# Should we accept in English any kind of talk or stick to rules to speak correctly?



## heidita

I found a question on the _English only_ forum: Should people be free to talk as they like without applying any kind of rules?

The question arose when a forer asked whether to go by foot was correct. Forers did say that this was common, less common than on foot, but common enough, but one should stick to the rule. As in a test, as I and others pointed out, this would certainly be a mistake. Another forer though invited to free speech and that language was alive and _correct_ _English_ was just an old fashioned definition.

http://forum.wordreference.com/showp...2&postcount=15

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=187108

What do you think?
__________________
 Heidi


----------



## fenixpollo

Just because there are different rules in different places or situations, doesn't mean there are no rules. There is so much variety in English that what is "correct" in one region/situation is "incorrect" in another. Therefore, it is not constructive to try to find a line between correct and incorrect, between black and white. That's not the way the world works. Instead, we should talk about what is more appropriate or less appropriate in a given situation/region. 

Cheers.


----------



## french4beth

I think that we _should_ make every effort to be correct, particularly in written English. There are so many different grammar books, and they all have their own opinions – it’s sometimes hard to know what the rule really is! I can remember many times that students wrote into this forum and cited either tests or grammar books in their own country that were blatantly wrong! We foreras & foreros corrected their misconceptions as best we could.

When writing, I try and stick to the rules - the text is easier to read, because people aren't getting stuck on grammatical or structural errors, and everything _flows_ much more smoothly. Plus, we have great resources such as this forum, if we do have questions - I have at least 20 bookmarks just for English grammar alone (and yes, I'm a native speaker) and many, many more for my French translating.

In casual conversation, this obviously isn’t a big deal. I always try to speak clearly and correctly, but that’s just me.

Here’s an interesting article on why some people don’t bother to follow the rules:
http://writingcenter.tamu.edu/content/view/370/17/


----------



## heidita

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Just because there are different rules in different places or situations, doesn't mean there are no rules. There is so much variety in English that what is "correct" in one region/situation is "incorrect" in another. Therefore, it is not constructive to try to find a line between correct and incorrect, between black and white. That's not the way the world works. Instead, we should talk about what is more appropriate or less appropriate in a given situation/region.
> 
> Cheers.


 
I cannot agree with you here. As in the given example if you apply _by foot_ in any test here in Europe, this would be a mistake. I do not know in American English. 

I think we should invite the guys from the Urban Dictionary to this thead, they would certainly agree that ANYTHING is acceptable and appropiate.


----------



## modus.irrealis

heidita said:
			
		

> I cannot agree with you here. As in the given example if you apply _by foot_ in any test here in Europe, this would be a mistake. I do not know in American English.


I don't want to speak for fenixpollo, but I agreed with his post. There are different rules for different contexts and part of being a native speaker is knowing when a rule is applicable and how these rules interact. When taking a grammar test, there are some very strict rules that determine what is acceptable and what is not, but grammar tests form a very miniscule part of language use by natives so their rules should not have any say on what is "correct" in general. I simply don't see why we should choose the rules that have evolved for one group/situation as correct and basically condemn all others by calling them incorrect, especially when this leads to the very odd conclusion that the best English authors, the people who have used language best, made grammatical errors in their writing.



> I think we should invite the guys from the Urban Dictionary to this thead, they would certainly agree that ANYTHING is acceptable and appropiate.


Not anything. It's a myth that slang has no rules; in the end, no matter what you say, you're always constrained by the requirement that you need to communicate to others so you'll be forced to follow the rules that govern that situation. (As for Urban Dictionary, because anyone can post whatever they want, it's possible that you can find everything and anything there).


----------



## Just_Wil

The people are free to talk the way they want, but when we don't apply any kind of rules, sometimes we sound like idiots.


----------



## midismilex

As the saying goes ^_^: "When in English language World, do as the Englishmen do."


----------



## natasha2000

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> I don't want to speak for fenixpollo, but I agreed with his post.
> 1.There *are different rules for different contexts* and part of being a native speaker is knowing when a rule is applicable and how these rules interact. When taking a grammar test, there are some very strict rules that determine what is acceptable and what is not, but grammar tests form a very miniscule part of language use by natives so their rules should not have any say on what is "correct" in general.
> 2.*I simply don't see why we should choose the rules that have evolved for one group/situation as correct and basically condemn all others by calling them incorrect,* especially when this leads to the very odd conclusion that the best English authors, the people who have used language best, made grammatical errors in their writing.


 
Can you please give some examples? 

I like to know everything, when learning a language. i.e. gramatically correct as well as gramatically incorrect but used expresions or words. But I NEED TO KNOW WHICH IS CORRECT AND WHICH IS NOT, so I use it according to the situation. This means, when I normally speak, I try to speak andwrite as correctly as possible, but then, when I make jokes I may use some other, gramatically incorrect forms. I am referring for example SHE DON'T. It is so widely spread among rappers (at least in songs and movies) but I would never use this in normal speech, only when joking, or immitating the rappers (because this is a part of THEIR language). 

I think it is a little bit unresposible behavior in natives to say to a person who is learning English (not who speaks it excellent and wants to make his knowledge brader, going into details of dialects, speeches etc). to say that by foot can be said, as if it were correct. It should be said, it can be heard, but it is not correct. One first should learn correct language and then when one dominates it well, one can immerse into peculiarities of it. Not before that.


----------



## Etcetera

Rules are important because they help to standartise the language. 
Just imagine what it would be like if we all speak as _we _like, without any referring to the rules! In the end, we won't be able to understand each other.


----------



## natasha2000

Etcetera said:
			
		

> Rules are important because they help to standartise the language.
> Just imagine what it would be like if we all speak as _we _like, without any referring to the rules! In the end, we won't be able to understand each other.


 
You're a 100% right!


----------



## modus.irrealis

Hi natasha2000,



			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Can you please give some examples?


I'm thinking of things like using "singular they," which is perfectly correct in many contexts, but I would avoid if I was writing an academic paper, since in that context it is incorrect. But I don't like the labels "correct" or "incorrect" because in the context of an academic paper, using the pronoun "I" is also to be avoided, but who would say that the first person pronoun in incorrect grammatically?

Another example is the supposed distinction between "will" and "shall," which may hold true in some people's English but I would call the rule incorrect in any of the registers of North American English, from least to most formal. If I say "I will go" and someone, because of that rule, thinks I am insisting or emphasizing my determination to go, than that person does not know English perfectly.



> I like to know everything, when learning a language. i.e. gramatically correct as well as gramatically incorrect but used expresions or words. But I NEED TO KNOW WHICH IS CORRECT AND WHICH IS NOT, so I use it according to the situation. This means, when I normally speak, I try to speak andwrite as correctly as possible, but then, when I make jokes I may use some other, gramatically incorrect forms. I am referring for example SHE DON'T. It is so widely spread among rappers (at least in songs and movies) but I would never use this in normal speech, only when joking, or immitating the rappers (because this is a part of THEIR language).


But "correctness" is not something that's been predetermined and we either follow it or we don't; it's based on usage. Your example is something that's incorrect for me in any context, but it's not incorrect in and of itself -- it is correct for some people in some contexts. Why is it inherently correct for Standard English to simplify verb conjugation partway but inherently incorrect for another form of English to simplify it even further?



> I think it is a little bit unresposible behavior in natives to say to a person who is learning English (not who speaks it excellent and wants to make his knowledge brader, going into details of dialects, speeches etc). to say that by foot can be said, as if it were correct. It should be said, it can be heard, but it is not correct. One first should learn correct language and then when one dominates it well, one can immerse into peculiarities of it. Not before that.


Why is "by foot" incorrect? Because it's unacceptable on a grammar test? That doesn't really have any relevance for me . I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "correct language," though. If you mean the language that is spoken by the average educated person (basically the language you find in most newspapers), then I'd agree with you -- that's what you should learn and deviating from that is not a good idea (I'm not sure I can deviate from it  naturally because the English I speak locally has almost no interesting features that set it apart from General American). But this Standard English is a very complicated beast, and "by foot" is included in it. This is not really about dialects or non-Standard form of English, but about the different levels within Standard English itself. If someone needs to know about what the correct answer for a test is, I'm not sure native speakers are the ones to ask because what native speakers know is how they use their language and test-taking is not really a part of that usage.

If, however, you mean by "correct language" the sort of strict rules that some try to enforce, then I have to disagree with you, because using that language in some contexts is as bad as saying "she don't" because you will come off as pretentious or condescending or simply foolish. Of course, people are more lenient with people who are learning the languages but using too formal a language, just like using too informal a language, takes the attention off what you're saying and places it on how you're saying it, which is the last thing you want (unless it is, but how often does that come up ).


----------



## danielfranco

What we need is to establish a Language World Police, and set it loose on the English speaking countries of the world. The first transgression gets you a fine, and repeat offenders get to dust the chalkboard erasers after class.
Order and strict adherence to rules, say I, do ya? I beg ya, say thank'ee, sai, and thank the man-Jesus, too, world without end, so say we all.
Order! Rules!

Sorry, got carried away...
I agree with what many other foreros have said, that one must be context-sensitive in the usage of the English language. But, however appropriate one word might be in a specific context, it doesn't guarantee that it will be correct in standard English (as it were, if such thing can actually be defined and accepted....)
Perhaps there's no Royal Academy of the English Language, but in light that the language has been standarized in very recent times, I think the efforts in defining what precisely is Correct English have been valiant and indefatigable, and that soon we will have a definitive answer to what is "correct and appropriate" English.
In the meantime...


----------



## fenixpollo

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> I think it is a little bit unresposible behavior in natives to say to a person who is learning English (not who speaks it excellent and wants to make his knowledge brader, going into details of dialects, speeches etc). to say that by foot can be said, as if it were correct. It should be said, it can be heard, but it is not correct. One first should learn correct language and then when one dominates it well, one can immerse into peculiarities of it. Not before that.


 When I joined this forum, I would post things like "that is incorrect" or "that is bad English". Then, I started to learn that what to me was incorrect, to another person is perfectly fine (one key example: collective nouns).  Now, I am in the habit of posting things like "that doesn't sound right to me" or "that is not common where I am from".  That is not irresponsible -- it's just being inclusive.

In your case of "by foot", my first response is that anyone who says that (whether native or not) is making a false correlation between other modes of transportation (by plane, by car, by train) and applying it to feet, where it doesn't belong. The correct term, for me, is "on foot".  However, my question for you is, What's your purpose? To be 100% proper, or to be understood?  You have now said that you want to be proper and formal, in which case I will tell you that you should use "on foot".  However, if I am responding to you in that thread, I may not know what your motive is. Some people just want to know the most simplistic explanation, just so they can be understood. Others want a doctorate in English.  If someone just wants enough information to "get by" and simply be understood, then my telling them that "by foot" is acceptable is not irresponsible.


----------



## .   1

danielfranco said:
			
		

> Perhaps there's no Royal Academy of the English Language, but in light that the language has been standarized in very recent times, I think the efforts in defining what precisely is Correct English have been valiant and indefatigable, and that soon we will have a definitive answer to what is "correct and appropriate" English.
> In the meantime...


 
We will only ever be able to come up with correct and appropriate English for specific instances and then probably only for that day.

I see no evidence that English is any more or less standard now than it was when I was a kid.

Standard English in Australia is not Standard English in New Zealand and it is most certainly not Standard English in the U.S. of A.

I am fascinated by the whole concept of even attempting to Standardise a living language.

You may need a standard to pass a test but this will not necessarily progress to the English speaking world at large.

.,,


----------



## danielfranco

. said:
			
		

> We will only ever be able to come up with correct and appropriate English for specific instances and then probably only for that day.
> 
> I see no evidence that English is any more or less standard now than it was when I was a kid.
> 
> Standard English in Australia is not Standard English in New Zealand and it is most certainly not Standard English in the U.S. of A.
> 
> I am fascinated by the whole concept of even attempting to Standardise a living language.
> 
> You may need a standard to pass a test but this will not necessarily progress to the English speaking world at large.
> 
> .,,



Well, dotcomma2, I think you're probably right... So the "in the meantime..." of my last post might be a rather extended period of time, no? We'll see. In the meantime, however, I continue trying my very best to learn Texan English!
Ya betcha, yessiree!


----------



## emma42

Well, yes, as to Standard English, there is Standard American English, Standard English English, Standard Australian English, Standard Jamaican English, and a host of others.  All are equally valid, and reference should be made to them if forer@s think that there may be a divergence from the original mother tongue or if they think others may be confused or misled.


----------



## natasha2000

To modus irrealis:


> I'm thinking of things like using "singular they," which is perfectly correct in many contexts, but I would avoid if I was writing an academic paper, since in that context it is incorrect. But I don't like the labels "correct" or "incorrect" because in the context of an academic paper, using the pronoun "I" is also to be avoided, but who would say that the first person pronoun in incorrect grammatically?


 
I don't get it, what about "they" "I" and other personal pronouns? Using them, when? In what context?



> Another example is the supposed distinction between "will" and "shall," which may hold true in some people's English but I would call the rule incorrect in any of the registers of North American English, from least to most formal. If I say "I will go" and someone, because of that rule, thinks I am insisting or emphasizing my determination to go, than that person does not know English perfectly.


 
This is NOT what I am talking about. As I was taught, shall is used in British English, and not in American English. There is a difference between I shall and I will, but it is so subtile, that at the end, it is loosing and it is not so important. As I remember well, I shall is supposed to mean plain future, and I will your decision to do something. Anyway, since all new grammars don't make difference between them, I think it is only the matter of difference BE and AE, but not in the meaning anymore. This is a normal process of changing in one language. It is NOT what I was talking about.

If you meant the things like this, then I could say you're right and I could withdraw what i said earlier, since it's obvious I thought one thing and you another one.



> But "correctness" is not something that's been predetermined and we either follow it or we don't; it's based on usage.


 
Of course. I agree.



> Your example is something that's incorrect for me in any context, but it's not incorrect in and of itself -- it is correct for some people in some contexts.


 
I bet that no half-educated person wouldn't use _she don't_. It is ok that English language has no Academy to impose some rigid rules, and I like English beause of that. But there are limits. Wouldn't you agree?




> Why is it inherently correct for Standard English to simplify verb conjugation partway but inherently incorrect for another form of English to simplify it even further?


 
Because it is not. The rules are made on the basis of their usage among speakers. Maybe there are a lot of black rappers, but they are very few compared with the rest of English native speakers.

To Fenix:



> In your case of "by foot", my first response is that anyone who says that (whether native or not) is making a false correlation between other modes of transportation (by plane, by car, by train) and applying it to feet, where it doesn't belong.


 
Exactly my point.



> However, my question for you is, What's your purpose? To be 100% proper, or to be understood?


 
My wishes in respect to foreign languages are far beyond of the wish only to bwe understood. I could be understood whan I was 12, but then my English was full of mistakes and far more modest. I want to speak and write and express myself in English (and Spanish, which is the other foreign language I speak) as good as an EDUCATED native speaker, which does not mean I am not interested in the street speech, too. As a matter of fact, I consider that a person really dominates a language when they dominate slang (not necesarily to use it, but to understand it. Not all natives use it, but most of them do understand the most of it).



> However, if I am responding to you in that thread, I may not know what your motive is. Some people just want to know the most simplistic explanation, just so they can be understood. Others want a doctorate in English. If someone just wants enough information to "get by" and simply be understood, then my telling them that "by foot" is acceptable is not irresponsible.


 
I think that 90% of foreros here are like me. They want to know EVERYTHING, and they want to know which is THE CORRECT WAY to say something. They also appreciate if natives get interested in the subject and make a little discussion about their question. It is always interesting and besides, the one who put the question gets more than he asked, and he is always a 100% grateful. I think that here there are few people who just want to be understood, and you can easily recognize them by the way they write a question. Usually, they are people who do not really learn the language, but just need to transmit some kind of message or to understand what the other is transmitting to them. But, as I said, they are very few, and they are recognizable. So please, don't say to anyone that by foot is ok. It wouldn't cost you anything. Besides, in the words BY and ON there is an equal number of letters  .....

To all:
And yes. Many people who enter this forum DO prepare their tests. Don't make them fail because your understanding of grammar rules is a little bit more "open" than of their professors...

to .,,



> Standard English in Australia is not Standard English in New Zealand and it is most certainly not Standard English in the U.S. of A.
> I am fascinated by the whole concept of even attempting to Standardise a living language.


 
Why? If _Real Academia Española_ managed with 24 countries, why it would be impossible with 5? I am not saying it is the only correct thing to do, but it is not impossible.

Daniel..... Always ready to make jokes... I just love your sense of humor...

Cheers 

N.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Hi,



			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> I don't get it, what about "they" "I" and other personal pronouns? Using them, when? In what context?


I was trying to say that in academic works, the vast majority of authors avoid any use of "I", and I don't think I've ever come across anyone using "they" to refer to a single person. In a sense, this is a rule about this use of English, but it obviously doesn't apply in everyday speech.



> If you meant the things like this, then I could say you're right and I could withdraw what i said earlier, since it's obvious I thought one thing and you another one.


It does seem like we misunderstood each other.



> I bet that no half-educated person wouldn't use _she don't_. It is ok that English language has no Academy to impose some rigid rules, and I like English beause of that. But there are limits. Wouldn't you agree?


Even highly educated people might use "she don't" in the right context (say if it's the language of the area they grew up in and they're speaking with their parents), and it would not be wrong there because it's wrong in some other context. If they used in a context where Standard English was expected, then there's consequences to doing that.

Of course there are limits, and every context is governed by a set of rules that we all obey because we want to communicate (although I guess breaking a rule can communicate something as well). But all contexts have their own set of rules, and I'm not convinced we gain anything by using the word "correct" for one specific set of rules, since that implicitly condemns other uses of the language that are not inherently worse.



> Because it is not.


So you're saying that "she don't" instead of "she doesn't" is incorrect in and of itself, but saying "you do" instead of "you dost" is correct in and of itself?



> The rules are made on the basis of their usage among speakers. Maybe there are a lot of black rappers, but they are very few compared with the rest of English native speakers.


The odd thing is I completely agree with this, but draw the exact opposite conclusion. "She don't" is wrong when it's written in the New York Times because it goes against the usage that one expects to find there, but it's perfectly fine in a rap song, because there it does reflect usage.


----------



## dminorbabi

None of the rules are for pleasure.  The rules are made to clarify meaning.  When a rule is broken, you are usually understood, but a working knowledge of the rules and proper usage will express more than a general meaning and extend the language to express even the most subtle things.


----------



## emma42

I agree with Natasha.  We should use standard forms of English in the Forums as well as slang etc, but these should be clearly explained.  It is irresponsible and unfair, in my opinion to, for example, mix up standard and non-standard language in a post without clarifying which is which for non-native speakers.


----------



## .   1

danielfranco said:
			
		

> Well, dotcomma2, I think you're probably right... So the "in the meantime..." of my last post might be a rather extended period of time, no? We'll see. In the meantime, however, I continue trying my very best to learn Texan English!
> Ya betcha, yessiree!


Most certainly and you will be accepted into your community that much more intimately as a result of doing so whereas I would not be accepted into your community in any way near such an inclusive way simply because of the way I speak even though I have spoken only English for my entire life.
My version of Standard? English is significantly different from your version of Standard English to the point that I read that a young woman faced severe censure in court due to the interpretation of the sentence, "I just popped him on the bed." which can only mean one thing in Australia but obviously has other interpretations in other places.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

My answer to the question is, as so often happens, another question?

What rules?

I think that we should, when speaking to someone, adopt the rules and conventions which both of you are comfortable with.
I spoke differently with my parents than I did with my schoolfriends.
I spoke differently with my parents when I was 20 than I did when I was 40.
I speak differently with my wife and son than I do with work colleagues.
I speak differently with efriends than I do with physical friends.

English speakers develop their own rules and vernaculars and usualloy know more than one or two sets of rules. We need to stick to something which facilitates communication — this is the purpose of langauge after all. 

Language rules or styles which inhibit communication will fade away naturally. This is what all life is all about - evolution to a new (not 'better' or 'worse' form - but more serviceable) form.


----------



## heidita

danielfranco said:
			
		

> What we need is to establish a Language World Police, and set it loose on the English speaking countries of the world. The first transgression gets you a fine, and repeat offenders get to dust the chalkboard erasers after class.


 
No, this is one good idea you had there, dear Daniel.

I think though we should introduce a point based "punishment" like the Spanish driving licence (very new!). You have 12 points from the start and get points reduced for serious infringements. So, third person no *s,* at least 3 points less. _By foot_ may be accepted, as we can hear it. Then another 3 points for _"If I would go... If I will go_...". And for very serious offenders, fine, blackboard cleaning for a month.


----------



## papillon

I think _modus.irrealis _is a proponent of a sort of linguistic relativism: all forms of expression are equally valid. I agree, no contest here.

I do, however, feel that we should use standard English as a point of reference. And I do think that most of us, like Natasha, are trying use the language as well as an educated native speaker would. I foresee comments from the relativists in the forum on the impossibility of defining that elusive stndard English. However, I think deep down even they know exactly what standard English is. Yes, it is the language you would use on an English test and it is the language of a New York Times article.
It is true that even the standard language varies throughout the world, but probably 95+% is the same. And yes, let us argue and discuss the remaining 5%, this forum is a perfect vehicle for such a discussion.

Once again, I want to learn ALL the different forms of English and I am truly fascinated by the regional differences (trying to master the Boston accent at this moment). However, if I have to choose between two comments:
1. "On foot" and "by foot" are both perfectly valid.
or
2. "On foot" is the proper/standard way to say it, although "by foot" can be heard and is often used in the spoken language.
---*I definitely prefer #2!*


----------



## natasha2000

papillon said:
			
		

> However, if I have to choose between two comments:
> 1. "On foot" and "by foot" are both perfectly valid.
> or
> 2. "On foot" is the proper/standard way to say it, although "by foot" can be heard and is often used in the spoken labguage.
> ---*I definitely prefer #2!*


 
I would dare to say that the second one is the only correct one way to explain to a learner about these things. There are things that are gramatically correct, but there area also others that are NOT correct, nevertheless, they are also used and a lot. At least, this is how I would like to be explained this. And I am sure most of non-native speakers who learn a foreign language (it doesn't have to be English) would like the same.


----------



## papillon

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> I would dare to say that the second one is the only correct one way to explain to a learner about these things. There are things that are gramatically correct, but there area also others that are NOT correct, nevertheless


 In general, I agree with you, so long as we replace "incorrect" with "non-standard". I do think the language is a bit more fluid than a mathematical equation. 

How about this:
"2+2 = 5"   the answer is incorrect/wrong
"I will travel by foot" -- this is non-standard English


----------



## natasha2000

papillon said:
			
		

> In general, I agree with you, so long as we replace "incorrect" with "non-standard". I do think the language is a bit more fluid than a mathematical equation.
> 
> How about this:
> "2+2 = 5" the answer is incorrect/wrong
> "I will travel by foot" -- this is non-standard English


 
I don't think so. If we followed your rule, than NOTHING would be incorrect, but only non-standard. It is ridiculous. Why should English be so special and not have anything gramatically wrong, when it exists in all other languages? I really do not see the reason for this. Spanish is also a very rich language, with a lot of variants, and their speakers do say, this is correct, and this is not correct, but it is very commonly used here and here... What's so wrong in doing it in this way? I really do not understand...


----------



## jimreilly

For me "rules" are descriptive, and they help me recognize the way people communicate, and help to communicate myself. I have learned most of these "rules", at least in my native language, by listening to others, not from books. I am also aware that the thing described--language-- is constantly changing, and that the decriptions have to change, too.

Learning a non-maternal language is always going to be more self-conscious and fraught with extra difficulties. Additional difficulties are caused by tests and grades. How nice to be my age and not in school, and to work on languages just because I want to, with no concern for formal "failure" or "success"! Those of us who are lucky enough to be in such a situation have to remember that for others passing an English test may be the key to a good job, the opportunity to emigrate, or other life-changing, sometimes life-saving things.

On a personal level, I will accept any communication from someone, "correct" or not, as long as I can understand it; if I can't I'll ask for help. So if someone says to me, "he gone to the store" I won't hesitate for a second to continue the conversation without pointing out the "error", because I will know exactly what was intended. Some of the dearest people in my life have spoken just that way, and I am thankful our differences in language and educational backfround did not prevent our friendships. 

If someone _asks_ me for help learning "correct" language, as , for example, when I participated in a tutoring program, that's again a different situation.


----------



## heidita

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> I don't think so. If we followed your rule, *than NOTHING would be incorrect, but only non-standard*. It is ridiculous. Why should English be so special and not have anything grammatically wrong, when it exists in all other languages? I really do not see the reason for this. Spanish is also a very rich language, with a lot of variants, and their speakers do say, this is correct, and this is not correct, but it is very commonly used here and here... What's so wrong in doing it in this way? I really do not understand...


 
Very true, Natasha. I personally think this non-standard business is taken too far and too often by English speakers. It's like not wanting to get involved in fights. Like not wanting to commit to one or the other position. In language there must be rules. Like in any other concept in life. 

