"7 Bogus Grammar 'Errors' You Don't Need To Worry About"

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Got English?

English is not really that hard to speak. It's actually pretty easy given its relative lack of inflection and verb conjugation.

Language difficulty is relative in that a given language may be quite difficult for a native German speaker but rather easy for a native Syriac speaker. In general, nominal and verbal morphology reduce or erase a lot of the "rules" English requires. For example, English relies heavily on word order. Also, the lack of morphological tense, aspect, and mood make it necessary to rely on additional (and more complicated) phrases. In a highly inflected language I can use a word or two to convey some idea which would require quite a bit more in English. The English present tense is about the worst there is, as it is almost never used as such. In general, English requires using quite a bit more words to convey the same thing while imposing a pretty fixed structure in order to make sense.

That's the cost of the English language's loss of the Germanic case system and inflection.

Anglo-Saxon,i.e. Old English was fairly highly inflected.

Not much more than German, and less than Russian. Of the Indo-European languages, the Germanic group tended to rely less on morphology and more on lexical restraints. Even though most kept a case system while the romance languages did not, the lack of verbal morphology made much more of a difference.

 

[Jainarayan]

One in every crowd.

 

[Revoltingest]

Language difficulty is relative in that a given language may be quite difficult for a native German speaker but rather easy for a native Syriac speaker. In general, nominal and verbal morphology reduce or erase a lot of the "rules" English requires. For example, English relies heavily on word order. Also, the lack of morphological tense, aspect, and mood make it necessary to rely on additional (and more complicated) phrases. In a highly inflected language I can use a word or two to convey some idea which would require quite a bit more in English. The English present tense is about the worst there is, as it is almost never used as such. In general, English requires using quite a bit more words to convey the same thing while imposing a pretty fixed structure in order to make sense.
That's the cost of the English language's loss of the Germanic case system and inflection.
Not much more than German, and less than Russian. Of the Indo-European languages, the Germanic group tended to rely less on morphology and more on lexical restraints. Even though most kept a case system while the romance languages did not, the lack of verbal morphology made much more of a difference.

I've long looked at operator's manuals for tools to compare directions in English & the lesser languages (eg, French, Spanish).
Other than those using ideographs, English directions are typically shorter than all others.

 

[Father Heathen]

I ain't never cared less, irregardless.

 

[Jainarayan]

Language difficulty is relative in that a given language may be quite difficult for a native German speaker but rather easy for a native Syriac speaker. In general, nominal and verbal morphology reduce or erase a lot of the "rules" English requires. For example, English relies heavily on word order. Also, the lack of morphological tense, aspect, and mood make it necessary to rely on additional (and more complicated) phrases. In a highly inflected language I can use a word or two to convey some idea which would require quite a bit more in English. The English present tense is about the worst there is, as it is almost never used as such. In general, English requires using quite a bit more words to convey the same thing while imposing a pretty fixed structure in order to make sense.

That's the cost of the English language's loss of the Germanic case system and inflection.

True, there are trade-offs. English's loss of inflected verb tenses gave rise to periphrastic constructions, which btw, Greek is moving towards, losing its inflections. Russian is losing some also. English periphrastic constructions can be a nightmare, I grant: "I would have liked to have gone"; "I would like to have gone"; "I would have liked to go". All of them are intelligible, but a bit overdone. Italian can do the same thing using conditional progressives, which are so complicated I can't even translate them off the top of my head. I'd probably get laughed at by native Italian speakers. I'd just say "Avrebbe [it would have] mi piaciuto [pleased me] andare [to go].

My partner consistently uses the pluperfect instead of the simple past, which drives me nuts: "I had wanted to go to the mall today" v. I wanted to go to the mall today". The pluperfect indicates an action previous to another action. It's not improper, because some unknown thing took place precluding him from going to the mall. It just sounds overdone also. But consider that Spanish was his first language before he went to school. Compound tenses are used more frequently in Italian and Spanish, iirc.

Not much more than German, and less than Russian. Of the Indo-European languages, the Germanic group tended to rely less on morphology and more on lexical restraints. Even though most kept a case system while the romance languages did not, the lack of verbal morphology made much more of a difference.

There's a theory afoot that Germanic is not even Indo-European because it has some features that are un-Indo-European. One linguist, Joseph F. Foster, Ph.D. (I don't know if he passed away, he doesn't participate in the Linguist List panel anymore) used to say that if Germanic is IE, they spoke it with one hell of an accent.

