Question about spelling and grammar in Ireland

SoCal90046

I have a question about the educational system in Ireland; I don't know where to ask the question, but under the circumstances, the creative writing forum seems to be the best location.

Based on the threads that I have read at boards.ie, I am forced to conclude that some students in Ireland aren't taught the basics of English grammar and spelling. I have read posts by clearly intelligent people whose standard of writing--basic things like syntax and spelling--is rather poor. Admittedly, sampling an online discussion board isn't representative of the country as a whole. Nevertheless, I have been struck by how poorly some people write. Is grammar and spelling something that's simply not emphasized in some schools?

Insect Overlord

Speaking as a student teacher:
Spelling and grammar are definitely emphasised in most schools, but there's always going to be some schools that prioritise other aspects of education. For some children, attaining a very basic level of literacy may be considered a great achievement, especially in areas certified as "disadvantaged". In these cases, the learning needs of the child in terms of emotional and cognitive skills may receive more attention than the technical aspects of other subjects.

However, this is by no means the reason for the vast majority of typing errors on Boards. Much of the problems/mistakes you read on these fora are down to laziness on the part of the poster. As well as this, there are certain places where users are known to post when drunk (I'm pretty tipsy right now...) Top these off with the small but important percentage of dyslexic boardsies, and you have the majority of spelling errors explained.

SoCal90046

An Fhile wrote: »

Speaking as a student teacher:
Spelling and grammar are definitely emphasised in most schools, but there's always going to be some schools that prioritise other aspects of education. For some children, attaining a very basic level of literacy may be considered a great achievement, especially in areas certified as "disadvantaged". In these cases, the learning needs of the child in terms of emotional and cognitive skills may receive more attention than the technical aspects of other subjects.

However, this is by no means the reason for the vast majority of typing errors on Boards. Much of the problems/mistakes you read on these fora are down to laziness on the part of the poster. As well as this, there are certain places where users are known to post when drunk (I'm pretty tipsy right now...) Top these off with the small but important percentage of dyslexic boardsies, and you have the majority of spelling errors explained.

Thanks, it sounds like the educational system in Ireland is quite similar to that in the US.

I have been somewhat surprised at the writing abilities of some university graduates, even those with advanced degrees. Plain old sloppiness could certainly explain what I've been reading on other threads. Thanks!

brianthebard

An Fhile wrote: »

Speaking as a student teacher:
Spelling and grammar are definitely emphasised in most schools, but there's always going to be some schools that prioritise other aspects of education. For some children, attaining a very basic level of literacy may be considered a great achievement, especially in areas certified as "disadvantaged". In these cases, the learning needs of the child in terms of emotional and cognitive skills may receive more attention than the technical aspects of other subjects.

Emphasised? How so? There is one chapter on all spelling and grammar issues on the JC course and then nothing on the leaving. Its basic at the very lowest level.

Wishbone Ash

"I done" and "I seen" seem to be popular" :eek:

.......and that old reliable in Ireland - the misuse of the word "rob" for "steal".

e.g. "My car was robbed".

:rolleyes:

shinny

Are they spelling mistakes or "text" speak?

I find that people tend to abbreviate everything. This really irks me because you only need to do this when sending a text, due to lack of space. When you have the space, you should use it!

I always find that people misuse They're, Their and There frequently.

Insect Overlord

brianthebard wrote: »

Emphasised? How so? There is one chapter on all spelling and grammar issues on the JC course and then nothing on the leaving. Its basic at the very lowest level.

Sorry, I should have clarified that I am referring to Primary Level education. I know from first-hand experience just how little time is given to the mechanics of the English language at Secondary Level.

brianthebard

Hmm, even so the problem starts at primary level so its clear that they aren't doing enough there.

shiv

I just never understood why Ireland is so anti-apostrophe...

SoCal90046

shinny wrote: »

Are they spelling mistakes or "text" speak?

I find that people tend to abbreviate everything. This really irks me because you only need to do this when sending a text, due to lack of space. When you have the space, you should use it!

I always find that people misuse They're, Their and There frequently.

No, they're spelling mistakes. It's not simply misusing the word there or spelling separate, occurrence, embarrassed or accommodate incorrectly, there are lots of other errors scattered around posts. None of us is a perfect at spelling, but for some clearly talented posters, I was surprised at spelling errors. As another poster pointed out, it could just be sloppiness--that happens.

