# Correcting a Native Speaker's Grammar is Totally Acceptable...



## Afrodeeziak

If
1. you are a teacher of that language, and the correctee is in your class.
2. they ask to be corrected
3. their grammar makes the message unclear
4. you are also a native speaker, who is in a position of parental authority
5. you are an idiot
Edit: 6. the corrections are on a formal document, essay, or letter, or anything else to be read by someone who would notice incorrect grammar and actually care.

I am living with a friend in Europe for 10 days. She was an exchange student in America during the last 2 semesters, so she is very fluent in English. However, she feels the need to correct my English, which is my native tongue. 

For example:
Me: He made the coffee wrong.
Friend: ly. Wrong-ly.
Me: Wrong describes the coffee, not the action of making coffee.
Friend: It's wrongly.
Me: Ok, raise your hand if you were born in America.
...
Mine was the only hand raised.

If she was right, and my grammar was erroneous, I still don't care. Spoken language and written language are different. 

   ---------------------


 My Spanish teacher taught us “This is what you will hear from native speakers. This is what is correct. If you correct a native speaker, you will regret it. They will think less of you, and if you are in the right part of town, then you lookin’ to get beat up.” 

 Uds. van a oir “Que te dijieron?” pero debe ser “Que te dijeron.” Si alguien les diga “dijieron,” no digan nada. They are gonna fusilar you if you do.

     And now for my point.

 Don't correct someone's grammar unless you are proofreading something for them. They won't think that you are smart. They will think that you are trashy.


----------



## QUIJOTE

Umm excuse me I think you meant...just kidding!!!, gotcha!!!, I think this is only natural, nobody likes to be corrected, it's somewhat embarrassing, I think the person who corrects the other makes the difference, one has to be very polite to do it without hurting people's feelings, some people are just down right rude. others are described in your rule number five. 

For the part of natives...well some need correction, clearly is not your case.

Cheers.


----------



## Afrodeeziak

I agree. Everyone makes mistakes, and there is a time and a place to tell them. I suggest indirect correction:

A Person learning English: What means the word reputable?
Me: What does reputable mean? Well it describes something or someone that you can trust.

You exhibited the correct syntax, without attracting alot of attention to their mistake.

In these forums, however, I feel we are in a language learning environment, so please correct my Spanish, or my English if my grammar makes the message unclear.


----------



## panjandrum

Interesting question.

I don't think I ever "correct" grammar or usage in spoken English apart from (4) on your list - and perhaps (3) if I am really confused - in which case I look for an explanation rather than pointing out the error.

But a lot of material written by other people comes to me for comment and correction.  I always correct the English  as well as commenting on the content.  I also remove all the unnecessary words (like "it should be noted that"), replace long ones (like nevertheless and heretofore) and convert jargon into words that can be understood by normal people 
OOOFF - It must be a real pain sending stuff to me for QA


----------



## Afrodeeziak

Rule 2 says that you are in the clear. I totally agree with the statement about "it should be noted that." That is obnoxious.


----------



## panjandrum

Afrodeeziak said:
			
		

> Rule 2 says that you are in the clear. [...]


 ...yes - but they didn't ask for their English to be corrected - they get that as a bonus ...


----------



## Afrodeeziak

See Edit

Rule #6


----------



## meili

Afrodeeziak said:
			
		

> A Person learning English: What means the word reputable?
> Me: What does reputable mean? Well it describes something or someone that you can trust.
> 
> You exhibited the correct syntax, without attracting alot of attention to their mistake.


 
 I understand.

I am obviously not a native English nor Spanish speaker but I daresay that I understand the language.

Hmmm... this is what I had been thinking and saying in other posts relating to languages.  When I am speaking with a _kababayan (a Filipino) _, I tend to stammer and stutter and say lots of ah, ummm, ammm - but, when I am speaking with a native English Speaker, the words just flow.  

Sometimes people who corrects other people's mistakes just feel so comfortable with the person, or right, is just so so sure of the authority that he or she has assumed upon herself (I am not quarelling with anybody, ok? )


----------



## jorge_val_ribera

Afrodeeziak said:
			
		

> Uds. van a oir “Que te dijieron?” pero debe ser “Que te dijeron.” Si alguien les diga “dijieron,” no digan nada. They are gonna fusilar you if you do.


