StuartRae said:And does it really matter?
Stuart
StuartRae said:...The only thing that could confuse me is how do an unspecified number of us, one of whom may not be me, know what the aforesaid may have done, are doing, or will do ...
I agree. While my grammar is not always perfect my goal is communication and I sometimes fail just like everyone else. As I scan rather than read 98% of the time small errors matter little at times. While one could fault me for not "reading", I should note that scanning is a stream of consciousness pace where the flow of ideas is the primary value. While "reading" is more a word for word page with thought on definitions of things and that just takes too long.Mary Bull said:Sentence structure--at least as an ideal--should be as transparent as one can make it. If grammar or spelling errors distract, then right away something is lost from the conversation. So I guess I could just as well have titled this "Creating transparent language."
None of us writes perfectly, and many here are writing "on-the-fly" as they fit OPF into their busy lives. So typos or tangled sentences are going to arrive here from just about every poster, and if they make the thought unclear, I think we know how to ask for clarification.
Just to be a pain, was that whoa or woe? There is a signficant difference and I suspect the former while the latter strikes me as an intersting rhetorical comment.Mary Bull said:And the best writing really is in what would be our speaking style, one-on-one or in a small group. So I think whoever is moved to write here should just type away, correct whatever he/she has time for, and count on the goodwill of the reader to see past typos or mistakes of language mechanics.
Woe. What a long preface ...
Mary Bull said:Sean explains that the entire phrase "the rules of grammar and the structure of a language" is intended by him as a singular noun-phrase, which would properly take the verb "has."
When I read the post the first time, my gut feeling, as an educated native speaker who's been fortunate to have grown up in a home where formal standard grammar was in natural use, kicked in. I wanted the verb to agree with the plural noun "rules" and thought, typo, should be "have."
But insignificant typo, since the entire thrust of the paragraph was true and compelling to me. I'm quoting in full, below, Sean's posts from which I'm excerpting, so others can see without going back to the "Smilies" thread in another forum.
Sean DeMerchant said:It depends upon whether one is refering the singular referential developed by the and, or plurality of items brought together by the and. Has is the appropriate term for the singular entity, the rules of grammar and the structure of a language. Hence blindly going with what an english professor would [prefer] failto convey that I was refering to it as a singular entity. This is the same as saying roll of film is singular even though it is a spindle, a case, and some film wound into it.
<mildly edited for clarity in square brackets>
However, another reader posted his take that the verb should be the plural "have."
I agree, this would be grammatically correct, but it does not fit with my typing speed and stream of consciousness writing. But in my mind, the structure of a language and its rules of grammar are simply facets of the same being. A better example would be that the creation with both a lead tip and an eraser has been called a pencil. Nonetheless, here the meta object is something I lack the word for while having the term for its parts. So this could be termed a failure of my vocabulary. Yet, using "has" marks out the singularity of the referential concept.Mary Bull said:Something like, "This is not to say that the structure of a language, together with its rules of grammar, has no value ..."
Truth be told, I would have been more appreciative if they had simply started the rules of grammar and taught us 5 other languages simultaneously during my education. Instead, I know 3 (english, mathematics, computer programming). And I can remember enough French that I would not starve while looking like the vulgarian from the West that I may be at times.Mary Bull said:For me, Sean's post is fine just as it stands, and I buy completely into his take on how to learn to write well.
I think grammar is best learned from reading. I think we learn from a combination of reading, verbal communication*, and finally the rules. After all the rules let us know:Mary Bull said:I think we learn to write by reading, and the better the writing in what we read, the better our own composition will be.
Don Lashier said:But on a related note, I rather like the British practice of pluralizing the group.
Mary Bull said:That's interesting. Being provincially U.S.-American, I haven't run into that.
Dierk Haasis said:About Sean's construction, it's a matter of semantics, not syntax. When I first read the incriminated sentence I changed the plural to singular in my head, I then stopped and thought, 'maybe he sees structure and rules as one entity' licencing the singular. That is a viable interpretation.
