# Why can't/cannot



## Artrella

I was reading this thread http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=23947&page=1&pp=10, where some people stated that we cannot say "Why cannot I change the title...etc".
My question, why can't I say "why cannot"?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Becky85

It's just not a phrase that's recognised in English. It doesn't appear to break any grammatical rules, but we never use it, neither in speech nor in writing. Perhaps a linguist could give a definite explanation for it, but as a native English speaker, it's just something you can't say.


----------



## Artrella

Becky85 said:
			
		

> It's just not a phrase that's recognised in English. It doesn't appear to break any grammatical rules, but we never use it, neither in speech nor in writing. Perhaps a linguist could give a definite explanation for it, but as a native English speaker, it's just something you can't say.





Thx Becky, you know? I was taught at school that in formal writing you must use "cannot" because you can't use contractions.  And that in speech you must use "can't".  But they didn't say that in writing you cannot use "cannot".
Maybe it's just usage?  Thx again, I will try to see if any of my grammar books says sth in that respect.


----------



## Helicopta

Hi Artrella,
I responded to this in the other thread but it's more relevant here in the English only forum. I'm much too lazy to write it all again so...

http://forum.wordreference.com/showpost.php?p=176403&postcount=8

To which Becky replied...
http://forum.wordreference.com/showpost.php?p=176406&postcount=9

And to which i responded... 
http://forum.wordreference.com/showpost.php?p=176427&postcount=12

Forgive my laziness


----------



## Becky85

As a general rule I think it's correct to say that '*cannot*' is more formal than '*can't'*.

However, perhaps as a result of the way that the English language has evolved, in the specific context where you are asking a question '*Why can't/cannot I do something*', we just say '*Why can't I do something*'. 

As Helicopta suggested, you can also say '*Why can I not'*, but this is something that I think is restricted to speech and would be inappropriate in a written context. 

With something like this, it tends to depend on exactly what you want to say, and I suppose it's just something that as a native speaker you know when to use *can't *and when to use *cannot*, as I'm sure that in every language there are certain words that only a native speaker would be completely comfortable in using correctly in each individual context!


----------



## Helicopta

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one Becky, I really can't see anything wrong with it in written English. As I said, it's not very common but it is used.
I put "why can I not" into google and it gave me 67,800 examples compared to 914,000 for "why can't I".

Interestingly though "why cannot I" gave me 11,600 results although I still maintain that that is incorrect.


----------



## Becky85

OK fair enough, guess we'll have to agree to disagree! All would be understood in English, I don't dispute that. There are only minor differences between them. But I don't think 'why can I not' is as correct as 'why can't I'. 

Others feel free to join in this debate so it's not just helicopta and I debating!

I do respect what you're saying, by the way, perhaps it's just our individual preferences.


----------



## Helicopta

As long as we're all friends! 

Just to add something else into the mixer, this doesn't just apply to the first person...

"Why cannot he/she/they/it/you" should all be changed in the same way.

Or 'can'; the same goes for...

"Why should/would/could/did/do/have not I/he/she/they/it/you"

Pick any two at random... 

"Why would not they" has to be "Why wouldn't they" or "Why would they not"


----------



## Artrella

To my non-English ears the "Why can I not" sounds really strange.

There must be an explanation to why I can't use "why I cannot".  There must be somenthing else apart from native speakers usage.

What you said about writing "not" to give emphasis, that is ok for me.

Thx Becky and the lazy Rescue Helicopta!! (hey, if you are a rescue helicopta, don't you think you must *not* be lazy??)


----------



## Helicopta

Helicopta said:
			
		

> Interestingly though "why cannot I" gave me 11,600 results although I still maintain that that is incorrect.


 
Just as a footnote, I went back and had a look at a few of these posts and most of them seem to have been posted by non-native English speakers which I think confirms that it's incorrect and also that it's quite a common and easily made mistake. However, I also found this...

_"Peter said unto Him, Lord, why cannot I follow Thee now?"_ John 13:37

The plot thickens...


----------



## modgirl

Becky85 said:
			
		

> It's just not a phrase that's recognised in English. It doesn't appear to break any grammatical rules, but we never use it, neither in speech nor in writing. Perhaps a linguist could give a definite explanation for it, but as a native English speaker, it's just something you can't say.



