Learn Grammar; I didn't!

[Casiopea]

I'm starting my holidays today, so, yes, I won't be around for a while to finish this discussion. Sorry.

Looks good, though.

Note, why are some forms (e.g., placement of 'sometimes') deemed acceptable and yet others deemed unacceptable (i.e., if she would have)? I don't get it. What's the criteria?

[Steven D]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

I'm starting my holidays today, so, yes, I won't be around for a while to finish this discussion. Sorry.

Looks good, though.

Note, why are some forms (e.g., placement of 'sometimes') deemed acceptable and yet others deemed unacceptable (i.e., if she would have)? I don't get it. What's the criteria?

I don't know, but adverbs are one thing and conditionals are another. It has to do with flexibility. Adverbs aren't major structures. Condtional clauses are major structures. There's only so much they can be moved around. Adverbs, on the other hand, are more supportive. They support other structures such as the present perfect and conditional clauses. They provide extra meaning and color, which is very important. I suppose adverbs aren't as foundational as the structures they accompany. The foundation and the main structure remain the same, but many forms of ornamentation are more flexible - to a degree. Adjectives are simple, and, I think, therefore, a lot less flexible than adverbs. Adverbs can wander, especially in conversation, that is to say spontaneous speech. Adjectives stick to their nouns like barnacles.

1. They 2. took 3. long walks along the beach.

1. They often 2. took 3. long walks along the beach early in the morning.

Oftentimes, 1. they 2. would take 3. long walks along the beach early in the morning.

Early in the morning, 1. they 2. would often take 3. long walks along the beach.

1. They 2. would very often take 3. long walks along the beach early in the morning.

Very often 1. they 2. would take 3. long walks along the beach early in the morning.

With adverbs, I don't think "either it's right or wrong" type rules can be applied as often as they can in other parts of grammar.

One might think of placing "long walks" at the beginning, but I wouldn't.

[Tdol]

I don't think all uses are wrong. Your examples have a different meaning- the second implies that it was impossible for him to have known, which is a usage I'm OK with. However, many uses are not about different meanings. Where it is the standard meaning with a non-standard form, then there has to be a call made on the issue. In the UK, the usage is fairly minor, so it wouldn't really come across as a regionlism to most people. In the States, it may well be different.

[Steven D]

Originally Posted by tdol

I don't think all uses are wrong. Your examples have a different meaning- the second implies that it was impossible for him to have known, which is a usage I'm OK with. However, many uses are not about different meanings. Where it is the standard meaning with a non-standard form, then there has to be a call made on the issue. In the UK, the usage is fairly minor, so it wouldn't really come across as a regionlism to most people. In the States, it may well be different.

Yes, they have a different meaning. I should've made a note of that.

Yes, the second one implies that is was impossible. It's different from the first, but in practice it might be intended to have the same meaning as the first. It depends on who's speaking and the context.

The idea that the second one implies it was impossible might lead one to ask what "if he would have known" implies even though we've already recognized this as being incorrect.

if he could have known - if he was able to know - he wasn't able to know

if he would have known - if he was going to know - he was not going to know

Just a thought. I'm not attempting to justify "if he would've known".

[Steven D]

Originally Posted by DBP

I've heard this often, X Mode; "considered incorrect" but I've never heard any sound reasons offered as to why.

Hi, that's a good question. Please see my previous posts.

______________________________________

Also, maybe we could say because "that's how it is"? I wouldn't want to say that, but maybe that's how it is.

Is there a sound reason to say that everything that deviates from widespread and accepted usage is wrong? Do we really need a sound reason in this case? In other cases we seem not to need a reason.

What's wrong with saying "Jill walk home every day."? Why do we need the "s"?

[Steven D]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Most importantly, the majority of language providers welcomed into Asia to "teach" English aren't qualified to teach grammar nor do they speak the Standard either. Same holds true for ESL students who learn English as a survival language. Native speakers aren't necessarily qualified teachers of grammar either. If a student is serious about learning "English" then the student needs to know that language encompasses three skills: reading, writing, and speaking.

Deviations from the Standard that I have noticed:

Phonology: e.g., supposu*bly
Morphology: e.g., poor spelling (pick an example), PPs (I *drunk beer).
Syntax: e.g., adverb order (I *sometimes have been known to watch TV.)

Hi Casio,

I know you've noticed these deviations from the standard, but I'm not sure that I completely understand. If I understand correctly, you're saying you've heard native speaker ESL/EFL teahers deviate from the standard in these ways?

By the way, once again, placing "sometimes" after the subject and before the auxiliary "have" is not a deviation from the standard. There's less of a tendency to do that, but it's not a deviation from standard language. It can sound emphatic. It can also simply be seen as additional information, in which case it should be set off by commas. Also, that just simply might be where "sometimes" occurred in the mind of the speaker as he/she was speaking. It's not right to call it a deviation from the standard. The rules of adverb placement can, at times, be difficult to define in a precise way for the learner. Adverb placement is more flexible in spoken language, though there are still limitations, of course. In written language, one could expect to find that adverb placement conforms to more usual tendencies. I wouldn't call these tendencies rules, however. All one needs to do is listen to enough samples of spoken English to know and understand this.