 
Your teacher is totally right, specially because most people who make this mistake are not very educated (of course educated people make it often, too, but generalizing...). 

I wouldn't correct someone's grammar if I didn't know them well. I just correct my good friends' grammar.


----------



## Mita

Afrodeeziak said:
			
		

> Uds. van a oir “Que te dijieron?” pero debe ser “Que te dijeron.” Si alguien les diga “dijieron,” no digan nada. They are gonna fusilar you if you do.


Hi!
I would not fusilar you 


			
				Afrodeeziak said:
			
		

> I suggest indirect correction:
> 
> A Person learning English: What means the word reputable?
> Me: What does reputable mean? Well it describes something or someone that you can trust.
> 
> You exhibited the correct syntax, without attracting alot of attention to their mistake.
> 
> In these forums, however, I feel we are in a language learning environment, so please correct my Spanish, or my English if my grammar makes the message unclear.


I like that. Sometimes I do it, and sometimes I don't. And sometimes I don't even correct people, because I feel like a pain in the neck. 

Anyway, I feel grateful when I'm corrected, so that I don't make the same mistakes later. It's true it can be a little embarrassing, but it's necessary. It would be worse to keep making the same mistakes without being corrected. 
But one has to be corrected in a kind way, so that people don't get cross with anybody.

Best regards


----------



## Phryne

Hello !

I think that correcting people's native language is a little rude because often times, it's a problem of dialects. I've witnessed people correcting other people's usages that are not so good in Y country although perfect in X country. This argument goes beyond “education”, and in this case we have to be tolerant with other cultures and dialects. So I would never correct a native speaker unless, it's obviously a mistake, or a spelling mistake that I think it may confuse non-native speakers. Also, often times people correct other people’s small typos, which sometimes can be a good thing, but some others just make the person who corrects them look a little aggressive. 

Nevertheless, it's a whole different story when the mistakes are made in a foreign language, or a non-native language, mainly, because we are here to learn. However, for some reason people tend to correct tiny things that will not help you learn, like your typos in your own native language and neglect major issues in a foreign tongue. I do encourage people to correct my English, but sadly they don't. 

saludos


----------



## LV4-26

Phryne said:
			
		

> I do encourage people to correct my English, but sadly they don't.


Maybe because they can't find anything that needs correcting. 

What looks like a mistake to me might not be one (especially in English which isn't my mother tongue). Same in French as in English. So I tend to correct only the non-natives, when they ask for it.
As for the others, I just ask questions :
_Is it really....?_
_I thought that ....._
_I'd been taught that...._
_Are you really sure that...?_

And, mind you, 95 times out of 100 these aren't rethorical questions, they're sincere. I can never be sure of anything. 

Now when I am corrected in French, I sometimes feel fairly upset but I don't blame the corrector, I blame myself  : "I should have known better...."
Afterwards,  I miserably and desperately try to make it clear that I knew that rule or whatever


----------



## Fernando

Afrodeeziak said:
			
		

> For example:
> Me: He made the coffee wrong.
> Friend: ly. Wrong-ly.
> Me: Wrong describes the coffee, not the action of making coffee.
> Friend: It's wrongly.
> Me: Ok, raise your hand if you were born in America.
> ...
> Mine was the only hand raised.



My dear Afrodeeziak. I would advise you to consider the following alternatives:

1) Change your mate.

2) Kill her.

As a Law degree, I would say the first one is the best, but I can not make my mind.


----------



## ILT

Well, I apreciate it when I'm corrected even in my mother tongue.  My grammar classes were taken in basic school, and even though I learnt them, I'm sure with time I've forgotten the use of some.

I think pronounciation shouldn't be corrected, unless the mistake is obvious, like dijieron and dijeron, where the first one is obviously wrong (especially in Spanish were words sound just as they are written); but grammar mistakes or the use of words should be corrected, but I would only correct persons dear to me, and I would only accept such corrections from persons close to me (¡including all foreros in WR!).

Maybe that was the case with your friend, she felt she was close enough to you to take the liberty to correct you because, let's face it, being natives doesn't mean we don't make mistakes.


----------



## QUIJOTE

True..I thought I was good in English and Spanish and so far I've been corrected on both over here ...I am considering exile in the German Forum.


----------



## lsp

Fernando said:
			
		

> My dear Afrodeeziak. I would advise you to consider the following alternatives:
> 
> 1) Change your mate.
> 
> 2) Kill her.
> 
> As a Law degree, I would say the first one is the best, but I can not make my mind.


