Does this make sense: "I like my choice, as it allows me to go to school."
The issue here is whether "as" can be used like it is above as a coordinate conjunction, and if it needs the comma before it. It certainly sounds good, but is there really a comma involved?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Yes, it makes sense however "As" is acting as a subordinate conjunction not a coordinate conjunction and there should not be a comma.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
And BTW, "correct grammar" is an elitist concept.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
By "elitist," surely Rabbit means "incredibly important." Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
"incredibly important" for what?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Clear communication.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Yes, you can use as as a subordinating conjunction, just like because or since. The Chicago Manual of Style says that you should use a comma before the dependent clause if that clause is nonrestrictive, meaning that it's not essential to the meaning of the main clause. However, I've always thought that it's rather hard to tell, so I punctuate more by ear in such cases.
Also, as a side note, it's important to remember that punctuation is not grammar.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I was going to echo Jon Boy, and mention that I also punctuate by ear in many cases like this. I personally would include the comma.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Also, as a side note, it's important to remember that punctuation is not grammar.
Why is that important to remember?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Clear communication.
In English, proper grammar, spelling and punctuation are almost never needed for clear communication. There are a few exceptions, but certainly this case is not one of them.
I currently live in a part of the world where standard English grammar is the exception. In the local dialect huge swaths of English grammar have been simple eliminated. For example, helping verbs are just left out. Most pronouns are not declined. And you know what, aside from grating on my properly educated ears, it has absolutely no impact on clear communication.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That be crazy!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Well actually, "That crazy".
In Trini to be verbs are just a waste of effort.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In Trini, that sentence would be:
"In Trini, verbs just a waste."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:And you know what, aside from grating on my properly educated ears, it has absolutely no impact on clear communication.
I don't believe you.
It matters how complex the message is to be communicated.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
"In Triny, verbs waste."
Now, in Czech - "n Trn, vrbs wst". (Comma left outside because I use British punctuation, as a general rule.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
In text speak:
N Trne v3rbs waist
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Also, as a side note, it's important to remember that punctuation is not grammar.
Why is that important to remember?
Because if you're talking about how good grammar is essential to clear communication, then it's important to first be clear about what grammar is.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:And you know what, aside from grating on my properly educated ears, it has absolutely no impact on clear communication.
I don't believe you.
Seriously? How do you think speakers of creole Englishes communicate?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Are you saying seriously to me?
Yes. Seriously. Your next question makes no sense - it seems to question something I never said.
Maybe if you were clearer... Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The second part is a logical extension of your statement.
If you seriously don't believe that clear communication is possible unless, for example, the pronouns are properly declined, then how do you think speakers of creole English who do not decline pronouns communicate?
Perhaps you could give me an example of an English sentence where the meaning would be ambiguous if the pronoun were not declined properly.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It is not the logical extension. It is five jumps and drag race away from what I actually said, and I'm not responsible for mistaken assumptions.
I wasn't speaking only about the pronouns - grammar in general tends to clear things up. You can be fuzzy about things like antecedents when the sentences are simpler. The more complex the expression, the more important it is to keep it clear what clauses are modifying what.
If you restricted yourself to saying that communication is still possible even when pronouns are not declined, I would whole-heartedly agree.
When you say that fuzzy grammar "has absolutely no impact on clear communication.", then I disagree.
Perhaps the difficulty is with the sweeping, absolutist generalities.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I also think that a lot of it depends on the topic at hand, and how complex the issues involving it are, which is why we don't hear a lot of creole-English during shuttle launches.
All joking aside, this is why the Army invented their own lingo....so that very important information could be relayed fairly quickly without misinterpretation by people from many different backgrounds. When you are calling in an artilliry strike, it is very important to say "Whisky Tango Charlie niner" rather than "W T C 9" because depending on accents and clarity of the radio signal it is very possible to call the strike down on your head rather than on the advancing enemy.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Katharina: Your assumptions about the grammar of creole languages are terribly mistaken. Also, The Rabbit never said anything about "fuzzy grammar"—that's your term. She was talking about standard and non-standard grammar.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
This is driving me so crazy that I no longer care how illiterate I sound:
What does it mean to "properly decline a pronoun"?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I didn't know either, but I decided to check Wikipedia so now I know.
Easiest to understand through an example:
Properly declined: She ate the gerbil.
Not: Her ate the gerbil.
"she" and "her" have essentially the same meaning but are differently declined versions of the third person singular feminine pronoun.
I'd have to agree that this particular feature of grammar doesn't do much for conveying meaning.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Except for making you think there's a word missing:
Her what ate the gerbil?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
In type it can suggest an omitted word, but only because we're conditioned to the "proper" grammar. Out loud, I think most people would understand perfectly. (Little kids make that mistake all the time, along with people who aren't native English speakers.) But, you're right. In type, without sufficient warning/context, that example can be misleading.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
So declining a pronoun is just choosing the objective vs subjective case for it?