Actually I wonder if the American spelling is accepted as "correct" in Europe? I don't think so, as if in a dictation I use "neighbor" it will be  a mistake.


----------



## modus.irrealis

papillon said:
			
		

> I think _modus.irrealis _is a proponent of a sort of linguistic relativism: all forms of expression are equally valid.


With the caveat that validity is context-dependent. Would anybody argue that you must speak Standard English in Paris because it is "correct?" Of course not. In Paris you speak according to the usage that prevails there, namely Spoken French. I don't see why we should treat the varieties within a language any differently.

And also the caveat that I firmly believe there are better and worse ways to say things, although it depends on your goals. Part of my reaction against the whole idea of correctness is that, as I said before, it condemns the best English authors, the people I think of as the best users of the language, as error-prone. I simply can't agree with that.

(I wouldn't call my position relativism, though, but that may be how others see it.)

Edit: I'll just add, because I just read jimreilly's post, and I'll stop because I'm starting to annoy myself with my repetitiveness , that I would say I see using language as a contract that people enter into. A contract has rules that all parties must adhere too and there are always penalties to breaking those rules (it might cause misunderstandings or might make you pretentious or make others have a lower opinion of you, etc.), so I'm not saying there are no rules. But there is no one set of rules that governs all situations, and I don't see why one set of rules are correct and others are incorrect. And about other languages, people are confusing what they think with what they actually do. When you speak, you follow the rules of the situation because you have to. And calling one set of rules "correct" and saying everything else is "a common mistake" represents an attitude that I cannot agree with, because it can lead to looking down on people who's only mistake is being born in a part of the country that didn't give rise to the national "correct" standard, and can lead to language death as well.


----------



## papillon

heidita said:
			
		

> I personally think this non-standard business is taken too far and too often by English speakers.


 Like I said, I agree with you in general and we should identify forms in the language that are standard. And yes, there are things that are plain WRONG or INCORRECT. For example, a sentence taken from an earlier post in this very thread:
"_At least, this is how I would like to be explained this..._" -- incorrect use of passive tense. So I would say this example is wrong and "by foot" is non-standard. The difference is: nobody would say the former. However, the latter is used every day by many people. I must admit I didn't know that "by foot" was not proper English until I read this thread.



			
				heidita said:
			
		

> It's like not wanting to get involved in fights. Like not wanting to commit to one or the other position.


 If you're so committed to your positions, why even bother with this thread? I thought the point was to see what others thought of the matter and to arrive to some sort of consensus, was it not?



			
				heidita said:
			
		

> In language there must be rules. Like in any other concept in life.


Very true. And yes, there are rules. They just may be more fluid than 2+2 =4.


----------



## natasha2000

papillon said:
			
		

> "_At least, this is how I would like to be explained this..._" -- incorrect use of passive tense.


 
Why is this incorrect? Even though it is true that nobody would say this, (which I doubt), it is a correct grammar. So, it is NOT wrong.


----------



## maxiogee

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> papillon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "At least, this is how I would like to be explained this..." -- incorrect use of passive tense.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is this incorrect? Even though it is true that nobody would say this, (which I doubt), it is a correct grammar. So, it is NOT wrong.
Click to expand...


It is wrong because the "to be explained" needs a subject - which must precede it. In the sentence as given it appears that "I" is the subject of "to be explained" as "I" is the subject to the sentence.

Consider this…
I am with Jim.
Fred asks my assistance in something.
I have reasons for not doing this and I explain them to Fred and Jim
Fred doesn't understand me. Jim does.
I have an urgent appointment elsewhere and must go.
I ask Jim to explain things to Fred.
"Jim, I have to go, but I would like to be explained to Fred. Will you do it please?" (This is an awful formation, but it is a valid construction in the situation.) "I" am what is being explained.


----------



## natasha2000

maxiogee said:
			
		

> It is wrong because the "to be explained" needs a subject - which must precede it. In the sentence as given it appears that "I" is the subject of "to be explained" as "I" is the subject to the sentence.
> 
> Consider this…
> I am with Jim.
> Fred asks my assistance in something.
> I have reasons for not doing this and I explain them to Fred and Jim
> Fred doesn't understand me. Jim does.
> I have an urgent appointment elsewhere and must go.
> I ask Jim to explain things to Fred.
> "Jim, I have to go, but I would like to be explained to Fred. Will you do it please?" (This is an awful formation, but it is a valid construction in the situation.) "I" am what is being explained.


 
Maxiogee, OK. It can be like this, but it can be the other way, too.
I used it as if I would use passive in this example:

Mary told me the story.

The story was told by Mary. where the DO of active sentence passed to be the subject of the passive one.

BUT:

I was told the story.... (It is perfectly correct to say this) Where now IO passes to be the subject of the passive sentence.

So, Peter explained the rule to me, can be passed to passive in two ways:

The rule is explained to me 
I am explained the rule....

So, what you're trying to say is that I am told and I am explained are not the same. One is correct and the other is not? 

Until now I have never had a problem to be understood.


----------



## papillon

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> I used it as if I would use passive in this example:
> Mary told me the story.
> I was told the story.... (It is perfectly correct to say this) Where now IO passes to be the subject of the passive sentence.
> So, Peter explained the rule to me, can be passed to passive in two ways:
> The rule is explained to me
> I am explained the rule....
> So, what you're trying to say is that I am told and I am explained are not the same.


 Exactly. As far as I can tell, and I could be wrong, the difference comes down to that "to".
Peter told me the story = I was told this story
It seems to be that even this usage not 100% kosher, however, it is widely used. I think the only really correct passive tense would be 
"This story was told to me".
On the other hand
Peter explained the rule _to_ me = the rule was explained _to_ me;
it would be incorrect to say "I was explained this rule"


			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Until now I have never had a problem to be understood.


 Absolutely, you were _understood_ perfectly well. Interestingly, now that I think about it, I do hear people use the verb "explain" _without_ the to. As in "Can you explain me this?" So if you accept this usage, then your logic is perfectly fine and you would construct a passive tense in the same way you would with "tell". I guess this would be non-standard usage, although you would probably insist on calling it wrong.


----------



## natasha2000

Papillon....

Explan to would be the same as say to, wouldn't it?

So, if it is ok to tell I was said why than it would not be correct to say I was explained?


----------



## papillon

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> So, if it is ok to tell I was said why than it would not be correct to say I was explained?


 "I was said" is incorrect. Once again, you can hear this kind of formation _being said_ on the street, but you would get points deducted on an English test if you wrote this.

Edit: just want to add that there are special constructions where you can say something like "He was said to have been in Paris during the War.." but that's probably not what we had in mind...


----------



## french4beth

And let's not forget - language is constantly evolving.  Many times, foreros quote rules that they learned in school, but are no longer applicable, or that aren't truly rules, just a matter of style.  For example, I always thought that you couldn't end a sentence with a preposition - this is false, even though many people insist that it's true - they're way off!


----------



## papillon

french4beth said:
			
		

> And let's not forget - language is constantly evolving.


 Right on! And this is the main reason why I have reservations for using the words like "incorrect" or "wrong". What is "incorrect" today, could be correct tomorrow. But, of course, we should always indicate what is in accordance with the rules _as they stand_ today.


----------



## natasha2000

So, in the end, THERE ARE grammatical errors in English?

You just proved I was right. There are grammatical rules in English, and they should be obeyed. That is all I wanted to hear. Thank you.

Edit: Thank you for pointing me out my error. One learns something more each day.


----------



## papillon

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> You just proved I was right. There are grammatical rules in English, and they should be obeyed. That is all I wanted to hear. Thank you.


   Touché! Though I never _really_ disagreed with you. Thank _you!_


----------



## natasha2000

papillon said:
			
		

> Touche! Though I never _really_ disagreed with you. Thank _you!_


 
As a matter of fact, you didn't, really. But there are many others in this thread who did.


----------



## papillon

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Thank you for pointing me out my error.


OK, Natasha, I am beginning to hate myslef. But:
...pointing out my errors _to_ me...
it's the same as "explain smthg to someone"
I promise, I am done now.


----------



## natasha2000

papillon said:
			
		

> OK, Natasha, I am beginning to hate myslef. But:
> ...pointing out my errors _to_ me...
> it's the same as "explain smthg to someone"
> I promise, I am done now.


 
I will quote the closing line of one of my favourite movies:
"Nobody is perfect" 

PS: Don't hate yourself. That is why I am here. I promise I will work a little bit more on this preposition "TO".


----------



## maxiogee

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> So, Peter explained the rule to me, can be passed to passive in two ways:



I dispute that.
Words in English do not always behave the same way as other words.

Check Google - it gave me 186 hits for "I am explained'.


----------



## fenixpollo

Two big causes of confusion here:
1) Native speakers are not always aware of the rules that dictate their speech -- we don't always know why we say something the way we say it

2) English is not as uniform as other languages, especially Romance languages, which leads to more exceptions to each rule and more confusion about what the rules are.


----------



## heidita

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Two big causes of confusion here:
> 1) Native speakers are not always aware of the rules that dictate their speech -- we don't always know why we say something the way we say it
> 
> 2) English is not as uniform as other languages, especially Romance languages, which leads to more exceptions to each rule and more confusion about what the rules are.


That is one big truth. But I think this happens in all languages. The other day my husband was scolding me for not using an accent on _fue_. Rules not only exist and many natives are not aware of them but they change, like in my example. 
On the other hand, we do have a Royal Academy which sets the rules. Why doesn't this exist in other countries? When I was learning English I always thought that Cambridge and Oxford set the rules.

By the way. *I am with Natasha*, I think it might sound weird, as it does even to my non-native ear, but I do think:

Peter explained the rules to me.

I was explained the rules.
The rules were explained to me.

Like:

Peter gave the book to Mary.
Mary was give the book.

I do not see why this should be grammatically different.


----------



## modus.irrealis

heidita said:
			
		

> I was explained the rules.
> The rules were explained to me.
> 
> Like:
> 
> Peter gave the book to Mary.
> Mary was given the book.
> 
> I do not see why this should be grammatically different.



But "Mary was given the book" is the passive form of "Peter gave Mary the book" where Mary is the direct object, and not of "Peter gave the book to Mary." Only direct objects can become the subjects of passive sentences. Since there is no "Peter explained me the rules," there is no "I was explained the rules."


----------



## natasha2000

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> But "Mary was given the book" is the passive form of "Peter gave Mary the book" where Mary is the direct object, and not of "Peter gave the book to Mary." Only direct objects can become the subjects of passive sentences. Since there is no "Peter explained me the rules," there is no "I was explained the rules."


 
OK. Modus, can you explain me this:

If give can be used in two ways, shifting the places of DO and IO:
*Peter gave the book to me. *
*Peter gave me the book.* 

Where the book is DO and me is IO.

How come that explain cannot work in the same way? 
*Peter explained the maths problem to me. *
*Peter explained me the maths problem.*

Where the maths problem is DO and me is IO.

I am not disputing if this is correct or wrong. Since so many of you, native speakers claim the last sentence is wrong, I believe you (not that i am not feeling bad, because it sounds so natural to me  ). I am asking for an explanation. Why?


----------



## ireney

natasha I am (obviously) not a native speaker but two quick notes:

a) in the first pair of sentences, "me" does not become the Direct object just because it loses "to" and comes first

b) in the case of explain, all I can think of (and as I said before I am not a native speaker of English) is that  "explain"  does not have the same syntactical 'flexibility' that "give" has. In other words there are more ways to express a sentence with "give" as the verb than with "explain".

Doesn't that happen in your native language? (just a question mind you). I mean some verbs being syntactically more flexible than others?


----------



## natasha2000

ireney said:
			
		

> natasha I am (obviously) not a native speaker but two quick notes:
> 
> a) in the first pair of sentences, "me" does not become the Direct object just because it loses "to" and comes first
> 
> b) in the case of explain, all I can think of (and as I said before I am not a native speaker of English) is that "explain" does not have the same syntactical 'flexibility' that "give" has. In other words there are more ways to express a sentence with "give" as the verb than with "explain".
> 
> Doesn't that happen in your native language? (just a question mind you). I mean some verbs being syntactically more flexible than others?


 
Ireney, I really don't mind if this *will be explained*  to me by a native speaker or not. Thank you for your post.

But... I don't see what you see. For me, ME is Indirect Object in both sentences., as a matter of fact, in all four. I don't see how ME can pass from indirect to direct object, anyway....

The second explanation is more probable, from my (modest) point of view...

Maybe we should ask some moderator to cut off this part and make a new thread, since I am afraid we are off topic here, and I would really like to know why is this so...