I'll agree that it isn't commonly used, but I disagree that one cannot use it at all!  People have used and do use it.  To say it isn't recognized in English simply isn't true.


----------



## modgirl

Artrella said:
			
		

> To my non-English ears the "Why can I not" sounds really strange.



I'd probably argue that "why can't I" is more commonly used, but "why can I not" is something that I have heard from others and use myself.




> There must be an explanation to why I can't use "why I cannot".



You can use it.  It simply isn't common usage.


----------



## Becky85

modgirl said:
			
		

> I'll agree that it isn't commonly used, but I disagree that one cannot use it at all!  People have used and do use it.  To say it isn't recognized in English simply isn't true.



Yes you're right. I'm wrong in saying that it isn't recognised. Perhaps I should have said it isn't *commonly* recognised or used. 

Maybe Helicopta's finding suggests that it comes from older English so using '*can't*' in this context is just a modern development. 

I too use '*can I not*'! Does that make it the opposite of 'I practice what I preach'?!


----------



## Helicopta

Artrella said:
			
		

> There must be an explanation to why I can't use "why I cannot".



Hi Art,
Just to confuse you a bit more…

The answer is: You _can_ use “why *I* *cannot*” but you _can’t_ use “why *cannot I*”!!!

For instance “I don’t know why* I cannot* get a decent answer here!” 


For an explanation of why you can’t use “why *cannot I*”… I’m afraid you’re going to have to wait until the experts arrive in their huge cargo planes full of knowledge, books and emergency language blankets. This little helicopta is only equipped for linguistic first aid and carries only enough fuel to go a small distance and I’m afraid it’s at the limits of its range.


----------



## lsp

Why can I not... is acceptable but has limited use. It's situational, and hard to explain. It's a mood or a degree that makes it a better choice, not a grammar rule. Why can I not understand this? is very emphatic, and suggests more frustration after more effort than Why can't I understand this.


----------



## ojyram

As a native speaker I would always say "Why can't I do it?" or "Why shouldn't I do it?"

The other forms are incorrect at worst and highly stilted at least.  

In formal writing many teachers prohibit contractions.  So, in that case, you would have to substitute a different question such as "Why am I prohibitted from doing this?" or "Why is this improper?"


----------



## suzzzenn

Hi art, 

There is a rule in English that says in questions, when a negative appears before the subject it needs to be in the contracted form. This is true of yes/no questions, tag questions, and wh- questions. Otherwise, not needs to follow the subject. 

 She went to the party, didn't she?
 She went to the party, did not she?

 Should not I go?
 Shouldn't I go?

 Why do not I go? 
 Why don't I go?

If you believe in transformational grammar, the reason for this has to do with the order in which we apply mapping rules for not placement, inversion, and contractions. 

Take care!
Susan


----------



## leenico

> Hi art,
> 
> There is a rule in English that says in questions, when a negative appears before the subject it needs to be in the contracted form. This is true of yes/no questions, tag questions, and wh- questions. Otherwise, not needs to follow the subject.
> 
> She went to the party, didn't she?
> She went to the party, did not she?
> 
> Should not I go?
> Shouldn't I go?
> 
> When do not I go?
> When don't I go
> 
> If you believe in transformational grammar, the reason for this has to do with the order in which we apply mapping rules for not placement, inversion, and contractions.
> 
> Take care!
> Susan


That makes perfect sense suzzzen w/ the three z's.


----------



## te gato

Hey Art..Girlfriend;

There is nothing wrong with *saying *the words...Didn't..shouldn't..don't...can't..
but you are correct..in formal English *writing* you...(shouldn't) should not use these words..the teachers (don't) do not like it...
so my advice..always write the words out in complete form..
didn't...did not
can't..cannot

te gato


----------



## Artrella

suzzzenn said:
			
		

> Hi art,
> 
> *There is a rule in English that says in questions, when a negative appears before the subject it needs to be in the contracted form.* This is true of yes/no questions, tag questions, and wh- questions. Otherwise, not needs to follow the subject.
> 
> She went to the party, didn't she?
> She went to the party, did not she?
> 
> Should not I go?
> Shouldn't I go?
> 
> Why do not I go?
> Why don't I go?
> *
> If you believe in transformational grammar*, the reason for this has to do with the order in which we apply mapping rules for not placement, inversion, and contractions.
> 
> Take care!
> Susan




*Susan*... I DO like your answer... you gave me a rule!!! This is really helpful for me since I have to explain these things to my students.  Some times when we don't know the rules or a more "scientific" answer, we resort to the well-known "usage"... but I want to know.
Can you explain or give me some orientation about "transformational grammar", theories, authors, books... anything I can read?

