ST: High School English

[Anubis]

For some of my English assignments, I was allowed to choose a novel from an approved list. Our teacher even made suggestions based on the subject matter of different books, to increase the likelihood we would enjoy reading our chosen books.

For the record, I read One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest a couple summers ago, and it was one of the few books that I have honestly burst out laughing while reading. It's brilliant.

Some good books I read in HS:

Animal Farm
1984
Brave New World (I read this 3 times)
The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz
To Kill a Mockingbird
Catcher in the Rye

Lord of the Flies, Macbeth, A Midsummer Night's Dream and Julius Caesar were OK, but I didn't really like Of Mice and Men.

choice is good but in general HS kids arent interested in shit like Moby Dick

we had to read all of those you listed except The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz. I liked Lord of the Flies and hated Catcher, I hated Beloved even more.

I liked reading and didnt mind but a Tale of Two Cities and Moby Dick were really annoying to have to read as a 17 year old

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

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.

The sentence is grammatically sound. Context does not matter. You are correct to say poor word and tense choice distorted the idea he attempted to convey, and that may be a basis for questioning his fluency, but it is wrong to criticize the sentence grammatically. That is, if we're nitpicking about grammar and spelling, semantics also matter.

Have a good one.

 

[Lean L]

The sentence is grammatically sound. Context does not matter. You are correct to say poor word and tense choice distorted the idea he attempted to convey, and that may be a basis for questioning his fluency, but it is wrong to criticize the sentence grammatically. That is, if we're nitpicking about grammar and spelling, semantics also matter.

Have a good one.

quite right

 

[Perknose]

The sentence is grammatically sound. Context does not matter.

No, it is NOT.

Context is EXACTLY what the use of the conditional is predicated upon.

You do not use the conditional tense UNLESS the proper context for it exists grammatically in the sentence.

Saying context doesn't matter for the use of the conditional tense is a howlingly stupid statement!

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

You are correct, sir. I do so in most instances anyway, out of general respect for dear ol' Mom!

Don't worry...no one is perfect...but I thought you might find solace knowing that someone else is just as neurotic about those things as you are.

Seriously though...I can understand the occasional misspelling of an uncommon word or the infrequent grammatical mistake, but the english language (or any language) should be treated with respect. You wouldn't forget how to add 5+5 would you? Then why the fuck would you write run-on sentence or a sentence fragment? How can you not know the difference between their, they're and there? Is it too hard to ask two people to use the correct form of to when addressing a letter? Why would you not capitalize the name of a state? How do you not know what a delcaritive sentence is? Some things cannot be forgiven.

I give more room for error on text messaging, and even in message boards, but it is utterly ridiculous for someone to make common mistakes when it takes absolutely no real effort to do it the correct way.

"Your stupid" might be shorthand for "you're stupid" but it really doesn't take any extra time to type those extra three characters and not seem like a complete waste of carbon. The fact that the irony escapes these people, and the fact that most people have no idea what irony is and how it is different than a coincidence, bothers the shit out of me.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

choice is good but in general HS kids arent interested in shit like Moby Dick

we had to read all of those you listed except The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz. I liked Lord of the Flies and hated Catcher, I hated Beloved even more.

I liked reading and didnt mind but a Tale of Two Cities and Moby Dick were really annoying to have to read as a 17 year old

True enough. Some books were required, such as the Shakespeare plays I listed, Lord of the Flies, and Of Mice and Men.

But choice is good as everyone has different tastes. I actually don't think I've read any Dickens, but I could see how it would be a bit much for some teens.

Really, teachers should just encourage students to read any type of good literature (plays, novels, short stories, etc.) and not just comics or blog posts.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

How do you not know what a delcaritive sentence is? Some things cannot be forgiven.

:hmm: Please enlighten me.

j/k . Sorry for being an asshole; I agree with you entirely.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

No, it is NOT.

Context is EXACTLY what the use of the conditional is predicated upon.

You do not use the conditional tense UNLESS the proper context for it exists grammatically in the sentence.

Saying context doesn't matter for the use of the conditional tense is a howlingly stupid statement!