----------



## modus.irrealis

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> OK. Modus, can you explain me this:
> 
> If give can be used in two ways, shifting the places of DO and IO:
> ...
> How come that explain cannot work in the same way?


I'm not sure there's an explanation why, but like irene says, explain is just not used that way. There's only a small number of verbs that have those "double object" constructions. You can say "She taught him math" but not "She instructed him math" even though the verbs basically mean the same thing. You just have to learn which verbs have this construction - I don't think there's a general rule.



			
				ireney said:
			
		

> in the first pair of sentences, "me" does not become the Direct object just because it loses "to" and comes first


I think it does though, my thinking being if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck, and "me" acts just like any other direct object in a sentence like "She taught me math." But this is really a question of terminology and I'm just adding to the off-topicness so I'll stop.


----------



## maxiogee

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Maybe we should ask some moderator to cut off this part and make a new thread, since I am afraid we are off topic here, and I would really like to know why is this so...



Natasha, I have an awful feeling in 
the pit of my stomach that the only
 answer you are going to get is — 


…the last resort of exasperated parents everywhere…


 — *It just is!*


----------



## natasha2000

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Natasha, I have an awful feeling in
> the pit of my stomach that the only
> answer you are going to get is —
> 
> 
> …the last resort of exasperated parents everywhere…
> 
> 
> — *It just is!*


 
Ok, Maxi, there are many things in languages that are just like this - it is because it is. Like iregular verbs, they are ireregular and they are as they are because ... they just are. I guess I'll have to look for some list of those verbs like explain...
Thank you all for your patience with me and my stuborness, but... I am just as I am... Can't help it.... 
Cheers!


----------



## heidita

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> But "Mary was given the book" is the passive form of "Peter gave Mary the book" where Mary is the direct object, and not of "Peter gave the book to Mary." Only direct objects can become the subjects of passive sentences. Since there is no "Peter explained me the rules," there is no "I was explained the rules."


 
Please be not offended, as this is not my intention, as this is not a grammar class or anything alike, but this is a post which proves , that many natives do not know their language too well.. 

In English, very weirdly so (as this doesn't happen in any other language I know , which is not saying much, I must admit) not only does the indirect object become the subject of the passive sentence, but it is _preferred _this way, even weirder. Mary is the indirect object in both sentences.


----------



## maxiogee

heidita said:
			
		

> Should people be free to talk as they like without applying any kind of rules?



Banana catapult marmalade, excepting running archipelago counterintuitive.


----------



## heidita

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Banana catapult marmalade, excepting running archipelago counterintuitive.


¿MANDE?


----------



## Outsider

Regarding "Peter explained the rules to me"  and "Peter explained me the rules"  , perhaps the problem is that nonnative speakers are interpreting "to me" as an indirect object, when (in English) it's not that, but some sort of independent verb complement. Just a wild, totally unsubstantiated thought...


----------



## heidita

Anyway, we walked into the house, and *I was explained the rules* of Live Action: No physical contact. Staredowns are used for most tests

 and *I was explained the rules* as follows:. Play 1 song from the current playlist;

After this was done *I was explained the rules* of the camp 

Examples appearantly from native speakers. Are they weirdos?


----------



## maxiogee

heidita said:
			
		

> ¿MANDE?



"Should we accept in English any kind of talk or stick to rules to speak correctly?"

I thought I'd try not sticking to the rules of definition, grammar and syntax - all at once!


----------



## natasha2000

maxiogee said:
			
		

> I dispute that.
> Words in English do not always behave the same way as other words.
> 
> Check Google - it gave me 186 hits for "I am explained'.


 
And what about 
I was explained,
I have been explained
I had been explained
I would have been explained
I might have been explained

etc..


----------



## papillon

heidita said:
			
		

> After this was done *I was explained the rules* of the camp
> 
> Examples appearantly from native speakers. Are they weirdos?


Dear Heidita,
does it never happen in your native German (I take that from your profile:) that people use the language in a way that raises the hair on the backs of language professors? I know this happens ALL the time in Russian. If the Germans are more disciplined in that respect, my hat's off to y'all.


----------



## Outsider

Evidently this verb, in this sense, can only be used in the passive voice. It's a defective verb! 

And I thought English didn't have any, besides the modal verbs!


----------



## .   1

G'day heidita
I think you should be a little cautious of maxiogee as I suspect that he sometimes channels Monty Python.

...and I was explained the rules...

I am reluctant to say this but I think that particular word construction is simply wrong.

I am sorry that I do not have the correct terms to tell you why it is wrong so I will simply use more words and you may get my drift.

...and I was explained the rules... has no direction. It is not clear who is explaining the rules and who is listening.

In this example explained is not the same as given although you were given the rules by having the rules explained to you.

...and I was told the rules... This is easy to read and understand.


.,,
It is so weird to know a thing to be correct but not know why.
P.P.S.
maxiogee
It is perhaps poetic that you conveyed exactly what you intended to communicate.


----------



## .   1

Outsider said:
			
		

> Evidently this verb, in this sense, can only be used in the passive voice. It's a defective verb!
> 
> And I thought English didn't have any, besides the modal verbs!


G'day Outsider.
I had a look at your link.
Man am I glad that I don't have to learn English from that book.

I was betting that only a non native speaker would be able to give a technical response to this question.

.,,


----------



## natasha2000

Outsider said:
			
		

> Evidently this verb, in this sense, can only be used in the passive voice. It's a defective verb!
> 
> And I thought English didn't have any, besides the modal verbs!


 
Maybe I am a little stupid, maybe blind, and maybe both, but I don't see how Phonetical history of English consonants has anything to to with the verb explain. 

Would you be so kind to explain IT TO ME? 
Thank you.


----------



## Outsider

Sorry! Copy/paste error. I'm correcting the link.


----------



## maxiogee

. said:
			
		

> maxiogee
> It is perhaps poetic that you conveyed exactly what you intended to communicate.



That's the Irish for you, even our gibberish is mellifluous and magical!


----------



## panjandrum

I venture into this maelstrom with extreme trepidation.

There is English that glides gently into the brain conveying meaning without any glitches or clunks caused by atypical usage or possible error. This is good English. This is my definition of good English. 

What is actually good English depends on whether I am reading a formal report, a news report, a novel, a letter or an e-mail - or whether I am listening to a formal lecture, a speech, a dramatic presentation, my wife, my daughter, my granddaughter, my friend, by phone, in person, in a crowd .... I've lost track but they are not all the same.

There are some examples of usage that I would describe as abnormal, unusual, but grammatically they might well appear to be acceptable.
I would advise avoiding them. I was explained the rules, for example.

There are some examples of usage that I would describe as wrong. I are wented by work tomorrow from 10am, for example.

I suppose my point is that it is difficult to set absolutes.

Ah, yes, the active vs passive discussion.

There seems to be an expectation that for any particular active sentence there is a specific passive sentence. Surely that can't be right? Surely an active sentence might be expressed in a number of different passive forms, and vice versa. Surely the key is the form of the verb.

I expect this is another of those "but the exam-setters expect this answer. Any other answer is 'wrong'".


> That's the Irish for you, even our gibberish is mellifluous and magical!


That's no surprise. I expect it is genetically impossible for you to gibber otherwise.


----------



## modus.irrealis

heidita said:
			
		

> Please be not offended, as this is not my intention, as this is not a grammar class or anything alike, but this is a post which proves , that many natives do not know their language too well..
> 
> In English, very weirdly so (as this doesn't happen in any other language I know , which is not saying much, I must admit) not only does the indirect object become the subject of the passive sentence, but it is _preferred _this way, even weirder. Mary is the indirect object in both sentences.



No, the indirect object _never_ becomes the subject. Take a sentence like "They presented a gift to me" where "me" is the IO. You cannot say "I was presented a gift." But in the sentence "They presented me with a gift", "me" is the direct object and so you can say "I was presented with a gift." The rule is quite simple.

But on what basis do you say that "me" is not a direct object in "They gave me a gift." It acts exactly like the direct object "me" in "They saw me." How do you distinguish the two when they have the exact same grammatical properties?


----------



## natasha2000

Buff... TRhe more each of your repeats it, the stranger it sounds to me...

And only some hours ago, it sounded me perfect...

I think that here a lot of us mix up things.. One thing is a style, and the other thing is grammar. we should separate to the certain extent these two things. Not completely, of course, because one cannot exist without the other, but, there is a difference.

As panjadrum said, something can be grammatically correct, but it still sounds terrible. But sounding terrible does not make it wrong. It can sound bad, but it is still correct, from the grammatical point of view.

But it seems that many of native speakers follow the rule: this sounds terrible, it must be wrong, this is not correct. This is bad English. What does Bad English mean, anyway? Bad grammar? Or bad style? Or inadequate style?


----------



## natasha2000

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> No, the indirect object _never_ becomes the subject. Take a sentence like "They presented a gift to me" where "me" is the IO. You cannot say "I was presented a gift." But in the sentence "They presented me with a gift", "me" is the direct object and so you can say "I was presented with a gift." The rule is quite simple.
> 
> But on what basis do you say that "me" is not a direct object in "They gave me a gift." It acts exactly like the direct object "me" in "They saw me." How do you distinguish the two when they have the exact same grammatical properties?


 
Sorry. Yes, it does.

Peter told me the story.

Where ME is IO.
I was told the story.
Period.

Or now you will tell me that IO becomes DO? This is impossible. Sorry.


----------



## Outsider

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> But on what basis do you say that "me" is not a direct object in "They gave me a gift." It acts exactly like the direct object "me" in "They saw me." How do you distinguish the two when they have the exact same grammatical properties?


"Me" is not the direct object because it's not what is given. They gave the gift, not "me".


----------



## natasha2000

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> But on what basis do you say that "me" is not a direct object in "They gave me a gift." It acts exactly like the direct object "me" in "They saw me." How do you distinguish the two when they have the exact same grammatical properties?


 
Direct object is always accusative. It answers to the question whom or what.
Ex: They gave me the gift.
What? the gift.

Father took Mary to school.
whom did the father take to school?: Mary. (I know that here is better to say who did the father take to school to? but with whom is better explained the form of accusative. In languages that do have cases it is more clear)

Indirect object is always dative. It answers to the question to whom or to what.

They gave me the gift.
to whom did they give the gift? to me. (ok, here too, better version is whom did they give the gift to, but I am giving the whom example for better explanation)

IO never becomes DO. It is simply... impossible.


----------



## modus.irrealis

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Sorry. Yes, it does.
> 
> Peter told me the story.
> 
> Where ME is IO.
> I was told the story.
> Period.


What kind of argument is that? You're just asserting things. Why is it an indirect object? How is "me" in that sentence different than the me in "Peter saw me?"



> Or now you will tell me that IO becomes DO? This is impossible. Sorry.


What about in "They presented an award to me" where we both agree "me" is the indirect object, right? But in the sentence "They presented me with an award," isn't "me" the direct object, or are you going to tell me English has direct objects that are preceded by the preposition "with?"


----------



## modus.irrealis

Outsider said:
			
		

> "Me" is not the direct object because it's not what is given. They gave the gift, not "me".



But it is who is given, as in "Who was given the gift?" Give has two constructions, in one the thing given is the direct object, in the other, the recipient is the direct object.


----------



## modus.irrealis

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Direct object is always accusative. It answers to the question whom or what.
> Ex: They gave me the gift.
> What? the gift.


But what about whom. Whom did they the gift? And me is the accusative form of the pronoun. When you choose what, you're thinking of the sentence "They gave the gift to me" and here I agree that "me" is the IO and "gift" the DO. But I'm discussing "They gave me the gift."



> They gave me the gift.
> to whom did they give the gift? to me. (ok, here too, better version is whom did they give the gift to, but I am giving the whom example for better explanation)


Actually, "To whom did they give the gift?" is the "correct" form, because it's "wrong" to end sentences with prepositions.


----------



## Outsider

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> But it is who is given, as in "Who was given the gift?" Give has two constructions, in one the thing given is the direct object, in the other, the recipient is the direct object.


When you change sentence, the syntactic analysis also changes:

_1. They gave me a gift._
subject: they
DO: a gift
IO: me

_2. I was given a gift._
subject: I
DO: a gift

Sentence 2 is not the passive version of sentence 1. That would be the following:

_1b. A gift was given to me (by them)._
subject: a gift
agent of the passive voice: them
complement [? -- not sure about the name of this one]: to me


----------



## panjandrum

The purpose of language is communication.

If the English you use causes me to wince and think, "That sounds very strange", you have distracted me from the message you wish to communicate. That, to me, is bad English.

I fear that the discussion on the active vs passive version of sentences is in danger of becoming sterile, non-productive, or indeed pointless. This sounds very like a conversation about how to meet the exam criteria - divorced from the reality of how English is used. Some of the apparently correct transformed sentences would not exist outside an exam answer.

