A discussion in favour of teaching grammar, but against declaring one form of English as being the standard.

[dask]

Everything is moot.

 

[Parson]

All this really shows is that English is a living language. When a language is spoken, it changes. There are so many examples of words whose meaning has totally flipped over the years, and in some cases flipped back. I'm old enough to remember when "bad" always meant something done poorly, and then it came to often mean something really, really, good, and now it sort of hovers as an adjective. You have to know the context and tone of voice to be certain of the meaning.

 

[Danny McG]

Different types of English

 

[dask]

Best tutorial I ever seen.

 

[Ursa major]

Check out the differences between the word 'moot' in UK and US English

Yes, we'll table that....

 

[Montero]

@Danny McG -I'd forgotten that one, thanks for the reminder, always loved it. Okay ya.

 

[paranoid marvin]

The English language is ever evolving, along with the introduction of 'text-speak' and even emojis. An example is the word 'literally' in speech which now can mean what it should mean, but also the opposite. So 'I literally have a ton of paperwork to shift' is not normally now taken to be grammatically incorrect. The more common something becomes, more often it moves away from it's original meaning.

And when it comes to mealtime, lunchtime can be dinnertime, dinnertime can be teatime, and teatime can be a mid-morning/afternoon snack.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Different types of English

Which is effectively Lisa Doolittle in My Fair Lady/Pygmalion. The first thing I thought when seeing this thread was Henry Higgins' 'Why Can't the English...' song.

How dull it would be though if we all spoke in the same way, with the same dialects and idioms.

 

[JunkMonkey]

All this really shows is that English is a living language. When a language is spoken, it changes.

Yep. Otherwise we would all be talking like Chaucer - though, given that new things would have been invented and new names would have had to have been invented to identify them - with a much larger vocabulary.

What pisses me off is when people try to cover up their lack of clarity and sloppy usage (for instance using 'their', 'they're', and 'there' interchangeably and inconsistently) by attacking anyone who points out the slipshod usage by calling them snobs or grammar-nazis. Language is for communication. It's up to the person trying to communicate to make sure they are understood. Expecting everyone to speak exactly the same form of the English language is dumb but expecting everyone to have to decode your particular usage of English before they understand you is equally dumb.

If I went and lived abroad (I live in Scotland) I would at least TRY to speak whatever language was native* to that country in order to make myself understood. I would also hope that the native speakers would make allowances for my mistakes.





*Or at least spoken by the majority of the population.

 

[JunkMonkey]

blaaat!

 

[Rufus Coppertop]

Best tutorial I ever seen.

I wish I could of seened it.

 

[Danny McG]

 

[Fiberglass Cyborg]

I basically agree with this, but the truth they want to communicate (the way you speak subjectively marks you as being of a low social status) is arguably more humiliating than the nonsense they want to counteract (the way you speak is objectively wrong).

Aye, it's right you are.

Better to frame it as "formal" versus "informal" English. Formal English is worth learning because it has uses in formal situations, but oyour everyday dialect is the best tool for everyday communication. I mean, even incredibly posh people often have linguistic tics in how they talk socially which they would probably suppress in a business situation. Also, it would be kind of interesting to actually have other people's dialects taught in schools. In my seconday school we got a tiny sniff of that via a GCSE English session on accents and dialects, but it went no further.

 

[KiraAnn]

The biggest issue I see is that some “official” grammar rules are outdated and should be replaced or dropped. Example: use of “fewer” vs “less”.

 

[JunkMonkey]

The biggest issue I see is that some “official” grammar rules are outdated and should be replaced or dropped. Example: use of “fewer” vs “less”.

There is no fewer 'vs' less. Fewer is for countable nouns. Less for non-countable*. And where there is the possibility of confusion - i.e. where a non-countable and countable nouns have the same spelling, it avoids confusion.

'There are less sheep' and 'there are fewer sheep' have different shades of meaning.



*Though, admittedly, what is a countable noun is sometimes open to interpretation - 'less than three miles' or 'fewer than three miles'? depends whether you think of three miles as a complete thing in itself (a walkable distance in the time allowed perhaps) or a group of three smaller items.

 

[KiraAnn]

What about grocery store express lanes “Ten items or less” ?

 

[Montero]

It should be ten items or fewer. I've seen shops getting it wrong for decades. My late parents used to complain about it, including to store managers. I think one advantage was that you can make the text bigger on the sign by using less instead of fewer, as there are fewer letters in less compared to fewer.
My late mother used to carry a rather nice Papermate biro in her handbag and correct paper signs on fruit and veg in shops - remove inappropriate apostrophes and the like.

 

[KiraAnn]

Then, by that same rule, 2 dollars is fewer than 4. But it’s my experience that people do not talk like that. If numeric quantities are given, then “less than” is used. “Fewer” is usually used when the quantities are fuzzy or non-specified.

Personally, that is my “Ipse dixit” rule.

 

[Ursa major]

Then, by that same rule, 2 dollars is fewer than 4. But it’s my experience that people do not talk like that.

In many cases, the difference is obvious: if one has fewer dollars, one has less money; if one buys fewer pints, one has less beer to drink.

 

[Montero]

Then, by that same rule, 2 dollars is fewer than 4. But it’s my experience that people do not talk like that. If numeric quantities are given, then “less than” is used. “Fewer” is usually used when the quantities are fuzzy or non-specified.

Personally, that is my “Ipse dixit” rule.

That's the wrong way round at least as far as UK English is concerned. It is less for fuzzy and fewer for countable.
Less sand
Fewer roast potatoes on my plate