I found this via a language log post.

The "test" is filled with some incredibly bad ideas about language.
I took it and wrote down two answers for each - the one I thought was right and the one I thought he was looking for.

Of the ones I thought were right I scored zero, probably because in my opinion at least nine of the ten are, to use computer terminology, NFF: No Fault Found.
Trying to second guess the author I scored four.

Truly sad, but very funny nonetheless. The ensuing commentary is riotously hilarious. This is a prime example of clueless nitpickery. Actually, the late DF Wallace is the patron saint of peevology. See Languagehat's essay on Wallace's loony musings on language in re Bryan Garner's prescriptive book of usage (link). That there are college-educated people still kicking around who think that a split infinitive is somehow a grammatical error rather than a matter of style proves to my satisfaction that the human species is not worth saving.

If people want to follow this bad advice, I guess that's their business, but why do they think that following this advice will somehow help them avoid ambiguity? I'm reminded of this.

In the answers, I thought his pontifications were out of line, such as "from whence" is "grossly redundant," or "I’d cringe at the naked vulnerability of his sentences left wandering around without periods and at the ambiguity of his uncrossed 't's." Clearly he needs some advice in writing, as well.

I am going to say something that is unpopular, but I've been thinking about it for awhile. In your link goofy, you had said this:

quote:

A lot of people's knowledge of grammar has as much to do with actual English grammar as the geocentric model of the solar system has to do with the heliocentric model.

I know that linguists, such as you and zmj, define grammar differently from the rest us. It reminds me of the medical definition of myocardial infarction, versus the layperson's definition of heart attack. They're different, but we in health care understand both and surely accept that laypeople have a different perspective.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
I am going to say something that is unpopular, but I've been thinking about it for awhile. In your link goofy, you had said this:

quote:

A lot of people's knowledge of grammar has as much to do with actual English grammar as the geocentric model of the solar system has to do with the heliocentric model.

I know that linguists, such as you and zmj, define grammar differently from the rest us. It reminds me of the medical definition of myocardial infarction, versus the layperson's definition of heart attack. They're different, but we in health care understand both and surely accept that laypeople have a different perspective.

I'm not a linguist. But I agree that the general public has a different definition of "grammar" than linguists and other specialists do. Maybe that statement that you quote was too strong. But what I was reacting to was how the general public doesn't even seem to consider grammar (as I see it). For them, language is about avoiding split infinitives, omitting needless words, not using "aggravate" when you mean "irritate" etc. If people were taught about language and grammar properly, maybe they wouldn't think that this sort of clueless nitpickery was all that was important.

A better analogy might be how someone on the Language Log thread puts it:

quote:

pretending you are "teaching grammar" by teaching these superficial points seems to me like teaching children a few random math facts, like "5×5=25″ and "the sides of a square are equal in length" and calling it "teaching math".

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

quote:

But I agree that the general public has a different definition of "grammar" than linguists and other specialists do

True. However, do you include English teachers with "other specialists?" Because, to be honest, I think they are the ones who started all of this. I still remember Mrs. Hall from 3rd and 4th grade. She's the one who made the boys (the girls never used "bad grammar") wear two hats when they said something like, "My dad, he...." We have talked about this before.

I see your point, though, about teaching those isolated rules; that discussion on Language Log was excellent.

By other specialists I meant to include everyone else who is interested in descriptive grammar. This might include some English teachers, but I'm sure a lot of non-ESL English teachers (that is, English teachers who teach English to native speakers) are more interested in clueless nitpickery.

But I agree that the general public has a different definition of "grammar" than linguists and other specialists do.

Part of the reason for this is that the general public have been misinformed. Even traditional (normative) grammarians had more of a grasp of what English grammar was, though they still tended to subsume punctuation, orthography, and other kinds of usage suggestions under the general heading of grammar. Another example would be the utter confusion that many nitpickers have with what the grammatical category of voice really is. Language Log has had more than a couple of posts dealing with these clueless pundits blathering on about eschewing the passive voice where about half of their example sentences are not in the passive voice.

The simple matter is that punctuation and spelling are not grammar or parts of it. A language without orthography is still a language and it has as much grammar as a language with a literature. Usage is not grammar. Saying that one should not split infinitives has nothing to do with grammar. At most it is a suggestion that certain phrases should be written in a set way. The language Log arithmetic example is pretty close to what's going on. If you want to teach somebody how to do multiplication or division the long way and by hand, your students first half to learn the multiplication tables from the zeros to the nines. Teaching them a few facts, such as 5 x 5 = 25, and even some erroneous ones like 3 x 8 = 19, is not going to help them very much.

Linguists and real grammarians (usually people exposed to more than one language) use an awful lot of terminology (a lot of which come sin different systems, e.g., traditional grammatical terminology tends to come from Greco-Latin grammar, most modern terminology tends to be from the generative school of grammar), but that is because the teachers and their students need to be able to describe what is going on in the language under discussion. Just as a surgeon wouldn't ask for that doohicky on the left or a mechanic say your thingumbob needs replacement, a grammarian uses some agreed-upon terms to identify the different fiddly bits of language. At least most of those deprecating the split infinitive can correctly identify an infinite.

Many people complain that grammar is no longer taught to children in school (and by that they tend to mean traditional grammar), but that is mainly because so few primary and secondary teachers are capable of teaching anything remotely resembling grammar.

[Corrected lapsus mentis.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

quote:

Originally posted by zmježd:
...but that is mainly because so few primary and secondary teachers are incapable of teaching...

Is this some kind of test?

Is this some kind of test?

Sadly, no; just another sign of exiting middle age and slouching towards senectitude.

Myth Jellies???? How long it has been since we've seen you here! Great to see you and I hope we'll see more of you.

quote:

Originally posted by Myth Jellies:

quote:

Originally posted by zmježd:
...but that is mainly because so few primary and secondary teachers are incapable of teaching...

Is this some kind of test?

There is a heap of stuff about this kind of over-negating to be found on Language Log (among other places). It's extremely common in newspaper reports.