Likewise, the statement about ending sentences with prepositions being wrong is relevant only to some exams, it has no particular relevance in real life. See the English Only forum for more extensive discussion on this topic.

Edit:  I agree with Outsider's point on active/passive.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Outsider said:
			
		

> When you change sentence, the syntactic analysis also changes:
> 
> _1. They gave me a gift._
> subject: they
> DO: a gift
> IO: me
> 
> _2. I was given a gift._
> subject: I
> DO: a gift
> 
> Sentence 2 is not the passive version of sentence 1.


Of course it is. Going from "They gave me a gift" to "I was given a gift by them" exactly corresponds to how English forms passive sentences from active sentences.



> That would be the following:
> 
> _1b. A gift was given to me (by them)._
> subject: a gift
> agent of the passive voice: them
> complement [? -- not sure about the name of this one]: to me


That's the passive of "They gave a gift to me." Just look at how parallel everything is:

They gave a gift to me --> A gift was given to me by them.
They gave me a gift --> I was given a gift by them.


----------



## modus.irrealis

panjandrum said:
			
		

> I fear that the discussion on the active vs passive version of sentences is in danger of becoming sterile, non-productive, or indeed pointless.


That's in the eye of the beholder, though, isn't it?  I find discussions about how to analyze language quite interesting, and I think that what I see as a confusion about active and passive lies behind some people's suggestions that "I was explained the rules" is idiomatic English, which it's not.


----------



## Outsider

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> Of course it is. Going from "They gave me a gift" to "I was given a gift by them" exactly corresponds to how English forms passive sentences from active sentences.


Maybe there is something about the English passive that I don't know, but I do know this: when you change a sentence from *active* to *passive*, the former *direct object* becomes the new *subject*, and the former *subject* becomes a *complement* (the agent of the passive voice). This does not happen from "They gave me a gift" to "I was given a gift". Here, "gift" has remained an object. 

[Edit: ]
On second thoughts, that's what you've been saying isn't it? You're analysing it as:

_They gave me a gift._
subject: they
DO: me
IO: a gift

_I was given a gift (by them)._
subject: I
agent of the passive voice: them
complement: a gift

Hmm, intriguing, but weird, because I think the same sentence could also be analysed as I did above... 

Plus, to me having "a gift" be the indirect object in the original sentence (the dative, in languages with declensions) sounds really, really weird.


----------



## panjandrum

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> That's in the eye of the beholder, though, isn't it?  I find discussions about how to analyze language quite interesting, and I think that what I see as a confusion about active and passive lies behind some people's suggestions that "I was explained the rules" is idiomatic English, which it's not.


I can understand your delight in the mechanics of the process.  But as far as I can see, the process has no relevance whatever to reality - other than to the reality of correctly answering exam questions.

Meanwhile, Outsider is addressing the detail of the points I am not competent to make.


----------



## ceci '79

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> That's in the eye of the beholder, though, isn't it?  I find discussions about how to analyze language quite interesting, and I think that what I see as a confusion about active and passive lies behind some people's suggestions that "I was explained the rules" is idiomatic English, which it's not.


 
Well, a non-native English speaker could perceive this structure as idiomatic in that it is typical of the English spoken by native English speakers and infrequent in other Indo-European languages (it does not exist in the ones I know, at least  ). So, from the perspective of this elusive "international English" (if we admit for a moment that it exists) it is idiomatic.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Edited response:



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> Hmm, intriguing, but weird, because I think the same sentence could also be analysed as I did above...



I think the weirdness comes from that this type of construction is just weird and is something that sets English apart from many other languages. It's also werid because it goes against the semantic definition of direct and indirect object, but I'm just convinced by the parallels I see with the cases whose analysis we agree on.



> Plus, to me having "a gift" be the indirect object in the original sentence (the dative, in languages with declensions) sounds really, really weird.



I wouldn't say "a gift" is the indirect object, because it has no preposition. I think I've seen it called "secondary object." I should add that I'm just presenting an analysis I've come across and found appealing, maybe because it was weird but mostly I think it corresponds to the facts pretty well.


----------



## ceci '79

_I was given a gift by them._

In my opinion, this is just a "fake passive" (is there a more exact term?). Formally it looks like a passive, but semantically it is active.

_I was carried out on a stretcher._ --> Real passive (passive form and meaning).
_I was told not to drive so fast._ --> "Fake" passive (passive form, active meaning with implicit / unexpressed agent).

EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, even saying that it is a passive form is a bit ridiculous. It is simply a "auxiliary verb + past participle" form. This form only looks passive because it is normally used to express the passive.

Here, however, it simply expresses an active action with implicit / unexpressed agent, not a passive.


----------



## moodywop

panjandrum said:
			
		

> . This sounds very like a conversation about how to meet the exam criteria - divorced from the reality of how English is used. Some of the apparently correct transformed sentences would not exist outside an exam answer.


 
I think Panji is thinking of "a gift was given to me". Let's face it: it may be "grammatically correct" but can anyone seriously claim it would ever be heard in conversation? Any native speaker would say "I was given a gift".

This is the risk of focusing only on an abstract idea of "correctness" and adhering to "rules". If something as rich and complex as a language could be reduced to the rules in a 400-page textbook then we could all learn a foreign language perfectly in a few weeks. 

Many sentences that appear to be perfectly "correct" grammatically may well also sound completely unidiomatic. 

Luckily there's a lot more to learning a language than arid grammar rules.


----------



## ceci '79

moodywop said:
			
		

> Luckily there's a lot more to learning a language than arid grammar rules.


 
 Language comes first, while these so-called "rules" try to make some sense of it...

Too bad sometimes they end up complicating things...


----------



## ceci '79

This long thread suggests me one thought: These international certificates / tests / exams are often poorly conceived and constructed.


----------



## .   1

panjandrum said:
			
		

> The purpose of language is communication.
> 
> If the English you use causes me to wince and think, "That sounds very strange", you have distracted me from the message you wish to communicate. That, to me, is bad English.
> 
> I fear that the discussion on the active vs passive version of sentences is in danger of becoming sterile, non-productive, or indeed pointless. This sounds very like a conversation about how to meet the exam criteria - divorced from the reality of how English is used. Some of the apparently correct transformed sentences would not exist outside an exam answer.
> 
> Likewise, the statement about ending sentences with prepositions being wrong is relevant only to some exams, it has no particular relevance in real life. See the English Only forum for more extensive discussion on this topic.
> 
> Edit: I agree with Outsider's point on active/passive.


 
I am now thorougly confused about the use of whatever word we are not using.

.,,
I can hear the ramparts being manned as we read.


----------



## jimreilly

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Banana catapult marmalade, excepting running archipelago counterintuitive.



A wondreful sentence but we doesn't know what its means. You muss be making some kinds of points with it?

But, golly, I can make lotsd of mistake, and youse still know what I mean. If youse wants to bother! (My Dad used "youse" sometimes, he was from Jersey City)

Understanding ours brothers and sisturs what's more important, or is the rules more important? (My friend JP, now no longer on this earth, sometimes used a singular verb with a plural subject; I always knew what he meant.)

The olders I gets the leass and leass I cares about those rules! 
......

OK, enough. But sometimes when people speak (or write) and "break the rules" it's beautiful. Anyone read "Their Eyes Were Watching God" lately? Some of the language in that book must have been channeled by the spirits through the author to help make life worth living; it's so beautiful I wept several times and had to stop reading. But, doggone, think of all those broken rules........


----------



## natasha2000

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> Actually, "To whom did they give the gift?" is the "correct" form, because it's "wrong" to end sentences with prepositions.


 
I did not say it was wrong, I said it is better to say the other way. At least I was taught in school like that.

Modus, I cannot argue with you, because I really don't know how to prove you that DO is always accusative and IO is always dative. If you spoke some language that still has cases, I would be able to show you the difference. Heidita knows what I am talking about since in German the article still has cases. It is just so, in all languages, but I am sorry, I don't know the other way to demonstrate you.


----------



## natasha2000

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> What kind of argument is that? You're just asserting things. Why is it an indirect object? How is "me" in that sentence different than the me in "Peter saw me?"
> 
> As I already told you, each case has its own question.
> 
> Peter told me te story.
> Who did peter tell the story to (or to whom) - dative - IO
> 
> Peter saw me.
> Who did Peter see? (or whom ) - accusative - DO
> 
> 
> What about in "They presented an award to me" where we both agree "me" is the indirect object, right? But in the sentence "They presented me with an award," isn't "me" the direct object, or are you going to tell me English has direct objects that are preceded by the preposition "with?"


 
Sorry, my English is not so good, obviously. I don't know what you want to say with the second sentence. They presented me with an award? Beats me.  In order to argue something first I have to know the meaning. And here, I don't know what it means.


----------



## natasha2000

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> But what about whom. Whom did they the gift? And me is the accusative form of the pronoun. When you choose what, you're thinking of the sentence "They gave the gift to me" and here I agree that "me" is the IO and "gift" the DO. But I'm discussing "They gave me the gift."
> 
> As I told you, in English it can be said in varous ways, and unfortunately, the forms sometimes are the same. To distinguish them, I added "to" to whom. Let's say that it is something similar like "had had"... One is auxiliary and the other is main verb. One carries the grammatical meaning,and the other carries the semantic meaning. But they have the SAME form. Bad luck. But you have to know which is which. Or like knight and night. If you only heard the words pronounced and didin't see them written, how would you know if someone is talking about Sr. Lancelot or just about the dark?
> 
> Actually, "To whom did they give the gift?" is the "correct" form, because it's "wrong" to end sentences with prepositions.


----------



## natasha2000

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> No, the indirect object _never_ becomes the subject.


 
Modus, take a quick look - here

EDIT: And here


----------



## natasha2000

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> But it is who is given, as in "Who was given the gift?" Give has two constructions, in one the thing given is the direct object, in the other, the recipient is the direct object.


 
No. In one the thing is given to indirect object.
In the other, the indirect obhect was given the thing.
Simple.


----------



## natasha2000

ceci '79 said:
			
		

> This long thread suggests me one thought: These international certificates / tests / exams are often poorly conceived and constructed.


 
I completely agree... Yo have no idea, how much I do agree with you.

But...

They must be passed for verious reasons, which are not important for this discussion, and people have to prepare themselves for it. So we can hate them as much as we like, but we have to pass them.


----------



## natasha2000

_



They gave me a gift.
subject: they
DO: me
IO: a gift
		
Click to expand...

_ 
If it were like this, than it would be that the someone gave YOU to the gift, which is ridiculous.


----------



## moodywop

It might be fun to make up a conversation which follows the rules my non-native English teacher was very pedantic about when I was in high school (by the way, this was in the seventies, not the fifties ):

(knock knock)

- Who is it?

- It is I, John

- Hello, John

- Why did you not open the door when I first knocked?

- I was talking on the telephone

- To whom were you talking?

- It is none of your business to whom I was talking. It is something with which you need not concern yourself

- I do not to care with whom you talk. You can talk to whomever you like.


----------



## heidita

Outsider said:
			
		

> Maybe there is something about the English passive that I don't know, but I do know this: when you change a sentence from *active* to *passive*, the former *direct object* becomes the new *subject*, and the former *subject* becomes a *complement* (the agent of the passive voice). This does not happen from "They gave me a gift" to "I was given a gift". Here, "gift" has remained an object.
> 
> [Edit: ]
> On second thoughts, that's what you've been saying isn't it? You're analysing it as:
> 
> _They gave me a gift._
> subject: they
> DO: me
> IO: a gift
> 
> _I was given a gift (by them)._
> subject: I
> agent of the passive voice: them
> complement: a gift
> 
> Hmm, intriguing, but weird, because I think the same sentence could also be analysed as I did above...
> 
> Plus, to me having "a gift" be the indirect object in the original sentence (the dative, in languages with declensions) sounds really, really weird.


 
outsider , please check your grammar. It is not a good idea to state that the gift, only because it changes position becomes indirect object. You are not a native, but Modus.irrealis has no excuses.

Outsider, did I misunderstand? Were you just quoting? I didn't quite get it then, as Natasha pointed out to me.

So, we are drifting slightly, but it is still to the point: do you think it is outrageous or just normal that natives do not know their language well? Or do they simply not know the grammar well? Or are there no rules at all to be obeyed?


----------



## heidita

ceci '79 said:
			
		

> _I was given a gift by them._
> 
> In my opinion, this is just a "fake passive" (is there a more exact term?). Formally it looks like a passive, but semantically it is active.


 
This is great, new grammar terms!


