Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

Far from making them sound more 'formal', vili, basic knowledge of grammar would pull the rod out of a lot of these people's verbal arses. Far from being elitist, as you seem to imply, jon, grammar seems to me to be a basic skillset to which everyone in a free society deserves access.

---

I can only repeat what I have said earlier: we must make a distinction between "grammar" (our linguistic abilities) and something like "school grammar" (a standard way of communicating in a given context). We all have the first, but may lack in the second. Imposing a certain way of communication on someone is not elitist, but claiming that those who cannot master it lack in cognitive abilities does sound like that to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

Where etiquette wants to tell you to say 'How d'you do?' rather than 'Hi there!', grammar is only concerned with making sense - and offers multiple ways of doing so.

---

This is probably not really relevant to what you wrote, but in any case note that not all grammatical sentences make sense. Chomsky's famous "Colourless green ideas sleep furiously" is an example of a sentence that is grammatical but meaningless. The sentence "Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" is meanwhile both grammatical and has a meaning, but generally seems to produce too many processing problems for a native English speaker's brain to really understand it.

As a contrast, "We is hungry" is for most native English speakers an ungrammatical sentence, but perfectly understandable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

For all the differences, it's hard to imagine a language devoid of certain of the elements we tend to take for granted - verbs for instance.

---

So-called polysynthetic languages have actually sometimes been analysed without a reference to verbs. These are languages where sentences tend to be composed of only one word: the canonical example is the Inuit "tuntussuqatarniksaitengqiggtuq":

tuntussuqatarniksaitengqiggtuq
tuntu -ssur -qatar -ni -ksaite -ngqiggte -uq
reindeer -hunt -FUT -say -NEG -again -3SG:IND
'He had not yet said again that he was going to hunt reindeer.'

However, I personally think that if we assume languages to have verbs, polysynthetic languages have them as well, but they are simply manifested as morphological pieces (as you can see in the gloss above) rather than phonologically individual words.

As for whether our linguistic system actually makes a basic distinction between word classes is something that has been debated in theoretical linguistics at least in the past decade or so. An approach called Distributed Morphology has posited that word classes are not really part of our linguistic system, but are rather simply epiphenomenona of the system itself (the argument is rather complex, so I won't go into it). Again, this is not really that relevant in terms of school grammar, which as I have said does not describe language but a socially accepted way of using it (which is related to a given context). The reason why I am mentioning all this is to once again try to show that grammar, logic, thought and semantics are, while interrelated, not as straightforwardly linked as is commonly thought.

The bottom line is that I more or less agree with everything that has been said in this thread, but have simply wanted to note that "language ability" and "proper language use" are different things. The former is a cognitive ability that we all have, and which may or may not be innate to human beings. The latter, meanwhile, is a social contract (which does not make it any less significant).

Since I seem to be repeating myself quite a bit in my posts, so I think I will leave this issue now. :) I have taught enough first-year linguistics students to know that this is not really an issue that people tend to accept very easily.

I do not think that we can easily distinguish our thoughts about prescriptive grammar from our school days experience when it was, I assume, taught to the youth we were.

Ya know the picture, dry, memorization , memorization, more dry babble, more memorization.

In this case the form, how the grammar was taught, made as significant an impact as the content, what we were taught.

Prescriptive grammar taught in a prescriptive educational system. One does not demand the other.

I am familiar with Strunk and Whites classic and I would defend it as an important guide to correct writing. It does not make one a writer. I do not know what does. It gives clear specific rules to follow and lo and behold when the rules are applied to the disarray of much prose all of a sudden there is arrangement and clarity. Want to write well? Read the rules and apply them. It seems too good to be true. It is.

One of my concerns is whether or not there is another message being taught when a book of rules is used to write. While the content may be dead on the tendency to accept proscribed rules from an authority and to then uncritically apply them reflects a "I just want solutions not knowledge" perspective that is pervasive in this US society.

I have thought about taking The Elements Of Style and breaking each one. What if I wrote three pages using nothing but the passive verb? What if I wrote an essay describing my favorite park and used as many adjectives and adverbs as I could find? If the rules were taught as what they actually are, suggestions, and if they were taught in such a manner that students learned the suggestions as well as the thinking, values behind the suggestions then I believe our nation's citizens would understand grammar more deeply, would not have such negative memories of those darn grammar classes and would be able to understand that every rule expresses a value and as such are open to valid critical analysis.