I risk life and limb to correct you, but you might have meant "As a lawyer/As someone with a law degree/As someone degreed in law..."


----------



## Fernando

I will have to kill you.  

Thank you very much. An obvious mistake.


----------



## mzsweeett

Fernando said:
			
		

> My dear Afrodeeziak. I would advise you to consider the following alternatives:
> 
> 1) Change your mate.
> 
> 2) Kill her.
> 
> As a Law degree, I would say the first one is the best, but I can not make my mind.


Why kill her?? You can just make her sit in a room all by herself..... with no window or doors.... and yet still convey the message!!!! HA!! 
OMG please forgive my demented humor here..... I just couldn't resist it.....

Sweet T.


----------



## jess oh seven

if a native speaker make a horrendous grammatical error, then fine, correct away. but if they say something which is said in everyday language but not "technically" grammatically correct, they should be allowed to poke you in the eye with a stick.


----------



## asm

I think no one is flawless in his/her own language, in my opinion corrections might be welcome if suggested appropriately. Your teacher was a little extremist on her appreciation on correcting other’s mistakes. I remember a good friend, a Canadian teacher, who used to correct all our official correspondence (sent to the students) just because she had the best grammar in Spanish. 

Sometimes learning the second language will bring some awareness on both, the new and the old grammars, even to the point of being in the possibility to detect native’s mistakes; even a novice will know that “ya’ll” is a mistake, here (WR) and in Kentucky!!!!









			
				Afrodeeziak said:
			
		

> If
> 1. you are a teacher of that language, and the correctee is in your class.
> 2. they ask to be corrected
> 3. their grammar makes the message unclear
> 4. you are also a native speaker, who is in a position of parental authority
> 5. you are an idiot
> Edit: 6. the corrections are on a formal document, essay, or letter, or anything else to be read by someone who would notice incorrect grammar and actually care.
> 
> I am living with a friend in Europe for 10 days. She was an exchange student in America during the last 2 semesters, so she is very fluent in English. However, she feels the need to correct my English, which is my native tongue.
> 
> For example:
> Me: He made the coffee wrong.
> Friend: ly. Wrong-ly.
> Me: Wrong describes the coffee, not the action of making coffee.
> Friend: It's wrongly.
> Me: Ok, raise your hand if you were born in America.
> ...
> Mine was the only hand raised.
> 
> If she was right, and my grammar was erroneous, I still don't care. Spoken language and written language are different.
> 
> ---------------------
> 
> 
> My Spanish teacher taught us “This is what you will hear from native speakers. This is what is correct. If you correct a native speaker, you will regret it. They will think less of you, and if you are in the right part of town, then you lookin’ to get beat up.”
> 
> Uds. van a oir “Que te dijieron?” pero debe ser “Que te dijeron.” Si alguien les diga “dijieron,” no digan nada. They are gonna fusilar you if you do.
> 
> And now for my point.
> 
> Don't correct someone's grammar unless you are proofreading something for them. They won't think that you are smart. They will think that you are trashy.


----------



## panjandrum

jess oh seven said:
			
		

> if a native speaker make a horrendous grammatical error, then fine, correct away. but if they say something which is said in everyday language but not "technically" grammatically correct, they should be allowed to poke you in the eye with a stick.


Capital I on if;
MAKES, not make;
AN horrendous grammatical error;
no comma after error;
Capital B on but (happy that the sentence starts with but - not that pedantic);
that, not which;
with a sharp stick, not just a stick.

Feel free to poke here(-) or here (-).

Sorry jess, I just couldn't resist that temptation.


----------



## chica11

When I was living in Costa Rica years ago, my host family actually asked me iof I minded if they corrected my Spanish, since I was there to really improve my Spanish, I said go ahead and they did. But they did it in a nice way, by saying stuff like, oh it's better to say... I took that as their way of saying, se dice asi... 

I'll tell you one thing though the best way to never make a language mistake again is to have a child tell you, " that's not how you say it, you say it this way..." I had that happen a few times to me in all the places (hispanparlantes/hispanohablantes) that I've lived in and let me tell you I don't make those mistakes anymore. Children tend to not have the politeness that adults have.

PS: Panjandrum, I'm sure this post is full of mistakes (English is my native language) !!