SoCal90046

An Fhile wrote: »

Sorry, I should have clarified that I am referring to Primary Level education. I know from first-hand experience just how little time is given to the mechanics of the English language at Secondary Level.

Thanks for the clarification. In the system here, grammar and to some extent spelling is drilled into kids through the equivalent of secondary level and into college. What I have noted that the writing here is often much more creative than on some boards in the US, so I concluded that in the educational system there must be more of an emphasis on substance rather than on style.

Xavi6

A lot of the time it's sloppiness. Other times your train of thought has gotten the better and you just keep typing without noticing your mistakes. I'm pretty well educated but it happens me all the time, though I take the time to go back and read what I've written before I press the 'submit' button. In that regard most people are either lazy or just don't care.

Bad spelling/grammar irritates the hell out of me if it is blatant laziness, and there are certainly people guilty of it.

Insect Overlord

SoCal90046 wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification. In the system here, grammar and to some extent spelling is drilled into kids through the equivalent of secondary level and into college. What I have noted that the writing here is often much more creative than on some boards in the US, so I concluded that in the educational system there must be more of an emphasis on substance rather than on style.

The funny thing is, most of the posters on Boards, myself included, were given primary education under the old curriculum (the current one having been introduced in 1999). Grammar and spelling were drilled into us. We'd have to learn off 20 or more new words every week by the time we were in 6th Class (the final year in primary school).
The problem is that the methods used were not appropriate to the majority of students. Spellings were written out in a list and learned by rote, and everybody had to get them all correct.
This method is not "user friendly" for children who learn in other ways (i.e. those who need a multi-sensory approach) and as such they may suffer in terms of learning.
While it is still an important part of the new curriculum, there are now more understanding and progressive approaches used in literacy development as well.

However, I firmly believe that the greatest number of errors seen on Boards are due mostly to laziness, failure to proof read and plain old apathy.

Powerhouse

I have a vague recollection of doing English grammar in primary school but doubt if it strayed much from knowing what the parts of speech were.

I did zero English grammar in secondary school.

I did about one hour of grammar in three year's of an English degree course in university.

Anyway I doubt if many teachers would have the knowledge or interest to get into the gritty details of grammar anyway.

Ask even the most educated Irish people when you should use 'who' and 'whom' - and why, they will look at you blankly. In fact I read an article recently which was written by an eminent British historian and it was littered with 'whom' - inappropriately and incorrectly - probably on the basis that it sounds posh. Little did he or his academic friends, who would probably have praised the piece, realise that it was littered with grammatical errors.

The majority of people I know in the media or in educated circles have no knowledge that 'to infer' does not mean 'to imply'. And the misuse of the word "presently" has become so commonplace that its meaning in British English has almost changed. Frankly I doubt if such errors are any less common in the UK or US.

Realistically most people pick up their grammatical awareness from what they read, and if they are reading sloppy poorly-written material they will become naturally sloppy themselves. In fairness, in the majority of contexts people can get by swimmingly without perfect grammar.

I wouldn't read too much into what is posted here as I would echo the views of others that there is a natural sloppiness here in that it is an informal situation.

Pgibson

The Irish primary school educational system is indescribably sloppy compared to continental systems.

On the continent neatness,orderliness and tidiness are paramount in early education.
(Which is also why the continent looks so spotless and neat compared to the sloppy,littered and filthy Irish environment.)

It is a failure of sloppy Irish teachers ultimately.
W.B. Yeats explains what teachers here DON'T teach:

"I walk through the long schoolroom questioning;
A kind old nun in a white hood replies;
The children learn to cipher and to sing,
To study reading-books and histories,
To cut and sew, be neat in everything
In the best modern way - the children's eyes
In momentary wonder stare upon
A sixty-year-old smiling public man."

.

Pgibson

Powerhouse wrote: »

Ask even the most educated Irish people when you should use 'who' and 'whom' - and why, they will look at you blankly..

That's just the Irish dialect Powerhouse.
Most English people would regard "whom" as an old word which is seldom used in common speech.
Nothing wrong with that.
Our dialect has "Ye" and nothing wrong with that either.

Just try asking Irish people or Americans about the correct usage of "shall"!

Blank stares!

.

sillysausage

Pgibson wrote: »

That's just the Irish dialect Powerhouse.
Most English people would regard "whom" as an old word which is seldom used in common speech.
Nothing wrong with that.
Our dialect has "Ye" and nothing wrong with that either.