Also, does English have disjunctive pronouns/what is a disjunctive pronoun. Like in french it's excusez-moi, and the moi isn't just objective, it's disjunctive, I tihnk... (sorry if i'm just wrong and so horribly wrong that it's not worth explaining, I'd understand, as I don't actually know french)
Thanks about the OP also.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
This is slightly off track, but it's been bugging me lately.
When I was in school I was taught that when using the possessive of a verb you added an apostrophe followed by an S in all cases EXCEPT when the word is both plural and ends in an S.
So that in the case of a man named Dennis and his dog one would say "Dennis's dog" as opposed to "Dennis' dog" because Dennis is not plural. But whenever I see anyone else using a word like this they only put just the apostrophe even if the word in question is singular. Is this correct or incorrect?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Starsnuffer: In English, we just have subjective, objective, and possessive cases for the personal pronouns. The disjunctive pronouns in French (I believe that is the right term) are something different. We generally use the objective where French uses the disjunctive, if I remember right.
Shawshank: First off, just to be clear, I assume you mean "possessive of a noun," right? It's not an issue of correctness versus incorrectness, though a lot of people make it out to be a simple matter of right or wrong. In writing, it's essentially a difference in style. Some style guides prefer one, while others prefer the other. In speech, we often vary—which is why there are two ways of writing it in the first place. So use whichever you like or whichever you naturally say.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Lois'.
*sticks fingers in ears and hums loudly*
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
I'm in the "Lois's dog" camp on this one. "Lois' dog" just sounds like you forgot the possessive.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Once a People can no longer speak to one another they cease to be a People.
Go grammar lords! Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It is not the logical extension. It is five jumps and drag race away from what I actually said, and I'm not responsible for mistaken assumptions.
I wasn't speaking only about the pronouns - grammar in general tends to clear things up. You can be fuzzy about things like antecedents when the sentences are simpler. The more complex the expression, the more important it is to keep it clear what clauses are modifying what.
If you restricted yourself to saying that communication is still possible even when pronouns are not declined, I would whole-heartedly agree.
When you say that fuzzy grammar "has absolutely no impact on clear communication.", then I disagree.
Perhaps the difficulty is with the sweeping, absolutist generalities.
Then I can only conclude that when you said "I don't believe it", the it was in reference to something other than what I said. My comments were, as Jon Boy already noted, quite clearly not sweeping generalities but specific references to the grammatical forms which have been eliminated in some English dialects.
In the future, you should be aware that when you use a pronoun like "it", that pronoun is generally understood to refer to the the noun (or in this case statement) which immediately precedes the pronoun. I think your use of the pronoun "it" in this instance is a clear example of a case where fuzzy grammar can muddle communication. In this case, you would have been clearer if you had replace "it" with the thing you actually don't believe such as "I don't believe all grammar can be eliminated without hindering communication".
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Jon Boy - you are ten kinds of wrong about what I said and what I meant. If you are fuzzy on what I am saying, please ask.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:In English, proper grammar, spelling and punctuation are almost never needed for clear communication.
To be specific, this is what I think is baloney.
I suppose you temper with "never" with "almost", but the general dismissal of adherence to standardized grammar as useful for clear communication is wrong.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Kat, You are reading far more into my statement than was ever stated or intended.
I never said grammar was not useful for clear communication.
I never even said that grammar errors don't frequently interfere with clear communication.
I said, and read my word precisely because they have a precise intent.
quote:In English, proper grammar, spelling and punctuation are almost never needed for clear communication.
If you still don't believe that, then give me one example of an English sentence that communicates an idea that can not be clearly communicated with non-standard grammar. Just one. One example where "correct grammar" is needed to clearly communicate the idea.
Please note, I'm not asking for an example where a particular grammar error interferes with clear communications, you already gave us one of those (I don't believe it). I'm asking for an example where the idea can only be clearly communicated with standard grammar.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Rabbit, do you honestly believe that when everyone makes up there own grammar rules and spelling, communication does not suffer? You seriously cannot imagine that a collectively agreed upon set of standards for vocabulary and forms leads to clearer communication?
It is seriously your contention that a sentence with crappy grammar is just as clear and precise, no matter what the subject matter or compelixity of thought, as a sentence with proper grammar?
If you are not saying that - if you are backing away from "In English, proper grammar, spelling and punctuation are almost never needed for clear communication." and retreating to a much more conservative "I can understand people just fine even when they don't decline their pronouns.", then that's fine. I would believe you then.
---
For an example, to use one of your favorite errors, can't you see the difference between
"He will loose the dogs."
and
"He will lose the dogs."
?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: [QB] Rabbit, do you honestly believe that when everyone makes up there own grammar rules and spelling, communication does not suffer?
This isn't something I said nor implied. I will not have you put words in my mouth.
quote:You seriously cannot imagine that a collectively agreed upon set of standards for vocabulary and forms leads to clearer communication?
This is also not anything I have claimed to believe. I don't think I've mentioned vocabulary even once. Perhaps you could point it out when and where I said this.
quote:It is seriously your contention that a sentence with crappy grammar is just as clear and precise, no matter what the subject matter or compelixity of thought, as a sentence with proper grammar?
No, this was also not my claim. I'm not sure how I can make it clearer. In English, almost all ideas can be clearly communicated without the use of standard grammar, punctuation and spelling.
