|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 8:00 pm Post subject: Grammar rules that should be changed/made redundant? |
 |
|
From Omkara in the 'Misuse of Apostrophes' thread in the General Discussion Forum.
| Quote: |
I think a good rule is to look at grammar in terms of necessity and sufficiency. If it's not necessary, cut it out; if it is insufficient, add something. The point is to communicate as clearly and as exactly as possible.
|
I think a lot of grammar rules should be changed or declared redundant.
Examples include:
1) Never begin a sentence with a conjunction.
2) Always capitalising the personal pronoun 'I', none of the other personal pronouns are capitalised.
3) The 1st conditional should include both likely and unlikely outcomes (often the difference in meaning is small and purely a matter of subjective opinion..."If we win we will celebrate", could do for either situation).
The 2nd conditional should be reserved only for imaginary situations, "If I were Mexican I could speak Spanish".
Also I believe that the rules of writing, applying on internet forums, should not have to be the same as other forms of writing as it's a different medium (again for example it's possible to use graphics' emoticons and links to other sites to back up what you're saying).
Anybody got any other examples of rules that shoud be done away with or altered, or any srong arguments for why this shouldn't happen? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
huck
Joined: 19 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think we should need to conjugate verbs for different subjects..
I be happy..You be happy...He be happy...They be happy....
So much easier... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think the rule against redundancy should be dropped. I think the rule against redundancy should be dropped. Let me say it again, repeatedly over and over again, I think the rule against redundancy should be dropped. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| I think the rule against redundancy should be dropped. I think the rule against redundancy should be dropped. Let me say it again, repeatedly over and over again, I think the rule against redundancy should be dropped. |
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Redundancy
| Quote: |
Redundancy is the unnecessary use of either needless, tautological, pleonastic or superfluous text, by which one repeats, in duplication, the same, identical, aforesaid things over and over again, beyond what would be needed or required to explain, or make comprehensible, the intended or signified meaning of that which one wishes to convey. Customarily, it is usually common in redundancy to repeat, sometimes with different phrasing or words, the same idea or reasoning, thus restating one's thoughts, sometimes paraphrasing oneself and effectively saying the same thing twice, or double.
History of Redundancy
In 1734, which was called Seventeen Thirty-Four, or the Year of Our Lord 1734, or the Year 1146 of the Islamic Calendar, Lord Alvin Redund wrote a correspondence missive letter (or a written, authored, dictated or typed message or statement addressed to a person, man, woman, child, kid, retiree, criminal, employee or organization, group, business, ... I myself guess you the reader knows or understands what I mean here in this sentence) that was excessively repetitive to the point of being repetitively excessive. The wording was superfluous, repetitive, and more than required. In the times following, and subsequently, and afterwards, all things, items, speech, text, stuff, and things that are repetitive, superflous, or more than required are called, named, or otherwise denoted as Redundant, because, due to, and as a direct result of Lord Redund's text contained within his correspondence missive letter.
Lord Redund, also called Lord Alvin Redund, or Alvin Lord Redund, or Alvin, often dressed and attired himself in an ascot, collar, scarf, and neckerchief, as well as a cloak, coat, jacket, vest, and overcoat. This meant that often and many times, he was hot, searing, roasting and otherwise stuffy much, or most, of the time. His clothing, vestments, and attire, were considered, regarded, and thought to be excessive, superfluous, and more than required.
Contents of the Correspondence Missive Letter Message
Below and following is the text and transcript of the correspondence missive letter written and penned by Lord Alvin Redund, also called Lord Redund's Missive Letter.
Dearest, esteemed, important, and beloved colleagues, friends, and comrades,
I, Lord Redund, also called Lord Alvin Redund, am writing and penning this missive letter in correspondence to you, my friends, colleagues, and comrades, on March 15, 1734, this fifteenth day of March of the year 1734 to request, inquire, and ask of you, my friends, colleagues, and comrades, if it would be possible, feasible, or conceivable that I might borrow, or obtain on loan from you a small, tiny, insignificant amount of money, coin, or currency with which I might purchase, obtain through sale, or buy additional paper, or parchment, with which I could then write or pen more letters, missives, and messages unto you, my friends, comrades, and colleagues.
