ST: High School English

[MJinZ]

Sigh.

I was describing the underlying logical basis for his grammatical mistake.

You cannot properly use the conditional tense (would) in a clause in a sentence wherein the other clause is not what the first clause is conditioned upon!

That is a grammatical mistake.

His sentence is grammatically incorrect.

Perk, you may or may not be correct here...

"I'd consider myself fairly affluent in English (look, I even used a big word! ), but I honestly hate being bored."

Would can be used in a quite a few different ways, the only two that make sense here are:

1) Conditional

2) Uncertainty

If he intended to use it as a conditional in the form of:

I would consider myself fairly fluent, if you qualify the writing I've done so far as "fairly fluent".

The second half of the sentence above would be the implication, and the conjunction he used would be to contrast the implied conditional.

However, I'm fairly sure he meant to use it as an statement of uncertainty, because the implication mentioned above is a huge stretch of the imagination.

The Statement of Uncertainty would make sense:

I would consider myself fairly fluent, but I neglected to study English in any formal manner.


This is the idea he was attempting to express, if one logically extrapolates from his other complaints, when he stated his dislike of boredom.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

I think this is the heart of the misunderstanding.

I believe the dispute here is whether or not context has any bearing on grammar. I am of the opinion that it does not -- that a structurally sound sentence is always structurally sound, even removed from surrounding sentences or exchanges.

With that assumption, neither of those examples could ever be grammatically incorrect, even if used absurdly, as in your dialogue snippet. The tense of the response is certainly inappropriate logically, but that's all.

I argue that it does matter. I used to do these stupid worksheets that had conversations and I would have to read them and find the grammar mistakes. There is actually a term for what you are using, called context-free grammar. One must know context in order to speak and write correctly.

Hell, there is even a book on it. http://www.macmillanenglish.com/course.aspx?id=39920

I still cannot see a logical connection between fluency in a language and boredom.

 

[meltdown75]

I never mentioned forum posts. You added that gem.
So, am I to believe that reading comprehension is not covered either?

OMG U OWN3D ME

seriously, you're too old for this shit. go outside and have a lemonade on your porch.

 

[MJinZ]

I think this is the heart of the misunderstanding.

I believe the dispute here is whether or not context has any bearing on grammar. I am of the opinion that it does not -- that a structurally sound sentence is always structurally sound, even removed from surrounding sentences or exchanges.

With that assumption, neither of those examples could ever be grammatically incorrect, even if used absurdly, as in your dialogue snippet. The tense of the response is certainly inappropriate logically, but that's all.

Context does matter.

A word can be used in many ways. How it is understood depends on the context entirely. A word can be both a noun and a verb and may only make grammatical sense in one way but not the other based on context.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

I argue that it does matter. I used to do these stupid worksheets that had conversations and I would have to read them and find the grammar mistakes. There is actually a term for what you are using, called context-free grammar. One must know context in order to speak and write correctly.

Hell, there is even a book on it. http://www.macmillanenglish.com/course.aspx?id=39920

I still cannot see a logical connection between fluency in a language and boredom.

Sorry, I don't think what I'm describing is context-free grammar, which has a very specific meaning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context-free_grammar

 

[Lean L]

No. The correct response to that question is "I consider myself an excellent runner and I prefer bananas over oranges."

For the question at hand, if someone stated "People who are fluent in English also love being bored" then the correct response would be "I consider myself fluent in English and I honestly hate being bored." In the sentence in question, but is replacing the words "except". Read it that way. "I would (but I don't because of the exception ahead) consider myself fluent in English, except I hate being bored." It makes no sense. Had does being bored make you less fluent in a language?

"I would consider myself fluent in Spanish, except I cannot form a goddamn sentence to save my life" would be correct, since in order to be fluent in a language you need to know language constructs and not just the words (that's right, Rosetta Stone, I'm looking at you.)

"She did" is a correct sentence. "She does" is also a correct sentence. In context they could be incorrect.

"Did she kill him?"
"She does."
WTF?

What? Reread the statements. If anything, your response makes less sense. The first clause establishes "I" as an excellent runner, and the second clause states that "I" prefers bananas over oranges. The two clauses combined is an exception to the implied rule that good runners eat oranges. "Would consider" in this case denotes opinion, while "but" challenges the original statement.

 

[TehMac]

I was a high school English teacher, I got canned because the administration, much like everywhere, pushed their own agendas regarding education that was not in the best interest of the students and I refused to play ball. I was even told directly that the reason my contract was not getting renewed was not due to my teaching. All of the administrators flat out LIED on all of the "evaluations" of my teaching and I had documentation to prove it, submitted to the union, and nothing was done about it.

Pretty much shows how much public education in the U.S. has for the most part been a massive failure. It's because they're only held to government standards, and so most teachers/administrators will try to get by expending the least amount of energy.

Many private schools aren't much better because they're only competing with the sloppy Public Schools. It's why even staunch democrats are realizing that free markets are the only solution to creating better quality schools, and better quality students. Government is not the answer, free people are the answer.

