Puzzled

[Daxter]

Bloody firefox, I thought it had spellchecker!

Ta for the kind words though Monty.

[Prufrock]

however relating to this thread, i would like to point out that, 19 or not, as a classicist and linguist, this is my area of expertise. anyone who has done classics to a high level has to have a very good understanding of english grammar, dare i even suggest my knowledge of english grammar is probably higher than most people both on here and in general. now i say this not to blow my own trumpet, i would use it perhaps to ask of the self appointed protectors of the good and great that is the english language, hand on heart honestly, do we all know the difference between 'shall' and 'will'. do we know how to use the english subjunctive, do we know why and when some nouns beginning with an 'h' should, when using the indefinate article, be preceeded by 'a', and others by 'an'. i'm not saying this to show me as being big and clever but to illustrate some of the things that have changed in recent history in terms of language.

A daring suggestion indeed, Prufrock, given your apparent indifference to employing that understanding in the form of elegant sentences!

As for your list of questions - would that we were all able to distinguish properly the indicative and imperative! I think I need to lie down and take a couple of aspirates....

Pencilbiter sums things up quite well. Arguing that you are, in some way, a greater expert on English than anyone else here is flawed in its basic assumption then shattered by your failure to construct a sentence, spell or punctuate your post with anything like a modicum of accuracy.

Classics now have little bearing on our language, Latin will not allow a split infinitive, yet it is now commonly accepted that this is allowable in English grammar.

And, as a lesson for you, before you shout the odds about how great you are, it is advisable to make sure you are the biggest dog in the fight, which you really, really are not on this one. This sight is littered with those paid to write for their livings, prospective lawyers, and published authors; as a student, you still have a lot to learn, not least about grammar.

as i said, clerarly, and simply, in english. the point is not to big myself up in any way, i just felt i was being patronised, since i am new and young and people dont know that much about me. i overreacted to a comment by Dujon which i took in the wrong way, it was nothing to do with being the biggest dog. as for the bold bit thats just not true. latin doesnt allow a present split infinitive in the present tense because the infinitive is one word, which makesit pretty difficult to split. as for other tenses it does allow a split infinitive, in fact word order in latin is pretty much unimportant. and as for being unimportant, it is i widely held scholarly view that on average, somebody fluent in a language which is not their mother tongue will have a better grasp of its grammar than someone for whom it is the mother tongue. this is because you acquire your mother tongue organically, through experience and being around it. you acquire a new language methodically. therefore every language you learn you have to relate its grammar back to your own, thus reenforcing your knowledge of your own language's grammar. i know personally i learnt a lot more about english grammar in latin and greek lessons than i did in english.

as for the people who have said if i know these grammar rules, why dont i use them? this brings me back to my point regarding what Tango originally said. i have named several rules above that have fallen out of usage, yet people are still understandable. the lack of capitalisation doesnt actually make it less easy to understand, perhaps a little less easy to read at first, but that is only becasue people are used to capitalisation.

[communistworkethic]

You really should run your posts through a spell-check if you are going to try and preach to us about the corect use of English, especially after your shoddiness has been pointed out more than once. That's before we start on your punctuation and grammar.

As for the split infintive, yes that's kind of the point. Evolving language by way of adding words and changing usage is one thing, falling standards is another.

The reason standards slip is two-fold - lazy people like you and lazy people who let you get away with it. I have 3 graduates working for me, I waste hours correcting their work that I really shouldn't have too, they've been allowed to leave school, get through A-levels, complete a degree and still not be able to construct a few paragraphs correctly.

[Prufrock]

[You're kind of right SOTWA, in that my English has definately improved from using the site. I find that reading is the most effective way of improving an individuals standard of English anyway, and it's stood me in good stead throughout my life; as a youngster I read lots and it definately facilliated my ability to write to a decent standard. Academically, English has always been one of my strengths anyway seeing as I attained an A in GCSE and study the subject at A-Level.

But I would say that when I started posting here, aside from the content of my posts being mostly drivel, they were almost impossible to decipher, due to poor spelling, punctuation and a plethora of typo's. That was down to a combination of using that relaxed approach that I wouldn't apply to my schoolwork as well as just simply my age, but I'd definately say over time, using this site has been a great help, not least to just my typing skills.

It's kind of what I like about this site anyway, in that it does set it apart from the other sites out there. Bolton Banter is just a snooze fest of inactivity anyway, but some of the stuff on Wanderers Ways you need to read over a few times to try and work out what the hell they're on about. You only have to look at the quality of articles we get so frequently here to see what sets TW apart.