This post was written by a middle aged ex New Yorker as he stumbled, bumped, and grumped his way through the warm, wake up and smell the coffee Monday morning. Or rather, the warm, wake up, smell the coffee Monday grumped its way on him. Poor soul.:yawnb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vili

I am not so sure if this is applicable across history. While historical linguistics is not really my field, I think that the shift from Old English to Middle English, and then to (Early) Modern English was largely the result of the Normans taking over administration in England. These days the situation may be different.

---

I think the influence of French on English was more something that happened as opposed to something that was forced, which is how the French Academy operates.

I think the important thing that 'perscriptive' grammar does for a people is create a common consesus for communication and in that sense I think you're right JGX, it is important to understand and use. That way we don't let our dialects get too far ahead of us when it comes to mutual intelligibility, but really, as far as linguistics go, at least in the field I am involved in (which is different than Vili's since I am a descriptive and comparitive linguist) just so long as someone else can understand you you're pretty much good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

I refer all contributors to this thread to Strunk and White's classice grammar primer, 'The Elements of Style' - especially you, jon1jt, from whom, frankly, I expect better.

---

thanks for the primer suggestion blp. i refer all to this thread to an excellent poetry primer, 'The Elements of Poetry" by eric jameson and 'Poetry For Dummies' - especially you, blp, from whom, frankly, i expect better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jgx

After reading many of your posts I have to admit that your lack of correct spelling and grammar gets in the way. In the way of what, someone asks? In the way of hearing you. Hearing?

---

but for all i agree that it got in the way, you lost that argument. i didn't say it, others did. i just happen to agree with them. ;) majority rules, remember?? :) (and it's funny you don't hold hip hoppers to the same standard! :lol:)


here's food for thought gentleman. is it POSSIBLE that there are people who visit writing forums daily, who in their professional lives are excellent writers, maybe even published writers---english professors, etc., but they want to get away from the academic snobbery and professionalism for a while and just enjoy leaving a post without the scrutiny? fellow members can simply ignore that person's postings if they felt he/she had nothing to add to the discussion, right? rather than insult that person about his lack of grammar, they could focus on their own writings, maybe seek publication, write a book, learn more about grammar.

let me also recommend jacques derrida's 'Of Grammatology', which puts the written word on notice.

Quote:

---

(and it's funny you don't hold hip hoppers to the same standard! )

---

You have no idea whatsoever what I would write to a member of the hip-hop community if they were in this forum. I am writing to you about you based on my internet connection with you. Do not misrepresent me. Do not misrepresent my words or thoughts. At the very least would you mind, in the future, indicating just where your assertions come from.

As you will read more below, once again you do not seem to be doing a good job of getting away from the very snobbery you dislike.

Quote:

---

here's food for thought gentleman. is it POSSIBLE that there are people who visit writing forums daily, who in their professional lives are excellent writers, maybe even published writers---english professors, etc., but they want to get away from the academic snobbery and professionalism for a while and just enjoy leaving a post without the scrutiny

---

?


Yes it is certainly possible. Now I trust that you are speaking honestly here. You are a professional...an english professor in fact. You, by your own assertion, are an excellent writer and have had work published. I trust that you have had work published. I trust that your work was good enough to be published.

Now as far as why you are here. You want to "get away from the academic snobbery and professionalism for a while and just enjoy leaving a post without the scrutiny."

Well go for it. I can not stand the snobbery and professionalism either. But I dare say that by writing that you want to get away from it you at least agree that there are some real problems with The Academy. Now you know this very well because you are a member of The Academy. In fact, you are, from your own admission, a member in good standing...published, excellent writer...

Would it shock you to learn that your writings show just how deeply entrenched you are in The Ivory Tower culture. The snobbery and professionalism that you want to get away from is the very same snobbery that your posts display. Ofcourse how could this not be. We all are impacted by the environments we live in and work in so this should come as no suprise to you.

In fact you could even offer your sincere support for my increasing dislike for the snobbery your posts communicate, afterall you are here to get away from it as well.

