- Joined
- Oct 14, 2010
- Member Type
- English Teacher
- Native Language
- British English
- Home Country
- Czech Republic
- Current Location
- Czech Republic
freezeframe: But, understanding what the writer meant doesn't make the sentence as such make sense.
5jj: I don't agree entirely. If the meaning of an utterance shines through, then the sentence makes sense!
For example, the double negative, as in 'I can't see no ships' (= 'I can't see any ships') was acceptable English for centuries, and it still makes perfect sense to millions of 'uneducated' speakers. It was only the efforts of presccriptive grammarians, applying rules from another field, that convinced some people that it 'didn't make sense'.
If we applied the rules of logic to much of the informal conversation going on in the English-speaking world today, we would have to conclude that people were talking gibberish - and yet effective communication is going on everywhere.
In writing, where the person producing language has no immediate contact with those receiving it, it is necessary to be more careful - with insufficient context, 'I can't see no ships' could now become ambiguous. However, even here, the 'no-sense' criticism is sometimes artificial. Only last night, BC, Parser and I were looking at 'English has the largest vocabulary of any other language'. If we apply logic to this, it doesn't make real sense; how can one language have the largest vocabulary of other languages? It's nonsense. And yet, most native speakers would understand the intended meaning, and I believe that not many would even notice the 'mistake'. In real life, it makes sense.
freezeframe: This is, after all, a forum for discussing English grammar...
5jj: True. I have already said that Churchill's sentence was 'grammatically' incorrect, something I did not even notice, initially. My point was that the intended meaning was clear to me, and to some others. I am pretty sure that, if the words were spoken, no native speaker would have any problem at all in understanding the intended meaning.
It is only when we come to examine the written word that the problems arise. I agree that, in writing, Churchill should have written 'it' instead of 'them'. This would not only have been 'grammatically correct', but would have avoided any possibility of confusion.
However, I feel personally that, even in the written form, most native speakers would not even notice the slip, and would understand the intended meaning completely. The only people who would normally notice it would be teachers ( and not all of us
), people who write angry letters to The Times, and people studying the language.
5jj: I don't agree entirely. If the meaning of an utterance shines through, then the sentence makes sense!
For example, the double negative, as in 'I can't see no ships' (= 'I can't see any ships') was acceptable English for centuries, and it still makes perfect sense to millions of 'uneducated' speakers. It was only the efforts of presccriptive grammarians, applying rules from another field, that convinced some people that it 'didn't make sense'.
If we applied the rules of logic to much of the informal conversation going on in the English-speaking world today, we would have to conclude that people were talking gibberish - and yet effective communication is going on everywhere.
In writing, where the person producing language has no immediate contact with those receiving it, it is necessary to be more careful - with insufficient context, 'I can't see no ships' could now become ambiguous. However, even here, the 'no-sense' criticism is sometimes artificial. Only last night, BC, Parser and I were looking at 'English has the largest vocabulary of any other language'. If we apply logic to this, it doesn't make real sense; how can one language have the largest vocabulary of other languages? It's nonsense. And yet, most native speakers would understand the intended meaning, and I believe that not many would even notice the 'mistake'. In real life, it makes sense.
freezeframe: This is, after all, a forum for discussing English grammar...
5jj: True. I have already said that Churchill's sentence was 'grammatically' incorrect, something I did not even notice, initially. My point was that the intended meaning was clear to me, and to some others. I am pretty sure that, if the words were spoken, no native speaker would have any problem at all in understanding the intended meaning.
It is only when we come to examine the written word that the problems arise. I agree that, in writing, Churchill should have written 'it' instead of 'them'. This would not only have been 'grammatically correct', but would have avoided any possibility of confusion.
However, I feel personally that, even in the written form, most native speakers would not even notice the slip, and would understand the intended meaning completely. The only people who would normally notice it would be teachers ( and not all of us
), people who write angry letters to The Times, and people studying the language.
Last edited:
