Comments on: Debunking Grammar Myths

By: RoghaAnLae

RoghaAnLae — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:54:36 +0000

It is so fantastically refreshing to see someone supporting sense and giving a rigid up middle finger to prescriptivism!

By: Bakedpotatoes

Bakedpotatoes — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 02:57:10 +0000

How did I miss this one? I love it. :)

By: Dreadjaws

Dreadjaws — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:29:50 +0000

Thank you for this. I’m latin american, and I’ve learned English purely from reading/hearing it on TV, movies, games and internet, and some of these “rules” always seemed arbitrary to me.

I’ve always avoided using “whose” to refer to anything but people, even though I didn’t want to, but now I know I don’t have to! Thanks again!

By: Jean L C

Jean L C — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 18:25:34 +0000

My college English prof taught that THERE can be a subject of a sentence,as in “There is a reason for his action.”
If so, then THERE must be a noun or pronoun. Having had two great grammar teachers in school, I could not believe his statement. However, though I never accepted that as fact, I never questioned his logic. I wanted to pass the course! His reasoning was that a predicate nominative can be used as a subject of a sentence and the word/words following the linking verb would then become the predicate nominative, as in “A reason for his action is there.” i always had thought that, used as an introductory word in a sentence, THERE was just a useless
expletive. Which one of the eight parts of speech is an EXPLETIVE?

By: Noelle

Noelle — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:56:31 +0000

Yes! “Rules” like these drive me crazy. I minored in linguistics in college, and took several courses on historical linguistics, specifically on the history of English, and I can tell you, linguists know more about the true grammar of English than any English teacher, simply because they know the history of it, and they know how people use it.
The simple truth of the matter is: no one has to be taught “grammar”. That’s a myth. By the time we reach kindergarten, we know nearly all there is to know about speaking our native language properly. Now, what people may have to be taught are proper writing conventions, since we obviously don’t write exactly how we speak. But conflating writing conventions with the grammar of the language as a whole is a serious misstep which only confuses people, and leads them to say things like “Mary went to the store with Billy and I” and “None of the cats is sleeping.”
One thing that bothers me: double negatives do not make a positive in any language, including English (be honest: if you were to hear someone say, “I don’t have no change,” you know what they mean.) In fact, many languages use double negatives (the Romance languages, for example), simply because it makes more logical sense for negation to carry through into the entire sentence. Even English had these forms in the standard written form, up until fairly recently (I can’t give an exact time frame, but I do know that Chaucer and other Middle English writers used them). Trying to equate sentences with math equations is pretty silly — but I suppose this rule is too far gone in English (I certainly never use double negatives… as far as I know).

By: Olivia

Olivia — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 04:46:01 +0000

I’d like to point something out from Myth #2. A Romance language is a language that is derived from Latin, not a Latinate language.

By: Slimsquishy

Slimsquishy — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 03:39:58 +0000

Do try to remember that language, as a human creation, is arbitrary. Language is not a mathematical absolute, but a living, changing method of communication. As such, any “rule” of grammar is essentially just someone’s opinion that has been accepted as a standard. Our language has evolved and will continue to do so based on its usage, and some of these rules will eventually change. Those who get uptight about grammar rules and insist that we continue to do things the same way simply because this is how it has always been are the same people who think Romeo and Juliet is a sweet love story.

By: Macho Business Donkey Wrestler

Macho Business Donkey Wrestler — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 00:39:22 +0000

Grammar has always seemed more of a guide than an unbreakable set of rules. Style counts for a lot too. If I have to choose between making a sentence look good or making it sound good I’d rather have it flow.

By: Dazee

Dazee — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 02:39:33 +0000

All I know is, I’m saving this link and referring back to it when someone goes on a grammar nazi tangent. I understand correction to some things, but I’m rather tired of being on some websites and one person has to nit-pick the grammar.. as if that discredits the article.. and then, of course, people have to nit-pick the grammar in the nit-pickers post.

By: Eeden

Eeden — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 21:54:25 +0000

I think it’s best to know some of the “rules” before you can properly break them. Many of the rules, particularly about prepositions, conjunctions, etc. are just silly conventions. As long as it’s very clear what you mean, it should be okay.

I’m sure you’ve all heard of “don’t fail to miss” and “the importance of [something] cannot be understated”.

At this point in time, as it were, I’m going to stop with my bugbear’s; at the end of the day, between you and I, I’m sure that, going forward, less of these rules are going to make a difference.