Job Discussion Forums

[bearcanada]

Dear Henry;

Your reference to "nor" and "or" puzzled me. I said, "That doesn't make them "correct" NOR mean that we should encourage their use."

This is the rule: you must use nor (not or) when negating the second of two negative independent clauses.

Cheers,

Disclaimer:
"Do not eat. Non-flammable. Not for use by children under 3. Do not leave in direct sunlight. May cause headache if worn instead of hat. Colors may vary. Batteries not included." (Courtesy of DOS)

[Henry_Cowell]

The word neither is very clear in grammar and usage guidelines:

"Like the words each, every, one, either, another, and much, the word neither is always singular when used as a subject or as an adjective modifying a subject."

Neither of the applicants is qualified.

An exception is when the word each follows a plural subject. The plural subject remains plural:

The boys each take their turns.
Eight each of the items are required."

[Henry_Cowell]

[bearcanada]

Henry, I disagree with your interpretation. It's true I truncated my sentence by eliminating the "does it" after the "NOR" and disobeyed by own rules on precision, but we still have two clauses and 'nor' is still the correct word to use. But thanks for the info.

This thread began on a helpful note but our debate seems to have shut out everyone else, and I regret that. Personal debates are better served by private messages. Might I suggest we return to more useful topics?

Cheers,


Disclaimer:
"Do not eat. Non-flammable. Not for use by children under 3. Do not leave in direct sunlight. May cause headache if worn instead of hat. Colors may vary. Batteries not included." (Courtesy of DOS)

[Super Mario]

So if Foreign Experts can't agree on grammar, where does that leave our students?
I teach foreign students in Australia [after several years in China].
I don't "teach" grammar, though I know it very well. I model, deconstruct, scaffold and explain various points as the students express the need to know.
"Teaching" grammar may help you leave the classroom feeling you've done a good day's work, but test them in a week or so and see where you are.

BTW, has anyone here ever taught articles successfully?
How can you, when there's only a modicum of logic involved?

[erinyes]

[Henry_Cowell]

[bearcanada]

Whoa, Henry, whoa !!

What's with all the belligerence and personal attacks? This is a friendly grammar discussion, not a war. We were all having fun.

I stated clearly in my first post that the word 'none' was widely used in a plural sense, but you seem to have scavenged every dictionary on the web for sources to "prove" it was plural anyway. Not necessary.

Now we're splitting hairs on clauses and boring everybody. My expression contained two complete thoughts: "That doesn't make them correct" (negative), and "We should encourage their use" (positive). I negated the second one to mean "We should not encourage their use". In this context the use of "nor" is perfectly appropriate although, as I have already conceded, I truncated my sentence and your suggested wording was more precise. I could have said, "NOR should we encourage their use", but I chose not to do that. Sue me.

Let it go. Let's move on to something useful. I don't want to destroy a perfectly good thread with silly bickering. I'm sure you are capable of presenting your expertise in a positive and friendly manner, thereby winning friends and admiration from all. Please try.

Cheers,


Disclaimer:
"Do not eat. Non-flammable. Not for use by children under 3. Do not leave in direct sunlight. May cause headache if worn instead of hat. Colors may vary. Batteries not included." (Courtesy of DOS)

[bearcanada]

Dear Super Mario;

I genuinely enjoyed your post. Really.

First, I like your 'model, deconstruct and scaffold .. ", and I want to ask that, if you have the time, you post for us a brief but enlightening dissertation on the approved methods of scaffolding grammar. :)

Second, I applaud your point about teaching "as the students express the need to know". If only all teachers everywhere would think about this. To my mind, one of the major flaws in methods of teaching anything is that we too often teach things that students don't need or want to know. And of course they don't learn or remember.

In memorising vocabulary, we are likely to retain only those words we use with some frequency, i.e., those words we need for communicating at our level. Or perhaps those words that interest us or catch our attention in some way. But the thought holds true for all education.

This is clear if you think about a small child learning a native language. The vocabulary, expressions, construction that are learned first are those necessary to communicate at that rudimentary level: 'mama', 'milk', 'ouch', 'batman', and so on. If we were to apply classroom methods to a one-year-old, the kid might still be struggling at 18.

Every small child says, "The bird flied" instead of "The bird flew", but the child has grasped the basic formation of a past participle and will learn the exceptions over time "as they are needed". That was your point, and I believe it's the best, the easiest, and the most natural way to learn.

Lastly, you mentioned the teaching of articles and the apparent lack of logic inherent therein. Actually, it's not so bad; a few simple rules will get you through most of it.

1) For proper nouns, the singular uses no article while the plural uses "the"
2) For 'specific' common nouns (where the reader knows which thing is referred to), both singular and plural use "the"
3) For 'non-specific' common nouns (general ones, where the reader doesn't know which thing is being referred to)
*** the countable ones use "a" or "an" for the singular and no article for the plural
*** the non-countable ones use either no article for singular and plural, or else they use "some".

That's it. Now all you have to do is make allowance for the 412 illogical exceptions and you're done. Just kidding. There are some general rules that eliminate most of the confusion - like using "a" or "an" the first time we mention something in a sentence and "the" for subsequent times. "I ate a meal. The meal was good". That kind of thing. Most of the others relate to geographical things. Hope that helps.

Cheers,


Disclaimer:
"Do not eat. Non-flammable. Not for use by children under 3. Do not leave in direct sunlight. May cause headache if worn instead of hat. Colors may vary. Batteries not included." (Courtesy of DOS)

[bearcanada]

Dear erinyes;

You expressed your conviction that my grandchildren "will have no problem with "Lotsa" being in the dictionary..."

