Obligatory Grammar Rant

flOvermind · **#61**

John Fairbairn wrote:

I would imagine that there may be among our readers some older Germans or Italians, whose regional languages used to be very different, who have had a similar experience. Maybe modern Norwegians still have similar problems with bokmal and nynorsk.

I'm not an older German, but a young Austrian, so I feel qualified to comment on that as well

In Austria, there are tons of dialects, some only slightly different, some very different to each other, and most of them very different to standard German. In Austria, the "official" language is "Austrian German", which is only slightly different from standard German as spoken in Germany (certainly less different than e.g. American and British English). That's the language taught at school, students have to write their esseys using that language and so on. Also, all written communication, TV programs and so on are in stardard German.

But in "real life", everyone just speaks the local dialect. That includes formal occasions like business meetings, and also teachers at school. Pretty much everyone understands everyone else's dialect, except in extreme cases (e.g. I would have problems understanding people living near the Swiss border). But most Germans (especially from northern Germany) will generally have problems understanding most Austrians when talking among themselves.

When I have contact with someone who doesn't understand my dialect, I am able to speak in a kind of "weaker" dialect without much effort, so everyone can understand me. To a German, it will still sound like I'm talking in Austrian dialect, but it will be comprehensible. To another Austrian, it will just sound funny

Do I have problems because of that? In practice, not really. If I really want and the situation calls for it, I can speak standard German. But it's hard. Don't get me wrong: In written text, my standard German is at native-speaker level. I just don't get much oral practice, so I'm not really able to speak it without accent (at least freely, reading written text aloud is easier). But that's not a problem in practice. After all, I'm not able to speak English with an accent either, but I'm still able to communicate with English native speakers

mohsart · **#62**

A bit OT, but still maybe of some interest, on a job I had some years ago there were two people from the south of Sweden, actually from the same city, and they were friends from when they were quite young, they went to the same schools etc.
The interesting part is that I had no problems understanding what one of them said while on the phone but face to face I had to ask him 3-4 times to repeat and most of the time I still didn't understand; while the other person I could understand perfectly well face to face, but on the phone I was just as lost as with the other dude face to face.

/Mats

kirkmc · **#63**

mohsart wrote:

A bit OT, but still maybe of some interest, on a job I had some years ago there were two people from the south of Sweden, actually from the same city, and they were friends from when they were quite young, they went to the same schools etc.
The interesting part is that I had no problems understanding what one of them said while on the phone but face to face I had to ask him 3-4 times to repeat and most of the time I still didn't understand; while the other person I could understand perfectly well face to face, but on the phone I was just as lost as with the other dude face to face.

/Mats

Was that because of grammar, dialect, or accent?

I lived in Norway for a year (more than 20 years ago), and I found quite interesting one TV show they had where someone was filmed saying a couple of sentences, and two teams tried to figure out what town they were from, just from their accent. And they got it right, very often (one of the two teams). They talked about very detailed phonetic elements, and narrowed them down, with a map on screen, showing which areas these types of pronunciation were from. It was fascinating.

Harleqin · **#64**

I think that it is interesting how every thread that starts with a few simple complaints about spelling and grammar evolves into a long discussion about dialects and the evolution of language.

English is a comparatively ambiguous language. I believe that the abundance of opportunity for puns is a sign of that, as well as the fact that newspaper headlines are often unintellegible because of lack of context. Written English does not really benefit from allowing colloquial abbreviations to be used. Yes, language does evolve, but that is a slow process. Most mistakes by far are just mistakes and should be corrected, not made into canon.

The main problem of bad spelling and grammar is that it becomes arduous to read the text. Each mistake means that the reader has to backtrack, resolve the conflict of meaning, and correct it.

Let us take a look at one of the recent, rather well written posts in this thread:

Quote:

Some people in this thread have hinted at it but in my opinion the bottom line is communication. How many non-native speakers of English we have in this forum?

Stop. Has anyone asked that question before, so that this is now a reference to that question, or has the writer simply forgotten a "do"? I think it is the latter.

Quote:

I suspect it is a significant percentage. Several have admitted here that their command of written English is better than their spoken English. Is it not considerate, then, to attempt to write in a standard form so as make oneself clearly understood.

Stop. Why is there a full stop at the end of this sentence, when it seemed to be worded as a question? Have I read something wrong? No, I think it should simply be a question mark.

Quote:

I have no problems with spoken dialects. Nor do I have problems with trying to preserve those dialects in written form. But for successful communications it is essential to have an accepted "correct grammar".

Stop. When a sentence starts with "but for", it usually means something like "except for" (the other meaning of "but" can usually be discerned when it is positioned at the start of a subordinate clause). However, that would almost invert the meaning of what has been said before. Most likely, the writer meant this as a subordinate clause. (Separating subordinate clauses from their main clauses by full stops is a bad habit, by the way. Subordinate clauses cannot stand for themselves.)