You persistently use terms like "correct", "proper" or "crappy" grammar. What makes the grammar you are comfortable with more "correct" than the grammar used in creole English?
Do you have difficulty reading "Huck Finn" because Huck doesn't speak using standard American English?
Do you believe that people who speak like Huck Finn simply aren't capable of communicating the complex ideas unless they switch to standard English Grammar?
Once again, If you are certain that I am wrong when I've asserted that In English, nearly all ideas can be clearly communicated without using standard Grammar --- Give me an example. Since you are so certain that these cases are common place, that should be an easy request.
[ July 22, 2008, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: For an example, to use one of your favorite errors, can't you see the difference between
"He will loose the dogs."
and
"He will lose the dogs."
?
Of course I can see the difference. I'm also fairly confident that although the second spelling will grate on a lot of people, very few people fluent in English would be confused about the meaning.
The example also doesn't answer my question. You point out a specific spelling error that might obscure meaning. However this sentence can be clearly communicated in a variety of non-standard grammars.
For example,
He's gonna loose the dogs.
He gonna loose dem dogs.
Those dogs, he will loose.
Those dogs, loose he will.
Him will loose de Dawgs.
Do you understand what I'm claiming NOW or are you just continuing to argue because you are too proud to admit you missed my point in the first place?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
None of your examples clear up the loose/lose problem since that is the common mixup I referenced, rearranging the words doesn't make it more clear.
You changed the example.
I understand you perfectly well. You are still wrong. You are deliberately choosing examples that do not obscure the meaning, but ignoring my example where a common error does obscure the meaning.
If you want to say that in many cases, non-standard grammar doesn't matter, then okay. If you want to say that you can replace Oxford English rules with local, dialectical rules, then okay. If you are still sticking with "almost never", then you're wrong and cherry-picking your examples.
-----
None you examples the loose/lose problem clear up. Since is the common mixup referencing the words rearranging don't make more clear.
youchangedexample;
You understand I perfectly well, you Wrong still" You am deliberatews chose examplae who not obscure meaning but ignores me example which jabberwocked a common error meaning^
Chan ye say in many case unstandard grammar not matter okay, still sticking you were with #almost never# you had been wrong and cherry-pick you example tho
[ July 22, 2008, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: [QB] None of your examples clear up the loose/lose problem. Since that is the common mix I referenced, rearranging the words doesn't make it more clear.
You changed the example.
I really can't tell if you are being deliberately obtuse here. I don't know how to state my claim any more clearly.
I have not claimed that no particular grammar, spelling or punctuation mistake can obscure meaning. In fact I have repeatedly admitted and even given an example of where a particular grammar error did indeed obscure your intended meaning. I even admitted that in your example, the misspelling changed the meaning. I have never denied this, my claim is quite different.
Unless you are just arguing to try to prove you are right, try to understand what I AM actually claiming. In English, almost all ideas can be clearly expressed without the use of standard Grammar.
quote:I understand you perfectly well. You are still wrong. You are deliberately choosing examples that do not obscure the meaning, but ignoring my example where a common error does obscure the meaning.
I'm not ignoring you example. You are missing my point.
quote:If you want to say that in many cases, non-standard grammar doesn't matter, then okay. If you are still sticking with "almost never", then you're wrong and cherry-picking your examples.
I am not cherry picking examples. As I said before
quote:I'm not asking for an example where a particular grammar error interferes with clear communications, you already gave us one of those (I don't believe it). I'm asking for an example where the idea can only be clearly communicated with standard grammar.
Seriously. Jon Boy, the grammar professional, got my point right off. I've rephrased it again and again and it just seems that you are trying not to understand my claim.
My claim is far more simple that the gross strawman you are trying to force me to defend. I have only claimed that most, if not all, ideas can be communicated in English without using what you call "correct" grammar.
You provided the sentence, "He will loose the dogs" and though you gave me one example of how different spelling could change the meaning of the sentence, I showed you half a dozen ways that sentence could be clearly communicated in non-standard English.
That's my point. Although there are many possible permutations of the letters and words that interfere with clear communication, standard English grammar and spelling are not the only combination of words and letters that can clearly communicate the idea.
Got it yet?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Now that you have backed away from your absolutist statement that "In English, proper grammar, spelling and punctuation are almost never needed for clear communication.", I agree.
Perhaps if you had been more precise in the beginning, your meaning would have been more clear.
quote:Although there are many possible permutations of the letters and words that interfere with clear communication, standard English grammar and spelling are not the only combination of words and letters that can clearly communicate the idea.
This I like, if you add the caveats about the audience. To reach the widest audience, standard English is still, well, the standard, and so is most likely to lead to understanding.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I've never backed away from my original statement only from the gross parodies of it that you made. I believe my original statement was quite precise since I used the worded "needed" and never "useful". Further more, I gave a specific example of creole English to illustrate what I was talking about. If you had bothered to try to understand in the first place rather that reject the whole idea and then back peddling as soon as Jon Boy pointed out the obsurdity of your claim, you would have seen that. But since you insist I was insufficiently precise, I will amend it slightly.