But you still can't spell definitely.

Nor can prufrock but we'll keep working at it. Facilitated is of course much trickier, Dax. Poor Daxter came in for some criticism and laughter regarding his English when he stated, a couple of years ago, that he wished to be a journalist. However, he might make it now.

quite. actually thats not strictly true, i can spell it but only once roughly every three times on average . definately?

as for what Monty says, i had never even considered that as an idea before. i agree with what qwerty says regarding a relaxed environment. that said after reading your post i may have to re-evaluated a little. i still think that as more and more people use the internet, and texting certain elements of english grammar will change. to what extent and which one's i have absolutely no idea

[Montreal Wanderer]

hand on heart honestly, do we all know the difference between 'shall' and 'will'. do we know how to use the english subjunctive, do we know why and when some nouns beginning with an 'h' should, when using the indefinate article, be preceeded by 'a', and others by 'an'.

As an (sic) historian I do understand the use of the indefinite (sic) article preceding (sic) the letter 'h' in certain circumstances. Were (sic) I to get the subjunctive wrong, my editors would complain. I even use question marks after questions. Nonetheless I still have some difficulties with 'that' and 'which' on occasion.

[Prufrock]

You really should run your posts through a spell-check if you are going to try and preach to us about the corect use of English, especially after your shoddiness has been pointed out more than once. That's before we start on your punctuation and grammar.

As for the split infintive, yes that's kind of the point. Evolving language by way of adding words and changing usage is one thing, falling standards is another.

The reason standards slip is two-fold - lazy people like you and lazy people who let you get away with it. I have 3 graduates working for me, I waste hours correcting their work that I really shouldn't have too, they've been allowed to leave school, get through A-levels, complete a degree and still not be able to construct a few paragraphs correctly.

thats my point, im not preaching. my whole point is all these rules of grammar i have mentioned that have fallen out of usage have gone and yet english is no less comprehensible. you are able to understand everything i write whether or not i write capital letters in. surely if anything that strengthens my own argument which is that they are not necessary. i really really dislike the grammar bully brigade. IMHO the ONLY important thing regarding language is that people can communicate easily. for that reason i am anti-text speak, not so anti-losing apostrophes. grammar bullies fight to keep things which are unnecessary, adn often end up complicating things further. i have already mentioned the fact they invented the word Octopi. They also invented the bane of every schoold boy's life. the word 'whom' is an invented one, created by the middle ages grammar bullies to try to make english more like latin and to stop its desecration.

people say language evolves, what it actually does is simplify. no language ever gets more complicated naturally. an example of the simplification of english is that people often say 'i will' nowadays, which strictly speaking in the way they mean it is wrong. but it isnt, is it? english has just got more simple

[communistworkethic]

You are failing to grasp that we understand you inspite of not because of your appalling slaughter of our mother-tongue. You have not made it easier in any way for us, just yourself.

[Prufrock]

You are failing to grasp that we understand you inspite of not because of your appalling slaughter of our mother-tongue. You have not made it easier in any way for us, just yourself.

the point is you understand me, you yourself have just missed out three commas and a space. i understood. that is all that matters in language in MY view

[communistworkethic]

You are failing to grasp that we understand you inspite of not because of your appalling slaughter of our mother-tongue. You have not made it easier in any way for us, just yourself.

the point is you understand me, you yourself have just missed out three commas and a space. i understood. that is all that matters in language in MY view

You see, I lay it out for you and still you don't get it. The fact is that while you may understand it when I'm sloppy, it is not any easier for you to understand. In some instances it would be very difficult to understand a sentence should the punctuation not be there.

[Prufrock]

You are failing to grasp that we understand you inspite of not because of your appalling slaughter of our mother-tongue. You have not made it easier in any way for us, just yourself.

the point is you understand me, you yourself have just missed out three commas and a space. i understood. that is all that matters in language in MY view

You see, I lay it out for you and still you don't get it. The fact is that while you may understand it when I'm sloppy, it is not any easier for you to understand. In some instances it would be very difficult to understand a sentence should the punctuation not be there.

i understood you perfectly.

in those instances i would agree 100% punctuation must be there. all that matters is that you understand what i say, and the same vice versa. again that is MY view. you do not have to agree with that. if you don't, i do not have to agree with you.

if we say we must protect english, where do we start, where do you draw the line. do we go back to middle english, such as Chaucer? if so, next to no-one would have a clue what we were saying. do we start from the victorian ages. if so are we all going to go back to saying ' i shall', 'if i were', 'an history'? language is organic and there is no point in history where you can draw a line and say this is where this language starts, from there is bastardisation, before then is a differnet language.