Quote:

---

fellow members can simply ignore that person's postings if they felt he/she had nothing to add to the discussion, right? rather than insult that person about his lack of grammar, they could focus on their own writings, maybe seek publication, write a book, learn more about grammar

---

Er....look if you want to take off the gloves then so be it. I have tried here and at the other thread to create a basis for improved communication and understanding between the two of us and you have not responded to my attempts at all. I can only assume that you do not care about building respectful dialouge. And if you do not then it does seem a bit ironic for you to start pointing fingers at supposed insults. As if you seem concerned about how people feel when reading what you write. Do you have any idea how many times I have felt insulted by your writing? And now that you know that does it matter to you at all?

You are difficult to ignore but that is certainly a position I could take. I never said, nor implied that you add nothing to the discussion. In fact what I did write is that I want to take your posts seriously but the grammar represents an obstacle.

As far as what I could be doing instead...seek publication, write a book, learn more about grammar. One, thanks for the advise but it was not all that welcome. Do you think I am not studying grammar? What is the basis for tha assumption. I was the one who started a thread about rhetoric, grammar and logic. Do you think I am not trying to get my writing published or have never had my writing published? Again, what gives you the basis for that assumption. Finally, writing for me is art and I do not look at art as a thing to be published or not published, made into a book or not. I write because it is healthy for me to do so.

One of the reasons I have not written a book is because my deeds are more important then my words. I could write a book about what matters to me but it would seem an act of greed and arrogance. I am more concerned with communicating to people in my day to day life. That includes this community.

I have asked you to write about your life in more detail so that I could have a better understanding. As far as I am aware you never took me up on that and now you blame me for not knowing who you are or why you are here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jgx

You have no idea whatsoever what I would write to a member of the hip-hop community if they were in this forum. I am writing to you about you based on my internet connection with you. Do not misrepresent me. Do not misrepresent my words or thoughts. At the very least would you mind, in the future, indicating just where your assertions come from.

As you will read more below, once again you do not seem to be doing a good job of getting away from the very snobbery you dislike.


?


Yes it is certainly possible. Now I trust that you are speaking honestly here. You are a professional...an english professor in fact. You, by your own assertion, are an excellent writer and have had work published. I trust that you have had work published. I trust that your work was good enough to be published.

Now as far as why you are here. You want to "get away from the academic snobbery and professionalism for a while and just enjoy leaving a post without the scrutiny."

Well go for it. I can not stand the snobbery and professionalism either. But I dare say that by writing that you want to get away from it you at least agree that there are some real problems with The Academy. Now you know this very well because you are a member of The Academy. In fact, you are, from your own admission, a member in good standing...published, excellent writer...

Would it shock you to learn that your writings show just how deeply entrenched you are in The Ivory Tower culture. The snobbery and professionalism that you want to get away from is the very same snobbery that your posts display. Ofcourse how could this not be. We all are impacted by the environments we live in and work in so this should come as no suprise to you.

In fact you could even offer your sincere support for my increasing dislike for the snobbery your posts communicate, afterall you are here to get away from it as well.





Er....look if you want to take off the gloves then so be it. I have tried here and at the other thread to create a basis for improved communication and understanding between the two of us and you have not responded to my attempts at all. I can only assume that you do not care about building respectful dialouge. And if you do not then it does seem a bit ironic for you to start pointing fingers at supposed insults. As if you seem concerned about how people feel when reading what you write. Do you have any idea how many times I have felt insulted by your writing? And now that you know that does it matter to you at all?

You are difficult to ignore but that is certainly a position I could take. I never said, nor implied that you add nothing to the discussion. In fact what I did write is that I want to take your posts seriously but the grammar represents an obstacle.

As far as what I could be doing instead...seek publication, write a book, learn more about grammar. One, thanks for the advise but it was not all that welcome. Do you think I am not studying grammar? What is the basis for tha assumption. I was the one who started a thread about rhetoric, grammar and logic. Do you think I am not trying to get my writing published or have never had my writing published? Again, what gives you the basis for that assumption. Finally, writing for me is art and I do not look at art as a thing to be published or not published, made into a book or not. I write because it is healthy for me to do so.

One of the reasons I have not written a book is because my deeds are more important then my words. I could write a book about what matters to me but it would seem an act of greed and arrogance. I am more concerned with communicating to people in my day to day life. That includes this community.