"In English, proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation are almost never required for clear communication. Nearly all ideas can be clearly communicated without the use of standard grammar, unless you are arguing with katharina. In which case, your chances of every being understood using any form of English are pretty darn near zero."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Whatever. :eyeroll:
You really do reguarly mix up lose/loose.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
An example of a particular error does not contradict Rabbit's initial claim.
She did not say "there are no grammar errors that obscure meaning." She said, effectively, "there are (almost) no ideas that cannot be communicated in a manner that does not conform to the standard rules of grammar, spelling, and punctuation."
The lose/loose problem is an example that would contradict the first statement. It does not contradict the second.
I don't think I agree with Rabbit's assertion that "correct grammar" is an elitist concept, although it is certainly a tool that can be used by elitists to assert their eliteness.
But her underlying analysis of the ability to communicate essentially all ideas in non-standard English is correct. This is likely because the types of errors that become accepted by subgroups are the ones that don't interfere with meaning in most cases. However, I think part of the reason these subgroups' languages generally don't deviate so far as to hide meaning from other subgroups is that there is considerable effort spent on maintaining a reference grammar by teaching it in schools, enforcing it in media via style guides, and general acceptance of that reference as "correct."
Two interesting facets of this (to me) that don't really have anythign to do with the issue here are that (1) non-standard language use can and often is used used to assert eliteness; and (2) the lose/loose examples both exhibit facially "correct" grammar, spelling, and punctuation, even though one or the other is of course wrong, depending on whether one is unleashing or unable to locate one's dogs.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
It's a typo so shoot me.
It's rather petty of you to bring up a typo I have made in the past, particularly one not even in this thread and not even recently. But then if throwing out petty ad hominem makes you feel superior, go ahead.
Seriously Kat, You're acting like a bratty child. You quoted a sentence from my post, then said "I don't believe it". Then you got all pissy and bent out of shape and accused people of deliberately twisting what you said solely because we presumed that the sentence you quoted was the antecedent to the "it" you did not believe.
Then no matter how many time I tried to explain that "not necessary" did not imply "not useful", you insisted on putting up strawman after strawman and demand that I defend them.
Then when you finally acquiesce, you do so with the false assertion that its only because I've modified my claim and that my original statement was insufficiently precise.
Then you throw in a petty ad hominem attack about my spelling in previous threads.
Is it really so difficult for you to admit you were just wrong?
[ July 22, 2008, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: [QB] An example of a particular error does not contradict Rabbit's initial claim.
She did not say "there are no grammar errors that obscure meaning." She said, effectively, "there are (almost) no ideas that cannot be communicated in a manner that does not conform to the standard rules of grammar, spelling, and punctuation."
The lose/loose problem is an example that would contradict the first statement. It does not contradict the second.
Thanks Dag, It's nice to know my reason passes muster with someone whos logical abilities I respect.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I'm having an interesting thought. The only reason you or I can grasp ALL the sub-dialects is because we have a strong grasp on standard english in the first place. Someone who's been raised in a cockney neighborhood will probably have a lot of trouble understanding ebonics or creole unless they've been taught standard english. I guess what I'm saying is that you have to completely understand all the intricacies of the sub-dialects in order to communicate complex ideas--and if you don't have a strong grasp of standard english in the first place, it would be difficult to "cross over" from one sub-dialect to another.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's rather petty of you to bring up a typo I have made in the past....
In fairness to Kat, I think she's trying to refrain from bringing up typos you've made in this thread. *laugh*
Seriously, I think grammar matters a great deal -- but I think it matters for a variety of reasons, at least some of which I'm sure you'd consider "elitist."
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Yes, it makes sense however "As" is acting as a subordinate conjunction not a coordinate conjunction and there should not be a comma.
Errr? I think you're mistaken here. There are two complete sentences connected by a conjunction, hence coordinate and comma.
I like my choice. It allows me to go to school.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:[quote]I don't think I agree with Rabbit's assertion that "correct grammar" is an elitist concept, although it is certainly a tool that can be used by elitists to assert their eliteness.
Perhaps I should elaborate by what I mean by the assertion that "correct grammar" is an elitist concept.
First, note that I used the term "correct" not "standard" and I put the term in quotes. This was not by accident. My objection is to the association of the word "correct" to connote "standard usage".
I think there are language constructs which can be logically labeled as grammatically incorrect because they obscure meaning. As an example, a few weeks ago there was a headline in the Washington Post which read "Man Beating Baby Shot By Police" the double meaning of which would have been funny if the story itself hadn't been so terribly tragic.
There are, however, many instances where the a grammatical construct is labeled "incorrect" solely because it isn't the standard English usage endorsed by college professors even though the meaning is quite clear.
For example, in the rural west its common for people to say "We was" or "We's" instead of "We were" and "We're". Such as "We's going to a movie" or "We was waiting for you for over an hour."