[communistworkethic]

I have said language can evolve - split infinitive?? But laziness and lack of education are no reasons for it.

[Prufrock]

I have said language can evolve - split infinitive?? But laziness and lack of education are no reasons for it.

and what reason exactly would you suggest for the development of the split infinitive? when we say language evolves, what do we mean? that it simplifies, as i have said no language gets more complicated naturally.

[communistworkethic]

We don't speak latin for a start.

Language has become more complicated naturally, though I can see you would prefer we revert to a series of grunts as per our ancestors. If you think language doesn't evolve to something more complex then I suggest you go spend a bit of time with some law students in their lectures or with some phisics students. Or if you really want to see language evolved to something so complex as to be unintelligible get yourself along to see some management consultants.

[Prufrock]

We don't speak latin for a start.

Language has become more complicated naturally, though I can see you would prefer we revert to a series of grunts as per our ancestors. If you think language doesn't evolve to something more complex then I suggest you go spend a bit of time with some law students in their lectures or with some phisics students. Or if you really want to see language evolved to something so complex as to be unintelligible get yourself along to see some management consultants.

i mean the language of everyday, and the grammatical rules with it. vocabulary gets more complicated as we seek to describe ever more specific the gramar connecting these i would contend does not. when a language evolves in the way i mean, that is to say not as a mtter of vocabularly, you will find a general trend where the written begins to mirror the spoken, which is more simple.

latin is not the point here. as i have said, in latin, a split infinitive is either impossible, or allowed. in english, a split infinitive is strictly speaking not allowed. yet nowadays it is widely used (see to boldly go) if not for what you call laziness and i will call ease of speech and communication, why so?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

As an aside.... I wouldn't dream of using a split infinitive in an academic essay. Perhaps I am not brave enough to be the man to boldly go down that path, at the head of PF's revolution.

That I would never say 'an historical fact' has more to do with a change in common pronunciation than it does with a change or lapsing of any rules of grammar.

Perhaps you are correct in saying that bare understanding is all that's important. My only concern for you is that you might encounter people with the power to open and shut doors for you who don't share this view.

[Prufrock]

As an aside.... I wouldn't dream of using a split infinitive in an academic essay. Perhaps I am not brave enough to be the man to boldly go down that path, at the head of PF's revolution.

That I would never say 'an historical fact' has more to do with a change in common pronunciation than it does with a change or lapsing of any rules of grammar.

Perhaps you are correct in saying that bare understanding is all that's important. My only concern for you is that you might encounter people with the power to open and shut doors for you who don't share this view.

i have learnt enough in my 19 years to realise we dont live in my ideal world. come job applications etc my capital letters are there, as are my commas. they are just my personal prediction of what will change next, because some things definately will.

would you use the subjunctive? i personally would professionaly but i also would split my infinitive, because i think this has become generally acceptable. strictly speaking we should surely use all these grammatical rules, or accept that they are all open to change?

[Worthy4England]

Personally I think you should all go out and get some beer

[qwertywarrior]

well way above me "subjunctive" split infinitive" and the like

could it not be easier just to read what is written instead of picking it apart?

ps the sky is blue

[TANGODANCER]

well way above me "subjunctive" split infinitive" and the like

could it not be easier just to read what is written instead of picking it apart?

ps the sky is blue

Not from where I'm sitting mate; it's a sort of dirty grey.

You might just nip back to my post on "Viva Espana" and "Long live the Queen". They were meant as examples of a method we take for granted without a lot of people actually knowing the name of it, ie, classic examples of the use of the subjunctive.

[Prufrock]

We don't speak latin for a start.

Language has become more complicated naturally, though I can see you would prefer we revert to a series of grunts as per our ancestors. If you think language doesn't evolve to something more complex then I suggest you go spend a bit of time with some law students in their lectures or with some phisics students. Or if you really want to see language evolved to something so complex as to be unintelligible get yourself along to see some management consultants.

no true, a differention between nouns and verbs for example will always exsist. we are talking about fine grammar and punctuation. the ancients for example had no punctuation, yet communicated easily enough. my point to those who wish to preserve elements that are not essential to communication is why, and where do you draw the line?