----------



## natasha2000

Heidita, Outsider was quoting Modus irrealis, but somehow it didn't come right in his post.
See his last sentence.



> Plus, to me having "a gift" be the indirect object in the original sentence (the dative, in languages with declensions) sounds really, really weird.


----------



## heidita

moodywop said:
			
		

> I think Panji is thinking of "a gift was given to me". Let's face it: it may be "grammatically correct" but can anyone seriously claim it would ever be heard in conversation? Any native speaker would say* "I was given a gift".*
> 
> 
> Many sentences that appear to be perfectly "correct" grammatically may well also sound completely unidiomatic.
> 
> Luckily there's a lot more to learning a language than arid grammar rules.


 
I certainly agree with you, moody. The passive we are talking about does sound weird compared to other languages, like German or Spanish, where only the direct object can become the subject of the passive sentence. I stated before, it is really weird that the English should prefer the indirect object to be the subject. 

But on the other hand, who would say "the book was given to me" ? It sounds unnatural, definitely. The rule might be weird enough, but only in comparison. To an English "ear" it would sound weird the other way round. 

Of course, I do think that one should stick to rules, but choose the one taken to easily by the natives. For a foreigner it would be easier to use the "the book was given to me".


----------



## heidita

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Modus, take a quick look - here
> 
> EDIT: And here


 
Very nice links, Natasha, I think even Modus.irrealis will be convinced now. And Outsider?

Yes, in German we still have cases and four, for that matter, Terrible!
The Endlish structure with the indirect object becoming the subject of a passive would not be possible in German. Neither in Spanish, for what it's worth.


----------



## heidita

I also agree with Panjandrum, stating that it is necessary to leave the rules somewhat lax to make the native comfortable. But must we leave out all the rules for that? Sometimes the rules given are also misinterpreted.

 I am having a "fight " with a mod on the German forum now, stating that there is a certain expression which is not said or used like that in German. now, in the German grammar book it says_ he is right_. So, what do we do now?


----------



## maxiogee

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> And only some hours ago, it sounded me perfect...



And only some hours ago, it sounded perfect to me. 

(This is probably what the Pope said when first hearing Galileo explain that the sun does not go around the earth!)


----------



## natasha2000

maxiogee said:
			
		

> And only some hours ago, it sounded perfect to me.
> 
> (This is probably what the Pope said when first hearing Galileo explain that the sun does not go around the earth!)


 
Yea, yea..... 

It sounded a little bit wierd TO ME while I was writing it....

(PS: And please, stop treating me like the Pope treated Giordano Bruno! I learned my lesson)


----------



## Outsider

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say "a gift" is the indirect object, because it has no preposition.


Indirect objects don't necessarily require a preposition. For example, let's change the sentence into Spanish:

Ellos dieron un regalo *a él*.  Ellos *le* dieron un regalo.
They gave a gift *to him*.  They gave *him* a gift.

"Le" is specifically an indirect object pronoun (the _direct_ object would be represented by "lo/la"), yet it doesn't take a preposition in the second sentence, which is semantically and structurally equivalent to the first.

Furthermore, in languages with declensions, the indirect object (of this kind of sentence) corresponds to the dative case, and when you have cases you don't need any prepositions, either.



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> On second thoughts, that's what you've been saying isn't it? You're analysing it as:
> 
> _They gave me a gift._
> subject: they
> DO: me
> IO: a gift


I thought about this yesterday, and I'm afraid I still cannot agree with this analysis. "Me" cannot be a direct object, here.

Let me explain, by focusing on the meaning of the sentence first. What we are saying, "They gave me a gift", can be expressed in many different ways: "They gave me a gift", "They gave a gift to me", "I was given a gift by them", "A gift was given to me by them", and so on. I suppose in poetry it's even possible to say "To me they gave a gift", and similar variants.

So let's ignore word order for now, and just analyse the semantics of the action and its participants. You have three elements: 

1) One who performs the action of giving (the *agent*). This is clearly "they".
2) The one that is given -- literally given. This is the *patient*, in this case, the gift.
3) The one *to which* the gift is given (I'll call it the *recipient* of the action). This is "I". 

What we have cannot be described in any other way, as I see it.

Now, in the *active voice* what you do is express these facts in a sentence where:

1) The subject is the agent.
2) The direct object is the patient.
3) The indirect object is the recipient.

In the *passive voice*, on the other hand:

1) The subject is the *patient*.
2) The agent becomes a complement.
3) The recipient also becomes a complement.

So, as I see it, the sentence "I was given a gift by them" is not in the passive voice, because its subject is not the patient of the action. Instead, what we're seeing here is something quite interesting: a third construction.

As you can gather from the replies to this thread, in most European languages there are only two basic ways to express the situation "They gave me a gift": either you focus on the agent, by making it the subject (active voice), or you focus on the patient, by making it the subject (passive voice). But it seems that in English you can also focus on the *recipient*, and make _it_ the subject:

(Focus on the agent: ) They gave me a gift.
(Focus on the patient: ) A gift was given to me (by them).
(Focus on the recipient: ) I was given a gift (by them).

P.S. Well, I see that this is what the two latest links posted by Natasha say. 
Except that they call the two latter sentences "passive".


----------



## natasha2000

Correct, Outsider. This is what Heidita was telling all the time. The special characteristic of English is exactly this one: in all our languages, only DO of active sentence can pass to be the subject of a passive one. Unlike all those languages, in English, this also can be done with IO.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Hi,

Let's say I agree to call "me" in "They gave me a book" an indirect object (despite the fact that it acts just like a direct object). People will then have to agree that English has two different kinds of indirect objects, that one, and the one in "They explained the rules to me," because in this latter case you cannot say "I was explained the rules." Do we agree on that?

But if we do, why would we use the same term for things that don't function the same way gramatically. And on the other hand, nobody has shown me how "me" functions differently in "they gave me a gift" vs. "they saw me," so why shouldn't we label them the same way? Outsider, you gave a semantic definition of direct and indirect object, but I think semantic definitions take second place compared to how a word functions grammatically. Think of the definition of nouns as "person, place, or thing" and verb as an "action word." "Murder" is an action so this would seem to be a verb, but it acts just like words that are obviously nouns like "bread" or "rock" so we call it a noun.

And to go back to a sentence like "They presented me with an award," how should that be analyzed? Would "award" still be the direct object even though it's preceded by a preposition?

About other languages, I don't think we can use facts from their analyses to analyze English. Would it make a difference to anyone if I used an example from Greek, which does have cases, such as

me didaxe pola = it taught me many things

where both "me" = "me" and "pola" = "many things" are accusative? (If Irene is still reading this thread, maybe she can tell us how natural such a sentence is.)

Maybe we can have the following compromise analysis:

They gave me a gift.
me = indirect object
gift = complement

(Because if it were a direct object, then shouldn't you be able to create the passive sentence "A gift was given me?")

They explained the rules to me
rules = direct object
to me = prepositional phrase

And just to add, this discussion isn't about formulating rules for people to follow. It's about trying to understand how English works, and I think what we're doing here is offering different hypotheses and trying to see which one best fits the facts. It's no different than trying to figure out how your lungs work and they were there and being used before people tried to figure out how they work. (Of course, that makes this part of the discussion ridiculously off-topic.)


----------



## heidita

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> Let's say I agree to call "me" in "They gave me a book" an indirect object (despite the fact that it acts just like a direct object).No, it doesn't  People will then have to agree that English has two different kinds of indirect objects, that one, and the one in "They explained the rules to me," because in this latter case you cannot say "I was explained the rules." Do we agree on that?
> 
> But if we do, why would we use the same term for things that don't function the same way gramatically. And on the other hand, *nobody has shown me how "me" functions differently in "they gave me a gift" vs. "they saw me," *so why shouldn't we label them the same way? I am sure they have. You should have paid more attention. It is basic grammar.Outsider, you gave a semantic definition of direct and indirect object, but I think semantic definitions take second place compared to how a word functions grammatically. Think of the definition of nouns as "person, place, or thing" and verb as an "action word." "Murder" is an action so this would seem to be a verb, but it acts just like words that are obviously nouns like "bread" or "rock" so we call it a noun.
> 
> And to go back to a sentence like "They presented me with an award," how should that be analyzed? Would "award" still be the direct object even though it's preceded by a preposition?
> 
> About other languages, I don't think we can use facts from their analyses to analyze English. Would it make a difference to anyone if I used an example from Greek, which does have cases, such as
> 
> me didaxe pola = it taught me many things
> 
> where both "me" = "me" and "pola" = "many things" are accusative? (If Irene is still reading this thread, maybe she can tell us how natural such a sentence is.)It would also be natural in German, but we do not speak about other languages.
> 
> Maybe we can have the following compromise analysis:
> 
> They gave me a gift.
> me = indirect object
> gift = direct object
> 
> (Because if it were a direct object, then shouldn't you be able to create the passive sentence "A gift was given to me?")Yes, you can
> 
> They explained the rules to me
> rules = direct object
> to me = indirect object (to is admitted to introduce the indirect object)
> And just to add, this discussion isn't about formulating rules for people to follow. It's about trying to understand how English works,


 
Not exactly, modus. The question was, if we should or not follow the rules a language gives us, or if there such rules should be strictly followed. Is English just free -lance? How can we find out _how English works_ as you put it, if we do not follow any kind of rules ? How do we _learn_ it in the first place?


----------



## modus.irrealis

Hedita,

If people have already shown me how it _functions_ differently than other direct objects, could you tell me which post?



> They gave me a gift.
> me = indirect object
> gift = direct object
> 
> (Because if it were a direct object, then shouldn't you be able to create the passive sentence "A gift was given to me?")Yes, you can



Please discuss the sentences I'm discussing, instead of other sentences.

If gift in "They gave me a gift" was a direct object, the way the English  passive is formed would allow a sentence "A gift was given me" but there is no such sentence. The sentence you used is the passive form of "They gave a gift to me."




> They explained the rules to me
> rules = direct object
> to me = indirect object (to is admitted to introduce the indirect object)




But if this is an indirect object and so is the me in "They gave me a gift" why can only one become the subject of a passive sentence? If they function so differently, why would you label them the same thing?




			
				heidita said:
			
		

> Not exactly, modus.


The current discussion of active/passive is, like I said, off-topic. I have already given my answers to the original question.


----------



## Outsider

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> If gift in "They gave me a gift" was a direct object, the way the English  passive is formed would allow a sentence "A gift was given me" but there is no such sentence. The sentence you used is the passive form of "They gave a gift to me."


When you transform a sentence from the active to the passive voice, you may have to add a few prepositions:

"They gave me a gift"  "A gift was given *to* me *by* them."

I suppose this is because in the latter sentence the agent and the recipient appear as complements, rather than as obligatory objects.

As for "They explained the rules to me", I'm not sure that "(to) me" is an indirect object here. It could be some other kind of complement...


----------



## modus.irrealis

Outsider said:
			
		

> When you transform a sentence from the active to the passive voice, you may have to add a few prepositions:
> 
> "They gave me a gift"  "A gift was given *to* me *by* them."
> 
> I suppose this is because in the latter sentence the agent and the recipient appear as complements, rather than as obligatory objects.


Alright, although the rule for creating passive sentences is simplified if we derive that sentence from "They gave a gift to me," because then it is no different from any other passive. I'd rather keep the rule for passive simple and distinguish more types of objects.



> As for "They explained the rules to me", I'm not sure that "(to) me" is an indirect object here. It could be some other kind of complement...


I agree that this "to me" should be distinguished from the "me" in "They gave me a gift," but the actual labels we chose are not that important to me. But I don't think you can make this distinction on a semantic basis, because of a word like "donate" where you can say "They donated money to the charity" but not "They donated the charity money," even though "donated" basically means the same thing as "give."


----------



## natasha2000

Outsider said:
			
		

> As for "They explained the rules to me", I'm not sure that "(to) me" is an indirect object here. It could be some other kind of complement...


 
Yes it is. when you are not sure, just ask thequestion. To whom or to what? to me.

Who or what? The rules.

Serbian has 7 cases. More than Latin, which has 6. For each case there is a question. Cases in all languages answer to same questions, beginning with Latin. So, whenever in doubt, I ask myself questions. The one which fits in, is the right one.

So, Modus, you see, the rules do serve for something. Knowing the rules of English and Spanish, I explained to my brodher the principles of German grammar, with a more than modest knowledge of German. 

There is no point to continue this off topic discussion because you modus, simply do not want to understand what the people are saying. Before we are deleted, let's go back to the original topic.