Thank you very very much!


----------



## Artrella

Helicopta said:
			
		

> Just to confuse you a bit more…
> The answer is: You can use “why I cannot” but you can’t use “why cannot I”!!!
> For instance “I don’t know why I cannot get a decent answer here!”



*Iain*, I like this.  It's crystal clear.

*Modgirl*, you've returned and given my breath back to me(?)... I thought I have been mistaken all my life!  I agree with you English-speakers, well I have to, if you say you don't use it commonly, I have to take what you say and learn it from you.  So your contributions help me a lot when I have to explain this kind of questions.

I want to say *thx to all the people * who have helped me to understand why can I not say _why cannot I_


----------



## suzzzenn

Hi Art, 

I am reading a great book for my class right now. I goes into transformational grammar only to the extent that an English teacher would need it. I highly recommend it! It is : The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher's course. Second edition. By Marianne Celce_Murcia and Diane Larsen-Freeman. There is a good and many pages long description of negative questions, basic transformations, and rule appliclation.

Hope it was OK to post the name of the book!
Susan


----------



## Artrella

suzzzenn said:
			
		

> Hi Art,
> 
> I am reading a great book for my class right now. I goes into transformational grammar only to the extent that an English teacher would need it. I highly recommend it! It is : The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher's course. Second edition. By Marianne Celce_Murcia and Diane Larsen-Freeman. There is a good and many pages long description of negative questions, basic transformations, and rule appliclation.
> 
> Hope it was OK to post the name of the book!
> Susan




Thank you Susan, I will copy the name now. I hope I can buy it here in Argentina, or at least find it in the Profesorado Library.


----------



## lainyn

May I just add my two cents?

If you wish to be more formal, and still retain the same verb, you must change the order of the tag question:

She went to the store, didn't she?  (spoken)
She went to the store, did she not?  (formal, written)
She went to the store, did not she?  

We're studying the placement of the negative in English syntax right now, otherwise I'd be able to explain what I just wrote! I just wanted to make sure that Artrella and others knew that you can always eliminate the contraction, but you need to be careful in how you go about it!


----------



## Artrella

lainyn said:
			
		

> May I just add my two cents?
> 
> If you wish to be more formal, and still retain the same verb, you must change the order of the tag question:
> 
> She went to the store, didn't she?  (spoken)
> She went to the store, did she not?  (formal, written)
> She went to the store, did not she?
> 
> We're studying the placement of the negative in English syntax right now, otherwise I'd be able to explain what I just wrote! I just wanted to make sure that Artrella and others knew that you can always eliminate the contraction, but you need to be careful in how you go about it!




It is the first time I've seen this "She went to the store, *did she not*?"
Although it's formal I'd like to use it.  Spanish sounds more formal than English, maybe we are kind of ceremonius in our speech and writing, that's why I tend to use the formal forms (?) of everything! Then Teacher corrects me and say "You're too far fetched!"


----------



## lainyn

It doesn't even always have to be formal per se...it can also be very emphatic. 

"You lied to me, DID YOU NOT?" screeched the upset wife. 

"Yes mmmhmm," replied her now meek husband.


----------



## supercrom

Hi!
One more question about it!

Can I say "can not"?
E.g. I can not do it.

I mean separate words.

Thanks

*CROM*


----------



## jacinta

cromteaches said:
			
		

> Hi!
> One more question about it!
> 
> Can I say "can not"?
> E.g. I can not do it.
> 
> I mean separate words.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> *CROM*




Hi, crom;

No.  *Cannot* is the negative form of *can*.  It is never written as two words.


----------



## supercrom

Positive: do, does, did, should, would, can
Negative (contractions): don't, doesn't, didn't, shouldn't, wouldn't, can't
Negative (no contractions): do not, does not, did not, should not, would not, can not

You see, why not "can not"?