----------



## panjandrum

chica11 said:
			
		

> PS: Panjandrum, I'm sure this post is full of mistakes (English is my native language) !!


Not at all, chica11.  Perhaps a typo?  Looks fine to me


----------



## elroy

I really think it depends on the situation and the person. We can't make a general statement such as "Do not correct a native speaker," even with the caveats mentioned in the first post. I'll be happy to elaborate if needed or requested.


----------



## elroy

panjandrum said:
			
		

> Capital I on if;
> MAKES, not make;
> AN horrendous grammatical error; I disagree; this isn't the Bible
> no comma after error; I don't think the comma is incorrect
> Capital B on but (happy that the sentence starts with but - not that pedantic I wouldn't accept it in a formal piece )  ;
> that, not which;
> with a sharp stick, not just a stick.
> I also don't like the "they." It's grammatically inconsisent and I am aware that there are opinions to the contrary.
> Feel free to poke here(-) or here (-).
> 
> Sorry jess, I just couldn't resist that temptation.


 
It's contagious, Panj.


----------



## modgirl

> She was an exchange student in America during the last 2 semesters, so she is very fluent in English....
> 
> For example:
> Me: He made the coffee wrong.
> Friend: ly. Wrong-ly.
> Me: Wrong describes the coffee, not the action of making coffee.
> Friend: It's wrongly.
> Me: Ok, raise your hand if you were born in America.


 
*Technically* she was right.  However, here's your defense:  That's not how native speakers speak colloquially.  

How often do you hear, "It's me"?  Frequently!  Yet, technically it's wrong because me is an object pronoun, not a subject pronoun.  (Blame it on Shakespeare:  "Woe is me" (sic)


----------



## elroy

modgirl said:
			
		

> *Technically* she was right.


 
Was she?  Here's what dictionary.com lists under _wrong_ as an *adverb*:

_



adv. 

In a wrong manner; mistakenly or erroneously.
In a wrong course or direction.
Immorally or unjustly: She acted wrong to lie.
In an unfavorable way. See Synonyms at amiss.


Click to expand...

 _


----------



## modgirl

elroy said:
			
		

> Was she? Here's what dictionary.com lists under _wrong_ as an *adverb*:


 
I think this requires further investigation:

_Wrong_ can be four different parts of speech: an adjective (_We took a wrong turn; The answer was wrong_); a flat adverb (_We went wrong somehow_); a noun (_She did him a shameful wrong_); and a verb (_They cruelly wronged her_). All are Standard. _Wrongly_ is also an adverb, in some uses not interchangeable with the flat adverb: _They wrongly accused her of lying._

http://www.bartleby.com/68/94/6594.html


Here's a better explanation:

*Both "wrong" and "wrongly" are proper adverb forms. I don't know how this came to be, but "wrongly" is used before a verb, as in "wrongly accused," but "wrong" is used as a post-noun (or, in this case, a post-pronoun) modifier, as in "Don't take this wrong" or "He got all the answers wrong."*

And: http://www.mb.literacy.ca/questions.htm#wrong

My sincere apology to the original poster: HE was correct, not she!


----------



## ayed

Excuse me! 
      A professor of mine , once, told me that he had graduated from The Indiana University and he would hear a few people ,out side of the univesirty ,break the grammar .For instance, they say:
We _was _ or They _was _ and the like.
Is it true ?
Thanks


----------



## KateNicole

I totally agree with what Afrodeeziak says about casually rephrasing other peoples' mistakes, rather than saying "That's not how you say it!"  That's a great way to guide people that are a new to a language without making them nervous.


----------



## cubaMania

ayed said:
			
		

> Excuse me!
> A professor of mine , once, told me that he had graduated from The Indiana University and he would hear a few people ,out side of the univesirty ,break the grammar .For instance, they say:
> We _was _or They _was _and the like.
> Is it true ?
> Thanks


Yes, ayed, it is true that we hear grammar rules broken sometimes by native English speakers.  I would divide them into two groups.

Sometimes the ungrammatical usage is so common that it is on the road to becoming accepted usage.  Our language gradually changes, and some things considered incorrect 50 years ago were so commonly said that the rules have changed and now the usages are accepted as correct.

The second group is ungrammatical usage that is still so uncommon that when most native speakers hear it, they consider the speaker to be ignorant and uneducated.  The two you mention would be considered uneducated language by most native speakers.  These usages may or may not ever pass into the language as accepted usage.

