Job Discussion Forums

[dmb]

[Will.]

So, if the Dutch person has native speaker abilty we hire them No?
Is it the understanding of all the intricacies of English or the ability to teach English to ELT students that is more important?
I know plenty of NNS who are teachers of ELT and are vastly more competent than I am. I have met plenty of NS newbies with a CELTA that were not even competent.
Final decision is always down to the attitude of the person doing the hiring.

[Henry_Cowell]

[jonniboy]

[isanity]

[Henry_Cowell]

[isanity]

Do try to keep up. Reason for the rule - Latin grammar. Reason for content of the rule - don't know, don't care, discreet as you like. (The former is the one which is relevant for teaching, hence the greater level of interest).

[Henry_Cowell]

[isanity]

Concentrate: the distinction was invented in the Latinate grammars of the 18th century. The reason for it was because the writers felt there ought to be rules for such things. They felt there ought to be rules for such things because Latin has.

By the way, 'we' don't differentiate, if by 'we' you mean most native English speakers. It was an attempt to change the native grammar of English which didn't pass the test of time.

[Henry_Cowell]

[Stephen Jones]

Oh dear Henry; you have at least distinguished between Latinate Grammar and Latin Grammar. isainitiy's point is that there was a belief that English should follow rules, and that everything was better in good old Arcadia, so we should follow Latin rules.

In fact the idea started with the Restoration, mainly because of the horrors of the Civil War, and the 18th century was basically popularizing what had been codified previously.

[Henry_Cowell]

Why exactly is the distinction between less and fewer considered to be one of those rules? Why blame it on those English grammarians who were enamored of Latin?

Do we know? Or is just a hunch? Can we blame every change in English in from 1300 to 1900 on Latin grammar? If not, why this particular one?

Latin grammar is a convenent scapegoat, I'll give you that. But I'd still like some evidence (for example, we know the name Henry Alford for helping to start the split-infinitive "rule"). Whom can we connect with less/fewer?

Hint: Robert Baker (1770), who didn't know very much Latin at all (or any other languages)

Of course, if all you guys are saying is that the compilers of English grammar and usage manuals sought to impose rules on spoken and written English, well -- DUH! That's what usage manuals (in any language) are about. It has nothing to do with Latin or with making a language more like Latin in having logical formations and "rules." In fact, many of the 18th-century prescriptions for English were decidedly illogical; they had everything to do with "proper" and class-based distinctions in speech and writing: "We shouldn't speak like those who live in the gutter." Rules are often about control rather than about linguistic logic or structure. Think Academie Francaise.

[Stephen Jones]

Now if the rule had come from Lowth, then to attack 'Latinate grammar' would be correct, but, as you say, it appears the rule was simply invented by Baker, whose qualifications appear to have been his total ignorance of what he was talking about.

Chapeau this time, Henry.

[Henry_Cowell]

I've no hat here, but I'll extend to Mr Jones an invitation to a Balinese iced coffee.

[Stephen Jones]

You in Bali?