I'd still mark it in red, deeming it wrong. To me 'structure of language' and 'rules of grammar' are two different entities strung together in Sean's sentence by a conjunction to indicate their equalness [syntactically and semantically].
Nill Toulme said:Be all of the above as it may, and as interesting as it all may be, the original sentence in question...
"This is not to say the rules of grammar and the structure of a language has no value."
...is just plain wrong. To say that "the rules of grammar and the structure of a language" is a "singular entity" because the writer intends that it be so is no more meaningful than forcefully declaring "Mission accomplished!" when the mission is just beginning to unravel. IOW, sometimes wrong is just wrong, and intending — or saying that one intends — otherwise doesn't change the fact.
[/pipe-smoking curmudgeon]
Mary Bull said:That is how I think about it, too, and I'd mark it in "red" if I were Sean's editor--which, of course, I'm not, but he did give me permission to start a thread to discuss the construction.
Wow! You have blown past me on this one. Perhaps we could step back and talk about edge detection at the pixel level or something simple* like that.Dierk Haasis said:Which is a matter of decision, there is definitely one mistake in his sentence - the question is which do we call: a superfluous definite article or muddled congruency?
Are you aware that I hold a university degree in Language and Literature.is practically invisible on a calibrated display and on a poorly calibrated display? Though I suspect this may be intentional to hide off topic footnotes. Which, by the way, I like as an online concept as opposed to the deep parenthetical notions I once used which are hard to read even though they clearly reflect stream of consciousness.Dierk Haasis said:*I hold a university degree in Language and Literature.
Nill Toulme said:And thanks to both of you for not takin' a bite out of me for starting two sentences with "But" (or this one with "And). ;-)
I spent quite a bit of time in El Salvador as an advisor and in late night discussions this came up several times as a sore point. The locals considered themselves "Americanos" also and were offended when it was commonly used in the (NA) press and media to refer to US citizens. They in turn referred to us a "Norte Americanos" lumping us in with the Mexicans and Canadians. When I asked for a more specific designation they said technically I was an "estadounidense" (of or from the states), but this term was not in common use.Sean DeMerchant said:I said back that since Peruvians are Americans, American is not a reasonable adjective and the awful sound of the correct adjective should instead make you feel egocentric or some words to that effect.
Will_Perlis said:tthe sentence could have been re-cast to something like "...the structure of a language (the rules of grammar) has..."
Sean DeMerchant said:once I learned that smiling smilies meant smiles it added a whole new dimension to the emotional character of online interaction that would be lost by trying to add paragraphs detailing emotional state.
Don Lashier said:They in turn referred to us a "Norte Americanos" lumping us in with the Mexicans and Canadians. When I asked for a more specific designation they said technically I was an "estadounidense" (of or from the states), but this term was not in common use.
Sean DeMerchant said:Hence, I chose United Statesish as it sounds awful but is the correct english term.
Sean DeMerchant said:Are you aware that [...] is practically invisible on a calibrated display and on a poorly calibrated display?
Don Lashier said:I always preferred United Statian (also "correct" I believe), pronounced "united stayshun".
Spotted that in you right away.Sean DeMerchant said:I agree. While my grammar is not always perfect my goal is communication...
The latter. It stood in for a sigh at my own long-windedness....Just to be a pain, was that whoa or woe? There is a signficant difference and I suspect the former while the latter strikes me as an intersting rhetorical comment.
I took your meaning right away, and we would not be in this thread, had Don not posted "have." But I'm very glad he did, since I'm enjoying the discussion very much...."have" gave the wrong meaning to what I was trying to communicate....But in my mind, the structure of a language and its rules of grammar are simply facets of the same being. ...Nonetheless, here the meta object is something I lack the word for while having the term for its parts. So this could be termed a failure of my vocabulary. Yet, using "has" marks out the singularity of the referential concept.