 

[MJinZ]

Pretty much shows how much public education in the U.S. has for the most part been a massive failure. It's because they're only held to government standards, and so most teachers/administrators will try to get by expending the least amount of energy.

Many private schools aren't much better because they're only competing with the sloppy Public Schools. It's why even staunch democrats are realizing that free markets are the only solution to creating better quality schools, and better quality students. Government is not the answer, free people are the answer.

Is that why every other 3rd world country like China is churning out much smarter and better educated students?

Because of free markets right?
:awe:

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Is that why every other 3rd world country like China is churning out much smarter and better educated students?

Because of free markets right?
:awe:

Or that student competency in languages and mathematics is superior to the US and Canada in many European countries with completely public school systems :hmm:.

 

[mrjminer]

"Despite being affluent in English and considering myself affluent in Spanish, two skills I honed to alleviate boredom, as I hate to be bored, forming a sentence is a task I would be incapable of fulfilling in order to save my life, which, perhaps, is somehow affected, or indicated, by my prowess as a runner, although I admit a predisposition to riding my bike, and granted that I occasionally ride the bus, my preference of bananas over oranges, both of which pale in relation to my preference of blueberry muffins, a preference particularly due to my enjoyment of riding my bike to work, and belief that she killed him, though, I attest, this is a fact, for I witnessed her in the process of killing him while I was eating blueberry muffins, instead of bananas or oranges, of course, and determining whether to run, to ride my bike, or to ride the bus to work."

 

[Sumguy]

I got out of my college English requirements by passing the AP test for literature and composition. I'd say my writing skills are average at best and I was never properly taught grammar (I wasn't fully aware of what an adjective, pronoun, etc. was until maybe 10th grade), but I've seen some truly atrocious shit pass by me. The few classes in an engineering program where you actually have to write (lab reports don't count) produce some quality gems that rival the works of grade school children.

 

[MJinZ]

I got out of my college English requirements by passing the AP test for literature and composition. I'd say my writing skills are average at best and I was never properly taught grammar (I wasn't fully aware of what an adjective, pronoun, etc. was until maybe 10th grade), but I've seen some truly atrocious shit pass by me. The few classes in an engineering program where you actually have to write (lab reports don't count) produce some quality gems that rival the works of grade school children.

Yes, I can tell based on this hanging paragraph.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

A word can be used in many ways. How it is understood depends on the context entirely. A word can be both a noun and a verb and may only make grammatical sense in one way but not the other based on context.

My point is that meaning and understanding are not strictly questions of grammar, although poor grammar certainly makes communication less understandable. Using a word in a way that does not "make sense" is not the same as misusing the word in terms of sentence structure.

That is, absurdity does not imply a structural (and therefore grammatical) error. To use "drug" as a past-tense verb is incorrect because that's not how the word is defined. That's a grammatical mistake. However, to say "I drugged myself out of bed" may sound stupid and doesn't strictly make sense, but the structure remains the same as the reasonable "I dragged myself out of bed":

subject (noun) - past-tense transitive verb - direct object (noun) - prepositional phrase

The meaning has changed -- "drugged" is not a synonym of "dragged" -- and probably isn't what most writers would intend, but the sentence still has valid grammar.

Sure, some people (including teachers) lump word usage like this under grammar rules, but to me it makes more sense to note these as semantic errors if we're already being so picky. This is a funny argument.

 

[Aikouka]

Jesus, what have I done....

The point of the second clause was actually to lead into how my dislike for reading hasn't completely turned me into a blithering idiot in regard to English (whether or not you agree is completely up to you ). Although, I guess it would probably need some rewording to actually suit this purpose.

The one thing I never get is why you have a complete and utter lack of respect for other people. It's not like I came in all brash and full of self-importance... in fact, the point of the post was to discuss how assigned books in public schooling turned me off from reading (since reading comprehension was mentioned early in that rather long post).

 

[Perknose]

It is NOT a well-formed sentence. He used the conditional tense incorrectly. THAT is a grammatical mistake. You cannot say otherwise.

I have said otherwise. Grammar governs sentence structure, not word usage; you have pointed out a semantic or pragmatic mistake. You are welcome to diagram the sentence to indicate the grammatical error if it matters this much to you. Repeatedly asserting the same thing with capital letters and bold words will not make it so.

A professional grammar service I wrote to agrees with me that you are WRONG:

Thanks for writing and inquiring. Yes, we agree with you: Strictly speaking, the conditional is misused in the statement you present. However, it is not uncommon to hear this in spoken English. In spoken English, the speaker mentally detaches the "If" statement from the second half of the sentence, and most listeners willingly follow along.

We would not allow it in written English, though.

Very truly yours,

Phil Jamieson

--
Phil Jamieson
ProofreadNOW.com, Inc.
Topsfield, Mass. 01983 USA
978.887.6675 x102
Twitter: www.Twitter.com/Proofreadnowcom

Hundreds of editors waiting for your documents.

