Still, enough of the basic rules of grammar seeped into my brain. Songs/rhythms and rhymes worked well for me, and so did clear explainations of the rules and exceptions.

i follow many of thread here about grammar, and the discussion between the prescriptives vs. the descriptives closly (but i rarely partcipate) i am still learning grammar.

Reading your story makes me wonder if there is some value to all this discussion about grammar after all.

I never got a single thing out of a grammar lesson [as far as I know*] but maybe this stuff does "seep" into you, as you say, Of Troy.

Now that I think of it, I think I acquired all the grammar I have accumulated to this very day before I entered Grade 1 ... listening to my parents talk and having them correct my own talk.

But I never heard anything about prepositions, or nouns, or pronouns, or verbs or adjectives and adverbs, and certainly none of that more exotic stuff, from either of my parents, so I do wonder why teachers need to use these words to teach grammar.

Of course, some of these words [noun, verb, adjective, adverb, in particular] are a useful addition to anyone's vocabulary, but why are these words used so preemptively to teach grammar? I still don't get it.

Don't kids learn by imitating the language of others, and being shown how to say it right when they say it wrong, rather than by learning rules? It seems to me, as an outsider, that these "rules" simply get in the way of learning.

I accept that many children don't hear the best grammar at home, but doesn't that mean that these children should hear more proper english at school and less talk about "the rules"?

* Actually, I do remember one thing I learned for the first time in a classroom. Never dangle a participle. And I must have learned that lesson pretty well, because I never do.

Also, I know what a "participle" is**. It's not a very useful word, but I remember it anyway, without any particular resentment.

Aside: Perhaps I should feel resentful because I hear that the "dangling participle rule" has been relaxed or withdrawn completely. Perhaps it has, perhaps not, but either way, it doesn't matter. I'll be a "prescriptivist" on this one, not as a matter of principle but instead as a matter of habit.

*** Actually, I didn't know what a "dangling participle" was until I read the page linked below a minute ago.

I thought a "dangling participle" was leaving a word like "of" at the end of a sentence. [Eg. "the disease he died of."]

Seems I had it wrong. In any case, it seems to be less of a sin to "dangle a participle" today than it was in my schooldays, as this extract from "Dangling a Participle" suggests:

"The agreement among speakers of English that the subject of a participle (which is the same as saying `what it modifies') should come close behind it makes perfect sense in keeping our statements free of ambiguities like (1) to (3).

But here as everywhere else, being rigid and across-the-board about it gets us into the realm of pedantry. Look at these:

Speaking of John, he could work with us too.
Considering all the facts, this should be easy to resolve.
Knowing that, those plans had better be abandoned."

http://home.bluemarble.net/~langmin/miniatures/dangling.htm