 

[Willamena]

The Plain Language initiative of the 90's is pretty much dead. In my workplace, it was introduced in regards to communications, internal and with the public, and drafting of policies, forms and contracts.

We have since moved to using e-mail for communications, which pretty much killed any semblance of the formally structured memo, and forms and contracts have noticably become cumbersome again in their wording.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

5. Don't use the passive voice

Passive voice depends. Essays and anything formal it may be unavoidable, even appear very abnormal and unnatural to not use passive, but in creative writing it can appear to be rather uncreative.

English? Do you get it, or does it get you?

Once I started learning German and Japanese I came to realize that I actually don't get English that well at all. I know how it's supposed to look and that's about it.

 

[Jainarayan]

The most egregious use of the passive voice I can think of is when a co-worker was talking to me and said "what's not understood... " when he meant to say to me directly "what you don't understand... " I think he was being deferential to me, but it was like fingernails on a blackboard nevertheless.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

True, there are trade-offs. English's loss of inflected verb tenses gave rise to periphrastic constructions, which btw, Greek is moving towards, losing its inflections.

Greek started losing its inflections about 2,500 years ago (starting, perhaps, with the dual). By the time we get to koine/hellenistic Greek, although we don't see much of an increase in variation and types of periphrastic constructions, grammatical changes (e.g., the steady disappearence of the optative) increased the use. Greek is among the more fascinating languages when it comes to linguistic change (grammaticalization, grammatical vs. lexical semantic content, etc.). There's an intereseting book The Future in Greek: From Ancient to Medieval which is devoted to periphrasis in future constructions beginning in the 5th century.

Russian is losing some also.

I wouldn't know, alas. I have studied it (but it is on my to-do list!).

English periphrastic constructions can be a nightmare, I grant: "I would have liked to have gone"; "I would like to have gone"; "I would have liked to go". All of them are intelligible, but a bit overdone.

It's true that many common non-"bogus" grammatical errors (i.e., those that, unlike the OPs examples, really are "errors") stem from the reliance on phrasal or lexical constructions where another language may use affixation, morphology, or both. On the other hand, English verbal periphrasis makes it much easier to convey certain nuances. In English (thanks to grammaticalization and in part lexical bleaching), periphrastic present constructions include "I do study", "I study", & "I am studying" as basic present "tenses" (emphatic, simple, and progressive). And that's just the present. For the future, not only do we have "will study" but also the "immediate future" as in French: "I'm going to study". And then there are the perfect periphrastics use refer to.

So it can make for quite a mess, but on the other hand, take a look at areference Grammar for classical greek, sanskrit, or latin. In the section on verbal morphology, you'll find pages and pages of how a single verb can appear in hundreds of different ways, and yet cannot convey the nuances English can through its periphrastic Tense-Aspect-Mood system.

My partner consistently uses the pluperfect instead of the simple past, which drives me nuts: "I had wanted to go to the mall today" v. I wanted to go to the mall today". The pluperfect indicates an action previous to another action. It's not improper, because some unknown thing took place precluding him from going to the mall.

"I had wanted/intended/meant/etc. to do X" isn't actually a pluperfect but a counterfactual conditional.

There's a theory afoot that Germanic is not even Indo-European because it has some features that are un-Indo-European.

Could you provide a reference? Because whomever informed you (whether in person or through a book or whatever) is making a fantastically unbelievable claim. Comparative linguistics and the creation of Indo-European linguistics began in Germany with guys like Grimm, Bopp, Brugmann, Delbrück, Schleicher, etc. It's been over a century since Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen volumes were published. And since then, we've increased our knowledge of IE through the discovery and/or translation of Linear B, Tocharian, Hittite, etc. Ringe's book From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic (Oxford University Press, 2006) is devoted entirely to the shifts in IE which gave rise to proto-Germanic.

So I would love to know who is saying that Germanic languages are not IE languages and why they think so.

One linguist, Joseph F. Foster, Ph.D. (I don't know if he passed away, he doesn't participate in the Linguist List panel anymore) used to say that if Germanic is IE, they spoke it with one hell of an accent.

I don't follow. Every IE language group is defined in a major why by the sound changes in that group which differentiate it from others. That's actually a major method for reconstrcuting PIE: tracking the sound changes unique to language families and those which cut across them.

