Re: Grammarians: do we need a new group?

I admit to being something of a grammar snob (hey I was an English major after all :-). However, there's grammar and then there's grammar. I suspect most of the "problems with grammar" come from non-native speakers of the language which makes sense. English is one of the hardest languages to learn because the rules for grammar and spelling are chaotic (mix of Germanic and Romantic language loan-words with Latin grammar hammered down on top of it plus a whole mess of other seemingly arbitrary rules and conventions). The doesn't even get into slang and other such constructs.

It might be helpful for non-native speakers to improve their grasp of the language, I don't think this is the forum for such things. This is PerlMonks after all, not LanguageMonks :-)

Just my 2 quid and remember, English is one of the only languages where you can go phishing for ghoti with a fishing pole :-)

update: fixed spelling error s/grammer/grammar/. Thanks for pointing this out Fletch

update 2: even native speakers have problems with the "rules". How many grammatical mistakes can be found in this post (sentence splice has already been found - thanks theguvnor).

Comment on Re: Grammarians: do we need a new group?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Grammarians: do we need a new group? by almut (Canon) on Jan 09, 2007 at 14:19 UTC
The doesn't even get into slang and other such constructs. While we're at it... Can the determinate article "the" act as a subject, as in the sentence above? Shouldn't this rather be a demonstrative pronoun like "that" or "this"? :) (I'm not a native speaker of English, but this seems wrong grammatically...) Anyway, as these example nitpickings show, I don't think this proposal is a good idea... (or should it be "I do think this proposal is not a good idea"...? ;) (Almut goes back to her cave...)	[reply]
Re^3: Grammarians: do we need a new group? by syphilis (Archbishop) on Jan 09, 2007 at 15:01 UTC
(I'm not a native speaker of English, but this seems wrong grammatically...) It's certainly wrong ... but whether it was a grammatical error or a typographical error could well be a moot point :-) I don't think this proposal is a good idea... (or should it be "I do think this proposal is not a good idea"...? ;) Heh ... nice point. In terms of "usage" there's no (or little) difference. But in terms of "logic" your question confuses the crap out of me. Cheers, Rob	[reply]
Re^2: Grammarians: do we need a new group? by Fletch (Bishop) on Jan 09, 2007 at 13:40 UTC
Actually there's "grammer", which is a misspelling, and "grammar", which is the correct word. :) (And no, I'm not volunteering. Again, low hanging fruit. Fish, barrel, gun. :)	[reply]
Re^3: Grammarians: do we need a new group? by nimdokk (Vicar) on Jan 09, 2007 at 13:49 UTC
Never said I could spell :-) get too soft using spellcheck and auto-correct features.	[reply]
Re^2: Grammarians: do we need a new group? by theguvnor (Chaplain) on Jan 09, 2007 at 13:54 UTC
Physician, heal thyself: there's a sentence splice in your second paragraph. ;-) [Jon]	[reply]


go ahead... be a heretic
	PerlMonks