Welcome to Gaia! ::

Okay, I just got a grammar joke.

"Never end a sentence with a preposition."

"You just did."

"No, I didn't."

"Yes, you did. You meant to say 'With a preposition, never end a sentence."

Get it? Because it's never end a sentence with 'a preposition'?? Get it?? Am I not FUNNY!!??

xd

"English doesn't borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over, and goes through their pockets for loose grammar." -- common misquote of James D. Nicoll

I hate that. You would not believe how far that excuse could take the average illiterate.

I think there are two different types of problems being discussed here. One is what Layra-chan just described, and it is probably inevitable to some extent. Languages will adapt and evolve if used as an active language without stringent controls (this may be redundant since I doubt any serious amount of activity would be found in a language with stringent controls). To some extent this can be combated by having clear and simple rules, as complexity encourages evolution. While it is an interesting subject, I doubt there is much practical benefit to worrying on it, since it is unlikely new languages will be well-accepted.

The other problem is the problem that bothers me more. That is the problem of unclear rules. I can look to my English classes throughout my life and see all sorts of horrible things I was taught. The way English is generally taught is horrible for making people understand the language (just like math). Because this method has become institutionalized, it now basically sets the rules for the English language.

I think if the education system was remotely decent, the English language would be understood much better. This would greatly reduce confusion. Incidentally, a good understanding of the language would discourage harmful linguistic evolution, so there is another plus.

One does not need many grammatical rules to teach the English language. More focus should be put on teaching the conceptual aspects. There is no reason to teach rules like, "Never use double negatives."

Incidentally, the natural grammar people learn just by living can be encouraged in classes (to varying extents depending on the individuals' grammar). People often intuitively understand aspects of the English language which they could never begin to describe with rules.

First, sorry for the delayed response. I always feel a little bad when someone responds to me promptly, but I take much longer to get back to them. (Odd note, there is a grammatical argument for not having a comma in that sentence.)

Anyway, the conceptual aspects of grammar are similar to the conceptual aspects of anything else. Consider math. Most people learn math through a set group of rules. As you learn more about math, you realize those rules are not what math is. Those rules are merely a description of concepts, and the concepts are what math actually is.

The same thing is true of grammar. What most people know as grammar is a series of rules they were taught in school, which they faintly remember. Communication is not governed by this grammar, but rather the language people know from common usage. Spoken language is a more intuitive approach at understanding the concepts of grammar. Both approaches explain the same underlying concepts, but they do so in different ways.

Consider the distinction between "a" and "an." In school, I was almost always taught the same thing. "Use 'a' before a word starting with a consonant and 'an' before a word starting with a vowel." This is a horrible way to teach the concept, especially since it does not explain things like "an hour." More importantly, no reason or explanation was ever given. To most people this is just some pointless rule they are expected to memorize for no apparent reason.

Why use some rigid rule when explaining this concept? The difference between "a" and "an" is ultimately just one of esthetics. The concept behind the rule is based off how things sound. "A cat" sounds good, but "an cat" sounds strange. People intuitively understand this when speaking, without needing to memorize some rigid rule. I believe taking a more organic approach to grammar helps most people understand it better.

Perhaps. It would be nice to institute something like in some of the continental European countries, where there is an official committee who determine what is correct grammar, rather than the plethora of grammatical accents of English. That way we could give our grammatical questions to the committee rather than solving them via democracy and intimidation.

On a funny, related note, my algebra teacher today declared that he will only accept perfect grammar in his class (to the point of writing object names as apositives: "Suppose we have a group, G,...") so of course we were all on the lookout for grammatical errors. He actually ended a statement with a preposition on the homework!