 

[Jainarayan]

Could you provide a reference? Because whomever informed you (whether in person or through a book or whatever) is making a fantastically unbelievable claim. Comparative linguistics and the creation of Indo-European linguistics began in Germany with guys like Grimm, Bopp, Brugmann, Delbrück, Schleicher, etc. It's been over a century since Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen volumes were published. And since then, we've increased our knowledge of IE through the discovery and/or translation of Linear B, Tocharian, Hittite, etc. Ringe's book From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic (Oxford University Press, 2006) is devoted entirely to the shifts in IE which gave rise to proto-Germanic.

So I would love to know who is saying that Germanic languages are not IE languages and why they think so.



I don't follow. Every IE language group is defined in a major why by the sound changes in that group which differentiate it from others. That's actually a major method for reconstrcuting PIE: tracking the sound changes unique to language families and those which cut across them.

That unfortunately generates the "I don't remember where I read it but it sticks in my mind" cop-out answer. I'm pretty sure it was on the Linguist List Ask-A-Linguist panel. If I can find it in their archives I'll post it, but it was a number of years ago.

Not to say that it's a mainstream belief by any stretch. I have to believe Dr. Foster was saying it mockingly, he has (had?) a very dry sense of humor. He'd actually come off snotty, but he wasn't. He was quite mainstream and conservative.

I don't think Germanic is not IE, I think it is. There are regular sound changes in it and cognate words with other IE languages. Which leads me to the Indo-Iranian and Old Persian/Sanskrit divergence. Someone tried to punk me by... well let me back up a bit. I was explaining the s to h sound shift... Sindhu-Hindu, sapta-hapta, Saraswati-Hairovati, asura-ahura, etc. The person who tried to punk me said "well then why isn't the name of the country Perhia?" I said "because, you tool, Persia is a Greek word". That stopped him dead.

 

[Jainarayan]

I found something. This isn't what I read, but it describes it in more detail. Germanic substrate hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[TommyDar]

As to #6, when I wrote scientific papers at University, we almost always were required to use the so-called "passive voice" rather than the active voice. Later on, when I submitted to journals, I often found myself using active voice more often, except for when I was explaining my methods.

 

[Revoltingest]

As to #6, when I wrote scientific papers at University, we almost always were required to use the so-called "passive voice" rather than the active voice. Later on, when I submitted to journals, I often found myself using active voice more often, except for when I was explaining my methods.

I can technical writing as a useful special application for passive voice, since it shouldn't be about the writer.

 

[TommyDar]

I can technical writing as a useful special application for passive voice, since it shouldn't be about the writer.

Actually even for scientific writing, people are using active voice more commonly. The Passive voice is considered to be a bit old-fashioned. When I wrote assignments in University, we used passive. But in Graduate school, I was told not to. Nowadays, some journals will even recommend to you that you use active voice because it is more clear and uses fewer words. It mainly depends on context.

For example if you describe your device you can say "The output frequency was controlled by..." but when you describe the background of your research you should use active voice, for example "Previously, it was proven by X, Y and Z, that..." instead you should say "Previously, X, Y, and Z, proved that...".

 

[DawudTalut]

For those who may worry about such things. . . or just find it an interesting subject.

"National Grammar Day. Here are seven rules you really (really!) don't have to worry about following.
​

1. Don't split infinitives

2. Don't end a sentence with a preposition

3. Don't use "which" as a relative pronoun

4. Don't start a sentence with a conjunction

5. Don't use the passive voice

6. Don't neglect to use singular verbs

7. Don't use words to mean what they've been widely used to mean for 50 years or more
​

There's too much to be explained here, so for anyone interested, HERE is the Source and the explanation of each.

Peace be on you. Kindly furnish with examples, if possible. Thanks.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I found something. This isn't what I read, but it describes it in more detail. Germanic substrate hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah. Indo-European linguistics more or less began linguistics. It started about 2 centuries ago, and by the beginning of the 20th century, it was so advanced that works from that time are still cited. However, even the very limited sources cited on that link are mostly by authors who would completely disagee. Beekes, for example, I've not only read, but corresponded with. This is apparently one of those hypothesis advanced by one or two scholars which was found to be completely flawed yet generated interest in certain non-academic circles.

 

[Skwim]

Peace be on you. Kindly furnish with examples, if possible. Thanks.

They can be found in the link I provided, just click on the "HERE."

"There's too much to be explained here, so for anyone interested, HERE is the Source and the explanation of each."​