|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788 |
I believe that, in the Reese's Res Ipsa Loquitur, only certain monkeys are allowed to compete.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
You're thinking of REESE'S GREASE MONKEY RACE IPSA LOQUITUR, Father Steve.  You've got your sprockets mixed up with your dockets.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154 |
I was one of those kids with excellent "sound judgement". I read well ahead of my grade level so I had an good grasp of functional grammer. That is I could recognise and use complex sentance structure. (I enjoyed breaking the "rules" by knowing the exceptions eg you can start a sentance with because.)
Unfortunately I went through school at a time when teaching traditional grammer such as knowing the names and definitions uses of past imperfect and gerund and participles was not done and, to read my written work, was not needed. I would have disliked learning that way so I thought it was great. Until I tried to explain to a Japanese friend when to use "ran" vs "had run" vs "had been running." I knew when to use them but didn't realize they were different tenses rather than common vs uncommon uses.
Learning a second language could have been much easier for me as well. When the teacher spoke about using a certain phrase only in the past perfect or in a subjunctive clause I didn't know what she meant.
Like many things in school the child may not value the information right away but that does not mean there is no value.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
that does not mean there is no value
Interesting angle, Zed. Never thought of that.
Like you, I got very little grammar in "grammar school". All those parts of speech and tenses you mention are greek to me.
I did learn "Nominative, Genitive, Dative, Accusative, Vocative, Ablative" in Grade 9 Latin because we had to memorize these terms, but I never had the foggiest about how to use them.
"Latin Authors" and "Latin Grammar" were one subject in my day. If you memorized the correct english translation of all the latin text, you could get 100% on the "Latin Authors" part of the exam, which accounted for 60% of your total mark. If you stuck in the root words in the "Latin Grammar" part of the exam, without attempting to decline them, you could pick up at least another 10%. So it was possible to get 70% on the exam without knowing the first thing about Latin Grammar.
Of course, this knowledge of latin roots has come in handy in ways I never anticipated when we studied Latin as part of the required curriculum in Grade 9. So I appreciate what you're saying about collateral benefits.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
Pardon Mister Plutarch, I trust that as a youth you didn't buy into those social myths of the day that claimed that we sloven sapient beings didn't occupy but 30% of the brain's potential space with our paltry accumulations from the World's store of endless information. Clutter! That will be our demise; fruitless exposure to all things in hope of "collateral benefits". Purge your thoughts of schools and rules and getting chicks and instead focus upon and question fundamental precepts that enslave you to the master that lives inside you who is animal. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, and lo, the bird of time is on the wing. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
fruitless exposure to all things in hope of "collateral benefits"
I couldn't agree with you more, themilum. It makes more sense to focus on "core benefits" than "collateral benefits".
There is nothing wrong with "collateral benefits", of course, unless there are no "core" benefits for them to be collateral to, or to which they are collateral.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
re unless there are no "core" benefits for them to be collateral to, or to which they are collateral
I can't help wondering if it's OK to dangle a preposition inside a sentence as long as you don't dangle it at the end of a sentence, as in the sentence above.
Whatever the correct grammatical construction, it sounds more natural to my untutored ear to say:
"There is nothing wrong with "collateral benefits", of course, unless there are no "core" benefits for them to be collateral to."
than to say:
"There is nothing wrong with "collateral benefits", of course, unless there are no "core" benefits to which they are collateral."
The latter may be formally correct within the rules of traditional grammar but it sounds rather stilted and somewhat officious or affected to me.
I confess I am not a student of the matter, but it seems to me contemporary practice in all areas of communication [except, perhaps, academia] has long since moved away from such starchy formalism.
It must be doubly vexing to be a student in a traditional grammar class nowadays. Even those students who learn "sound judgment" from literate parents at home will not learn from that powerfully influential source the more archaic formulations promulgated within the classroom.
To return to our "core benefits/collateral benefits" discussion, themilum, it occurs to me that we are in danger of putting the horse of habit ahead of the cart of clarity in english classes nowadays.
This is not an expert opinion, of course. It is just my untutored opinion, honestly felt and sincerely, albeit somewhat incautiously expressed, at least in this company.
My purpose is not to inflame the sensibilities of those who have a different, and, perhaps, more august opinion. It is simply to exercise my right to express my own opinion, respectfully.
My opinion may be right or wrong, themilum, but it would be wrong to deny me my right, wouldn't you say?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
My opinion may be right or wrong, themilum, but it would be wrong to deny me my right, wouldn't you say? Well yes, Plutarch, but not necessarily. At times a "right" can be a wrong that should not be allowed to be said - FIRE! But I agree with what you have said, and so...what do you want me to do...censor myself? Never! That is the job of tyrants and Moderators of Internet Forum Boards.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
that should be the job of ... Moderators of Internet Forum Boards
Ah, yes, themilum.
But Moderators, of all people, should be moderate in all things. And I, for one, have no complaint about the Moderators of this Board -- of which there are none in evidence, not now, not as long as I can remember.
The best Moderators are self-Moderators, wouldn't you say, theMilum?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
The best Moderators are self-Moderators, wouldn't you say, theMilum?Say, Plutarch, would you please stop saying.... " wouldn't you say, theMilum?". Some people here already think that I am your sock-puppet, and by extension, that would make you mine. (Kinda like we are married...but more so.) But hell yes, Plutarch, the best Moderators are self-Moderators, but the best of beers is long-neck Bud.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,317
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
759
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