<appreciative smile>Truth be told, I would have been more appreciative if they had simply started the rules of grammar and taught us 5 other languages simultaneously during my education. ...
...Instead, I know 3 (english, mathematics, computer programming). And I can remember enough French that I would not starve while looking like the vulgarian from the West that I may be at times.
This was what I understood to be the thrust of your original comment and found to be both true and compelling.I think grammar is best learned from reading. I think we learn from a combination of reading, verbal communication*, and finally the rules.
To each author his own. <conspiratorial wink>On a side note, one grammatical construct I consistently fail to use correctly is the semicolon. Recently I finally realized it was because I wrote to d@#med verbosely and the contraction it allows does not fit in rhetorical style.
Ah, those feedback clues! Life-preserving, sometimes.* Both speaking and listening as the confused look are a listener's face tells us much about whether or not we were clear. Similarly, a listener's tangential rebuff can also tell us when we failed.
I have. Most definitely I did and do enjoy! <big smile>enjoy
Just checking. Then I shall not bother to refer to the past "missing" footnotes.Dierk Haasis said:Yes, that's the point. There's two kinds of footnotes I like to hide: bragging [or name dropping] and warnings about the intent of what I wrote [irony and satire warnings]. I include the latter sometimes when readers may not be too familiar with my styles and my rather dry humour; also quite good to point Americans the way, Britons have much less trouble with reading comprehension.
No worries, I always question authority by default as this was what a college professor, who gave me a lesser grade for doing just that, taught me. Respect is always an earned feeling. Subservience/Acting Like a Slave is something that is blindly given. (nasty but honest words)Dierk Haasis said:I included a hint to my university degree because it may help some to see where I am coming from. It does not make my word on linguistic matters sacrosanct ...
I cannot agree with this totally, but that is my lack of knowledge of the structure of language. Communication is another issue entirely. Nonetheless, matters of style map to the human consciousness. And, where matters of style generate clear communication of concepts while breaking the "rules of grammar" it is without question clear that the rules in question need updating or removal due the failure to map to actual human communication.Dierk Haasis said:Some notes on other banter in the thread:
- Don't confuse rules of grammar with matters of style. Unfortunately there are still many prescriptive style manuals around, claiming certain constructions as 'bad style'. And the two most notorious rulings are, never to start a sentence with a conjunction, or to end it with a preposition. Stupid. Style is about effect, not about right and wrong.
I disagree. I do consider the rules of grammar and the structure of language to be synonyms just as rain and snow are synonyms for water falling from the sky.Dierk Haasis said:- As I've pointed out, the original sentence in question can easily be saved by omitting a 'the'; the parenthesis is a sub-optimal solution because it makes a stumbling stone when reading which is why I shouldn't use it). In this specific case it is also wrong because it would be interpreted as an explanation what the 'structure of language' means, but 'rules of grammar' is not a synonym.
Dierk Haasis said:- Sean, your comment on taxonomic names: It's a convention laid down by taxonomists that the genus part of a proper species name is captalised and the specific part is not, nothing to do with language or writing per se. Most of the time biologist will use the form E. coli, abbreviating the genus part, for well-known or already mentioned species. Taxonomic naming has a very interesting history with some rather unintuitive results stemming from several conventions (no, technically there is no Brontosaurus).
enjoy,
Sean (who should be sleeping)
Sean DeMerchant said:... In other terms, 100% unit testing is reasonable and potentially cost effective while testing the layers which are not complex while it is unreasonable to comletely testthe totality in a viable business process business model as no one has a spare 3 billion years for testing and 100.000 line piece of software that does something simple due to the insane number of permutations of the isomorphic actions.
Sean DeMerchant said:And, where matters of style generate clear communication of concepts while breaking the "rules of grammar" it is without question clear that the rules in question need updating or removal due the failure to map to actual human communication.
I disagree. I do consider the rules of grammar and the structure of language to be synonyms just as rain and snow are synonyms for water falling from the sky.
Dierk Haasis said:During the ongoing debate on the spelling reform ...