Just try asking Irish people or Americans about the correct usage of "shall"!

Blank stares!

.

I don't agree with you on this. There is exact definitions of "who" and "whom" and also a correct place for both. Just because the majority of people, through ignorance or other, use it incorrectly doesn't mean there is "Nothing wrong with it". The same can be applied to "ye". It does mean something and for the most part it is used correctly by people.

I had not seen this thread earlier but I posted almost the same thing at the end of another thread. I have a real problem with my own grammar and can't for the life of me remember being taught it at all. I left school in the early 90's so maybe my memory isn't what it used to be!

Matt Holck

Powerhouse wrote: »

'to infer' does not mean 'to imply'.

And the misuse of the word "presently"

please, tell me what these words mean

sillysausage

Matt Holck wrote: »

please, tell me what these words mean

I think a lot of people use "presently" when trying to say "now". When it actually means "soon".

I think!

Powerhouse

Pgibson wrote: »

That's just the Irish dialect Powerhouse.
Most English people would regard "whom" as an old word which is seldom used in common speech.
Nothing wrong with that.
Our dialect has "Ye" and nothing wrong with that either.

Just try asking Irish people or Americans about the correct usage of "shall"!

Blank stares!

.

Common speech is an entirely different matter. Anything goes in common speech as there is no standard. But a dialect word like 'ye' (which is Old Saxon English, not Irish) would be unacceptable in standard written English, and it is written English that is in question here.

I don't get the connection between the Irish dialect (Hiberno-English) and the lack of 'whom' to be honest with you. The relative pronoun in Irish is a different matter altogether. 'Whom' is Old English - the dative form of 'who'. 'Whose' is the Old English genitive form of 'who', so it seems irrational to call 'whom' an old word and the other not. Naturally there are those who don't care about 'whom' and there are those to whom it matters a lot,;) but the inability of people to write gramatically does not negate grammar, in the same way that bad spelling does not render correct spelling less significant.

But my point about 'whom' is not that people should use it more, but that nobody would have a clue how, when and why to use it, which if grammar was taught they would. It's appears to be an 'old' word only because people don't know how to use it. It is still incorrect in standard English not to use it when required.

Powerhouse

sillysausage wrote: »

I think a lot of people use "presently" when trying to say "now". When it actually means "soon".

I think!

Correct

Powerhouse

Matt Holck wrote: »

please, tell me what these words mean

'To imply' means to express a view indirectly. So if I said something like ' I have seen better football games than that one', someone might say that I implied (verb) that it was not a good game. Or that this view was implicit (adjective) in what I said. Or that this was the 'implication' (noun) of what I said.

'To infer' means to deduce or draw a conclusion or opinion from something. Taking the above example again, if someone heard me say that about the football game, they could infer from my comments that it was not a good game.

Put simply, the speaker 'implies', and the listener 'infers'. If I said to take an umbrella with you when you are leaving I would imply that I thought it was going to rain, but I couldn't infer that view. You could infer to your heart's content from my comment that rain might be on the way!

Matt Holck

Xavi6 wrote: »

A lot of the time it's sloppiness. Other times your train of thought has gotten the better and you just keep typing without noticing your mistakes. I'm pretty well educated but it happens me all the time, though I take the time to go back and read what I've written before I press the 'submit' button. In that regard most people are either lazy or just don't care.

Bad spelling/grammar irritates the hell out of me if it is blatant laziness, and there are certainly people guilty of it.

I think "the train of thought" is important to stay on
even if that involves jumping between different subjects on different boards.

Sometimes, recording the thought and moving to the next thought
is more immediate than checking for error
which would derail the next "logical?" thought.



I think grammar exists so that we don't infer a wrong interpretation.

dublinario

Powerhouse wrote: »

Common speech is an entirely different matter. Anything goes in common speech as there is no standard. But a dialect word like 'ye' (which is Old Saxon English, not Irish) would be unacceptable in standard written English, and it is written English that is in question here.

I don't get the connection between the Irish dialect (Hiberno-English) and the lack of 'whom' to be honest with you. The relative pronoun in Irish is a different matter altogether. 'Whom' is Old English - the dative form of 'who'. 'Whose' is the Old English genitive form of 'who', so it seems irrational to call 'whom' an old word and the other not. Naturally there are those who don't care about 'whom' and there are those to whom it matters a lot,;) but the inability of people to write gramatically does not negate grammar, in the same way that bad spelling does not render correct spelling less significant.

