Learn Grammar; I didn't!

[Casiopea]

Oops. Sorry. I just realized I'm in the UsingEnglish Content page. Egad! Sorry for posting way off topic. I will stop here. See you in another forum, X Mode.

 

[Steven D]

Deviations for the Standard are acceptable. I'm a descriptivists: a sentence is "unacceptable" only iff it lacks meaning; that includes informal and formal language. When it comes to the TOEFL, though, Standard Rules all the way.

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.)



Ah, yes, but it's "a growing". :-D I'd mention that to my students 'cause they're bound to come across it, as did you. [/i]

I'm not quite sure why you think there's something wrong with placing "sometimes" after the subject and before the auxiliary "have". That's not where it typically goes, but in conversation I think adverbs can be quite unpredictable. I think placing "sometimes" after "have" in that sentence would sound somewhat emphatic, though the speaker would probably not be aware of it.

With "drunk", I'm not so sure the mistake is with spelling. ;-)

suppos*ubly - I've never heard that. :shock: Maybe the speaker was just trying to be funny? :?:

I'm not quite sure why you think there's something wrong with placing "sometimes" after the subject and before the auxiliary "have". That's not where it typically goes, but in conversation I think adverbs can be quite unpredictable. I think placing "sometimes" after "have" in that sentence would sound somewhat emphatic, though the speaker would probably not be aware of it. Well, anyway, I don't think it's worth giving much attention.

 

[Casiopea]

Ah, yes, my comma should have been a semi-colon, sorry:

Morphology: spelling (pick an example); PPs (I *drunk beer)

Please note "PPs" for past participles (i.e., "drunk" a main verb?). Spelling was not at issue. Morphology was.

suppos*ubly - I've never heard that. :shock:

It's North American; e.g., Joey on Friends uses "supposubly".

"sometimes" after the subject and before the auxiliary "have". That's not where it typically goes,

Right, I agree. It's not "un"acceptable, but is it (traditionally) grammatical?

That'd be a good topic to follow-up on. :-D :up: What is the Standard position for "sometimes"?:roll:

 

[Steven D]

Ooh, cool. Then here's an activity you'll definitely like. It's called Criss Cross:

Have the students sits in rows (classroom rows). Pick a vertical row and have all the students in that row stand up. Have them raise their hand and ask you a question, something like, "Do you have ____ in Canada/USA/the UK?", say, for example, buses, cheese, etc. If your answer is "Yes, we do" then that student gets to sit down, and if your answer is "No, we don't" then that student remains standing. The last student left standing starts the new row--a horizontal one: the students on her/his left and right stand, hence the name Criss Cross.

My students absolutely love this activity. I use it for review, and for all ages, even 1st grade, but I usually give them hints about the fashcards I'm holding 'n hiding from view. For example, "This animal lives on a farm. It's pink, and it says, oink, oink." Actual student response: "Is it a peach?" (Hahaha). Students raise their hands, the quickest hand raised wins that student a chance to provide an answer. If "yes". They sit down, and if "No" they remain standing.

One of the exellent things about this activity is that it gets the entire class involved. Students prompt one another with the right way to pose the question or the different kinds of nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs that might be the correct answer. They do so because they don't want to be the next row to stand up.

I also use the activity if a student has just return from a short trip. We switch seats. I become one of the students, they become the person who says "yes" or "no". The class asks about the trip; e.g., Did you swim?, Do they have _____ in South Korea?", What kind of ___ do they have?", etc.

It also works well for routines; e.g., "Do you get up at 7:00?". Once the correct time is known, the question changes to "Do you eat breakfast at 7:35?" and so on.

All the best,

Thanks for the suggestions.

I like the last one best. It could go from "do" to "did". After that they could start with "wh" questions followed by "do, does did" . Next they could use "wh" questions that begin with modals. But before that they could ask yes-no questions that begin with modals.

 

[Steven D]

Ah, yes, my comma should have been a semi-colon, sorry:

Morphology: spelling (pick an example); PPs (I *drunk beer)

Please note "PPs" for past participles (i.e., "drunk" a main verb?). Spelling was not at issue. Morphology was.

