Discussion in 'Salser@s Anonymous' started by terence, Apr 18, 2013.
That is what may happen ( to me anyway ) if one spends half of ones life living there .
And that's why the result is bad today? Because people listened to song lyrics instead of teachers
I saw a van yesterday with "Mention this ADD and recieve 20% off" written on the back.
We are doomed...
Maybe they are going to send your the front wheels...
I know this is a very old thread. But to be pedantic, what exactly constitutes a British accent Scottish? - Absolutely most terrible English accent in my books. Wales? or the English? - which is what most people call British accent.
To grammar police - I now one shouldn't start sentence with a 'but', but....
Reading this old thread, I think Salsa Bear and DJ Ara would be in a good company with Trump! (they espouse similar beliefs and conspiracy theories).
The "English" have dialects ( like the South ,State's side ).
The worst ?, IMO Birmingham ; most difficult to understand for foreigners ?.. Newcastle .
The 'standard' has morphed into Estuary English (London English developed into the standard during the Middle English period; it has now broadened in hinterland).
Ara now spends most of his life sharing 'Alt right' propaganda online. SB's overwhelming desire to ensure that no one ever agrees with him has inspired him to create his own communist / Nazi hybrid, guaranteed never to appeal to anyone other than him.
And there's nothing wrong with starting a sentence with the word but.
I count a total of 15 errors, combined between punctuation and grammar. I would wonder if Terence was adding those purposefully, as a matter of making a point...
It is perfectly fine to start a sentence with 'but' or 'and'. A lot of the grammar that we learn is out-of-date or contentious. Another example being the SVO structure in English which is actually often not used, especially in spoken English.
What is SVO?
Reminds me of that sentence - you cannot start a sentence with because, because, because is a conjunction.
Not that I follow that theory. I find it very natural to start my sentences with and, but, because, so, etc.
SVO is one of the seven clause structures which can be used in English. A sentence needs a subject and a verb; if it's a transitive verb an object is also needed. Sometimes there is just a direct object, or there can be an indirect then a direct object; an adverbial or a complement can substitute for or be added to the object... SVO is simply the most cited structure, used to represent the idea of how to structure the elements within a clause.
The written and spoken modes are very different (won't go into a lecture here ); as are formal and informal English within each mode. We spend a full semester just teaching formal and informal English in our final year linguistics-based subject.
Nice post. I wasn't actually talking about the seven clauses rather the way that SVO is broken.. There are a number of examples. Just a few:
The Guardian, Jim reads. OSV
Sometimes Jim reads the Guardian. ASVO
He reads The Guardian, Jim. S (pronoun) VOS
I am studying Applied Linguistics right now so looking a bit deeper into all the rules and exceptions.
I use Yoda with my students. Like him, they do
I thought SVO was an acronym for subjject, verb, object.
Every rule in grammar can be broken Though I intuitively know what you explained, if I were to ask to explain what transitive verb, indirect object, etc are, I doubt would be able to explain without looking up an reference or example
For those in USA, how many were formally taught grammar in school? Someone who attended public schools in NYC, took many advance placement courses and graduated out of two best universities in the country, once told me that the grammar was never formally taught. Is that true? Do some schools in USA don't formally teach or require students to take grammar in K through 12?
There is something of a drift back now to teaching grammar in schools. Communicative approach previously lauded focused more on fluency rather than accuracy. Language Awareness movement gaining strength.
No one said rules in grammar can't be broken, just what the standard is in the first place. You need something to work with. What we're discussing here is functional grammar, as opposed to mainstream grammar, and Sunsoul is touching on theories and methods of language learning (CLIL featured heavily when I did my Masters in this some years ago and CLT had been largely discredited; don't know if this has changed...) Grammar is fun! I personally think most mainstream grammar books aren't very good or realistic - they use unnatural, manufactured sentences as examples, designed to fit the 'rules' perfectly and often don't consider what we actually say, e.g. explicitly teaching the future tense as 'I'm going to play hockey on Sunday' whereas in reality we just use present progressive ('I'm playing hockey on Sunday'); I have many similar gripes! I tended to create my own material. There are good texts for functional grammar, though (teaching the sub-systems of morphology, lexicology, syntax, etc.) In our state school curriculum we have a specialist subject which covers functional grammar, the nature and functions of language, the history and future of English, the features of Australian English and so on. We've also introduced a unit into the middle years English curriculum, which the kids are finding interesting.
Oh dear, how did I get started on grammar...! Need to stop before I get too excited
When are you gonna fix English and use fonetik spellung?
Noah Webster tried it in the 1780s; some suggested spellings stuck, e.g. 'jail' for 'gaol', others didn't, e.g. 'tung' for 'tongue'. You can't impose language; it depends on whether people use it or not. The Great English Vowel Shift (people changing how they said particular sounds in a gradual shift between 1400-1700 without the spelling changing to match) also affected phonetic spelling.
Separate names with a comma.