Thank you. I am grateful, and much obliged.
Sincerely, Truly, and Earnestly,
Lord Alvin Redund, Lord of House Redund |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The one thing that bothers me about English is there is no plural pronoun for "you." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ernie
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Location: asdfghjk
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think we should need to conjugate verbs for different subjects..
I be happy..You be happy...He be happy...They be happy....
So much easier...
then we'd all be soundin like pirates.... aRRGGHHH mateys |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| I think the rule against redundancy should be dropped. I think the rule against redundancy should be dropped. Let me say it again, repeatedly over and over again, I think the rule against redundancy should be dropped. |
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Redundancy
| Quote: |
Redundancy is the unnecessary use of either needless, tautological, pleonastic or superfluous text, by which one repeats, in duplication, the same, identical, aforesaid things over and over again, beyond what would be needed or required to explain, or make comprehensible, the intended or signified meaning of that which one wishes to convey. Customarily, it is usually common in redundancy to repeat, sometimes with different phrasing or words, the same idea or reasoning, thus restating one's thoughts, sometimes paraphrasing oneself and effectively saying the same thing twice, or double.
History of Redundancy
In 1734, which was called Seventeen Thirty-Four, or the Year of Our Lord 1734, or the Year 1146 of the Islamic Calendar, Lord Alvin Redund wrote a correspondence missive letter (or a written, authored, dictated or typed message or statement addressed to a person, man, woman, child, kid, retiree, criminal, employee or organization, group, business, ... I myself guess you the reader knows or understands what I mean here in this sentence) that was excessively repetitive to the point of being repetitively excessive. The wording was superfluous, repetitive, and more than required. In the times following, and subsequently, and afterwards, all things, items, speech, text, stuff, and things that are repetitive, superflous, or more than required are called, named, or otherwise denoted as Redundant, because, due to, and as a direct result of Lord Redund's text contained within his correspondence missive letter.
Lord Redund, also called Lord Alvin Redund, or Alvin Lord Redund, or Alvin, often dressed and attired himself in an ascot, collar, scarf, and neckerchief, as well as a cloak, coat, jacket, vest, and overcoat. This meant that often and many times, he was hot, searing, roasting and otherwise stuffy much, or most, of the time. His clothing, vestments, and attire, were considered, regarded, and thought to be excessive, superfluous, and more than required.
Contents of the Correspondence Missive Letter Message
Below and following is the text and transcript of the correspondence missive letter written and penned by Lord Alvin Redund, also called Lord Redund's Missive Letter.
Dearest, esteemed, important, and beloved colleagues, friends, and comrades,
I, Lord Redund, also called Lord Alvin Redund, am writing and penning this missive letter in correspondence to you, my friends, colleagues, and comrades, on March 15, 1734, this fifteenth day of March of the year 1734 to request, inquire, and ask of you, my friends, colleagues, and comrades, if it would be possible, feasible, or conceivable that I might borrow, or obtain on loan from you a small, tiny, insignificant amount of money, coin, or currency with which I might purchase, obtain through sale, or buy additional paper, or parchment, with which I could then write or pen more letters, missives, and messages unto you, my friends, comrades, and colleagues.
Thank you. I am grateful, and much obliged.
Sincerely, Truly, and Earnestly,
Lord Alvin Redund, Lord of House Redund |
|
From dictionary.com
| Quote: |
Chiefly British. removed or laid off from a job.
[Origin: 1595�1605; < L redundant- (s. of redundāns), prp. of redundāre to flow back, overflow, be excessive. See redound, -ant] |
??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peeping Tom
Joined: 15 Feb 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:44 pm Post subject: Re: Grammar rules that should be changed/made redundant? |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
From Omkara in the 'Misuse of Apostrophes' thread in the General Discussion Forum.
| Quote: |
I think a good rule is to look at grammar in terms of necessity and sufficiency. If it's not necessary, cut it out; if it is insufficient, add something. The point is to communicate as clearly and as exactly as possible.
|
I think a lot of grammar rules should be changed or declared redundant.