In that little snippet, there were three points at which I had to backtrack and think about conflicting meanings. Let us put it back together:

Quote:

Some people in this thread have hinted at it, but in my opinion the bottom line is communication. How many non-native speakers of English do we have in this forum? I suspect it is a significant percentage. Several have admitted here that their command of written English is better than their spoken English. Is it not considerate, then, to attempt to write in a standard form so as make oneself clearly understood? I have no problems with spoken dialects, nor do I have problems with trying to preserve those dialects in written form. For successful communication, however, it is essential to have an accepted "correct grammar".

Quoted for truth.

Sverre · **#65**

John Fairbairn wrote:

Maybe modern Norwegians still have similar problems with bokmal and nynorsk.

Bokmål and nynorsk are written language standards, not spoken language standards, and their distribution does not correlate well with any specific variation in dialect. Students have to learn both, but one can generally get by using only one's favored form, for example university exams must be given in both nynorsk and bokmål (if they are given in Norwegian at all, so having English-only exams saves money because you remove translation costs)

Most Norwegian-speakers can understand each other with little effort, possibly because Norwegians adjust their dialect to a little closer to the regional standard when speaking with strangers. I believe teachers usually use their own dialect when teaching and this does not seem to cause many problems. The only teacher I recall having trouble understanding spoke with a Danish accent, and Danish is famously unintelligible to Norwegians, even though the written language is practically identical.

usagi · **#66**

I like what EdLee said. Here's my take:

x I work for a [company who] use email and write a lot of letters.
x I work for a [company who] uses email and write a lot of letters.
x I work for a [company who] use email and writes a lot of letters.
x I work for a [company that use] email and write a lot of letters.
x I work for a company [that uses email and write] a lot of letters.
ok --> I work for a company that uses email and writes a lot of letters.
x I work for a company [which use email] and write a lot of letters.
x I work for a company which [uses email and write] a lot of letters.
ok --> I work for a company which uses email and writes a lot of letters.
50% --> I work for a company that uses email and I write a lot of letters. (should separate the two verbs and/or subjects into different sentences)
50% --> I work for a company which uses email and I write a lot of letters. (same as above)
ok --> I work for a company; I use email and write a lot of letters.[/quote]

JMO

-

jts · **#67**

To robinz:

To amnal:

Solomon · **#68**

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

EdLee · **#69**

kirkmc wrote:

Was that because of grammar, dialect, or accent?

Or phone technologies? With certain phone connections, some sounds are very difficult (or impossible?) to distinguish:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A8245910

robinz · **#70**

To jts:

topazg · **#71**

I fink dis thread is wikkid.

Seriously, some really interesting discussions. Never has a desire to find ways to subtly mispel or misuse apostrophe's been so strong, but I've still thoroughly enjoyed it

Gresil · **#72**

Harleqin wrote:

Quote:

I have no problems with spoken dialects. Nor do I have problems with trying to preserve those dialects in written form. But for successful communications it is essential to have an accepted "correct grammar".

Stop. When a sentence starts with "but for", it usually means something like "except for" (the other meaning of "but" can usually be discerned when it is positioned at the start of a subordinate clause). However, that would almost invert the meaning of what has been said before. Most likely, the writer meant this as a subordinate clause. (Separating subordinate clauses from their main clauses by full stops is a bad habit, by the way. Subordinate clauses cannot stand for themselves.)

My experience says that when a sentence starts with "but for" it usually means just what it's intended to mean in the sentence you quote; it is when it gets used in the meaning it has in traditional book language that I have to

Harleqin wrote:

backtrack, resolve the conflict of meaning, and correct it

and I do believe I'm in the majority here. I'm likely also in the majority in being able to take a sentence-beginning "but" in stride without batting an eye; in fact, writing, I often find it a nuisance to have to take the circuitous way of expressing something that would be easiest accomplished by just beginning a sentence with "but".

mohsart · **#73**

kirkmc wrote:

Was that because of grammar, dialect, or accent?

Since they were childhood friends who grew up together in the same part of the city (Malmö), I'd guess accent.
It was not grammar for sure, even short centences like "Wanna go for lunch?" or "Did you find the bug yet?" made me go "Say what?"
It could be that they (for some reason) tried to speak more clearly in certain circumstances.

/Mats

cyclops · **#74**

Harleqin wrote:

... so as make oneself clearly understood. ....

Stop. Shouldn't it be: "so as to make oneself clearly understood." ??
I liked your German approach.

further rant: I dislike abbreviations like OT ( mohsart ) for "Off Topic". For me as non native english reader it takes minutes to guess the meaning.

And then: Me, dutch, too stupid to understand the "1 across", "Leewaard" and "Jamaica" jokes.

lorill · **#75**

I understood Jamaica => => "d'ya mak'he" => "Did you make her ?"
I didn't get the others.

DrStraw · **#76**

cyclops wrote:

And then: Me, dutch, too stupid to understand the "1 across", "Leewaard" and "Jamaica" jokes.