I admit that this construct grates on my ears but there is no logical reason why it is any better or worse than the English Professor approved version. When I was a professor in Montana, we encourage students to avoid that kind of usage arguing that it could make them seem stupid and uneducated and it would be more difficult for them to gain the respect of upper manage unless they used "proper" English. I still think that's reasonable advice for anyone who wishes to be respected in educated circles.
At the same time, the stereotype that people who use non-standard grammar are less intelligent, educated and refined than those who use standard grammar is totally unfair and elitist at its roots.
In conversation, most people speak with the grammar that was used in their homes and communities. If, like I did, you grew up in an upper middle class neighborhood with college educated parents, standard American grammar is your first language. You will likely speak it most of time regardless of how smart or well educated you are. You're not going to say "We was sleeping" instead of "We were sleeping" even if you have an IQ of 80 and didn't graduate from high school.
On the other hand, if you grew up in a small farming community or an inner city ghetto or a Caribbean Island, standard American Grammar isn't your first language, it's something you had to learn in school. Most likely, it won't come naturally to you. You might feel comfortable saying "We was sleeping" even if you have an IQ of 150 and a Ph.D.
When, as a well educated person, I define my way of speaking as the "correct" way of speaking, its elitist because it tends to perpetuate the status of the existing well educated "elite". My children and I will have an easy time being accepted among the well educated "elite" because people will tend to identify us as intelligent and refined because of our natural language. People from other social groups and their children will have to work harder to be seen as intelligent and refined because of unfair stereotypes against their language. The advantage is even greater in written language.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Errr? I think you're mistaken here. There are two complete sentences connected by a conjunction, hence coordinate and comma.
I like my choice. It allows me to go to school.
We need Jon Boy, because I've only taken three courses in linguistics - only one of those in grammar and usage - and he is a much more skilled grammarian than I.
However, I do not believe "as" usually functions as a coordinate conjunction. In this case, "as" is a subordinate conjunction, being used to make the second clause dependent. Had the sentence been "I like my choice and it allows me to go to school," you would have a coordinate conjunction because both clauses are emphasized equally. In the actual sentence, however, "as it allows me to go to school" is subordinate.
I hope that makes sense, my brain is hazy from staying up late to work on a term paper!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raventhief:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Yes, it makes sense however "As" is acting as a subordinate conjunction not a coordinate conjunction and there should not be a comma.
Errr? I think you're mistaken here. There are two complete sentences connected by a conjunction, hence coordinate and comma.
I like my choice. It allows me to go to school.
Incorrect analysis.
The "as" is what makes it a subordinate clause. "as it allows me to go to school." is not a complete thought on its own.
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Yes, you can use as as a subordinating conjunction, just like because or since. The Chicago Manual of Style says that you should use a comma before the dependent clause if that clause is nonrestrictive, meaning that it's not essential to the meaning of the main clause. However, I've always thought that it's rather hard to tell, so I punctuate more by ear in such cases.
Also, as a side note, it's important to remember that punctuation is not grammar.
Jon Boy, I've always understood that this rule applied only to subordinate clauses that begin with a relative pronoun (who, that, which). Dependent clauses that do not begin with a relative pronoun are separated from the main clause by a comma when they precede the main clause. No comma should be used when they follow the main clause. That is, at least, the rule used in technical writing. Is this different from what is in the current Chicago Manual on Style?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:It's rather petty of you to bring up a typo I have made in the past....
In fairness to Kat, I think she's trying to refrain from bringing up typos you've made in this thread. *laugh*
Isn't it nice that the internet provides a medium where fast and accurate typists can feel superior to others?
Certainly how well one types is a far better indicator of the value of ones contributions than ones ability to use reasoning and logic correctly.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Wow, I've been gone a couple hours and this thread has REALLY moved on, but:
Katharina, were you speaking Chantho back there on page one? Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... On the other hand, if you grew up in a small farming community or an inner city ghetto or a Caribbean Island, standard American Grammar isn't your first language, it's something you had to learn in school. Most likely, it won't come naturally to you. You might feel comfortable saying "We was sleeping" even if you have an IQ of 150 and a Ph.D.
I'd like to expand on this point with a quote from an apropos article I ran across a while ago.
quote: Thanks to globalization, the Allied victories in World War II, and American leadership in science and technology, English has become so successful across the world that it's escaping the boundaries of what we think it should be. In part, this is because there are fewer of us: By 2020, native speakers will make up only 15 percent of the estimated 2 billion people who will be using or learning the language. Already, most conversations in English are between nonnative speakers who use it as a lingua franca.
In China, this sort of free-form adoption of English is helped along by a shortage of native English-speaking teachers, who are hard to keep happy in rural areas for long stretches of time. An estimated 300 million Chinese — roughly equivalent to the total US population — read and write English but don't get enough quality spoken practice. The likely consequence of all this? In the future, more and more spoken English will sound increasingly like Chinese. ... Ultimately, it's not that speakers will slide along a continuum, with "proper" language at one end and local English dialects on the other, as in countries where creoles are spoken. Nor will Chinglish replace native languages, as creoles sometimes do. It's that Chinglish will be just as proper as any other English on the planet.
