4 ms·

Any sources on poor grammar being a new thing? It's been taught in public/private schools in England for centuries, maybe even millennia.

by exdsq 5y ago

giraffe_lady 5y ago
Pedagogical history isn't a strong argument for something's truth, just its usefulness to someone. Theology was considered a key component of a higher education for centuries and is still taught for example. People have always strongly believed, and taught, things about their own languages and languages in general. They're not all wrong necessarily. But linguistics over the last like 80 years has produced some models that have incredible predictive and explanatory power, and are incompatible with a view of an objective "correct" or "best" or "standard" form of a language.
- VyperCard 5y ago
  But what do they say about poor?
- exdsq 5y ago
  I think it is relevant though if the original point was that grammar is a new thing to solidify class structures. I’m not saying that class structures and correct grammar aren’t relevant, I’ve been corrected by drunk humanity-studying Etonians enough times at the pub, but I don’t believe that it’s some recent invention to solidify class structures.
DonaldPShimoda 5y ago
Sorry, I think I was not clear enough. There have certainly been efforts to draw arbitrary distinctions between groups based on speech for a very long time, probably going almost as far back as language itself. What I was referring to was specifically an effort rooted in a desire to use rules of Latin grammar to restrict constructions in English. This was a big thing relatively recently (likely sometime in the past 100-300 years). It is this movement from which we get rules like "never end a sentence with a proposition" or "don't split infinitives" --- those sorts of things.
- ghusbands 5y ago
  Those things are irrelevant to the question of whether "never can't never" is incorrect in context, which is what you were replying to. Nor was the comment you replied to trying to draw distinctions between groups.
- pwdisswordfish9 5y ago
  > rules like "never end a sentence with a proposition" or "don't split infinitives" --- those sorts of things. Just because those particular rules are silly doesn't mean all linguistic prescription is wrong. Prescriptions that clarify the meaning and relational structures between concepts can be very helpful, and discriminate only against careless users of language. Grammar poor not does if exist, this like having have conversations fun.

Any sources on poor grammar being a new thing? It's been taught in public/private schools in England for centuries, maybe even millennia.

by exdsq 5y ago

Any sources on poor grammar being a new thing? It's been taught in public/private schools in England for centuries, maybe even millennia.

giraffe_lady 5y ago

Pedagogical history isn't a strong argument for something's truth, just its usefulness to someone. Theology was considered a key component of a higher education for centuries and is still taught for example. People have always strongly believed, and taught, things about their own languages and languages in general. They're not all wrong necessarily. But linguistics over the last like 80 years has produced some models that have incredible predictive and explanatory power, and are incompatible with a view of an objective "correct" or "best" or "standard" form of a language.

VyperCard 5y ago
But what do they say about poor?
exdsq 5y ago
I think it is relevant though if the original point was that grammar is a new thing to solidify class structures. I’m not saying that class structures and correct grammar aren’t relevant, I’ve been corrected by drunk humanity-studying Etonians enough times at the pub, but I don’t believe that it’s some recent invention to solidify class structures.

DonaldPShimoda 5y ago

Sorry, I think I was not clear enough. There have certainly been efforts to draw arbitrary distinctions between groups based on speech for a very long time, probably going almost as far back as language itself. What I was referring to was specifically an effort rooted in a desire to use rules of Latin grammar to restrict constructions in English. This was a big thing relatively recently (likely sometime in the past 100-300 years). It is this movement from which we get rules like "never end a sentence with a proposition" or "don't split infinitives" --- those sorts of things.

ghusbands 5y ago
Those things are irrelevant to the question of whether "never can't never" is incorrect in context, which is what you were replying to. Nor was the comment you replied to trying to draw distinctions between groups.
pwdisswordfish9 5y ago
> rules like "never end a sentence with a proposition" or "don't split infinitives" --- those sorts of things. Just because those particular rules are silly doesn't mean all linguistic prescription is wrong. Prescriptions that clarify the meaning and relational structures between concepts can be very helpful, and discriminate only against careless users of language. Grammar poor not does if exist, this like having have conversations fun.