I have asked you to write about your life in more detail so that I could have a better understanding. As far as I am aware you never took me up on that and now you blame me for not knowing who you are or why you are here.

---

well i didnt mean to insult you in the past, but if it appeared that way then i apologize. but you're the one that corrected my "wasn't for 'weren't,' as if i didn't plant that there. i was just fooling, but grammarians like you descended! no no no, i don't want to take the gloves off, not at all. we have more in common than not. we've had insightful discussions, which included some interesting banter as well. i didnt insinuate that you haven't been published, i meant that for people who loath poor writing should simply ignore those who employ it and harness that energy toward something more constructive, learning grammar, whatever. i'm glad you study grammar, so did i. see that, we have something else in common. and your perspective on writing is interesting, i like it. there you have it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

well i didnt mean to insult you in the past, but if it appeared that way then i apologize. but you're the one that corrected my "wasn't for 'weren't,' as if i didn't plant that there. i was just fooling, but grammarians like you descended! no no no, i don't want to take the gloves off, not at all. we have more in common than not. we've had insightful discussions, which included some interesting banter as well. i didnt insinuate that you haven't been published, i meant that for people who loath poor writing should simply ignore those who employ it and harness that energy toward something more constructive, learning grammar, whatever. i'm glad you study grammar, so did i. see that, we have something else in common. and your perspective on writing is interesting, i like it. there you have it.

---

I got a darn grin on my face. I actually were not too sure just what the "wasn't" was doing there since it were so obviously wrongs. You set me up now didn't cha. :)

And I hope that if I ever get to a point in my existence where I loath the fanged monster called poor writing, well, give me an IV of chamomile fast.

I reserve all expressions of loathing for those sins that so warrant, poor wrtiting does not. Those who admire poor writing though, that is another...uh...story...or novel or play...no just another story...but a well written one (geez...I get carried away sometimes)
And have no worries, even if you had mistakenly written "wasn't" it would be a minor sin. Punishment would be to read King Lear and Crime and Punishment again and again for a year. No...that would be extreme. Just watch a bad movie with no popcorn or soda. :p

:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jgx

I got a darn grin on my face. I actually were not too sure just what the "wasn't" was doing there since it were so obviously wrongs. You set me up now didn't cha. :)

And I hope that if I ever get to a point in my existence where I loath the fanged monster called poor writing, well, give me an IV of chamomile fast.

I reserve all expressions of loathing for those sins that so warrant, poor wrtiting does not. Those who admire poor writing though, that is another...uh...story...or novel or play...no just another story...but a well written one (geez...I get carried away sometimes)
And have no worries, even if you had mistakenly written "wasn't" it would be a minor sin. Punishment would be to read King Lear and Crime and Punishment again and again for a year. No...that would be extreme. Just watch a bad movie with no popcorn or soda. :p

---

poor writing done artfully can, in fact, be quite enjoyable. my hero, Jack Kerouac, was blasted by the critics and academicians for mimicking - on one level, human speech; what kerouac called, "spontaneous bop prosody." sentences interrupted, if at all, by dashes, to allow the words to distill, like the end of a jazz riff.

yeah i definitely need my popcorn and soda for good and bad movies! ahhh, gotta love it. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SheykAbdullah

I think the influence of French on English was more something that happened as opposed to something that was forced, which is how the French Academy operates.

---

That is, of course, very true.

I have a practical grammar issue on which I would value some views. I have a piece of legislation to interpret. I need to determine the logical meaning of a circumstance where the minister is satisfied that the document is no longer able to be used to facilitate international travel but is not satisfied that it is no longer able to be used as evidence of identity and citizenship. Is the document valid?

an Australian passport ceases to be valid if:

(a) it is damaged; and

(b) the Minister is satisfied that it is no longer usable as evidence of the identity and citizenship of its holder or to facilitate international travel.

Clearly the 'and' there would mean to a logician that the passport must fill both requirements to cease to be valid. People in logistic are likely to disagree, though. And I wonder how the minister finds the time to check all those passports. My guess is that any significant damage to the passport alone will suffice to make it invalid, and that the Minister has outsourced the control of the usability of the passport as evidence of identity and citizenship of its holder.

The sad part about that permissive methodology is that it was recommended by supposed experts in education.
Sadder yet is their preferring to ignore statistical feedback showing that their method isn't working too well.