I've seen those English dramas too, they're cruel

[venta]

I avoided all the BBC frothing about bad grammar the other day. Much as I like a well-placed apostrophe, the sort of people who say "I think you'll find you mean 'fewer'" are, largely, arses (up with whom one should not put).

However, a nice grammar quiz? oh yes, that sounds like fun. I can answer it and feel all smug. Except, of course, I disagreed with it.

Question 3: Read this sentence carefully. "I'd like to introduce you to my sister Clara, who lives in Madrid, to Benedict, my brother who doesn't, and to my only other sibling, Hilary." Which of the following is correct?

1. Hilary is male
2. Hilary is female
3. It's impossible to know from the context

Now, the BBC's answer is that Hilary is male, because there isn't a comma after 'brother'. Benedict is described as "my brother who doesn't [live in Madrid]", so there must also be another brother, and thus that brother must be only-other-sibling Hilary.

I claim the answer is morally 3: it's impossible to tell. Because I, for one, got so lost among the commas of that god-awful sentence that I was frankly quite bewildered enough by the end without worrying about whether Hilary was a boy or a girl. Good grammar aids clarity, it doesn't reduce English to a puzzle of whether you knew the rules well enough to divine the writer's intent correctly. If your reader has to count commas to understand your statement, you've already got it monumentally wrong.

Bah.

Comments

[ewx.livejournal.com]

> then correcting grammar is appropriate
Sure, but only if they are actually right. And things like less/fewer or split infinitives aren't grammar, they are style.

[bopeepsheep.livejournal.com]

It is still acceptable, in "possession of a small child" circumstances at the very least, to point out that a given construction is ugly/ambiguous/likely to provoke arguments and is thus best avoided. Style can still be steered towards the prevailing norm, and arguably should be in many cases.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

It's been demonstrated pretty conclusively that children pick up orthodox grammar (and style, in this sense) much more efficiently from reading orthodoxly-written text than they do from being taught rules.

Repeated correction can do more harm than good imo. Exemplification is more likely to be effective.

[bopeepsheep.livejournal.com]

Who said anything about teaching rules?

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Who said anything about teaching rules?

Erm, that's what this comment thread's about, isn't it?

[bopeepsheep.livejournal.com]

> then correcting grammar is appropriate
Sure, but only if they are actually right. And things like less/fewer or split infinitives aren't grammar, they are style
Followed by it is still acceptable ... to point out that a given construction ... is best avoided. There may be no "actually right" answer regarding less/fewer* but it doesn't mean you can't tell children that the issue provokes much discussion, and that there are style conventions. None of which has anything to do with reading vs rules as methods of learning.

If you wish to address "teaching rules", why not respond to someone who was discussing that?

* Worms, can, etc.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

If you wish to address "teaching rules", why not respond to someone who was discussing that?

Sorry, I hadn't realized the comment placement rules conventions were so strict. I had figured that as my comment was prompted by and added to your point about guidance being preferable to correction, placing after it would be appropriate. How wrong I seem to have been!

[bopeepsheep.livejournal.com]

I am feeling tetchy this morning. Apologies.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

I apologise too, I shouldn't have been sarcastic. Fridays eh!

[ewx.livejournal.com]

That's not what happens in real life though: people repeatedly say that such-and-such a usage is "wrong", or "don't you mean <some synonym>", and they do these even for perfectly idiomatic, comprehensible and nonambiguous usages. It's rude and ridiculous.

[bopeepsheep.livejournal.com]

Oh, ok. My obviously fictional child and I will carry on as we are, rude and ridiculous real people can do what they please.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I didn't intend to imply that anyone was fictional. My point is that there is a constant barrage of ill-informed pedantry, and it's really wearing.

[bopeepsheep.livejournal.com]

It's pretty wearing being on the parental end of discussions like "but why does English work like this, Mummy?" too, I admit. Working towards reasonably good/standard style and grammar is much harder work than one realises from a grown-up learned-it-already perspective.

[venta.livejournal.com]

I think[*] that I have a reasonable grasp of grammar, but have no memory of really learning it. Which is a shame, because it might make it easier to teach (should I be in a position to do such a thing).

Doubtless the mother will be along in a minute to tell me that I, too, asked relentless questions about it. Possibly resulting in a series of occasions where "just because" actually is the correct answer.

(Actually, since you seem fairly grammatically informed, may I hear your opinion on the relative correctness/pleasantness/etc of the following two sentences:

1. In the evening, I headed out to the pub.
2. In the evening I headed out to the pub.

Other people who read this comment are also invited to have opinions too, of course.)

[*] Possibly wrongly.

[bopeepsheep.livejournal.com]

Instinctively, I'd plump for 1 as a better reflection of how we'd say it (commas indicating breaths, etc). There's no real ambiguity or confusion introduced if you omit the comma, though, and it's a very short sentence so you can get away without it.