, don't end a sentence with a preposition) can be traced back to these 18th Century fads." Steven Pinker

Read the entire article, Grammar Puss by Steven Pinker.

camlok said:

You are operating on uninformed opinion. Study of the English language points out that this is not an issue of formal versus informal. It is simply a matter of a bunch of misinformed individuals making up a bunch of cockamamie rules that had no foundation in logic or language history.

Click to expand...

Well then...if you do not understand the meaning of "everyone" or the difference between "everyone" and "all" it seems there is not much more to discuss.
You may claim the title of Anti-pedant if that gives you great pleasure and esteem.

And to address your comment above to note bene concerning our pronoun "you": whether it is being used as a singular or plural will be obvious by the context, and then there will be an expectation that the rest of the WRITING follow along. The sudden and incorrect use of a plural will be confusing to the reader.

camlok said:

This illustrates clearly how wrong you are on these two language issues, JMR. All children hear all these forms, they have for centuries and the study of language has clearly shown that both prescriptions are lies about language.

" Most of the hobgoblins of contemporary prescriptive grammar (don't split infinitives, don't end a sentence with a preposition) can be traced back to these 18th Century fads." Steven Pinker

Read the entire article, Grammar Puss by Steven Pinker.

Click to expand...

So is there explanation for non standard dialects? Do these not flourish because the children learn this syntax and grammar structure? And when immersed in this dialect, how does a child learn the formal language....or am I not allowed to say that?

JMR said:

Well then...if you do not understand the meaning of "everyone" or the difference between "everyone" and "all" it seems there is not much more to discuss.


I, and every other native speaker of English on the planet, including you and NB know the meanings well and, as I have stated, which you seem to have missed, or you are ignoring the language science, everyone uses 'everyone/their' in natural language settings.

What part can't you grasp that English speakers/writers had been using 'everyone/their' for centuries before some idiots MADE UP a phony rule?

What part can't you grasp that corpus studies clearly illustrate that English speakers/writers do not follow these bogus rules in their natural daily language usage?




And to address your comment above to note bene concerning our pronoun "you": whether it is being used as a singular or plural will be obvious by the context,

Precisely, just as the context will make it clear in all the voluminous uses of 'everyone/their' that escape your notice daily because it is such a natural part of English, has been for centuries!



and then there will be an expectation that the rest of the WRITING follow along. The sudden and incorrect use of a plural will be confusing to the reader.

Click to expand...

This is a common prescriptivist meme. You, and the hundreds of millions of English speakers never had any problem with it in the vast sense. If these were actually part of English grammar, the prescriptivists wouldn't have had to keep ranting on about them for all these centuries. As Professor Pinker said, they make no sense on any level, ... and if they were followed "they would force writers into fuzzy, clumsy, wordy, ambiguous, incomprehensible prose, in which certain thoughts are not expressible at all. Indeed, most of the "ignorant errors" these rules are supposed to correct display an elegant logic and an acute sensitivity to the grammatical texture of the language, to which the mavens are oblivious".

JMR said:

So is there explanation for non standard dialects? Do these not flourish because the children learn this syntax and grammar structure?

Yes, there is a very good explanation for non standard dialects. There are non standard dialects. That doesn't mean that they are somehow less, in a grammatical sense than the standard dialect. Standard does not mean good, right, all that is blessed, it simply means that it is the standard dialect.

But this has nothing to do with the silly prescriptions which were made up rules that were never a part of the English language. We have survived with a singular and plural 'you', with 'I' using the plural verb aren't and don't.

Prescriptivists never get their panties in a right twist about those. Or the singular 'we'.


And when immersed in this dialect, how does a child learn the formal language....or am I not allowed to say that?

Click to expand...

Just like children learn all languages, because their brains are designed to do so.

camlok said:

Look deeper, he is obviously an expert on the English language. What he says, notice how he blew apart Nathan, is echoed by knowledgeable language scientists the world over. Why can't you address what he discusses? The phony rules were concocted by folks simply to preen and to make money. They had no way of doing Corpus Linguistics in those days.