And it's possible Chinglish will be more efficient than our version, doing away with word endings and the articles a, an, and the. After all, if you can figure out "Environmental sanitation needs your conserve," maybe conservation isn't so necessary.
Any language is constantly evolving, so it's not surprising that English, transplanted to new soil, is bearing unusual fruit. Nor is it unique that a language, spread so far from its homelands, would begin to fracture.
So I think some of this debate about what is "correct" English may be somewhat minor given the cultural force of 300 million people evolving English into something different. From my own experiences, even Hong Kong English has been surprisingly persistent and thats only with the cultural force of 10 million people.
So going back to Rabbit's point, "standard American grammar" will not be natural for a lot of these people, nor will it ever be, nor should it be.
I look forward with amusement to the day when people will be in an "elite fashion" debating the merits of "standard Chinese-English grammar" in the same way we're debating the merits of "standard American-English grammar" (and I suppose the same way others debated "standard British-English grammar").
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:And it's possible Chinglish will be more efficient than our version, doing away with word endings and the articles a, an, and the.
That's sad ... I really like the differences conveyed between "a/an" and "the".
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Some more examples of "elitism" in Grammar.
This is an excerpt taken from a grammar lesson.
quote:To choose correctly among the forms of who, re-phrase the sentence so you choose between he and him. If you want him, write whom; if you want he, write who.
Who do you think is responsible? (Do you think he is responsible?) Whom shall we ask to the party? (Shall we ask him to the party?)
First, note that this suggestion on how to determine whether to use who or whom only works for some one who already naturally knows how to use he and him because they grew up speaking a form a English that properly declined pronouns. To a Trini who would say "Do you think he responsible" or "Should we ask he to the fete", the advice is completely worthless.
Second, the advice is promoting as "correct" a form of English Grammar that is already becoming archaic. Half the English grammarians I know are pushing to eliminate this from style guides. I'm a college professor, I socialize with college professors from England, I have friends who are professors of English writing and I still can think of a single situation I've ever been in where saying "Whom shall we ask to the party?" wouldn't sound pretentious. Get real, no one except perhaps a tiny subset of British upper class snobs talks like that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't have a problem with calling elitist the assumption that those who use non-standard English when speaking are less intelligent. Edit: And I do think that there are people who use the words "correct grammar" to convey that assumption.
quote:When I was a professor in Montana, we encourage students to avoid that kind of usage arguing that it could make them seem stupid and uneducated and it would be more difficult for them to gain the respect of upper manage unless they used "proper" English. I still think that's reasonable advice for anyone who wishes to be respected in educated circles.
This is the concept I think the term "correct grammar" can refer to without being elitist.
I think that the mere fact we teach standard English in school and have tests that are marked "correct" or "incorrect" means that many people will attach the word "correct" to that form of English.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
There are at least two sides to the elitism coin.
On the one side, standard English is the language spoken by the overwhelming majority of power brokers in the US and the stereotype that speakers of non-standard English are less intelligent and refined is quite pervasive. Whether or not that system is just is almost irrelevant, it is the system we live in and we have to deal with it. The bottom line is that if you want your ideas and work to be respected by people in positions of power, it is to your advantage to learn and use standard English Grammar. For that reason, I will continue encouraging my students to learn and use standard American Grammar.
On the other side, It is important for people who are part of the elite group of standard English speakers to recognize their own unfair prejudice and to work to overcome them. When I am not in my role as teacher, I recognize that it is condescending and elitist of me to "correct" other peoples grammar, particularly when clarity of the ideas is not an issue. I'm working hard to become a better more egalitarian listener and to overcome my own elitist tendency to cringe when people use non-standard grammar or to dismiss people as less intelligent because of the way they speak.
The internet has made this side of the coin very evident to me. All too often, people use grammar, spelling and punctuation as a way to put people down and dismiss their ideas. When someone has put effort into expressing an idea, it's simply rude and condescending to point out their inconsequential errors in English usage. I've noticed that certain people are prone to resort to it when they are loosing an argument. I guess it somehow makes them feel superior to be able to criticize their opponents typing and proof reading ability.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Isn't it nice that the internet provides a medium where fast and accurate typists can feel superior to others?
Certainly how well one types is a far better indicator of the value of ones contributions than ones ability to use reasoning and logic correctly.
I was going to say that I think the best thing about the Internet is that it gives anyone who's willing to take the time to proofread their own writing the opportunity to seem much more intelligent than they might appear in person. But then I realized the best thing about the Internet is all the straw men.
quote:When someone has put effort into expressing an idea, it's simply rude and condescending to point out their inconsequential errors in English usage.
Now this, mind you, is a perfectly valid point. I've seen it myself; too often is someone's poor usage used to dismiss their writing. Now, I've also seen the reverse: people desperately struggling to understand someone whose written English is so bad that it's nearly incomprehensible. I figure it breaks either way.
For my part, I care about grammar because I consider it an indication that you care about me. Lazy typing on a medium where all communication is typed is, as far as I'm concerned, the equivalent of mumbling and staring past someone's ear while they're trying to have a conversation with you.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raventhief:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Yes, it makes sense however "As" is acting as a subordinate conjunction not a coordinate conjunction and there should not be a comma.
