2 ms·

Thanks. While I've heard people say those things I don't recall being taught them or having read them anywhere authoritative, though I think Strunk & White reco

Thanks. While I've heard people say those things I don't recall being taught them or having read them anywhere authoritative, though I think Strunk & White recommended something in particular for less/fewer. > Split infinitives: http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/grammar/splitinf.html http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/grammar/splitinf.html From the citation: There is no clear support for the people who insist that a ‘split infinitive’ is a grammatical error. Even quite conservative grammar and usage books agree that it is not ... > Less vs fewer: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003775.h http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003775.h... The cite recommends a usage manual, Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage, and says that book rejects the common advice/rules on about less & fewer. --------- Those two cites, at least, seem to be examples of the opposite of your claim; they say these aren't rules but misunderstandings (or possibly the second cite says that one is obsolete) and that authorities reject them. Even if they are rules, that doesn't make them arbitrary. For example, some could be obsolete, useful in a time and place. Some may be useful for mass publication, when a wide range of readers means you need to deal with edge cases that ordinary communication can ignore (sort of like the difference between code you write for yourself and code you write for millions of users). > Can you give me four equivalent examples of rules that have to be taught in school but arose naturally? I appreciate that you appear to have done some research. Thank you. And maybe I should return the favor. But are you really contending that there aren't many rules of grammar that arise naturally? I should also avoid any absolute arguments: Of course some 'rules' are arbitrary. Some are obsolete, as described above. Language changes. But that doesn't condemn all or most of grammar. I see on HN and other places a template - the sort of thing I was talking about in the post with Heraclitus - of rejecting rules, intellectual things, etc. as arbitrary, opinion, etc. Like the rules, their rejection can be just as reflexive as their acceptance, and just as arbitrary and meaningless without evidence.

lolinder 3y ago
> Those two cites, at least, seem to be examples of the opposite of your claim; they say these aren't rules but misunderstandings (or possibly the second cite says that one is obsolete) and that authorities reject them. That's exactly my point—most of what is taught to American children as grammatical rules are not, in fact, natural rules of grammar. > But are you really contending that there aren't many rules of grammar that arise naturally? No, all I've ever said is that the real rules of grammar don't have to be taught to native speakers: if it's a rule, they pick it up naturally. If it has to be taught to native speakers, it's artificial, even if it were once part of the language.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  I don't know that those things are taught, at least not in classrooms. The manual in your citation doesn't teach them. > the real rules of grammar don't have to be taught to native speakers: if it's a rule, they pick it up naturally. If it has to be taught to native speakers, it's artificial, even if it were once part of the language. I understand your point now! See how tricky communication is? :) I don't believe the argument that we can't be taught to improve what we learn naturally, if that's what you mean. In fact, I think it's very common. We learn to run naturally, but if you want to do it well (e.g., to run track or for other sports, or to protect your back/knees/shins if you're a jogger), you study technique. The same goes for writing, reading, programming, ... even basic functions like learning, sleeping, eating (I eat too much, naturally!), etc. The same goes for grammar and language, IMHO. EDIT: Relevant, and copied from another post: From David Adger, professor of linguistics, Queen Mary University of London: "People have a notion of grammar as being a set of rules that someone tells you to do. ... I want to say, 'No, look at the amazing complexity of languages around the world, and look at how unified it all is.'" "There's an unlimited number of even numbers but obviously they’re limited, right? Because 3s and 7s aren't in there. Language is like that. There's an unlimited number of possible things we can say, of sentence structures, but not anything can be a sentence structure. ... Language is unlimited, but it’s unlimited in a limited way." http://nautil.us/issue/76/language/-talking-is-throwing-fictional-worlds-at-one-another http://nautil.us/issue/76/language/-talking-is-throwing-fict...

lolinder 3y ago

> Those two cites, at least, seem to be examples of the opposite of your claim; they say these aren't rules but misunderstandings (or possibly the second cite says that one is obsolete) and that authorities reject them. That's exactly my point—most of what is taught to American children as grammatical rules are not, in fact, natural rules of grammar. > But are you really contending that there aren't many rules of grammar that arise naturally? No, all I've ever said is that the real rules of grammar don't have to be taught to native speakers: if it's a rule, they pick it up naturally. If it has to be taught to native speakers, it's artificial, even if it were once part of the language.

wolverine876 3y ago
I don't know that those things are taught, at least not in classrooms. The manual in your citation doesn't teach them. > the real rules of grammar don't have to be taught to native speakers: if it's a rule, they pick it up naturally. If it has to be taught to native speakers, it's artificial, even if it were once part of the language. I understand your point now! See how tricky communication is? :) I don't believe the argument that we can't be taught to improve what we learn naturally, if that's what you mean. In fact, I think it's very common. We learn to run naturally, but if you want to do it well (e.g., to run track or for other sports, or to protect your back/knees/shins if you're a jogger), you study technique. The same goes for writing, reading, programming, ... even basic functions like learning, sleeping, eating (I eat too much, naturally!), etc. The same goes for grammar and language, IMHO. EDIT: Relevant, and copied from another post: From David Adger, professor of linguistics, Queen Mary University of London: "People have a notion of grammar as being a set of rules that someone tells you to do. ... I want to say, 'No, look at the amazing complexity of languages around the world, and look at how unified it all is.'" "There's an unlimited number of even numbers but obviously they’re limited, right? Because 3s and 7s aren't in there. Language is like that. There's an unlimited number of possible things we can say, of sentence structures, but not anything can be a sentence structure. ... Language is unlimited, but it’s unlimited in a limited way." http://nautil.us/issue/76/language/-talking-is-throwing-fictional-worlds-at-one-another http://nautil.us/issue/76/language/-talking-is-throwing-fict...