You don't understand what I'm saying.

"I'd consider myself fairly affluent in English, but I honestly hate being bored."

Ignoring the strange meaning of this sentence (that the writer would consider himself "affluent" if he did not hate being bored) and the context in which it was placed, it is grammatically complete and error-free. I've agreed with you that the word choice and tense have altered the intended meaning, but strictly speaking, this is a well-formed sentence.

Calling this a stupid statement is typical of those who like to split hairs when they aren't their own. This was all in good fun; no need to get personal.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

No, it is NOT.

Context is EXACTLY what the use of the conditional is predicated upon.

You do not use the conditional tense UNLESS the proper context for it exists grammatically in the sentence.

Saying context doesn't matter for the use of the conditional tense is a howlingly stupid statement!

I completely agree. It is like saying that subject-verb agreement is a problem of logic, not of grammar. Grammar is partly about logic.

Does "Moby dick are my favorite book" make sense to you? I mean, after all it is just a logical problem, right? Wrong. It is an incorrect sentence because the singular subject requires a singular verb, not a plural.

"I like to ride my bike to work, but sometimes I take the bus." This is a correct sentence.

"I like to ride my bike to work, but blueberry muffins are my favorite." Is this just another logic problem? This is essentially the same thing as saying "I am fairly fluent in english, but I hate being bored." Being bored has nothing to do with being fluent in a language, just as though riding a bike to work doesn't have anything to do with your favorite muffin.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

:hmm: Please enlighten me.

j/k . Sorry for being an asshole; I agree with you entirely.

Please refer to the section where the occasional typo doesn't count.

declarative

 

[Lean L]

You don't understand what I'm saying.

"I'd consider myself fairly affluent in English, but I honestly hate being bored."

Ignoring the strange meaning of this sentence (that the writer would consider himself "affluent" if he did not hate being bored) and the context in which it was placed, it is grammatically complete and error-free. I've agreed with you that the word choice and tense have altered the intended meaning, but strictly speaking, this is a well-formed sentence.

Calling this a stupid statement is typical of those who like to split hairs when they aren't their own. This was all in good fun; no need to get personal.

"I would... but..." On top of that he has two independent clauses with proper subjects, verbs and a direct object. Once you have the proper structure you can fill anything in there. Ever hear of Madlibs?

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

I completely agree. It is like saying that subject-verb agreement is a problem of logic, not of grammar. Grammar is partly about logic.

Does "Moby dick are my favorite book" make sense to you? I mean, after all it is just a logical problem, right? Wrong. It is an incorrect sentence because the singular subject requires a singular verb, not a plural.

"I like to ride my bike to work, but sometimes I take the bus." This is a correct sentence.

"I like to ride my bike to work, but blueberry muffins are my favorite." Is this just another logic problem? This is essentially the same thing as saying "I am fairly fluent in english, but I hate being bored." Being bored has nothing to do with being fluent in a language, just as though riding a bike to work doesn't have anything to do with your favorite muffin.

To answer your question: Yes, your last example sentence is structurally acceptable. The absurdity of the statement is irrelevant.

 

[Lean L]

I completely agree. It is like saying that subject-verb agreement is a problem of logic, not of grammar. Grammar is partly about logic.

Does "Moby dick are my favorite book" make sense to you? I mean, after all it is just a logical problem, right? Wrong. It is an incorrect sentence because the singular subject requires a singular verb, not a plural.

"I like to ride my bike to work, but sometimes I take the bus." This is a correct sentence.

"I like to ride my bike to work, but blueberry muffins are my favorite." Is this just another logic problem? This is essentially the same thing as saying "I am fairly fluent in english, but I hate being bored." Being bored has nothing to do with being fluent in a language, just as though riding a bike to work doesn't have anything to do with your favorite muffin.

That's subject verb agreement.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

You don't understand what I'm saying.

"I'd consider myself fairly affluent in English, but I honestly hate being bored."