For your information, I have signed a multi-million dollar contract with Bristol-Myers Squibb to develop a vaccine to inoculate not only my grandchildren but all children against 'lotsa', 'impacted', scuzzbucket', and a whole bunch of other words. Expecting a breakthrough at any time.

You are of course quite correct when you say that language is in constant change, but I think you may have overstated your intent by suggesting that the only important thing(s) is (are) that an expression is in common use and easy to understand.

It may be useful to define our terms and meaning. We will always have idioms, slang expressions and (sometimes) careless wording, and indeed our language would be poorer without them. Perhaps it's sufficient to simply recognise them for what they are, and to understand why their use may not be universally appropriate.

But there is another category (which includes words like "lotsa") that sometimes requires the attention of the language police. Accepting that our language will change over time needn't mean that accepted changes include the results of sloppy spelling and careless pronunciation.

If a tongue is too lazy to say 'lots of' and instead produces 'lotsa', should we really accept that and put it in a dictionary? I find myself objecting strenuously to this kind of thinking. I tend to squirm and resist when some newspaper correspondent tries to be cute by turning nouns into verbs.

It is shocking to me that many North American universities, including all in Canada, now administer an English test to all new students because they have been generally defined as 'functionally illiterate'. These students must either get a high mark on the test or take and pass a comprehensive English course before admission to second year. This is one of the results of an entire generation of carelessness in the schools with our language.

I believe that we do need a high level of fluency and literacy in our language, to function well in our society. I believe we do need a solid grounding in grammatical propriety, the ability to spell words correctly, a serious appreciation of the exact meaning of words and the ability to write intelligent and intelligible essays and reports. What does it mean to be educated?

Cheers,


Disclaimer:
"Do not eat. Non-flammable. Not for use by children under 3. Do not leave in direct sunlight. May cause headache if worn instead of hat. Colors may vary. Batteries not included." (Courtesy of DOS)

[Henry_Cowell]

bearcanada,

I certainly "bear" no animosity towards you personally. But your notion of equivalent sentence transformations is definitely astounding -- and not based on anything in English grammar.

[KarenB]

Wow! I post one simple grammar question and this grew into a 3 page thread. Who'd of guessed?

Anyway, I really appreciate the contributions of all of you guys, both in answering the question, and also defending the relative importance of grammar in acquiring another language. I'm still not quite sure that I understand what the correct answer is, but I'm pretty certain that I wouldn't say "A lot of students is in the classroom" sooooooooo.... I guess I'll go back to the students and tell them that the "experts" disagree on the correct answer, but probably "are" is the best bet.

And, as pointed out by someone above, "a lot of" is really informal usage and not generally appropriate for formal compositions; therefore, they should favor "many" or some other quantifier.

For the record, I don't teach Oral English -- I teach English Writing to College Sophomores. I usually spend about 1 month concentrating on some of the most common grammatical errors that students make in writing. Mistakes in subject-verb agreement and selecting the correct verb tense probably top the list for Chinese writers of English. My students are also preparing for the CET Band 4 or 6 exams, and 1/2 of the "vocabulary" section of those tests involve selecting the correct verb for a sentence.

Also, as Middy pointed out, students constantly come up with grammar questions, and if we know enough to point out the correct answer and explain why, it not only helps the students, but increases their respect for us. Chinese tend to be analytical people, and this is the way they like to learn, even though some of us may think it doesn't lead to true communicative ability.

Along the same lines, I wonder...how many of you know the phonetic alphabet? I skipped the Linguistics course when I was taking TEFL classes, and have regretted it ever since. The students are always coming up asking how to pronounce this or that, showing me a word using the phonetic alphabet. This has forced me to get a copy of the linguistic alphabet (although there's apparently a couple variations) and carry it in my briefcase so I am always prepared for those questions.

[bearcanada]

Dear KarenB;

You'll probably kill me for this, but your "who'd of" guessed at the beginning of your message should really be "who'd've" guessed".

It's a kind of cute but abominable contraction of "who would have", with the apostrophes filling in for all the missing letters. I imagine the sound of the construction contributed to the common misspelling.

Cheers,

Disclaimer:
"Do not eat. Non-flammable. Not for use by children under 3. Do not leave in direct sunlight. May cause headache if worn instead of hat. Colors may vary. Batteries not included." (Courtesy of DOS)

[KarenB]

Well, my husband was looking over my shoulder and telling me it was wrong too, (he said it should be who'd have guessed), and as usual, I was ignoring him.

I didn't know you could have a double contraction -- but then again, you did say it was abominable.

[erinyes]

I too squirm when people say "Yous" as if the word 'you' isn't already a plural and I obviously correct my students (hear and in Australia) when their language isn't 'correct' English.

Obviously we shouldn�t just put up our hands and give up on teaching what is seen to be right. The truth is, however, your great grandmother would be shocked to hear the way you speak these days. Words falling out of your mouth in the wrong order the wrong context without care for their pure meaning. For example perhaps she would object to the expression "and a whole bunch of other words."

Many over educated individuals think that they have the right to hold onto something they call "English" and save it from the evils of youth and horrific misuse.

But Oxford doesn't own the rights to it. It isn't yours, nor is it mine. English doesn't have copy write and therefore can be changed and mistreated, and copied and altered by anyone who uses it.

Language has developed within societies, and the societies will use it, and further develop it as they desire.

Obviously in the world of business and for other formal applications there are current rules that should be abided by, but these are not universal.

Iin informal salutations, if �lotsa� is more convenient to say, quicker to write and the general community of English-speakers understand its meaning; a small group of people have no right to enforce their ideas on the majority.

I�m not saying I like it, just that it is inevitable.