posted
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?
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, it makes sense however "As" is acting as a subordinate conjunction not a coordinate conjunction and there should not be a comma.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Now, in Czech - "n Trn, vrbs wst". (Comma left outside because I use British punctuation, as a general rule.)
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm in the "Lois's dog" camp on this one. "Lois' dog" just sounds like you forgot the possessive.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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".
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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 ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