Examples include:
1) Never begin a sentence with a conjunction.
2) Always capitalising the personal pronoun 'I', none of the other personal pronouns are capitalised.
3) The 1st conditional should include both likely and unlikely outcomes (often the difference in meaning is small and purely a matter of subjective opinion..."If we win we will celebrate", could do for either situation).
The 2nd conditional should be reserved only for imaginary situations, "If I were Mexican I could speak Spanish".
Also I believe that the rules of writing, applying on internet forums, should not have to be the same as other forms of writing as it's a different medium (again for example it's possible to use graphics' emoticons and links to other sites to back up what you're saying).
Anybody got any other examples of rules that shoud be done away with or altered, or any srong arguments for why this shouldn't happen? |
I think we should drop the words "the" and "a". Many languages do just fine without them.
I think we should also drop verb "be," as it unnecessary.
Spaces waste paper. Weshoulddoawaywithspaces.Weshouldrevertbacktoinvertingallsubjectsandverbstomakequestionsandthuseliminateneedfordummy"do"verbinquestions.Nomore"Doyoulikecookies?"butrather"Likeyoucookies?"Capitalizationalsounnecessary.pronounsoftenredundant.englishshouldbecomepro-droplanguage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Woland
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, fantasy camp - a place where everyone farts the essence of strawberries.
What everyone above is really saying is, "I hate it when other people point out that I'm less literate than they are." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bondrock
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Location: ^_^
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
And who says you cannot begin a sentence with a conjunction?
what's next?
an appeel fur speling reeform? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Qinella
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Location: the crib
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Given some of the suggestions, it seems a few people here would like to see sentences like this: i walking to school and day hot.
Last edited by Qinella on Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:58 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RACETRAITOR wrote: |
| The one thing that bothers me about English is there is no plural pronoun for "you." |
That bugs me, too.
I don't know where you're from, but in the Southeastern part of the United States, the second person plural pronoun is "you all," which is abbreviated to "y'all" or sometimes just "yaw."
In the Northeastern part, it is "you guys," regardless of the gender of group being spoken to.
The Yankees (Northeasterners) and Dixies (Southeasterners) ridicule each over this difference.
When I write a verb conjugation on the board, a student sometimes corrects me because he thinks I wrote "you" twice by accident. I don't know any other way to do it, so I have to explain the two meanings in Korean. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Woland wrote: |
Ah, fantasy camp - a place where everyone farts the essence of strawberries.
What everyone above is really saying is, "I hate it when other people point out that I'm less literate than they are." |
Clearly you're projecting, as you don't seem literate enough to realise some of the posts above were being ironic.
Ironic isn't it?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SeoulFinn
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Location: 1h from Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RACETRAITOR wrote: |
| The one thing that bothers me about English is there is no plural pronoun for "you." |
But there is, isn't there? "Y'all?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Blacks in England use 'yous' for a plural of 'you'. Seems fair enough!
I'm not sure whether I'd get rid of the things I dislike about English (superfluous-to-meaning pronouns and auxilliary verbs) because stuff like "Kangnam, to, how go?" although in my view superior to "how do I go to Kangnam?" (where "I" and "do" are just completely unnecessary), it just, er, sounds rubbish. Also, the fact that English is far more full of pronouns than Korean tells us interesting things about English speaking cultures. But still, superfluous items infuriate me.
I also hate verbs with multiple meanings, like 'to take'......(1) to receive, opposite of to give, (2) "take [have/do/partake in] a shower", (c) take [use/go by] the subway.....I once counted 5 or 6 uses of 'take' and I've forgotten them.
Prepositions of time and place (at/in/on) simply make no sense and are laborious to teach. In Korean, 에 is used consistently and this is how it should be. It�s consistent. English? �On Saturday night�, �at (or on) weekend�, �in England�, "at 6pm", "in the morning", "at night", "in the world", "On Earth" and yet some time expressions (today, yesterday, next week, next monday) do not require at/in/on. Logically, there is no justification for saying "at 6pm" and "on Monday"....again, superfluousness and needless complication. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