Wow, when I saw this e-mail in my inbox today I initially thought it was spam.

I had forgotten all about this.

However, in the immediate wake of your stubborn and protracted intransigence, I had submitted the question to a grammar professional for adjudication, and the answer is clear: You are wrong.

 

[GasX]

One flew over the cookoos nest was BORING.

*sigh* I truly think that all is lost for the current generation of kids getting a primary education. Even those who do well in the system tend to study for grades rather than knowledge and often embrace their ignorance on topics they are, well, ignorant of.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

A professional grammar service I wrote to agrees with me that you are WRONG:

Wow, when I saw this e-mail in my inbox today I initially thought it was spam.

I had forgotten all about this.

However, in the immediate wake of your stubborn and protracted intransigence, I had submitted the question to a grammar professional for adjudication, and the answer is clear: You are wrong.

Good to have an answer from a professional, but, if you wouldn't mind, could you quote the question here exactly as you posed it to them? Also, I never disagreed that the conditional was "misused" in terms of the sentence's intended meaning; I only ever claimed that the sentence was still structurally valid, a point which this "proofreadnow.com" rep did not explicitly deny. Thanks for posting the follow-up, either way.

 

[Perknose]

Good to have an answer from a professional, but, if you wouldn't mind, could you quote the question here exactly as you posed it to them? Also, I never disagreed that the conditional was "misused" in terms of the sentence's intended meaning; I only ever claimed that the sentence was still structurally valid, a point which this "proofreadnow.com" rep did not explicitly deny. Thanks for posting the follow-up, either way.

STILL with the equivocating? You're a real piece of work.

Do I have to post your own words in response to my own words again?

Here's your very first post on the subject, post #52:

Not ONE of those three -- I'd, I had, or I would -- fit grammatically...

Am I missing something? "I would consider myself..." is grammatically correct, and the contraction "I'd" fits.

I said it was incorrect grammatically.

YOU said it was correct grammatically.

The expert said it "the conditional is misused in the statement you present."

Just STOP already, and admit that you were wrong.

 

[xanis]

Holy epic flamefest, Batman!

 

[rasczak]

oh boy.

 

[chalmers]

I haven't read many posts in the thread but I think one of the main reasons is that there is a much higher percentage of young kids playing on the internet all day where you don't have to type well to communicate. Most of their communication is done through a keyboard and cell phone, so they get accustomed to that way of writing/communicating.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

STILL with the equivocating? You're a real piece of work.

Do I have to post your own words in response to my own words again?

Here's your very first post on the subject, post #52:



I said it was incorrect grammatically.

YOU said it was correct grammatically.

The expert said it "the conditional is misused in the statement you present."

Just STOP already, and admit that you were wrong.

I don't know what you asked the proofreader, so his "agreement" is not clear. The responder only stated explicitly that the colloquial misuse of the conditional would not be "allowed" in written English. The conditional does muddle the intended meaning of the questionable sentence and creates an absurdity, which might be the point with which he agreed and upon which you and I also concurred a long time back. This still does not definitively settle whether or not the sentence structure is wrong, which was the real question and which I can't be sure you asked, since you would apparently rather spew venom instead of accede to a simple request.

Besides that, this person may be a "professional" proofreader, but so are many kids employed by college English departments. I'm not saying this guy is wrong, or unqualified, just that I don't know his credentials and I would have more respect for the opinion of a recognized professor or grammarian. Admittedly, it's better than relying on the claims of ATOT know-it-alls.

Ultimately, Perknose, I really don't know what your problem is. I felt like this was in good fun for a while, but you've made it personal for no good reason even when I've been completely polite with you. I like talking about this nerdy shit, even (or especially) with smart people who disagree with me, and I honestly would not mind admitting I'm wrong given the right argument and evidence. I understand that you are frustrated because you think you've provided that argument and I just won't admit it, but your reliance on a predictably hateful barrage of invectives when challenged is, frankly, a disappointment.

At this point, it seems like you're more concerned about being right than knowing (and sharing) the right answer -- and over such a trivial argument! -- which may superficially make you look smart, but really betrays your lack of wisdom and character. Take care, buddy.

 

[IronWing]

Sayre's Law in action

 

[PrinceofWands]

Ok mr smarty pant. What is the deal with shakespear. Why, after 400 years do english teachers still fap over his shit. Seriously that Macbeth thing is uber boring. I like reading, i was always read at a higher standard than most, the assigned books SUCKED DONKEYS BALLS. One flew over the cookoos nest was BORING.

First, Shakespeare wrote plays, not novels. Attempting to read a play as if it were a novel is one of the biggest failures in this area.

Second, Shakespeare's use of language and overall mastery of storytelling remains nearly without peer to this day. His themes are every bit as compelling and relevant today as they were when first penned.

That doesn't mean everyone will like it, but that IS why people still fap over it. It's simply amazing.

 

[Krazy4Real]

for all intensive purposes.