*CROM*


----------



## Thomas1

jacinta said:
			
		

> Hi, crom;
> 
> No. *Cannot* is the negative form of *can*. It is never written as two words.


hi 
jacinta are you sure of it, because i think you could use "can not" - it's not a mistake, i even looked it up in a dictionary and it says it is propper






> can•not
> 
> _Pronunciation: _(kan'ot, ka-not', k_u_-), [key]
> —_v._
> *1. *a form of _•can not._
> _Random House Unabridged Dictionary,_ Copyright © 1997, by Random House, Inc., on Infoplease


 



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cromteaches*
> _Hi!_
> _One more question about it!_
> 
> _Can I say "can not"?_
> _E.g. I can not do it._
> 
> _I mean separate words._
> 
> _Thanks_
> 
> _*CROM*_


 
CROM i think you may say or write _I can not do it. _(even though "cannot" is more common i think)

Regards
Thomas


----------



## suzzzenn

According to the oxford english dictionary both spellings, cannot and can not are OK. See source below: 

http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutspelling/cannot

Looking at the negative question, if you move the negative forward it still must be contracted. The _not_ can be left in place which makes me think that regardless of how it is spelled, it is two words. 

Can't you visit her?

or   

Can you not visit her?

but not 

 Cannot you visit her?


----------



## te gato

Hey Crom LB;

We use the 'can not' way here...I do not write 'cannot'...
But yes..both are correct and both are acceptable..
I guess it just depends on where you are from as to the form you use...

te gato B S


----------



## jacinta

Well, okeedoke.  I guess I'm wrong on that one.  I've never seen it used that way.  American Heritage has it as one word. That was my source.  I stand corrected.


----------



## ojyram

He can't see it.      informal, or spoken
He cannot see it.   informal, formal, or written
He can not see it.  somewhat more emphatic

All acceptable. All almost completely equivalent.  The differences noted above are VERY minor.  You can NOT continue to fret about can't, cannot, can not.


----------



## modgirl

ojyram said:
			
		

> The other forms are incorrect at worst and highly stilted at least.



That may be your opinion, but unfortunately, it is not fact.


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day forum
I speak and write Australian as my only language with only the vaguest smatterings of some Latin based languages.



> Why can I not do a thing!


I and those around me use the phrasing in an accusatory manner. It is not a question. It is a demand. It is forceful and virtually insinuates that permission will be granted.


> Why can't I do a thing?


I use this if I do not really expect to be granted permission. It is more of a plea.

It is not possible to whinge or whine when saying


> Why can I not do a thing.


 
The most forceful emotion able to be generated when saying


> Why can't I do a thing?


would be petulance. 

While being perfectly understandable 


> Why cannot I do a thing?


is a strange combination of a formal word being placed in an informal position.
Perhaps this makes it a shibboleth.
The correct formal and slightly archaic construction of the question would be


> Why can I not do a thing?


 
I hope to have been of assistance

See you later

Robert


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day again

I only say this because it has been pointed out that many of the contributions are from non English speakers and have no desire to be pedantic so please tell me if I am wrong but...
English in it's many forms is becoming a world language.

Many languages are rigidly formal and if any of that formality of structure is lost so is communication but English is different.

There is not a native English speaker on the face of the planet who would not understand





> Why cannot I do a thing?


 so is it fair to say to a non English speaker that they can not say a thing [I did not mean to do that]
that is perfectly understandable.

Is it fair to say to an English speaking person that they can not phrase a statement in any manner that is lucid.

Language is useful only for communication.

Robert


----------



## Becky85

I see what you're saying, but if you're a non-native speaker it'd be helpful to at least learn the correct forms in the beginning, then as you pick up the language and become fluent you can be a little more lax with it. If it was acceptable for non-English speakers to learn a form of English that was understandable, but not strictly speaking correct (perhaps a version of the correct form), then they'd have no basis for it, no initial grounding to base the rest of their learning on. Does that make sense? I think there needs to be structure and the application of language rules at least until the non-native can speak fluent English, by which time they will have a good grounding of formal and 'correct' English, and can then choose to express themselves as they wish!

At least I feel that is the case for me as I struggle to learn all the rules of French!