But my point about 'whom' is not that people should use it more, but that nobody would have a clue how, when and why to use it, which if grammar was taught they would. It's appears to be an 'old' word only because people don't know how to use it. It is still incorrect in standard English not to use it when required.

Everybody done patting themselves on the back yet? Is this thread smugger than it is boring, or more boring than it is smug?

Pgibson

Powerhouse wrote: »

I don't get the connection between the Irish dialect (Hiberno-English) and the lack of 'whom' to be honest with you................. It's appears to be an 'old' word only because people don't know how to use it..

Can't remember when I last heard "whom" or "shall" in Cork!
The words don't seem to be in the dialect.
Thats all I said.

"Ye" is an old word in England (Like "Thou") but not in Hiberno-English..
Thats all I said.

One other thing.

Are there different rules for spoken and written English?

That's a new one on me !

.

Pgibson

I'll get in there first:

"That's all I said."

Incidentally, I have no idea when to use semi-colons versus colons.
Never could figure it out !

.

Powerhouse

Pgibson wrote: »

Can't remember when I last heard "whom" or "shall" in Cork!
The words don't seem to be in the dialect.
Thats all I said.

"Ye" is an old word in England (Like "Thou") but not in Hiberno-English..
Thats all I said.

One other thing.

Are there different rules for spoken and written English?

That's a new one on me !

.

Of course. Standard English like Standard Irish is simply a written grammar and lexicon of the language created so that it can be taught in schools. Dialects in spoken English will always have their differences - how on earth could you impose a standard spoken English? You could hardly publish a book and send it to 400 million people and expect them to start sounding the same. The reason for relative adherence to standard tenses is simply to be understood, rather than for any requirement to be 'correct'.

You need correct spelling in written English so that people know what word you mean - though of course many novels have been written in dialect. But in spoken English you can 'spell' it anyway you like. Words will be pronounced differently in different parts of the Anglophone world, but it doesn't make one version more correct that any other, despite the emergence of 'BBC English' as a kind of unofficial standard spoken English. In standard written English there are correct and incorrect spellings, good grammar and bad garmmar. This should not be confused with spoken English.

An American journalist once said that the word 'whom' was invented "to make everyone sound like a butler", so I am surprised that it's not bigger in Cork!

Powerhouse

dublinario wrote: »

Is this thread smugger than it is boring, or more boring than it is smug?

The former, indubitably.

SoCal90046

sillysausage wrote: »

I think a lot of people use "presently" when trying to say "now". When it actually means "soon".

I think!

That's an interesting comment, because in the US, if the word presently is used at all, it means soon. The word shall isn't used common speech, but it does appear in legal writing.

SoCal90046

I brought this topic up this morning with a colleague of mine from Ireland who's quite passionate about a number of topics. It turns out he has strong opinions on the Irish educational system. He believes that English classes in Ireland are designed to produce the next James Joyce; creative writing is emphasized and lauded. (I can never tell if he really believes what he's saying or if he's just baiting people to get a discussion going.) If the system can produce more people of the caliber of James Joyce, then from my selfish perspective, that's great.

jaffa20

The english language has so many grammatical rules that we have forgotten. For eg, a sentence is never meant to end with a preposition but people still do it. This could never happen in another language like french as the structure of the sentence could never work. I think once you start to learn another language, you realise how sloppy your own language is.

Eg:

Whom are you angry with

or

With whom are you angry

Imo, both sound stupid in modern day english. Language evolves and if you want to say:

"Who are you angry with" or "who ya angry wi"

Then, i don't see a problem. The ultimate goal of language is for the recipient to understand. If i was a snob and speaking in the former form, many people would look at me blankly and snigger to themselves and i would understand why.

brianthebard

sillysausage wrote: »

I don't agree with you on this. There is exact definitions of "who" and "whom" and also a correct place for both. Just because the majority of people, through ignorance or other, use it incorrectly doesn't mean there is "Nothing wrong with it". The same can be applied to "ye". It does mean something and for the most part it is used correctly by people.

But "ye" has been taken out of circulation and replaced with "you", so you are contradicting yourself. "Whom" has also been taken out of circulation to a large degree, its just not needed imo. Its evolution people!

Pgibson wrote: »

I'll get in there first:

"That's all I said."

