4 ms·

> But "poor grammar" specifically seeks to attribute a negative connotation to the utterance. It says suggest that people who construct such utterances are, som

> But "poor grammar" specifically seeks to attribute a negative connotation to the utterance. It says suggest that people who construct such utterances are, somehow, uneducated, or else are outsiders. It says that they've done something that is objectively (not subjectively) incorrect or wrong. You're completely ignoring that people do make mistakes and get corrected. There is nothing in the post you originally replied to implying that anyone is uneducated or an outsider - you're introducing that. "Poor grammar", "bad grammar" and "incorrect grammar" are interchangeable and aren't about class. If I accidentally type "Eat I bread", it's incorrect grammar even if there happens to be some dialect somewhere where it is valid.

DonaldPShimoda 5y ago
> There is nothing in the post you originally replied to implying that anyone is uneducated or an outsider That's literally what the "poor" in "poor grammar" is doing, though. The phrase itself suggests that the speaker is lesser-than simply by virtue of not speaking in the same way as the listener would. > If I accidentally type "Eat I bread", it's incorrect grammar even if there happens to be some dialect somewhere where it is valid. It is not "incorrect". It is different. It is marked, maybe, for many native English speakers. But these are distinct things from "incorrect". I do not understand how you can say "There might be a group somewhere where who find it valid, but I don't find it valid and therefore it is incorrect." Why is your personal dialect the one that determines correct/incorrect? If you are American, is it incorrect to say "to go on holiday"? If you are British, is it incorrect to say "Microsoft is going to X" instead of "Microsoft are going to X"? The use of the terms "correct" and "incorrect" suggests that there exists a universal ground truth, and my whole point in this discussion is that no such ground truth exists. If there is no universal ground truth, then there can be no correct/incorrect. The only way to get around this is to establish a specific cultural context where a ground truth can be agreed upon (e.g., a style guide used by a particular publication venue). Otherwise, at best you can only say "I would not phrase it in that way", but you cannot say "that is incorrect."
- LudwigNagasena 5y ago
  >The use of the terms "correct" and "incorrect" suggests that there exists a universal ground truth, and my whole point in this discussion is that no such ground truth exists. The universal ground truth is the intersubjective understanding of language norms. >The only way to get around this is to establish a specific cultural context where a ground truth can be agreed upon (e.g., a style guide used by a particular publication venue). Yes, and such context exists. The main prestige dialect in the US is General American, all other dialects are marked geographically, culturally, professionally or in some other similar manner.
- ghusbands 5y ago
  > That's literally what the "poor" in "poor grammar" is doing, though. The phrase itself suggests that the speaker is lesser-than simply by virtue of not speaking in the same way as the listener would. No, the "poor grammar" is just meaning "grammar that is incorrect" - I assume you're claiming that the meaning involves the speaker being poor? If that's what you believe, then I doubt anyone will convince you otherwise. > It is not "incorrect". It is different. It is marked, maybe, for many native English speakers. But these are distinct things from "incorrect". Literally everyone in this thread is using "incorrect" and being understood by everyone, so I don't see that you have any ground for claiming that "incorrect" is incorrect. And you're still entirely missing that some things can be mistakes.

DonaldPShimoda 5y ago

> There is nothing in the post you originally replied to implying that anyone is uneducated or an outsider That's literally what the "poor" in "poor grammar" is doing, though. The phrase itself suggests that the speaker is lesser-than simply by virtue of not speaking in the same way as the listener would. > If I accidentally type "Eat I bread", it's incorrect grammar even if there happens to be some dialect somewhere where it is valid. It is not "incorrect". It is different. It is marked, maybe, for many native English speakers. But these are distinct things from "incorrect". I do not understand how you can say "There might be a group somewhere where who find it valid, but I don't find it valid and therefore it is incorrect." Why is your personal dialect the one that determines correct/incorrect? If you are American, is it incorrect to say "to go on holiday"? If you are British, is it incorrect to say "Microsoft is going to X" instead of "Microsoft are going to X"? The use of the terms "correct" and "incorrect" suggests that there exists a universal ground truth, and my whole point in this discussion is that no such ground truth exists. If there is no universal ground truth, then there can be no correct/incorrect. The only way to get around this is to establish a specific cultural context where a ground truth can be agreed upon (e.g., a style guide used by a particular publication venue). Otherwise, at best you can only say "I would not phrase it in that way", but you cannot say "that is incorrect."

LudwigNagasena 5y ago
>The use of the terms "correct" and "incorrect" suggests that there exists a universal ground truth, and my whole point in this discussion is that no such ground truth exists. The universal ground truth is the intersubjective understanding of language norms. >The only way to get around this is to establish a specific cultural context where a ground truth can be agreed upon (e.g., a style guide used by a particular publication venue). Yes, and such context exists. The main prestige dialect in the US is General American, all other dialects are marked geographically, culturally, professionally or in some other similar manner.
ghusbands 5y ago
> That's literally what the "poor" in "poor grammar" is doing, though. The phrase itself suggests that the speaker is lesser-than simply by virtue of not speaking in the same way as the listener would. No, the "poor grammar" is just meaning "grammar that is incorrect" - I assume you're claiming that the meaning involves the speaker being poor? If that's what you believe, then I doubt anyone will convince you otherwise. > It is not "incorrect". It is different. It is marked, maybe, for many native English speakers. But these are distinct things from "incorrect". Literally everyone in this thread is using "incorrect" and being understood by everyone, so I don't see that you have any ground for claiming that "incorrect" is incorrect. And you're still entirely missing that some things can be mistakes.