Errr? I think you're mistaken here. There are two complete sentences connected by a conjunction, hence coordinate and comma.
Rabbit is right. Not all conjunctions are coordinating conjunctions—this one's a subordinator. It makes the second clause dependent on the first.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit Jon Boy, I've always understood that this rule applied only to subordinate clauses that begin with a relative pronoun (who, that, which). Dependent clauses that do not begin with a relative pronoun are separated from the main clause by a comma when they precede the main clause. No comma should be used when they follow the main clause. That is, at least, the rule used in technical writing. Is this different from what is in the current Chicago Manual on Style?
I already explained the rule in the current edition of Chicago. But like I said, I don't think it's a very good rule, because the distinction between restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses isn't very clear. I don't know what other style guides say on the issue, but I'm sure there's some variation.
[ July 23, 2008, 12:30 AM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Isn't it nice that the internet provides a medium where fast and accurate typists can feel superior to others?
Certainly how well one types is a far better indicator of the value of ones contributions than ones ability to use reasoning and logic correctly.
I was going to say that I think the best thing about the Internet is that it gives anyone who's willing to take the time to proofread their own writing the opportunity to seem much more intelligent than they might appear in person. But then I realized the best thing about the Internet is all the straw men.
quote:When someone has put effort into expressing an idea, it's simply rude and condescending to point out their inconsequential errors in English usage.
Now this, mind you, is a perfectly valid point. I've seen it myself; too often is someone's poor usage used to dismiss their writing. Now, I've also seen the reverse: people desperately struggling to understand someone whose written English is so bad that it's nearly incomprehensible. I figure it breaks either way.
For my part, I care about grammar because I consider it an indication that you care about me. Lazy typing on a medium where all communication is typed is, as far as I'm concerned, the equivalent of mumbling and staring past someone's ear while they're trying to have a conversation with you.
I don't see "day I agree with Tom" marked on my calendar anywhere!
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
I value "correct English" because, in my experience, and my upbringing, it is "Correct English" that has had the most benefit to my life. It allows me to clearly communicate with those around me, succeed in school, and be taken seriously by people I care to be taken seriously by.
I don't much care what the average citizen of Trinidad, or Detroit, for that matter, thinks of me. I don't much care what most people think of me(remember, there are a lot of people in the world, most of whom I will never meet). I do care, however, about employers/colleges/professors/family/friends' opinions of me, and so I try to use the same form of English they use, "correct english."
I do not deny that communication may be fluid between two trini-speaking people, but I know that certainly the communication between me and a trinian person would not be as effective as between my parents and I.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:I value "correct English" because, in my experience, and my upbringing, it is "Correct English" that has had the most benefit to my life. It allows me to clearly communicate with those around me, succeed in school, and be taken seriously by people I care to be taken seriously by.
In many parts of the US - where I'm assuming you're from - these things would often be mutually exclusive.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:For my part, I care about grammar because I consider it an indication that you care about me. Lazy typing on a medium where all communication is typed is, as far as I'm concerned, the equivalent of mumbling and staring past someone's ear while they're trying to have a conversation with you.[
Your presumption that proofreading is something everyone can do quickly and effortlessly is wrong. As I have explained to you and others on this board many times previously, 20 years of teaching, reviewing and publishing technical reports had proven to me definitively that I am incapable of proofreading my own writing. For this reason, I have a technical editor who proofs all my professional work.
I can only presume that your continued insistence that I'm lazy and inconsiderate indicates that you take some sort of perverse pleasure in insulting others.
I had thought that the content I contribute at hatrack made me a valued member of the community despite weaknesses as a typist and proofreader. I guess not.
I have far better things to do in life than participate in a board where I'm mocked by pricks for my weaknesses as a proofreader.
When I read a post at night and wake up in the morning still fuming about it, I know its time for me to take a hiatus from hatrack.
BTW: rivka -- I thought we were friends. If you agree with Tom that I am lazy and inconsiderate -- I guess I was wrong.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I think you are -- deliberately or otherwise -- taking Tom's general statement far more personally than it was intended.
I chose not to be insulted at being called an elitist. Repeatedly.
But if you want to be insulted, don't let me stop you.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I can only presume that your continued insistence that I'm lazy and inconsiderate indicates that you take some sort of perverse pleasure in insulting others.
I hesitate to mention this, but I will: not only are you not required to presume this, but the first presumption -- that I have insisted multiple times that you are lazy and inconsiderate -- is also incorrect.
I'm sorry you feel that you've been insulted. That was neither my intention nor my purpose.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I don't mind everyone in the world adopting English and morphing it into their own comfortable dialect. That's the beauty of English, after all--it's so malleable. Look what we Americans have done to the Queen's English, after all, and yet we can still talk to our friends across the pond for the most part. But I would be terrified if there were no standards of correctness in the language. I'm thankful for guides like the Chicago that try to preserve all the standards. Without them I don't think English would be as vibrant as it is. You can't make a beautiful riff on a rule when there is no rule. Huck Finn wouldn't have the flavor he has if we didn't have standards. There is substantial value in preserving (and defending) universal rules in the language so that it is universally accessible regardless of all the different ways people use it in their own circles. If we let go of those rules we'd quickly lose the ability to communicate with each other--and to appreciate all the differences in how we use the language.