Incidentally, I have no idea when to use semi-colons versus colons.
Never could figure it out !

.

http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/elc/studyzone/410/grammar/colons.htm

Personally (whether its strictly right or wrong) I think of them as similar to a full stop and a comma, but the dot on top means you are continuing on a sentence or idea while using the stop or comma. So a semi colon is used as a pause between two separate but linked statements and the colon is used to introduce or expand on the first idea.

Powerhouse

brianthebard wrote: »

But "ye" has been taken out of circulation and replaced with "you", so you are contradicting yourself. "Whom" has also been taken out of circulation to a large degree, its just not needed imo. Its evolution people!




http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/elc/studyzone/410/grammar/colons.htm

Personally (whether its strictly right or wrong) I think of them as similar to a full stop and a comma, but the dot on top means you are continuing on a sentence or idea while using the stop or comma. So a semi colon is used as a pause between two separate but linked statements and the colon is used to introduce or expand on the first idea.

I certainly would not consider 'ye' to be out of circulation by any means. I head it used quite often.

That 'whom' is not widely used in the vernacular does not mean it is the rules of grammar governing it have ceased to be. I am not suggesting that people use it. I am merely saying that to not use it when required by the rules of grammar to do so is incorrect.

brianthebard

Yes ye is part of the vernacular, you can't complain when one word is kept in and another not. I meant that ye has been taken out of offical teaching, thought that would have been obvious. I am merely saying that I don't really care for rules of grammar or petty letters at the end of a word just because of a vowel.

peanuthead

jaffa20 wrote: »

The english language has so many grammatical rules that we have forgotten. For eg, a sentence is never meant to end with a preposition but people still do it. This could never happen in another language like french as the structure of the sentence could never work. I think once you start to learn another language, you realise how sloppy your own language is.

Eg:

Whom are you angry with

or

With whom are you angry

Imo, both sound stupid in modern day english. Language evolves and if you want to say:

"Who are you angry with" or "who ya angry wi"

Then, i don't see a problem. The ultimate goal of language is for the recipient to understand. If i was a snob and speaking in the former form, many people would look at me blankly and snigger to themselves and i would understand why.

There are different rules for written and spoken English (or any other language for that matter) There are things you can say, which wouldnt necessarily make sense written down, or may make sense but would be grammatically wrong. For example, not many people would say "With whom are you angry" or even "Whom are you angry with" Whom is one of those words that is only used in text/writing, and doesnt really have a place in spoken english anymore. It has become common practice to replace it with the defining "who" instead.

jaffa20

peanuthead wrote: »

There are different rules for written and spoken English (or any other language for that matter) There are things you can say, which wouldnt necessarily make sense written down, or may make sense but would be grammatically wrong. For example, not many people would say "With whom are you angry" or even "Whom are you angry with" Whom is one of those words that is only used in text/writing, and doesnt really have a place in spoken english anymore. It has become common practice to replace it with the defining "who" instead.

There's a rule that says "whom" can't be used in speech That's news to me:rolleyes: Of course it can be used in speech. People make the rules up for themselves and that's why "who" has replaced "whom" in speech. It's pointless in both speech and text anyway.

peanuthead

jaffa20 wrote: »

There's a rule that says "whom" can't be used in speech That's news to me:rolleyes: Of course it can be used in speech. People make the rules up for themselves and that's why "who" has replaced "whom" in speech. It's pointless in both speech and text anyway.

Oh ok, I didnt mean to imply that there was a rule that says whom cant be used in speech, what I meant to say was that, say, from an ESL point of view its taught as a word used for written text only, although the student would be taught the meaning of the word and the context that it should be used in, but they are encouraged not to use it in speech as its not 'natural'. Not my words, but the words of the course coordinator and grammar 'expert' in the UCD applied languages centre (i hated her anyway)

brianthebard

I'm sorry but you are arguing for the use of whom when you make even more basic mistakes such as not capitalising "i" and forgetting inverted commas? Those are conventions that will get you slated in an essay or whatever, unlike whom which no one really cares about, even lecturers I'd wager.

peanuthead

brianthebard wrote: »

I'm sorry but you are arguing for the use of whom when you make even more basic mistakes such as not capitalising "i" and forgetting inverted commas? Those are conventions that will get you slated in an essay or whatever, unlike whom which no one really cares about, even lecturers I'd wager.

ffs, this is hardly an essay now is it?? and I can see where the 'i' is, but I dont see where Im missing the inverted commas!!!!!