----------



## Robert Bennie

My point is that English is dissimilar to many other languages in that it possesses a flexibility of grammer and syntax and association that is unavailable in many other languages. German is very rigid and if words were to be slightly rearranged all meaning can be very easily lost.

This thread was started with a request for understanding and an objective viewing of the answers led me to the conclusion that the overall impression that the answers given may have been slightly misleading.

Most responders stated that they would have no difficulty in understanding the phraseing but...that it wasn't 





> proper


 to do so implying that while the phrase was understandable to them it may confuse the great unwashed.

As a proud user of the language of The Bard I feel that if I can understand a phrase and it is accessable to another with no confusion then communication has been achieved.

Our language evolves and takes on speach patterns and rhythms repeatedly and keeps them if they work.

Byron Bay is probably the most multicultural town in Australia flooded with tourists at ALL times. My daughter's school had a German exchange student who explained some of her difficulty in understanding our lingo. She said that initially she experienced vast difficulty due to the flexibility of use and ready substitution of words but that after a very short time this flexibility made her far less nervous as she came to know that she didn't have to find specific words or speach patterns that were unfamiliar to her.

Why cannot I do that sounds like English spoken with a German speach pattern and works for me.

There are a multitude of similar changed speach pattens that were probably criticised at their inception but are now firmly entrenched in our beautiful living evolving beast of a language.

Bight it and chew it. If you can't swallow it spit out. At least you had a go.

Robert


----------



## lsp

Robert Bennie said:
			
		

> Most responders stated that they would have no difficulty in understanding the phraseing but...that it wasn't  "proper" to do so implying that while the phrase was understandable to them it may confuse the great unwashed.


I think you interpreted this incorrectly, Robert. "Not proper" is not the same thing as "impossible to understand." You are right that the most broken english can be comprehended, but people who frequent a language forum are usually going after a goal a level or more beyond making themselves understood while sounding like a tourist or a beginner. That speaks to _my_ reason for being here, I can communicate anything in Italian that I want to say, but I am not satisfied with that. And clearly the posters here are looking for nuances, clarifications of the finest detail, so I guess many are here for reasons similar to mine.


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day forum
For me to look at this symbolically from the principles of effective learning I would have to comment that in such a thing as learning a language it seems unreasonable to expect a beginner to commence at the formal level and once comfortable with the formal level then to explore the informal.

Were I to teach such a subject I would allow my students to aquire a comfortable understanding of the language before I attempted to define syntax or grammar.

Please feel free to correct me on this.  I am basically monolingually an Australian writer and speaker.  My wife aquired the language from a European root at the age of twelve and has told me of the difficulties she faced with the formal approach to language instruction at the time.  She was trying to study English as a subject at an Australian school while she did not understand the language.  She has some fascinating stories but picked Australian up most effectively in the school yard and playing with Aussie kids.

The experience of my wife seems to be supported by the commonly held view that learning a language is most effective if undertaken in the country of the language and can be picked up on the street not in the instruction manual.

If a phrase is clearly understandable I would feel very uncomfortable to tell a person that that phrase can't be used.

I hope I haven't bored you

Robert


----------



## lsp

Robert Bennie said:
			
		

> G'day forum
> For me to look at this symbolically from the principles of effective learning I would have to comment that in such a thing as learning a language it seems unreasonable to expect a beginner to commence at the formal level and once comfortable with the formal level then to explore the informal.
> 
> Were I to teach such a subject I would allow my students to aquire a comfortable understanding of the language before I attempted to define syntax or grammar.
> 
> Please feel free to correct me on this.  I am basically monolingually an Australian writer and speaker.  My wife aquired the language from a European root at the age of twelve and has told me of the difficulties she faced with the formal approach to language instruction at the time.  She was trying to study English as a subject at an Australian school while she did not understand the language.  She has some fascinating stories but picked Australian up most effectively in the school yard and playing with Aussie kids.
> 
> The experience of my wife seems to be supported by the commonly held view that learning a language is most effective if undertaken in the country of the language and can be picked up on the street not in the instruction manual.
> 
> If a phrase is clearly understandable I would feel very uncomfortable to tell a person that that phrase can't be used.
> 
> I hope I haven't bored you
> 
> Robert


I understand what you said about your wife. You can learn a lot "on the street" but no one who learned english just on the street would understand your last post! People who frequent a language forum often (like myself in Italian) have a strong base from street-learning. Now I need to fill in the rules of grammar in order to use the language with the comfort level I have in my native english. I wish to express myself in Italian as I do in English, i.e. with the same freedom I have exactly because of my language command. I can decide then to be casual or formal as the situation requires, be it a job interview or an evening at a pub with friends. Does that make sense? The forum is able to provide what the street cannot (can not? ).