Ignoring the strange meaning of this sentence (that the writer would consider himself "affluent" if he did not hate being bored) and the context in which it was placed, it is grammatically complete and error-free. I've agreed with you that the word choice and tense have altered the intended meaning, but strictly speaking, this is a well-formed sentence.

Calling this a stupid statement is typical of those who like to split hairs when they aren't their own. This was all in good fun; no need to get personal.

Then, according to you, the following sentence is perfect, although the meaning may be a little bit strange?

"I would consider myself an excellent runner, but I prefer bananas over oranges."

 

[Perknose]

but strictly speaking, this is a well-formed sentence.

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

Sentences that contain grammatical mistakes are NOT well formed sentences.

Continuing to maintain otherwise is, well, you know . . .

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Then, according to you, the following sentence is perfect, although the meaning may be a little bit strange?

"I would consider myself an excellent runner, but I prefer bananas over oranges."

Its structure is valid, if that's what you're asking.

 

[Lean L]

Then, according to you, the following sentence is perfect, although the meaning may be a little bit strange?

"I would consider myself an excellent runner, but I prefer bananas over oranges."

Yes, there are no grammatical errors in that. What if that sentence were in response to a person saying that orange eaters make the best runners?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

"I like to ride my bike to work, but blueberry muffins are my favorite." Is this just another logic problem? This is essentially the same thing as saying "I am fairly fluent in english, but I hate being bored." Being bored has nothing to do with being fluent in a language, just as though riding a bike to work doesn't have anything to do with your favorite muffin.

Context is, of course, very important. Who knows? Maybe riding your bike to work means you will have to forsake your favourite blueberry muffins for, say, orange chocolate chip.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

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.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

That's subject verb agreement.

I would argue that subject-verb agreement is partly about logic. For the same reason we don't say silly things like "I like to go to the store and see puppies and I have a strong belief that BP will clean up the spill" without separating them into sentences, we don't say things like "I would consider myself a good cook, but I really don't like skyscrapers." You would say "I consider myself a good cook. I really don't like skyscrapers." Your distaste for skyscrapers has no effect on your ability to cook and should not be in the same sentence. Two different subjects, two different sentences.

Grammar is partly about the logical construction of sentences so that they are understandable. If you do not agree with that then you are part of the problem and I cannot help you any further, but I do like ice cream!

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Yes, there are no grammatical errors in that. What if that sentence were in response to a person saying that orange eaters make the best runners?

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?

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Context is, of course, very important. Who knows? Maybe riding your bike to work means you will have to forsake your favourite blueberry muffins for, say, orange chocolate chip.

Correct, context does make a difference. The sentence in question had no context that necessitated the link between fluency in a language and boredom.

If you asked me how I got to work and I replied with "I like to ride my bike to work, but blueberry muffins are my favorite" then you would look at me like I was a dumbass.

If you said "We can carpool tomorrow and I'll pick up some blueberry muffins" then I could respond with "I like to ride my bike to work, but blueberry muffins are my favorite" as if you were convincing me to give up riding my bike so I can get a blueberry muffin, which happens to be my favorite.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

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.

Bullshit. Grammar absolutely governs word usage. It is grammatically incorrect to say "I drug myself out of bed this morning." The sentence structure is just fine, but the correct past-tense of drag is dragged, not drug.

Definitions:

"In linguistics, grammar is the set of logical and structural rules that govern the composition of sentences, phrases, and words in any given natural language."

Princeton:
"the branch of linguistics that deals with syntax and morphology (and sometimes also deals with semantics)"

Do you need me to define linguistics, syntax, morphology and semantics too?

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

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

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.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Bullshit. Grammar absolutely governs word usage. It is grammatically incorrect to say "I drug myself out of bed this morning." The sentence structure is just fine, but the correct past-tense of drag is dragged, not drug.

This is a grammatical error because "drug" is not a past-tense verb in any context. The meaning remains irrelevant. By saying grammar does not govern word usage, I don't mean that one can retain grammatical integrity when substituting a word for any other. However, maintaining tense, one can replace any verb with another in a sentence and it will not affect that sentence's underlying structure, which is the realm of grammar.