To confuse matters further, we don't all draw the line between group 1 and group 2 in exactly the same place.

My advice to someone learning English is to try to learn the grammatically correct usage, because it is difficult for someone who is not a native speaker to figure out which rule-breaking is considered OK, and which rule-breaking is looked down upon as being ignorant.  Plus you are more likely to be understood if you stick to correct grammar, at least until you have learned the language quite well.


----------



## cuchuflete

Phryne said:
			
		

> Hello !
> I do encourage people to correct my English, but *sadly they don't*.
> 
> saludos



OK, MJ...
Does "sadly", an adverb, refer to the verb "to do"?  Are the people not taking action in a state of sadness as they perform (!) their inaction?  Hmmmmmmm...   It's common in spoken English, along with the ubiquitous 'hopefully', but is it correct?

Un abrazo,
C.


----------



## Phryne

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> OK, MJ...
> Does "sadly", an adverb, refer to the verb "to do"?  Are the people not taking action in a state of sadness as they perform (!) their inaction?  Hmmmmmmm...   It's common in spoken English, along with the ubiquitous 'hopefully', but is it correct?
> 
> Un abrazo,
> C.


   Thanks for the correction, my dear Cuchu! See, this is exactly what I was trying to express! I use that expression all the time, as I do with "hopefully", and I'm didn't even know they were not proper English. Should I use "unfortunately", or "sadly to say"? 

un abrazo de vuelta!

Mj


----------



## ayed

cubaMania said:
			
		

> you are more likely to be understood if you stick to correct grammar, at least until you have learned the language quite well.


Well, thank you CubaMania for shedding some light on this issue.
I have studied English as much as I can.
Thanks


----------



## elroy

modgirl said:
			
		

> I think this requires further investigation:
> 
> _Wrong_ can be four different parts of speech: an adjective (_We took a wrong turn; The answer was wrong_); a flat adverb (_We went wrong somehow_); a noun (_She did him a shameful wrong_); and a verb (_They cruelly wronged her_). All are Standard. _Wrongly_ is also an adverb, in some uses not interchangeable with the flat adverb: _They wrongly accused her of lying._
> 
> http://www.bartleby.com/68/94/6594.html
> 
> 
> Here's a better explanation:
> 
> *Both "wrong" and "wrongly" are proper adverb forms. I don't know how this came to be, but "wrongly" is used before a verb, as in "wrongly accused," but "wrong" is used as a post-noun (or, in this case, a post-pronoun) modifier, as in "Don't take this wrong" or "He got all the answers wrong."*
> 
> And: http://www.mb.literacy.ca/questions.htm#wrong
> 
> My sincere apology to the original poster: HE was correct, not she!


 
And in "I made the coffee wrong," it's also a post-noun modifier...right?


----------



## elroy

Phryne said:
			
		

> Thanks for the correction, my dear Cuchu! See, this is exactly what I was trying to express! I use that expression all the time, as I do with "hopefully", and I'm didn't even know they were not proper English. Should I use "unfortunately", or "sadly to say"?
> 
> un abrazo de vuelta!
> 
> Mj


 
"Unfortunately" works but not "sadly to say."


----------



## cirrus

because nobody owns English, it can be really hard to decide what is correct. The fact that some nutters in the 17C decided to foist latinate rules onto a language whose structure is principally germanic only complicates matters further.  Can you imagine somebody coming up for a fight asking "to whom were you speaking?"


----------



## detiquilin

Hi, everyone. I am a first-timer for this forum and have really enjoyed reading all of the posts. I am a first generation born American (my parents are from Mexico) and the topic of correcting or not hits home with me. My mother received about 3 months of education in her life and while she can read and write somewhat certain words she will not stop saying no matter how much I try to dissuade. For example:
munchos=muchos
ansina=asi
abuja=aguja
I could go on and on but will stop there. Surely that is enough. Anyway, my very best friend is from Ecua is always saying how I need to correct her until she speaks properly. It is slightly embarrasing but then again, she won't and I do not want to hurt her feelings. 
I don't speak the greatest Spanish or Italian but, I try and hope that whatever language I am speaking, if someone knows what they are talking about, they will do me the favor of correcting me so I don't sound like an idiot. 
ps. My grandmother was a single mom who was very very poor and could not afford to pay for classes so that is why she only got that far. And for 3 monthes she can read and write so, I am proud of her.