----------



## modgirl

Robert Bennie said:
			
		

> Our language evolves and takes on speach patterns and rhythms repeatedly and keeps them if they work.



I'm very curious about something.  I'm noticed that an awfully lot of British and Australian speakers spell (what Americans spell) *speech* as *speach*.  Is it a misspelling, or is the preferred way for your country?


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day modgirl
The brain made the finger slip but you are correct that I thought you were wrong and had to check so it would appear that either incarnation nestles comfortably in my mind

See you later

Robert


----------



## modgirl

Hi Robert.  I'm afraid your message isn't terribly clear.  You thought I was wrong that *speach* was a misspelling/different spelling?   I'm still uncertain as to the British/Australian spelling of the word.  I've also noticed that you don't seem to use commas at all.  I'll bet your editor just loves you.    (just good-naturedly teasing you...)


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day modgirl
Sorry for my obtuseness.  You were correct that the correct spelling is speech and what I was trying to say is you are also correct that speech and speach are virtually interchangeable in Australia.

Robert


----------



## modgirl

Robert, thank you for the clarification.  I wonder how on earth the spelling of *speach* ever came into existence?  Here, in the US, I am nearly shocked when I see *definitely* spelled correctly.  For some odd reason, it seems to be spelled _defiNATEly_, which  is *definitely* wrong!


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day modgirl

My theory is that the answers to both you stated and implied question are identical.  Letter patterns within written words are in the process of being converted by spoken word rhythms

I confuse the spelling of speech thinking of the spoken word speak.

Would it be correct to infer that your peers are emphatic when they use definitely verbally giving stress to the third syllable and then do the same with their written spelling

See you later

Robert


----------



## mjscott

Robert Bennie from Byron Bay-
G'day, mate!
Have never heard _de-fi-NITE-ly_ giving stress to the third syllable, but, then again, I'm not one for (watch the post-posts pop up from the discerning) spelling things incorrectly!

Don't know what it is that makes a good speller, either. My brain always "makes the fingers go back" and spell things correctly! (Maybe it was piano lessons!)

All three of my children are excellent spellers--and I don't know why. I carpooled with a family whose son was a straight A student, who studied his spelling words from heck to breakfast, and still got a "C" on his spelling test each Friday!

My daughter, when she was, like, 3--before she was reading--pronounced iron as EYE-run. NO ONE in the house pronounced it EYE-run--we all pronounced it 
EYE-ern, even though I knew that it was spelled IRON--which, if no one who had ever seen the word would try and pronounce it, would probably say, EYE-run. She eventually won third place in an international spelling bee in middle school.

I cannot, for the life of me, understand what engenders good spelling in a person. Can not the educated learn to spell, just as the three-year old? I can't see why some people do not spell well. They can see what they are doing, can they not? I can't see why my children, who never studied, can spell the pants around a fat clown--while other children, who, in all other respects get excellent grades, cannot spell! Can someone not enlighten me as to what causes one student to be a good speller, while the other student, as bright and shiny as a new penny, cannot even spell a gymnast on a 3-inch balance beam?


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day mjscott
On a personal level spelling has never interested me.

Language is useful only for communication.

If I write to someone and they choose to not understand what I say because I did not follow any of the vastly contradictory rules of spelling.  My mind is for creation not pots of foolish rules.

See you later

Robert


----------



## mjscott

B. Bennie from Byron Bay-

G'd evenin' 
....But surely interest cannot be the sole factor that makes some spell correctly and others not! Nonchalant disregard and a penchant for still coming up spelling correctly, versus tedious application and consequent mediocre spelling grades makes no sense. As a teacher who is told one year that spelling and vocabulary are integral to developing the second-language learners' literacy, then the next year to throw all spelling out the window--I'd just like some understanding as to why this is the new FITW (fluff in the wind, mildly speaking). Is it researchers who tediously studied their spelling words as children but are still dependent on word-check that are now making the rules?