----------



## Outsider

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Yes it is. when you are not sure, just ask thequestion. To whom or to what? to me.
> 
> Who or what? The rules.
> 
> Serbian has 7 cases. More than Latin, which has 6. For each case there is a question. Cases in all languages answer to same questions, beginning with Latin. So, whenever in doubt, I ask myself questions. The one which fits in, is the right one.


But I could do that with "A gift was given to me by them", as well:

What was given? --> a gift
To whom? --> to me
By whom? --> by them

Yet, from what I've read, the two latter elements, "to me" and "by them", are not objects.



> In a transformation from an active-voice clause to an equivalent passive-voice construction, the subject and the direct object switch grammatical roles. The direct object gets promoted to subject, and the subject gets demoted to an (optional) complement.
> 
> here


See also ditransitive verb.


----------



## natasha2000

Outsider said:
			
		

> But I could do that with "A gift was given to me by them", as well:
> 
> What was given? --> a gift
> To whom? --> to me
> By whom? --> by them
> 
> Yet, from what I've read, the two latter elements, "to me" and "by them", are not objects.
> 
> See also ditransitive verb.


 
Excuse me, I don't get it...
What is what you trying to say?

For me, to me is indirect object. What is it if it is not IO?
A gift, in your sentence, since it is passive, it is subject, but in the active sentence it is direct object.

This discussion is really beginning to annoy me.


----------



## modus.irrealis

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> So, Modus, you see,


You do realize you responded to something I did not write? But not to be rude or anything, but I don't see how you can be so confident about English when you do not know that you cannot say "I am explained the rules" or you're not familiar with a construction like "They presented him with an award?"



> Serbian has 7 cases. More than Latin, which has 6. For each case there is a question. Cases in all languages answer to same questions, beginning with Latin. So, whenever in doubt, I ask myself questions. The one which fits in, is the right one.


Umm, cases are not used the same way in all languages. In a sentence like "I heard him," Ancient Greek put "him" in the genitive case and Modern Greek puts it in the accusative. How do you explain that?


----------



## natasha2000

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> You do realize you responded to something I did not write? But not to be rude or anything, but I don't see how you can be so confident about English when you do not know that you cannot say "I am explained the rules" or you're not familiar with a construction like "They presented him with an award?"
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, cases are not used the same way in all languages. In a sentence like "I heard him," Ancient Greek put "him" in the genitive case and Modern Greek puts it in the accusative. How do you explain that?


 

I am not confident about my knowledge of English (even though I do not see why I shouldn't be), but about what I know about the cases. I learnt Latin, I learnt Serbian, Ilearnt German, I learnt Spanish, and all these languages do differ cases in more or less extent. I know that in all languages the cases always answer the same question. The other thing is if one language uses genitive in a place where the other would use dative or accusative. Those are two different things. I aready explained once in some other thread about the cases, and put all the questions, and not one English native speaker told me it is very interesting and useful.

Once again, Moddus, I am not confident about what I am not sure, and therefore I accepted that I was explained is wrong, because more than one native speaker told me so. It must be some exception, that verb, maybe what Outsider said about defective verbs is the most logical reply. I accept that I am not always right, especially if there are native speakers around, but I also know that NOT ALL native speakers are better than I. So, I listen, I think, I see the logic and then decide. And in all that you've said about direct and indirect object it is clear that you don't have a clue about this subject and yet you try to convince me and other non-native speakers (who were kind and patient enough to try to explain this IO-DO thing to you) that you are right only because you are a native speaker. I really don't like that, so I will retire from this thread.
Good day, ladies and gentleman.


----------



## .   1

Is it possible that English simply has a different structure to apparently all other languages and that rules that are common to other languages are not applicable to English.
I am told that English is not a Romance Language and that alone would be enough to allow for a totally different structure.
Strange things happened with people playing with words and then misinterpreting gentle jibes.
It seems to me that there were good intentions gone slightly off topic.

.,,
The road to hell is paved by good intentions.


----------



## ireney

Errrr... I do still read the thread but answering in 



> me didaxe pola = it taught me many things
> 
> where both "me" = "me" and "pola" = "many things" are accusative? (If Irene is still reading this thread, maybe she can tell us how natural such a sentence is.)


and


> Umm, cases are not used the same way in all languages. In a sentence like "I heard him," Ancient Greek put "him" in the genitive case and Modern Greek puts it in the accusative. How do you explain that


will probably be completely off topic.

My two drachmas euros worth on the subject of indirect object:
If there are two objects the one the sentence can do without and still sound more or less ok is the indirect one:

Consider the following:
"He gave a present"
Now you all wonder who to but isn't the sentence more 'complete' than
"He gave me"
?


----------



## ceci '79

moodywop said:
			
		

> - To whom were you talking?


 
Even "better":

- To whom where you speaking?

Did we have the same teacher? Or maybe they were just clones!


----------



## heidita

. said:
			
		

> Is it possible that English simply has a different structure to apparently all other languages and that rules that are common to other languages are not applicable to English.
> I am told that English is not a Romance Language and that alone would be enough to allow for a totally different structure.
> Strange things happened with people playing with words and then misinterpreting gentle jibes.
> It seems to me that there were good intentions gone slightly off topic.
> 
> .,,
> *The road to hell is paved by good intentions*.


 
Nice sentence, no name. 

Yes, I think it will not do comparing English with any other language. In which language do you allow to use the indirect object become a subject in a passive sentence? There are surprising and some very confusing rules.
But aren't there in all languages? Anyway, should we stick to them? Or should we by ways of usage bend the rules? 
I might give you an example which happened her in Spain. 

When I was learning Spanish the combination of "a por" in sentences like : _voy a por el pan_, was considered a mistake, though widely used, as the rule stated that the proposition _a _could not be used with any other preposition. After some years this changed and nowadays it is not only acepted but considered to be_ correct_.


----------



## .   1

heidita said:
			
		

> Nice sentence, no name.
> 
> Yes, I think it will not do comparing English with any other language. In which language do you allow to use the indirect object become a subject in a passive sentence? There are surprising and some very confusing rules.
> But aren't there in all languages? Anyway, should we stick to them? Or should we by ways of usage bend the rules?
> I might give you an example which happened her in Spain.
> 
> When I was learning Spanish the combination of "a por" in sentences like : _voy a por el pan_, was considered a mistake, though widely used, as the rule stated that the proposition _a _could not be used with any other preposition. After some years this changed and nowadays it is not only acepted but considered to be_ correct_.


A living language will outlive and out manouve any attempts at artificial constriction.
.,,
What does "a por" and voy a por el pan mean?


----------



## heidita

. said:
			
		

> A living language will outlive and out manouve any attempts at artificial constriction.
> .,,
> What does "a por" and voy a por el pan mean?


 
Really it used to be

Voy por el pan. ( literally: I will go for the bread)

People used to say, always, voy a por el pan. No real reason why, as the _a_ doesn't change the meaning.But there you are, preferences, and in the end , it was accepted as correct. I remember more than one test in which It was considered a grammar mistake.


----------



## maxiogee

In a reply (now deleted) to a deleted post I said "Natasha2000 seems reluctant to accept that this is just how it is".

I apologise to Natasha2000 for misrepresenting her position in this way. I accept that she fully accepts that the construction is wrong.


----------



## DavyBCN

heidita said:
			
		

> Anyway, we walked into the house, and *I was explained the rules* of Live Action: No physical contact. Staredowns are used for most tests
> 
> and *I was explained the rules* as follows:. Play 1 song from the current playlist;
> 
> After this was done *I was explained the rules* of the camp
> 
> Examples appearantly from native speakers. Are they weirdos?


 
Yes. Replace explained with told


----------



## southerngal

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> When taking a grammar test, there are some very strict rules that determine what is acceptable and what is not, but grammar tests form a very miniscule part of language use by natives so their rules should not have any say on what is "correct" in general.


 
I really think it depends entirely on one's position in life.  I know many instances, both personally and professionally, when using bad grammar and usage could negatively impact a person.  Some people can't afford to be sloppy.


----------



## modus.irrealis

southerngal said:
			
		

> I really think it depends entirely on one's position in life.  I know many instances, both personally and professionally, when using bad grammar and usage could negatively impact a person.  Some people can't afford to be sloppy.


No, I agree. Somewhere in this topic, in one of my on-topic posts, I say something along the lines that every situation has a set of rules about what kind of language is expected and breaking these rules has consequences. But I want to point out that using "proper" English can also have a negative impact in some contexts if you end up coming across pompous or plain ridiculous.


----------



## JazzByChas

I must go along with this. If you are going to learn a language, then learn to use it correctly, so that you will know what is the correct way to express a thought.

After you have mastered the standard (accepted) form of a language, then one can explore the variations, dialects, colloquialisms, etc.

Grammar is mostly a logical concept, so something like travelling "by foot" should make no sense. I believe the original idea was that you would be walking _*on*_ your feet. In all the other cases, you would be travelling by means of an airpline, train, bus, car, etc. In these cases, you are _*in*_ the vehicle of transport, rather than on it. (I suppose you could be *on* a plane, but that might prove dangerous, just a bit... )

I started a thread a while ago on ending sentences with "at." Unless "at" is followed by the subject of the preposition, the sentence is incorrect. Ex. "Where are the boys at?" This is a superfluous preposition. You could answer the correct question, "Where are the boys?" with, "they are at the corner store." (See this thread)





> One first should learn correct language and then when one dominates it well, one can immerse into peculiarities of it. Not before that.


----------



## maxiogee

JazzByChas said:
			
		

> I must go along with this. If you are going to learn a language, then learn to use it correctly, so that you will know what is the correct way to express a thought.



Well put.
Before you can break the rules, you need to know them.


----------



## beakman

JazzByChas said:
			
		

> I must go along with this. If you are going to learn a language, then learn to use it correctly, so that you will know what is the correct way to express a thought.
> 
> After you have mastered the standard (accepted) form of a language, then one can explore the variations, dialects, colloquialisms, etc.


I agree and disagree with you... It is obvious that grammar is essential and it is important to use language in appropriate way but this does not result in your learning "the correct way to express a thought" as you said. I think the most important think is being undestood. Isn't communication a primary function of language?


----------



## jimreilly

JazzByChas said:
			
		

> Grammar is mostly a logical concept, so something like travelling "by foot" should make no sense. I believe the original idea was that you would be walking _*on*_ your feet. In all the other cases, you would be travelling by means of an airpline, train, bus, car, etc. In these cases, you are _*in*_ the vehicle of transport, rather than on it. (I suppose you could be *on* a plane, but that might prove dangerous, just a bit... )
> 
> I started a thread a while ago on ending sentences with "at." Unless "at" is followed by the subject of the preposition, the sentence is incorrect. Ex. "Where are the boys at?" This is a superfluous preposition. You could answer the correct question, "Where are the boys?" with, "they are at the corner store." (See this thread)


Grammar and language are sometimes so illogical that, as everyone who teaches such things knows, the only good reason you can sometimes give to a student who asks "why" is "because that's the way it is".

If someone asks me "where the boys are at" I'll know exactly what they mean (even though I don't use this construction myself) and I'll answer the question. I suppose I could make up a rule to describe the construction......

Perhaps going somewhere "by foot" "should make no sense", but it just so happens that it does make sense, even if it's not the construction preferred by most people. Sometimes there's more than one way to say something. Sometimes the preferred construction changes over time, too, because those danged people go around breaking rules.


----------



## Poetic Device

We all should strive to use proper grammar and sentence construction in whatever language that we are speaking--not just in this forum but in everyday life as well.  Far too many times we try to converse with one another, and since we do not exercise correct English or what have you and because of this there is a constant crime of mis-communication.  Speaking incorrectly is a product of being lazy.  The better we speak the happier people will be and the better we will be able to think.


----------



## jimreilly

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> Speaking incorrectly is a product of being lazy.



*Sometimes speaking "incorrectly" is a matter of lack of education, or of coming from a different group of people, culture, or sub-culture. To label someone who speaks "incorrectly" as lazy is, at the least, impolite and insensitive, and may often be quite inaccurate. My grandmother spoke incorrectly because she left school at the age of eight and went to work, and she never learned to read either English or her maternal language. She was not a lazy person. *



> The better we speak the happier people will be and the better we will be able to think.



*The more we accept differences among people the happier people will be and the better we will be able to get along with each other.*


----------



## Poetic Device

jimreilly said:
			
		

> *Sometimes speaking "incorrectly" is a matter of lack of education, or of coming from a different group of people, culture, or sub-culture. To label someone who speaks "incorrectly" as lazy is, at the least, impolite and insensitive, and may often be quite inaccurate. My grandmother spoke incorrectly because she left school at the age of eight and went to work, and she never learned to read either English or her maternal language. She was not a lazy person. *
> 
> 
> 
> *The more we accept differences among people the happier people will be and the better we will be able to get along with each other.*


 
I was not taking into consideration the people that left school at an early age to work, and for that I apologize.  However, it is almost never (at least in the US) that a child has to do that, not with the government aids and such.  As far as the cultures and such are concerned, I wan't even talking about that.  I meant in the individual's native tounge.  I am sorry if I did not make myself clear.  