I am perhaps not as staunch a defender as some here, but I value correctness because the English language is my livelihood. I'd rather uphold the rules in most cases, because I feel that by not letting them be degraded on my watch, I will be able to communicate clearly for the long run.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
theirs a differance between spelling a few things wrong or missing a wrod or too and choosing to be so lazy that you dont capitalize or punctuate and assume eveyones going to do all the work of figuiring out what you mean when you dont bother to take the effort to right clearly. i think thats what tomdavidson is referring to when he talks about laziness - making eveyone else work harder to read you're stuff because you didnt take the time to make the effort to communicate clearly.
(And by "you" and "you're", I meant "people in general", not you personally, Rabbit. I don't find your writing "lazy".)
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
Go ahead. Challenge it. I dare you.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Starsnuffer: I do not deny that communication may be fluid between two trini-speaking people, but I know that certainly the communication between me and a trinian person would not be as effective as between my parents and I.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:For my part, I care about grammar because I consider it an indication that you care about me. Lazy typing on a medium where all communication is typed is, as far as I'm concerned, the equivalent of mumbling and staring past someone's ear while they're trying to have a conversation with you.
I agree with this sentiment. I don't think that Rabbit's occasional typos come close to implicating it, though. First, they generally don't make it harder to read her posts. Second, it's enormously clear how much effort she puts into many of her posts. Third, they are clearly typos - that is, aberrations, not a conscious decision to not care about her readers.
Given that this sentiment was expressed in the context of Rabbit's typos, I can see why she might think it was meant to include those typos. And it now seems Tom did not mean it that way, although that was by no means clear from his initial post on the subject.
From what I know of rivka, my assumption is that she was agreeing with the sentiment taken entirely out of the context of the previous argument and did not interpret Tom's statement as calling Rabbit lazy and inconsiderate.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I did not think that Tom was referring to The Rabbit's posts when he was writing about being lazy. I assumed that he was referring to some of our posters who don't bother with complete sentences or any punctuation at all. Or who type posts like they would type text messages.
Posted by Trent Destian (Member # 11653) on :
Poor grammar is the bane of my existence. I pose a question. Am I overly sensitive if everytime someone misuses the word "good" I whisper to myself "well"?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I did not think that Tom was referring to The Rabbit's posts when he was writing about being lazy. I assumed that he was referring to some of our posters who don't bother with complete sentences or any punctuation at all. Or who type posts like they would type text messages.
That was my assumption as well, but I think one is more likely to make that assumption when one's typos are not the subject of the post being responded to.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yup.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: From what I know of rivka, my assumption is that she was agreeing with the sentiment taken entirely out of the context of the previous argument and did not interpret Tom's statement as calling Rabbit lazy and inconsiderate.
Correct.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Trent Destian: Poor grammar is the bane of my existence. I pose a question. Am I overly sensitive if everytime someone misuses the word "good" I whisper to myself "well"?
Yes. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And it now seems Tom did not mean it that way, although that was by no means clear from his initial post on the subject.
As I have never been a grammar Nazi, and as my respect for Rabbit has always been pretty obvious, and since I've known y'all for years now, I figured it went without saying. If you have to consider a single "initial post" in isolation to decide whether I respect someone or not, there's probably something wrong with your mental filter.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As I have never been a grammar Nazi, and as my respect for Rabbit has always been pretty obvious, and since I've known y'all for years now, I figured it went without saying. If you have to consider a single "initial post" in isolation to decide whether I respect someone or not, there's probably something wrong with your mental filter.
Ah, yes, leave out the part where I actually explain my opinion and don't bother to address it before speaking of my mental filter.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To be honest, I didn't think it was particularly germane. If my next door neighbor were to compliment Sophie on how lovely she happens to look today, that might be grounds for me to assume that he's a creepy pedophile. But since I've known him for five years and have decent grounds to assume otherwise, it'd be unlikely for me to jump to that conclusion.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I apologize to Tom and rivka for over-reacting to their posts. Because Kat was deliberately and clearly mocking me, I presumed that Tom's comment beginning with "In fairness to Kat, I think she's trying to refrain from bringing up typos you've made in this thread", was jumping on her bandwagon.
Context is important, and in a community like this both long term and short term context are important.
quote:If my next door neighbor were to compliment Sophie on how lovely she happens to look today, that might be grounds for me to assume that he's a creepy pedophile. But since I've known him for five years and have decent grounds to assume otherwise, it'd be unlikely for me to jump to that conclusion.
But if you and the neighbor had been discussing a newspaper article on a child pornography ring, when he suddenly interjected a comment on how lovely Sophie looks today, You'd be far more likely to think he was a creepy pedophile or that a minimum he had a warped sense of humor and bad sense of timing.
I've known Tom and rivka long enough that I should have given them the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps that is why I was so upset when they seemed to be dog-piling on me.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)