Don't worry. I bet that not one in a hundred native speakers would get that one either. Explanation is hidden for those who need it.

ethanb · **#77**

EdLee wrote:

judicata wrote:

Which is not a formal synonym for that. There is a difference. "That" is restrictive, while "which" is non-restrictive. Often, "which" is preceded by a comma. Think of the difference between, "Go get the car, which is blue," and "Go get the car that is blue."

Could you elaborate on this. (I am being sincere. I'm not being sarcastic.) Could you explain this more without using the word "restrictive". Thanks.

"Go get the car, which is blue" -- You are to get one car of many. Some of them are blue, and one of those is the correct car. (non-restrictive)

"Go get the car that is blue" -- You are to get one car of many. The one you are getting is the ONLY blue car in the lot. (restrictive)

ethanb · **#78**

robinz wrote:

kirkmc wrote:

robinz wrote:

That passage certainly wasn't meant as a slur on Americans, and I apologise unreservedly if it came across in that way. Certainly, as John points out, there are plenty of stupidities produced by British English speakers. I was just pointing out a particular example of language usage that I have only ever come across from Americans, and which thoroughly confuses me.

Your feeling of superiority is exactly that which is often seen in discussions about language, when people defend their way of speaking as "correct" and call the others "stupid." It shows a total insensitivity and a lack of awareness of the extent of language differences. It also shows that sometimes it's better to look in a dictionary (I'm sure you can find an American English dictionary on line, if you don't have one) before saying that people are "too stupid to actually know what they are saying." In fact, that comment is one of the most arrogant I've seen in a long time regarding language...

OK, that's fair criticism - looking back now, my post does come across as a bit insensitive, and I can only apologise for that. I certainly shouldn't have used the word "stupid" - a definite case of "post first, think later" :oops:

(I would like now to edit it out of my original post, but will keep it in so that the subsequent posts make sense.)

I was more motivated by the fact that I first became aware that this was a common American usage was when I was chatting online to a (very intelligent) friend from the US, and happened to casually use the phrase "I couldn't care less that ...", which prompted him to point out that this was the correct usage but that he rarely heard it, everyone else around him used the other form. This debate has now got me genuinely interested in how this phrase came to be used so commonly (and I am very interested in language in general, despite having no qualifications in this area).

I'm American and I didn't get offended by your statement. I find that American culture is much more oriented to the spoken than the written, and that seems to be where all of these misunderstandings occur.

I do disagree with kirkmc in that I believe most of these examples are actual mistakes, not merely changing grammar over time. It seems to me that the purpose of language is to communicate ideas, and changes which make those ideas more difficult to understand are poor ones. I can see John's point about "I could care less" being said ironically, but I think most people don't understand that when they say the phrase - they just didn't hear the contraction and never saw it written out, never thought too much about the meaning and just accepted it as a common phrase. Occasionally you do hear it said with a sarcastic emphasis on "could" and THOSE people I assume do know what they're saying. When the emphasis is on "care" though, I assume they don't.

It seems like some people feel that prescriptivist means that you give any adherence at all to the definitions given by a dictionary or by tracing the etymology of a word. If that is the case then I'm definitely a prescriptivist. I do believe language changes over time, and I have no problem with additions to common usage that make sense. But I feel that changes only made through ignorance (and mishearing a similar-sounding word is a very common example) are simply mistakes and should be corrected.

John Fairbairn · **#79**

A touch of prescriptivism is surely a good thing - the alternative is sheer anarchy. But the first prescriptivists shot themselves in the foot with utterly fatuous rules about split infinitives and hanging participles, not to mention trying to wedge English into a Latin straitjacket. Wedgies don't work - they just leave skidmarks.

What seems to work is making it worthwhile to conform. In very, very rough terms, there is a paradigm in business: Want a job? Learn to spell. Want a good annual report? Learn to write. Want promotion? Learn to communicate. Of course the paradigm then runs into the sand because those who get promoted mysteriously lose the ability to communicate with their staff, but, still, in the early days of a career good English is often considered the most important skill in office work.

Even outside the workplace there are pluses to conforming. You can read newspapers, watch movies, even join educational forums like this.

emeraldemon · **#80**

Helel wrote:

Så länge det är möjligt att förstå den bakomliggande meningen är mindre grammatiska meningsbyggnadsfel fullständigt irrelevanta. Folk som tenderar att hänga upp sig på sådana grammatiska detaljer har vanligtvis en mycket anal personlighet och är av typen som tar varje tillfälle i akt att få känna sig överlägsna andra. Men vad vet jag, de kan ju vara snälla och duktiga ändå...

Själv är jag inte bara kallsinnig vad gäller grammatik, jag bryr mig faktiskt heller inte ett vitten om huruvida jag blir förstådd eller inte. ;-)

Google translate:

Quote:

As long as it is possible to understand the underlying sentence is less grammatical punctuation completely irrelevant. People who tend to dwell on such grammatical features usually have a very anal personality and is the type who takes every opportunity to feel superior to others. But what do I know, they may well be kind and good anyway ...

I myself am not only indifferent regarding grammar, I do actually not a farthing whether I will be understood or not. ;-)

About as grammatical as can be expected.

Obligatory Grammar Rant

Who is online