With all of the tools that are at one's hands in this day and age, there is no logical reason that I can think of for not learning how to speak properly in your native language.  I can't help but think back to the Broadway play *My Fair Lady* at this point.     (For those of whom have no idea what I am refering to, let me quote:  
"...Why can't the English
Teach their children how to speak...
Why can't the English
Teach their children how to speak
Norwegians learn Norwegian
The Greeks are taught their Greek
In France every Frenchman
Knows his language from A to Zed...
Arabians learn Arabian
With the speed of summer lightning...
But use proper English, you're regarded as a freak
Oh why can't the English 
Why can't the English
Learn to speak!"


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> With all of the tools that are at one's hands in this day and age, there is no logical reason that I can think of for not learning how to speak properly in your native language.  I can't help but think back to the Broadway play *My Fair Lady* at this point.



There are numerous reasons - and the most important is probably what Prof Higgins did to poor Eliza in ramming the square peg which she was into the round hole of his pre-conceived RP concerns.
There is no "correct" way to speak. There are ways to speak.

If we concern ourselves with usage and not speech…
Apart from that there is underfunded education budgets, lack of concern by parents, lack of concern by employers and universities who accept the products of secondary schools who are next-to-illiterate compared to previous generations and who cannot, when necessary, write a formal letter or formulate a business report.
There is also the declining levels of real reading of any sort - newpapers or books are loosing out to sloppily written magazines and photo-journalism.
This generation is getting its opinions about current affairs, and even its sports coverage, from electronic media.


----------



## southerngal

jimreilly said:
			
		

> *The more we accept differences among people the happier people will be and the better we will be able to get along with each other.*


 
I don't think many will argue at all.  However, if you're an employer and you want to hire someone who will represent your company, you want someone who will sound intelligent and educated.  Using sub-standard language skills often (not always by any means) means that a person is either uneducated or unmotivated to learn proper skills, both being factors that are highly unattractive to those in education and professional positions.


----------



## southerngal

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> But use proper English, you're regarded as a freak
> Oh why can't the English
> Why can't the English
> Learn to speak!"


 
Very cute!  It is sad that someone who uses proper English is sometimes regarded as being a nerd or being arrogant.


----------



## Poetic Device

All that i am saying is this: if we as a people strive to better ourselves with our speech and avoid using slang terminology as much as possible, then we would be able to understand one another a little better. 

Another thing that I wanted to touch on. I can't remember who, but someone here has said something about people learning a language on this forum making mistakes and such. I just wanted to say a quick thing about that. If you are learning a language and you are on this forum it is expected that you will make mistakes. That is what learning is and, correct me if I am wrong, but that is what this forum is for: to learn.  To Southerngal:  Thanks.  I only wish that I could take the credit.


----------



## ireney

"My Fair lady" is one of the few musicals I like and I like this song because it allows me to make fun of some friends of mine



> Oh, why can't the English learn to set
> A good example to people whose
> English is painful to your ears?
> The Scotch and the Irish leave you close to tears.
> There even are places where English completely
> disappears. In America, they haven't used it for years!





> In France every Frenchman knows
> his language fro "A" to "Zed"
> The French never care what they do, actually,
> as long as they pronounce in properly



I mean I can't get meaner than that!

However, Greeks don't really have a problem teaching their kids not to break the basic rules. Don't, for even a moment, think that all Greeks speak Greek 'properly'. It's just that our language has been standardised more so syntactical mistakes are out of the question, our prepositions are easier to distinguish and so are the expressions ( "on foot" or "by foot"? Try "with the feet" ) and you only get "mistakes" when people use non-standard endings for some verb forms.

I ask you though (and it _has_ to do with the thread's subject); In some Greek dialects you can still hear today, some of the verb endings are exactly the same as those in ancient Greek. These endings however are NOT the standard ones for modern Greek. Can they really be called 'wrong'?


----------



## .   1

ireneyI ask you though (and it [I said:
			
		

> has[/I] to do with the thread's subject); In some Greek dialects you can still hear today, some of the verb endings are exactly the same as those in ancient Greek. These endings however are NOT the standard ones for modern Greek. Can they really be called 'wrong'?


Methinks thou woulds't be considered archaic should thee employ olde worlde words in Greek today 

.,,
Stick thee to the current lexicon.


----------



## ireney

.,, I am not talking about anyone asking about the price of onions just as Socrates' wife would! I am talking about a specific verb ending.

For instance, some people still use, because of the dialect of the region they come from the "-ουσι" ending in 3rd person plural of Present tense.

This is the same as it was in ancient Greek.

Now the modern Greek standard would be:
"Λένε ότι" 
They use
"Λέγουσι ότι"

All Greeks know what they're talking about. It's just not what the standard modern Grammar accepts as correct. _However_ this is an ancient Greek form retained in some dialects. 

What I'm asking is this; it's not correct by modern Greek rules. It is correct by the dialects rules. It also happens to come straight from ancient Greek. So, while not standard why is it wrong?


----------



## jimreilly

This illustrates the trouble of using the words "right" and "wrong", with their moral connotations, to describe language.

One might more usefully say something is used by one group of people and not by another, and that the second group will not accept as "right" the usage of the first group, even if the usage is understood by everyone, and clear to everyone.

1. right/wrong
2. accepted/not accepted
3. standard/ non-standard
4. clear/unclear
5. intelligible/unintelligible

And there is always the question, whichever decriptive words one choses to describe language, "for whom" or "to whom".


----------



## heidita

jimreilly said:
			
		

> This illustrates the trouble of using the words "right" and "wrong", with their moral connotations, to describe language.
> 
> quote]
> 
> I think the right and wrong definition is mainly used for the teaching of a foreign language. If we have no rules, it is almost impossible to learn a language or teach it , for that matter.
> I would like to add, German as a native language for me, is full of rules and they are taught as such to children at schools. Possibly in German it is more important to stick to rules. It would not do to speak as you like as people would have great difficulty in understanding.


----------



## Poetic Device

To an extent English is the same way. You need to keep some words in the sentence so that no one misunderstands you--and even then it is not "dork proof"(that one was for you, heidita).  So, construction is very important.  Actually, from what I understand, English is the hardest language to learn.  Check it out.


----------



## humlum

If we stick to the rules... which rules do we stick to?  Sorry, that should read, to which rules do we stick!  

English?  Is that the English spoken in England?  Or is it now coloured, sorry, colored by an American version of English. Its (oops, it's) an international language with an international flavour (flavor? flava?).  

I wondered about this question while living in West Africa where a different type of English is spoken.  I've heard that in Malasia they call their pidgen English 'manglish' but from my experience in The Gambia the language wasn't a hybrid in vocabularly but just one that had different turns of phrase.  

You don't say "My leg hurts" you say "my leg is paining me."  It's sounds wrong to me, but I sound wrong to them.  

Then there's "its" and "his."  My (stubborn) father argues that you're a fool to accidently put an apostrophe in the pronoun "its" because 'you wouldn't put an apostrophy in "his" or "hers" would you?'  He seems unaware that 'his' derives from: he has -> he's -> his.  

Rules are there for educated to tell the uneducated that they're wrong.  Rules are there for power.  Some slang is there to act as a force against such power.  

I say: the only rules you should follow are the ones you like, and try to make yourself undersood only when you want to be understood!

Hum....


----------



## .   1

humlum said:
			
		

> If we stick to the rules... which rules do we stick to? Sorry, that should read, to which rules do we stick!
> 
> English? Is that the English spoken in England? Or is it now coloured, sorry, colored by an American version of English. Its (oops, it's) an international language with an international flavour (flavor? flava?).
> 
> I wondered about this question while living in West Africa where a different type of English is spoken. I've heard that in Malasia they call their pidgen English 'manglish' but from my experience in The Gambia the language wasn't a hybrid in vocabularly but just one that had different turns of phrase.
> 
> You don't say "My leg hurts" you say "my leg is paining me." It's sounds wrong to me, but I sound wrong to them.
> 
> Then there's "its" and "his." My (stubborn) father argues that you're a fool to accidently put an apostrophe in the pronoun "its" because 'you wouldn't put an apostrophy in "his" or "hers" would you?' He seems unaware that 'his' derives from: he has -> he's -> his.
> 
> Rules are there for educated to tell the uneducated that they're wrong. Rules are there for power. Some slang is there to act as a force against such power.
> 
> I say: the only rules you should follow are the ones you like, and try to make yourself undersood only when you want to be understood!
> 
> Hum....


This should be required reading for pedants and learners alike.

.,,
Rules empower only those in power.


----------



## heidita

Anyway, always up to date this topic. An interesting debate about this same topic on this site.

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=201272

Is a double negative "proper English"?

No conclusion either to this question, some natives say it's ok, others consider it quite a mistake. We have come to a clear conclusion nonetheless on this thread and on the one I mentioned: there is no such thing as a "ruler", like the _Real Academia de la Lengua_ for Spain, which sets the rules for the Spanish language. As the English language lacks an institution which _sets_ rules, only generally accepted ones can be applied.

Do you think an institution like the one in Spain would be a good idea in your language too?


----------



## .   1

heidita said:
			
		

> Anyway, always up to date this topic. An interesting debate about this same topic on this site.
> 
> http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=201272
> 
> Is a double negative "proper English"?
> 
> No conclusion either to this question, some natives say it's ok, others consider it quite a mistake. We have come to a clear conclusion nonetheless on this thread and on the one I mentioned: there is no such thing as a "ruler", like the _Real Academia de la Lengua_ for Spain, which sets the rules for the Spanish language. As the English language lacks an institution which _sets_ rules, only generally accepted ones can be applied.
> 
> Do you think an institution like the one in Spain would be a good idea in your language too?


 
How does such an institution operate?
How are the rules enforced?

I had never really thought that such an institution still existed anywhere.

I remember something about France trying to stop English words being used in place of French words but I doubt any longterm success would have been achieved.

.,,


----------



## GenJen54

.. said:
			
		

> How does such an institution operate?
> How are the rules enforced?


And how, after hundreds of years of surviving with_out _such an institution, is one to go back and decide which "rules" should stay and which should go, especially when imposed on a language that has been allowed to evolve and change? Talk about starting a linguistic tussle.


----------



## jimreilly

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> And how, after hundreds of years of surviving with_out _such an institution, is one to go back and decide which "rules" should stay and which should go, especially when imposed on a language that has been allowed to evolve and change? Talk about starting a linguistic tussle.



I think such an institution would be a wonderful idea, as long as I am the person in charge of it and it reflects my ideas about language.

So as long as everyone agrees to let me to this, I see no need for a tussle at all!

My first rule and only rule? NO RULES, ONLY DESCRIPTIONS.


----------



## maxiogee

humlum said:
			
		

> Rules are there for educated to tell the uneducated that they're wrong.  Rules are there for power.  Some slang is there to act as a force against such power.
> 
> I say: the only rules you should follow are the ones you like, and try to make yourself undersood only when you want to be understood!



This all sounds a little bit Humpty-Dumptyish to me.

Two people who have never met or corresponded before are doing business together (happens all the time).Do you really expect that both will be happy with the proceedings if each of them only follow the rules opf English which they personally like?

Rules are there to ensure that *both sides have the same understanding* of any particular construction.

We ought indeed be able to dispense with rules which we don't like, but it takes time and wisdom to know when it is safe to do so such that our interlocutors are not misled or bewildered.


----------



## panjandrum

hummlum said:
			
		

> [...] Rules are there for educated to tell the uneducated that they're wrong. Rules are there for power. [...]


 
I would really like to soften this statement a little, though I have a great deal of sympathy for the view.​ 

The apparent rules of English grammar are not rules at all.​ 
They are a simplified codification of what was at one time the accepted manner of speech. Being simplified, they did not allow for lots of exceptions that were entirely acceptable. However, as guidelines they still have tremendous value for learners of English, native and other.​ 
These simplified rules worked their merry way through an increasingly didactic education system until pedants everywhere insisted that they were the one and only true faith for the English language, and that exceptions were "wrong".​ 
BE-speakers are freeing themselves from all the inhibitions that these apparent rules created. But it is still very difficult for non-natives to understand how we can break what appear to be rules with such gay abandon.​ 
On this point I have replied once, or possibly twice before, that there is no problem. Follow those rules as guidance until you have been reading and writing English to an acceptable standard for about 25 years. Then you can forget all the rules...​


----------

