1 « 8 9  11 12 » 40
Victor, may we ask, what it's flooded with? Thank you.
Hah i just get an email notification everytime someone replies to this topic because i created it : P

No biggie tho haha , i know i can disable it, i was just saying !
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
This is crazy! Rinoceronte, the problem here is that you definitely know a lot of stuff about language, and you know so much that you sound like a serious linguist when you explain or discuss grammar, but... at the same time, it also seems you don't even know the most basic principles of linguistics! For that reason, you are like "pseudoscientists": they know an awful lot of things, but they end up saying nonsense because they totally ignore some vital basic facts in their theories.

Grammar is like atoms, molecules, gravity, planets, etc. It doesn't matter whether you know if such things exist or not, because they just exist anyway. It doesn't matter whether you study how such things work or not, because they just work anyway. It doesn't matter whether you like such things or not, because that's the way they are anyway.
No one invented grammar in natural languages. It's just something that exists in every language, has always existed, and will always exist. The only thing you can do with grammar is trying to study or describe it, if you are interested. Native speakers don't need to study anything about grammar to be able to speak idiomatically, because they acquire it unconsciously when they're kids. Of course every language has its own grammar (so different languages have different grammars), and grammar is not something fixed, because it can change and evolve.

Saying that English grammar should be different is as useless as saying that water should have only one atom of hydrogen instead of two. I know English is a crazy language that often doesn't seem to make sense, but no one decided it had to be so, no one invented its rules, no one can easily predict how its grammar is going to evolve, and no one can easily change it on purpose.
Kooyeen, you have confused everything. It's vice versa: I know little, but end up saying truth.

You are not right saying that no one invented grammars. In particular, the notorious Present Perfect tense was simply borrowed from Latin. In the most crooked manner. The even more notorious "stative verbs rule" was banally invented in even more crooked manner. And so on.
rinoceronteYou are not right saying that no one invented grammars. In particular, the notorious Present Perfect tense was simply borrowed from Latin. In the most crooked manner. The even more notorious "stative verbs rule" was banally invented in even more crooked manner. And so on.
You must be confusing the grammar of a language with its description or prescription.
Take a grammar book, for example, any grammar book. Well, if it's a descriptive grammar book, that book represents a partial description of the grammar of a language. If it's a prescriptive grammar book, that book represents a corrupt and biased partial description of a language. But the whole grammar of a language is much more complex than any grammar book or any set of grammar rules!
No one invented atoms -- they were just discovered, and described in various ways. The same is true of the grammar of a language: no one invented it -- it was just discovered, analyzed, and described in various ways.
So when you have a grammar book, or a set of grammar rules, don't think that's "the grammar": it's just a partial description, or a partial analysis, or a partial explicit representation of the true grammar. The true grammar of a language is actually a rather abstract thing, and it's extremely complex, because it represents all the information related to language usage that native speakers learn unconsciously.
There are good grammar books and bad grammar books, but in any case they aren't going to change the true grammar of a language, just like a good or bad description of the atomic structure isn't going to change the atoms.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
KooyeenYou must be confusing the grammar of a language with its description or prescription.Take a grammar book, for example, any grammar book. Well, if it's a descriptive grammar book, that book represents a partial description of the grammar of a language. If it's a prescriptive grammar book, that book represents a corrupt and biased partial description of a language. But the whole grammar of a language is much more complex than any grammar book or any set of grammar rules!No one invented atoms -- they were just discovered, and described in various ways. The same is true of the grammar of a language: no one invented it -- it was just discovered, analyzed, and described in various ways. So when you have a grammar book, or a set of grammar rules, don't think that's "the grammar": it's just a partial description, or a partial analysis, or a partial explicit representation of the true grammar. The true grammar of a language is actually a rather abstract thing, and it's extremely complex, because it represents all the information related to language usage that native speakers learn unconsciously. There are good grammar books and bad grammar books, but in any case they aren't going to change the true grammar of a language, just like a good or bad description of the atomic structure isn't going to change the atoms.
Look, I see your point. In my native grammars (and in many other grammars throughout the world) descriptive and prescriptive grammar books are the same thing. No difference. Unlike in English grammar. First I started to raise my brow at English grammar issues when I noticed that there were virtually no theoretical English grammar books on the shelves in the bookshop. Only "Practical Grammar", "Usage of Grammar", etc. Now I know the reason - English grammar theory and English grammar usage are in the state of war. I'm not interested in practical usage - there are as many "practical usages" as regional dialects, social layers, or just drunk companies. I'm interested in excavating the grammatical basement of English grammar.
Sorry, the last sentence should read "theoretical basement" instead of "grammatical basement".
rinoceronteI started to raise my brow at English grammar issues when I noticed that there were virtually no theoretical English grammar books on the shelves in the bookshop.
What do you mean by "theoretical English grammar"? I hope you don't mean "grammar that isn't based on actual usage", because that would be wrong and useless.
rinoceronteI'm interested in excavating the grammatical basement of English grammar.
...and I have no idea what that basement is supposed to mean. What exactly do you want to find out?
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
KooyeenWhat do you mean by "theoretical English grammar"? I hope you don't mean "grammar that isn't based on actual usage", because that would be wrong and useless.
By theoretical grammar I mean logical grounds for the terms and definitions to have emerged in English language. Also the history of their evolution.
Kooyeen...and I have no idea what that basement is supposed to mean. What exactly do you want to find out?
Actually, I have already found. Present Perfect is not present; Perfect Pogressive is not perfect; Continuous tenses are not continuous; the rule that forbids stative verbs to be used in progressive tenses is nonsense; Past Participle is not past. And more stuff.
Basement? Imagine a tangled fishing net. That's the English grammar in its today's state. I'm trying to untangle it. Why? Why do people untangle fishing nets?
Show more