----------



## KateNicole

Kudos to you, detiquilin.  In the case of someone who only recieved 3 months of formal education, I think correcting every little mistake would be extremely antagonistic at best.  Don't listen to your friend.  I think it's highly inappropriate to try to "reform" the vocabulary of adults who were never afforded the privelege of a quality education as children (unless they ask to be corrected).


----------



## Edwin

Phryne said:
			
		

> Thanks for the correction, my dear Cuchu! See, this is exactly what I was trying to express! I use that expression all the time, as I do with "hopefully", and I'm didn't even know they were not proper English. Should I use "unfortunately", or "sadly to say"?



Phryne, your usage ''but sadly ...'' is fine and used  by well educated native speakers. See the many examples here: "but sadly ..." .  There is even an example from a New York Times movie review:



> But, sadly, this bold Sam Spiegel picture lacks the personal magnetism, the haunting strain of mysticism and poetry that we've been thinking all these years would be dominant when a film about Lawrence the mystic and the poet was made. New York Times Movie Review



In my humble opinion there is absolutely nothing wrong with the expression ''but, sadly, they don't''. 

You can also use ''unfortunately'' or ''sad to say'' --but not ''sadly to say''.   Examples of but sad to say


----------



## Phryne

Edwin said:
			
		

> Phryne, your usage ''but sadly ...'' is fine and used by well educated native speakers. See the many examples here: "but sadly ..." .  There is even an example from a New York Times movie review:
> 
> 
> 
> In my humble opinion there is absolutely nothing wrong with the expression ''but sadly, they don't''.
> 
> You can also use ''unfortunately'' or ''sad to say'' --but not ''sadly to say''.   Examples of but sad to say


 I was about to open a thread about that!  

Thanks, Edwin! You're always so kind!


----------



## cuchuflete

Edwin said:
			
		

> Phryne, your usage ''but sadly ...'' is fine and used by well educated native speakers. See the many examples here: "but sadly ..." .  There is even an example from a New York Times movie review:
> 
> 
> 
> In my humble opinion there is absolutely nothing wrong with the expression ''but, sadly, they don't''.
> 
> You can also use ''unfortunately'' or ''sad to say'' --but not ''sadly to say''.   Examples of but sad to say



Hi Edwin,

Here's what I said:




> It's common in spoken English, along with the ubiquitous 'hopefully', but is it correct?



If we are dealing with *descriptive* grammar, and the law of the jungle is that whatever gets done a lot is ok, then you are correct.  It is used a lot.
That doesn't remove the ambiguity from the phrase as MJ used it.



> I do encourage people to correct my English, but *sadly they don't*.



She certainly didn't mean the adverb to modify the nearest proximate verb, 'to do', and it makes no sense for it to modify the other verbs, 'to correct' and "to do" at the start of the sentence, much less "to encourage".

So we have a standalone adverb, not modifying any verb at all. Call it correct if you will, just because lots of people say it, and some write it in the NY Times. That publication prints a fair number of grammatical errors, so I wouldn't take it as an autoritative source for grammar, though it does reflect popular usage.

This is really a question of using language with precision, to say exactly what you mean, without ambiguity. If you want to argue the underlying grammatical rules, knock yourself out. I was just trying to ask if there is a better way to express the thought. I believe some better ways have already been suggested.

cheers,
Cuchu


----------



## Edwin

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> If we are dealing with *descriptive* grammar, and the law of the jungle is that whatever gets done a lot is ok, then you are correct.  It is used a lot.
> That doesn't remove the ambiguity from the phrase as MJ used it.
> 
> She certainly didn't mean the adverb to modify the nearest proximate verb, 'to do', and it makes no sense for it to modify the other verbs, 'to correct' and "to do" at the start of the sentence, much less "to encourage".
> 
> So we have a standalone adverb, not modifying any verb at all. Call it correct if you will, just because lots of people say it, and some write it in the NY Times. That publication prints a fair number of grammatical errors, so I wouldn't take it as an autoritative source for grammar, though it does reflect popular usage.
> 
> This is really a question of using language with precision, to say exactly what you mean, without ambiguity. If you want to argue the underlying grammatical rules, knock yourself out. I was just trying to ask if there is a better way to express the thought. I believe some better ways have already been suggested.