EDIT: BTW, I was not arguing with anyone, I was joining into a conversation. I wouldnt argue with anyone over grammar because I dont think I know enough about it to be that ignorant.

brianthebard

cant

I did say you were arguing with someone, but that you were arguing for the use of a word. There's a difference. The reason I mentioned those mistakes is I don't see why you would bother with a silly out dated convention without first making sure the basics are correct.

peanuthead

Okay well, admittedly, I type fast, but didn't learn the proper way (as in fingers properly positioned, using certain fingers for certain keys, etc....) So therefore, the apostrophe (not inverted comma) key is so far away, and alot of hassle for me. But I do add it most times. I suppose I should have made sure one of those times was on a grammar thread.

sillysausage

peanuthead wrote: »

Okay well, admittedly, I type fast, but didn't learn the proper way (as in fingers properly positioned, using certain fingers for certain keys, etc....) So therefore, the apostrophe (not inverted comma) key is so far away, and alot of hassle for me. But I do add it most times. I suppose I should have made sure one of those times was on a grammar thread.

Technically, "proper" is rarely used in the "correct" context. "Proper" isn't a shortened version of "properly" and usually the correct word should be, well, "correct". That's me being a pedant!

The above is tongue in cheek by the way.

I think this thread is a little pointless. Grammar is black and white. There is no grey area as regards to dialect etc. It's either right or wrong. Popular use and majority rules don't even come into it, so in reality most of the posts are redundant. I think it certainly proves that the teaching of if (grammar) needs to be readdressed.

By the way, I use "ye" almost exclusively and never "you" when referring to a collective. Pretty ever one I grew up with and people around my vicinity would also use "ye".

peanuthead

sillysausage wrote: »

Technically, "proper" is rarely used in the "correct" context. "Proper" isn't a shortened version of "properly" and usually the correct word should be, well, "correct". That's me being a pedant!
.

No, you know, looking back on it now it reminds me of this girl I used to know, haha, we used to laugh at her because she would say

"I can't do that, will ye learn me it?" haha

Brian

I was never taught Grammar in Secondary School here in Ireland, which is a pity. I would consider myself to have a reasonably good command of English*, and it pained me to hear a [Leaving Certificate] classmate say such things as "I done my essay on football". The English teacher didn't correct them either.

* I'm slightly obsessive about it too. I'm interested in "whom", I know what "its" means, and I say "If I were".

SoCal90046

sillysausage wrote: »

Technically, "proper" is rarely used in the "correct" context. "Proper" isn't a shortened version of "properly" and usually the correct word should be, well, "correct". That's me being a pedant!

The above is tongue in cheek by the way.

I think this thread is a little pointless. Grammar is black and white. There is no grey area as regards to dialect etc. It's either right or wrong. Popular use and majority rules don't even come into it, so in reality most of the posts are redundant. I think it certainly proves that the teaching of if (grammar) needs to be readdressed.

By the way, I use "ye" almost exclusively and never "you" when referring to a collective. Pretty ever one I grew up with and people around my vicinity would also use "ye".

I'd argue that grammar isn't black and white. Unlike other languages, English doesn't have an academy or some other recognized authority that defines standards. As others have pointed out, the English language is dynamic, with what's deemed acceptable differing in the different parts of the world.

There are many different tomes on grammar and within given region, there are often generally accepted standards, but I think that, when speaking about grammar, saying that there are absolute rules in the English language is probably pushing it a little.

Insect Overlord

SoCal90046 wrote: »

I'd argue that grammar isn't black and white. Unlike other languages, English doesn't have an academy or some other recognized authority that defines standards. As others have pointed out, the English language is dynamic, with what's deemed acceptable differing in the different parts of the world.

There are many different tomes on grammar and within given region, there are often generally accepted standards, but I think that, when speaking about grammar, saying that there are absolute rules in the English language is probably pushing it a little.

I understand your point here, and I appreciate the reasoning behind it, yet I disagree with what you are suggesting. It must be recognised that there are absolute rules in the English language. Without this unique scaffold of rules it would be impossible to define English as a language. This is true of nearly every language on the planet. The syntax, spelling, punctuation and intonation of sentences are governed by an accepted set of standards.

