21–30 of 64 posts
> Since there’s no values in the set, never type can’t never (pun-intended) have any value That’s not a pun that’s just poor grammar. “never type can never (pun-intended) have any value” makes sense.
I have seen such double negative at many places, to represent strong negative. Don't know if it is some trend!
> Since there’s no values in the set, never type can’t never (pun-intended) have any value That’s not a pun that’s just poor grammar. “never type can never (pun-intended) have any value” makes sense.
> That’s not a pun that’s just poor grammar. There is no such thing as "poor grammar" --- it's a myth. Most of the grammatical "rules" we tend to be taught in primary and secondary school English courses were invented relatively recently, and they were created specifically for the purpose of establishing an arbitrary class distinction. Now, there's something to be said about markedness [1]. If the majority of a speci…
I also see "poor grammar" from non-native speakers. Including me: Duolingo was correct today when it told be that I shouldn't use "tu es" as a French subjunctive. No native speaker would say that. I just couldn't hear that what I typed was different from "tu aies" -- though I should have known from context.
You're absolutely right that much of what people tag as "poor grammar" is in fact a different dialect. It's perfectly natural to them and the people around them, following a set of rules that they know but may never have written down. They may evolve from mistakes that become persistent and thus valid in context.
Speaking in the wrong register or dialect is an error of its own -- not a grammatical one, but a semiotic one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any sources on poor grammar being a new thing? It's been taught in public/private schools in England for centuries, maybe even millennia.
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…
> Since there’s no values in the set, never type can’t never (pun-intended) have any value That’s not a pun that’s just poor grammar. “never type can never (pun-intended) have any value” makes sense.
> Since there’s no values in the set, never type can’t never (pun-intended) have any value That’s not a pun that’s just poor grammar. “never type can never (pun-intended) have any value” makes sense.
> That’s not a pun that’s just poor grammar. There is no such thing as "poor grammar" --- it's a myth. Most of the grammatical "rules" we tend to be taught in primary and secondary school English courses were invented relatively recently, and they were created specifically for the purpose of establishing an arbitrary class distinction. Now, there's something to be said about markedness [1]. If the majority of a speci…
Is marked pronounced as two syllables, mar•ked, in the context of linguistics? I am guessing it would definitely be in British English[2].
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vrZpjr44c1w
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/linguistics/comments/dwo5gj/is_it_a...
Sorry for the poor source links, I only did a quick Google. Disclaimer: I am from New Zealand, and sometimes how we say things is special, and sometimes how I say things is even specialer.
> Since there’s no values in the set, never type can’t never (pun-intended) have any value That’s not a pun that’s just poor grammar. “never type can never (pun-intended) have any value” makes sense.
> That’s not a pun that’s just poor grammar. There is no such thing as "poor grammar" --- it's a myth. Most of the grammatical "rules" we tend to be taught in primary and secondary school English courses were invented relatively recently, and they were created specifically for the purpose of establishing an arbitrary class distinction. Now, there's something to be said about markedness [1]. If the majority of a speci…
That's a very hefty accusation. Do you have any proof that "they were created specifically for the purpose of establishing an arbitrary class distinction"?
>Now, there's something to be said about markedness [1]. If the majority of a specific group of speakers of a language find a particular utterance (phrase, sentence, pronunciation, etc) to stand out in a way that feels unnatural, then that utterance is called "marked".
Also known as "poor grammar".
>There do exist large groups of native English speakers for whom this utterance is not marked. In these groups, this is a regular way to emphasize a negative. So, in those groups, the utterance is unmarked.
Yep, in those groups the utterance isn't considered poor grammar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That’s not a pun that’s just poor grammar. There is no such thing as "poor grammar" --- it's a myth. Most of the grammatical "rules" we tend to be taught in primary and secondary school English courses were invented relatively recently, and they were created specifically for the purpose of establishing an arbitrary class distinction. Now, there's something to be said about markedness [1]. If the majority of a speci…
I see "poor grammar" in the context of people writing things that they would never say, and would mark as wrong if they were to read it out loud. I also see "poor grammar" from non-native speakers. Including me: Duolingo was correct today when it told be that I shouldn't use "tu es" as a French subjunctive. No native speaker would say that. I just couldn't hear that what I typed was different from "tu aies" -- though…
Perhaps you were trying to write down what you heard? 99% of the time there is a single canonical translation from verbal to written and vice-versa; English speakers have trouble learning that for some reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any sources on poor grammar being a new thing? It's been taught in public/private schools in England for centuries, maybe even millennia.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see "poor grammar" in the context of people writing things that they would never say, and would mark as wrong if they were to read it out loud. I also see "poor grammar" from non-native speakers. Including me: Duolingo was correct today when it told be that I shouldn't use "tu es" as a French subjunctive. No native speaker would say that. I just couldn't hear that what I typed was different from "tu aies" -- though…
FYI: Neither 'tu es' nor 'tu aies' make any sense to me (disclaimer: I have only learnt Spanish on the street). https://www.spanishdict.com/conjugate/ser Perhaps you were trying to write down what you heard? 99% of the time there is a single canonical translation from verbal to written and vice-versa; English speakers have trouble learning that for some reason.
If it had been Spanish, transcribing it would be easier. French mooshes a lot of things together, so that "es" and "aies" are both pronounced "eh".