It's North American; e.g., Joey on Friends uses "supposubly".

Right, I agree. It's not "un"acceptable, but is it (traditionally) grammatical?

That'd be a good topic to follow-up on. :-D :up: What is the Standard position for "sometimes"?:roll:

Yes, with "drunk" that's what I thought.

If someone says it on a tv show, then maybe the person you heard say it was just trying to be funny?

As far as the placement of "sometimes" goes, I wouldn't look so closely at that in this case. I think it's as simple as this:

Adverb placement is often unpredictable in conversation. It's a matter of how thoughts come to one's mind. "Sometimes" has been known to move around sometimes. Would you say so?

In the case of "sometimes", I think it's mostly important to take note of what is not typical. Of course, there are parts of a sentence where it simply doesn't belong and where no one would ever think of using it.

Here's something else that comes to mind. Sometimes "probably" is placed at the beginning of a sentence by native English speakers. This is for emphasis. However, when I hear non-native English speakers do this, I think it might have something to do with where "probably" is placed in their first language. One can't be 100% sure of this, however.

For example, I think it's more typical to place "probably" before the subject - at the very start of the sentence - in Spanish. This happens in English, but it's not the most typical placement of "probably".

 

[Steven D]

Oops. Sorry. I just realized I'm in the UsingEnglish Content page. Egad! Sorry for posting way off topic. I will stop here. See you in another forum, X Mode.

Does this mean you are abandoning the discussion? I might have more comments and questions based on what you've posted.

This can happen with threads sometimes. I wouldn't think it's a sin. :shock:

 

[Steven D]

Quote:
"sometimes" after the subject and before the auxiliary "have". That's not where it typically goes,

Right, I agree. It's not "un"acceptable, but is it (traditionally) grammatical?

I wouldn't call it incorrect. I think adverb placement can often be based on tendencies, not rules of grammar. There are, however, certain things that simply don't fly.


http://www.onestopenglish.com/ProfessionalSupport/ask/grammar_thornbury_frequency.htm


I like Scott Thornbury's commentary, generaly speaking. I find it agreeable and well-reasoned.

What do you think? Do we really need the hyphen there?

 

[DBP]

I once heard a teacher say "if she would have". It made somewhat of an impression on me, as it's not something I would say. It's something that strikes me as not standard even though I might have heard it before. I probably have but never paid attention to it. That's something I would say deviates from the standard - too much.

•In spoken English there is a growing tendency to use would have in place of the subjunctive in contrary-to-fact clauses, as in if I would have been the President, but this usage is still widely considered incorrect.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/50/I0025000.html

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

 

[Tdol]

In British English, this is far less common and would almost certainly be regarded as wrong. We do say 'if you would be so kind...I would be very grateful', so for us the use of 'would' in the if-clause has a function, politeness, persuasion, etc. I suppose it would be considered an error because it has no identifiable function and is replacing the standard form. ;-)

 

[Steven D]

In British English, this is far less common and would almost certainly be regarded as wrong. We do say 'if you would be so kind...I would be very grateful', so for us the use of 'would' in the if-clause has a function, politeness, persuasion, etc. I suppose it would be considered an error because it has no identifiable function and is replacing the standard form. ;-)

That's understandable. Agreed. Those forms are used in American English as well.

However, I think we should be clear about something. Your examples use "would + base form" in the "if" clause. What I initially posted has to do with using "would + have + past participle" in the "if" clause.

I suppose it would be considered an error because it has no identifiable function and is replacing the standard form.

I see. So -

Specifically this: "would + have + past participle" in the "if" clause

Yes?

Would that be your explanation for why it's wrong? I've thought about this as well. I would say that "would have + past participle" in an "if" clause is wrong, or at least sounds strange, because that form is supposed to be used in the result clause. I'm speaking of third conditional type sentences here.

I understand how it works in your examples, but that's different. No problem there.

How do you feel about "if + could + have + past participle" in the "if" clause? It doesn't seem to be very commonplace. It would seem difficult to justify that while at the same time saying that "if + would + past participle" is wrong. I'm trying to take the students' point of view here.

For example:

If he had known, he would've said something. - If he could've known, he would've said something.

 

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.