What causes confusion is that, as has been pointed out, most people are never fully versed in these standards when it comes to writing in English. This is due to several factors, with inadequate education in this area a prime example.
However, it is in this instance that your point about languages being dynamic comes to the fore: due to the spread of the language across regions, countries and continents, certain aspects of it have been diluted and/or enriched by other languages and cultures. The English spoken in the USA differs dramatically to that spoken every day in Jamaica, which in turn sounds little like the English spoken in rural parts of Ireland. Accents and colloquialisms are accepted without question in these areas, as they rightly should be. However, the spoken language of a small parish or a large city is very rarely seen in print. When it is written down, most notably for plays/drama, it is celebrated for being true to life (as it adds realism to the characters. See John B. Keane's plays for example). On the other hand, if one were to compose an English academic-style essay, their use of "vernacular" language would likely be frowned upon, as it would not match officially accepted standards.

In the time it took me to type this response, an imortant realisation struck me: the importance of grammar (with the key exception of spelling mistakes) depends entirely on the context in which one is writing. Modern, dynamic spoken language has its place in literature. So long as the writer is a) conscious of his/her intended audience, b) aware of exactly what is being said and c) aware of how it is being said, then they should not be hassled for writing that does not meet "the standard" in terms of grammar.
If, on the other hand, the writer is ignorant of their errors, then they should be informed so as to make self-correction and improvement possible in the future.
It is when such ignorance of correct grammar is blatantly obvious that the blame should be directed towards educators.

SoCal90046

An Fhile wrote: »

I understand your point here, and I appreciate the reasoning behind it, yet I disagree with what you are suggesting. It must be recognised that there are absolute rules in the English language. Without this unique scaffold of rules it would be impossible to define English as a language. This is true of nearly every language on the planet. The syntax, spelling, punctuation and intonation of sentences are governed by an accepted set of standards.

What causes confusion is that, as has been pointed out, most people are never fully versed in these standards when it comes to writing in English. This is due to several factors, with inadequate education in this area a prime example.
However, it is in this instance that your point about languages being dynamic comes to the fore: due to the spread of the language across regions, countries and continents, certain aspects of it have been diluted and/or enriched by other languages and cultures. The English spoken in the USA differs dramatically to that spoken every day in Jamaica, which in turn sounds little like the English spoken in rural parts of Ireland. Accents and colloquialisms are accepted without question in these areas, as they rightly should be. However, the spoken language of a small parish or a large city is very rarely seen in print. When it is written down, most notably for plays/drama, it is celebrated for being true to life (as it adds realism to the characters. See John B. Keane's plays for example). On the other hand, if one were to compose an English academic-style essay, their use of "vernacular" language would likely be frowned upon, as it would not match officially accepted standards.

In the time it took me to type this response, an imortant realisation struck me: the importance of grammar (with the key exception of spelling mistakes) depends entirely on the context in which one is writing. Modern, dynamic spoken language has its place in literature. So long as the writer is a) conscious of his/her intended audience, b) aware of exactly what is being said and c) aware of how it is being said, then they should not be hassled for writing that does not meet "the standard" in terms of grammar.
If, on the other hand, the writer is ignorant of their errors, then they should be informed so as to make self-correction and improvement possible in the future.
It is when such ignorance of correct grammar is blatantly obvious that the blame should be directed towards educators.

What you're addressing isn't the point I was making. In this quote

Grammar is black and white. There is no grey area as regards to dialect etc. It's either right or wrong. Popular use and majority rules don't even come into it, so in reality most of the posts are redundant.

A generalization is made that isn't supportable. I am not saying that there are no rules, but to state that they're black and white or, by implication, absolute, isn't supported by observation. In many parts of the world, English is spoken in a fashion by one group that may be termed grammatically incorrect by another. There are differences among dialects or varieties of the language. In fact in any language, a dialect is defined by its distinct grammar rules.

There are rules in any language that aid in communication. In English, there aren't absolute rules for grammar, spelling or punctuation. The rules differ between the US and the UK, between the UK and India, in fact among all the branches of the English language.

You used the term "officially recognized standard," which I think is a misnomer. (By the way, if you were watching, you just noticed a major difference in the punctuation rules of the US versus British English!) The more appropriate term may be generally accepted version (not standard) or generally recognized, but there isn't any official standard; at least, there's no governing body out there setting and maintaining standards.

Pgibson

Powerhouse wrote: »

An American journalist once said that the word 'whom' was invented "to make everyone sound like a butler", so I am surprised that it's not bigger in Cork!

There would be a lot of "whoms" and "shalls" and butlers and maids and manservants in Montenotte all right.

(I wouldn't be allowed around that area..I'm too common.)

.

Powerhouse

brianthebard wrote: »

Yes ye is part of the vernacular, you can't complain when one word is kept in and another not. I meant that ye has been taken out of offical teaching, thought that would have been obvious. I am merely saying that I don't really care for rules of grammar or petty letters at the end of a word just because of a vowel.

I am not complaining about any words being left out of the vernacular. In fact, I have said that the spoken language does not and could not have a standard.

I referred to a few situations where people get things completely wrong on a regular basis, or else situations where because of a lack of teaching of grammar most people would not know when and why 'who' becomes 'whom'. That this has disappeared from the vernacular is neither here nor there. Grammatical rules still apply and my point still stands.

Powerhouse

SoCal90046 wrote: »

I'd argue that grammar isn't black and white. Unlike other languages, English doesn't have an academy or some other recognized authority that defines standards. As others have pointed out, the English language is dynamic, with what's deemed acceptable differing in the different parts of the world.

There are many different tomes on grammar and within given region, there are often generally accepted standards, but I think that, when speaking about grammar, saying that there are absolute rules in the English language is probably pushing it a little.

This is distorting it really. There would be overwhelming agreement on points of grammar among differnent recognised authorities. There are indeed many absolute rules in the sense that there are conventions and rules which are very broadly accepted. The mere definition of a language requires such structure and convention.

brianthebard

An Fhile wrote: »

I understand your point here, and I appreciate the reasoning behind it, yet I disagree with what you are suggesting. It must be recognised that there are absolute rules in the English language. Without this unique scaffold of rules it would be impossible to define English as a language. This is true of nearly every language on the planet. The syntax, spelling, punctuation and intonation of sentences are governed by an accepted set of standards.

What causes confusion is that, as has been pointed out, most people are never fully versed in these standards when it comes to writing in English. This is due to several factors, with inadequate education in this area a prime example.
However, it is in this instance that your point about languages being dynamic comes to the fore: due to the spread of the language across regions, countries and continents, certain aspects of it have been diluted and/or enriched by other languages and cultures. The English spoken in the USA differs dramatically to that spoken every day in Jamaica, which in turn sounds little like the English spoken in rural parts of Ireland. Accents and colloquialisms are accepted without question in these areas, as they rightly should be. However, the spoken language of a small parish or a large city is very rarely seen in print. When it is written down, most notably for plays/drama, it is celebrated for being true to life (as it adds realism to the characters. See John B. Keane's plays for example). On the other hand, if one were to compose an English academic-style essay, their use of "vernacular" language would likely be frowned upon, as it would not match officially accepted standards.

This does not exactly prove the rules of English, rather it proves that some departments are rather stuffy about how you write your essays. If you write a philosophy essay its perfectly acceptable to refer to "things" and "stuff", which wouldn't get you anywhere in English. The point is that there is not a single code of English but several codes according to departments. No different to the accents example really except you hold high culture up to be in some way in control of English.
Also you seem to ignore the fact that English is first and foremost a vernacular, a language spoken by peasants that only in the last few hundred years because widespread in "the academy" that you feel sets the rules. And in addition to that English has only been taught as a subject for less than two hundred years. All this points to the fact that education attempts to wrap a framework around the vernacular, but it doesn't have to be adhered to.
Btw, its the same in a lot of countries, but the level of "framing" differs. France has a body exclusively in charge of all rules and regulations in the French language. The reason this body exists is not because French is a wonderfully structured language which cannot be spoken in any way but one, but in fact it is extremely messy, comprising multiple dialects that often have little in common, and it was deemed necessary by Napoleon to find a way of uniting them with a common language. So in fact if a language appears to be supremely structured and cannot allow for multiple expressions of the same thing, it may be that the opposite is true.

SoCal90046 wrote: »

You used the term "officially recognized standard," which I think is a misnomer. (By the way, if you were watching, you just noticed a major difference in the punctuation rules of the US versus British English!) The more appropriate term may be generally accepted version (not standard) or generally recognized, but there isn't any official standard; at least, there's no governing body out there setting and maintaining standards.

:eek: did you just put your full stop before the bracket??? Omg teh craziness!