All the best writers flouted the rules because these made up rules were not of the grammar rules of English.

Pinker: Nathan Heller’s an ignoramus. He really does not know what he’s talking about. He said that in the sentence “It is I” that “I” is the subject of the sentence, which is just a howler. Sentences don’t have two subjects. He is doing exactly what I said one should not do, which is to confuse meaning, case, and grammatical relations, which is what he does in that preposterous claim. If you were to say, “I think we should break up, but it’s not you; it’s I,” you’d sound like a pompous jackass.

Why can't you or anyone bring forward one of the errant rules you knew I was talking about and defend it?

Click to expand...

9th grade English lesson 2: Predicate Nominative...It is I....same thing

Predicate Nominative | What is a Predicate Nominative?

JMR said:

9th grade English lesson 2: Predicate Nominative...It is I....same thing

Predicate Nominative | What is a Predicate Nominative?

Click to expand...

Grammar Monster.com, jaysus on a popsicle stick, JMR!!!!

Those idiots are simply repeating all the goofy non rules they were taught in one of the worst grammar education systems on the planet.

They even do the unbelievably dumb What Is a Double Negative?
The two sentences below are examples of double negatives:
David doesn't know nothing.
David did not see no car.
Remember, two negatives make a positive. The examples above are not grammatically incorrect, but they probably do not mean what the originator intended.
My kids don't believe in no Santa Clause.
(This means they do believe in Santa.)

No, two negatives DO NOT EQUAL A POSITIVE!

camlok said:

Grammar Monster.com, jaysus on a popsicle stick, JMR!!!!

Those idiots are simply repeating all the goofy non rules they were taught in one of the worst grammar education systems on the planet.

They even do the unbelievably dumb What Is a Double Negative?
The two sentences below are examples of double negatives:
David doesn't know nothing.
David did not see no car.
Remember, two negatives make a positive. The examples above are not grammatically incorrect, but they probably do not mean what the originator intended.
My kids don't believe in no Santa Clause.
(This means they do believe in Santa.)

No, two negatives DO NOT EQUAL A POSITIVE!

Click to expand...

Dear camlok...whoever you are....there was no link to my 9th grade English class, so I gave you that one...Hope you like the laugh. But it does not change the information that there is a grammatical construct known as a predicate nominative...2 pronouns joined by a linking verb. Some of us who went to English speaking schools learned that in early grades.

People who are fluent in the English language hear double negatives immediately, and sort out what the poor language user is trying to say. This goes back to my earlier point that spoken English has an easier bar to pass to be understood. If I were filing (use of passive tense) a cover letter with my resume for a job application, I would (continue) certainly look to avoid the use of a double negative. You (singular) and Pinker might find my application interesting but I doubt you (plural) carry much clout overall.

When I first joined this conversation, I had not (past perfect) realized it had gone on for months, with no obvious point other than Pinker and some crazy idea that there is no need to try to express one's thoughts in the most cogent manner possible.

So I think I'm ready to bow out and let you continue your joust with windmills, or whatever.

Peace.

camlok said:

That is not a problem solved and that is not a professor. That is a problem that isn't now in the English language a problem, nor has it ever been; just ask Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Jonathon Swift, F Scott Fitzgerald, Walt Whitman, George Orwell and the billions of other English speakers who have always ignored this total bit of nonsensical garbage.

"you" means one/singular and "you" means more than one/plural. 'are' is a plural verb and yet it serves the singular 'you' very well, with no whining at all from prescriptivists.

Click to expand...

Well, you'd be pretty surprised if you knew who my major professor was. One of his texts is a classic, and his estate is still paid royalties many, many years after his death.

But never mind that; the issue is language precision. Sorry if you're unable to appreciate the distinction between "one" and "more than one." Too bad.