Hi Cuchu,

My knowledge of grammar is weak, but I will knock myself out trying to argue the case that Phyrne's use of ''sadly'' was neither imprecise, ambiguous nor grammatically incorrect.   

It appears to me that according to the Merriam-Webster Online entry for adverb, an adverb does not *have to* modify a verb, adjective or anything--see the last part of the definition.



> Main Entry: *adverb*: a word belonging to one of the major form classes in any of numerous languages, typically serving as a modifier of a verb, an adjective, another adverb, a preposition, a phrase, a clause, or a sentence, expressing some relation of manner or quality, place, time, degree, number, cause, opposition, affirmation, or denial, and in English also serving to connect and to express comment on clause content -- compare ADJUNCT, CONJUNCT, DISJUNCT



Compare the use of the adverb ''unfortunately'':  What does it modify in the following sentence --or is this sentence also of dubious correctness? 

* I do encourage people to correct my English, but, unfortunately, they don't. *

If this is okay and unambiguous why does it become ambiguous when *unfortunately* is replaced by *sadly*?


----------



## cuchuflete

Edwin,

I probably know less about grammar than you, and in all likelihood am as little concerned by it. I am very much interested in clear communication, as I know you are.

The definition of adverb is thought-provoking, in part because it's so extensive.

Let's agree that, according to this definition, it may be used other than to modify something else, "...also serving to connect and to express comment on clause content....". The primary definition that precedes that specifically describes an adverb "...as a modifier". If you are hanging your hat on the secondary part of the definition, I won't argue the point. I really do not understand which clause may be connected or commented on. Help on that point would be welcome.

If, however, you are going with the "...typically serving as a modifier of........" then I suppose we cannot agree at all. Sadly, as used by MJ, intends to describe a situation or the result of an action or inaction. The ambiguity comes from its juxtaposition to the verbal phrase 'they don't'. As such, it could be taken to mean that those who don't, don't in a forlorn manner or with sadness. 

I'll grant that for a native speaker accustomed to hearing the word used that way, there is only a very small chance of confusion; not so for a student of English. 

Your bolded sentence is, for me, unambiguous. How does it differ from MJ's construction of adverb + conjugated verb? Yours has an additional element between the two, a comma. I wish I could give a grammatical explanation of why this removes the ambiguity, but we need the likes of Elroy to help out on that point.

Hopefully (¡!)  we will get this sorted out. (Go ahead, tell me that sentence is correct.  Make my day

cheers,
Cuchu


----------



## Edwin

I never had much truck with grammar but looking around I found the following very interesting remark about the function of so-called ''adverbs'' in English:



> *Adverbs as a catch all category*
> 
> Adverbs are considered a part of speech in traditional English grammar, which is derived from Latin grammar, and are still included as a part of speech in grammar taught in schools and used in dictionaries. However, modern grammarians recognize that words traditionally grouped together as adverbs serve a number of different functions. Some would go so far as to call adverbs a "catch all" category that includes all words that don't belong to one of the other parts of speech.  Go here for the rest of the story



In the case of ''but, sadly, they don't'', I think the adverb ''sadly'' falls into one of the categories in the following quote taken from a very long discussion on adverbs at http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/adverbs.htm



> *Adjuncts, Disjuncts, and Conjuncts*
> 
> Regardless of its position, an adverb is often neatly integrated into the flow of a sentence. When this is true, as it almost always is, the adverb is called an adjunct. (Notice the underlined adjuncts or adjunctive adverbs in the first two sentences of this paragraph.) When the adverb does not fit into the flow of the clause, it is called a disjunct or a conjunct and is often set off by a comma or set of commas. A disjunct frequently acts as a kind of evaluation of the rest of the sentence. Although it usually modifies the verb, we could say that it modifies the entire clause, too. Notice how "too" is a disjunct in the sentence immediately before this one; that same word can also serve as an adjunct adverbial modifier: It's too hot to play outside. Here are two more disjunctive adverbs:
> 
> * Frankly, Martha, I don't give a hoot.
> * Fortunately, no one was hurt.


----------



## Edwin

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Hopefully (¡!)  we will get this sorted out. (Go ahead, tell me that sentence is correct.  Make my day



Cuchu, according to your own rule, I guess it would be if you put a comma after ''hopefully''.   Or does the (¡!) excuse the lack of a comma?


----------