The appreciation for rules comes from being married for decades to a structural engineer. He has used a pot of foolish rules to create large buildings that have lasted through earthquakes, whereas populations have been decimated in structures for the lack thereof. The not-all-powerful human being will lose hands-down to a truly potent act of God, but I do want what I put down in writing to withstand the normal storms of time. Some of us use rules as a safety barrier and create within--others use rules as a springboard and create without--only grabbing on to the rules and barriers to tie down something that might blow away if the rules were not there. One's creation might be neat and deep--whereas the other's might be wildly creative--causing pressure on the barrier called language and pushing the envelope to build a bigger, more comprehensive fence within which to encase language. I agree, the fence is changing with the tides of the use of language, but I also believe that the creations that you tie down might blow away if the fence was not there to tie it down!
Cheers, mate!


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day mjscott

Your husband's pot is not full of rules but the immutable Laws Of Physics to which I adhere religiously.  Who flout the laws of nature earn a bloody nose.

I have no fear of language or knowledge and am willing to deal with the consequences of both.

I am not comfortable to discuss your beliefs as I do not wish to take them away from you.

If my creations blow away it will be because of the creations and if I have to tie them down or fence them in I don't want them and they deserve to blow away leaving only the chain and the fence.

You seem to be saying that you need rules in your language endeavours but are frustrated when those rules are changed for further rules.  Your use of language and language requirements are totally different to mine.  You need methods to codify and assign ranking on a vast scale operating with language at its most basic instructional level.  Good luck and well done.

My experience of speaking with people experiencing frustration in grasping Australian as an additional language is that the the most commonly expressed barrier to learning is embarrasment.  Once it is pointed out that we dont care about pronunciation and anything other than understanding what the speaker is trying to say a relaxation drops in and comprehension rapidly follows.

Once the learner perceives that they are understandable to their audience their confidence grows and they are then able to absorb finer details.

I don't know who makes and changes your rules and am sorry for you but the language of The Bard is far more robust than passing political interference.

viva le word

Robert

Robert


----------



## Becky85

Robert Bennie said:
			
		

> G'day mjscott
> 
> Your husband's pot is not full of rules but the immutable Laws Of Physics to which I adhere religiously.  Who flout the laws of nature earn a bloody nose.
> 
> I have no fear of language or knowledge and am willing to deal with the consequences of both.
> 
> I am not comfortable to discuss your beliefs as I do not wish to take them away from you.
> 
> If my creations blow away it will be because of the creations and if I have to tie them down or fence them in I don't want them and they deserve to blow away leaving only the chain and the fence.
> 
> You seem to be saying that you need rules in your language endeavours but are frustrated when those rules are changed for further rules.  Your use of language and language requirements are totally different to mine.  You need methods to codify and assign ranking on a vast scale operating with language at its most basic instructional level.  Good luck and well done.
> 
> My experience of speaking with people experiencing frustration in grasping Australian as an additional language is that the the most commonly expressed barrier to learning is embarrasment.  Once it is pointed out that we dont care about pronunciation and anything other than understanding what the speaker is trying to say a relaxation drops in and comprehension rapidly follows.
> 
> Once the learner perceives that they are understandable to their audience their confidence grows and they are then able to absorb finer details.
> 
> I don't know who makes and changes your rules and am sorry for you but the language of The Bard is far more robust than passing political interference.
> 
> viva le word
> 
> Robert
> 
> Robert




Although I think what you've said is well reasoned especially given the ever-changing form of the English language re. grammar and so forth, I maintain that it is more effective in the long-run to learn the rules of the language first and then to treat it as you would treat your first language. This is most important in expressing yourself in writing. 

For speech, I would agree that actually being in the country where the language you're learning is spoken is the quickest way of acquiring it, and if you merely want to be able to speak it and are uninterested in being able to write it or in how its rules work, then definitely I would say just surround yourself with natives. 

Next year I will be going to university in France for a year and I aim to be a much more confident speaker as a result. But in the mean time, it's important to me to be able to understand the rules of the language, and to communicate it in writing in a formal way.

I suppose ultimately it depends on your personal goals where the language is concerned.


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day Becky85

We are no more than what we do

Robert


----------

