"... there's no such thing as what "should" be; there's only what is or what isn't and what you're going to do about that."

This should be stated by all teachers every day. It's as applicable to walking in the park or down alleys after nightfall as it is to dressing for a job interview.

Will be using this a lot in "discussions" with people that refuse to educate themselves about processes (how things/society work).

Now wait a minute. Using proper grammar makes me an academic? I thought that was the sort of thing that the academy is opposed to these days. Who knew?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XbI-fDzUJXI

Yes, language evolves. But it doesn't evolve willy-nilly. It evolves to meet emerging needs. Unfortunately, it also evolves with misuse.

Mona Chalabi is trying to bludgeon the English-speaking world into accepting ignorance and misuse. She's defining the language by the vernacular and usage of the least educated among us. Because she didn't pay attention in class, she wants to demonize those who did.

What this guy says.

And, Amy, I believe Elmore Leonard was talking about dialogue. Having a gangbanger say, "this is the guy about whom I was telling you" doesn't work, unless the gang is a group of renegade Oxford dons.

Word Crimes

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc

"Yes, language evolves. But it doesn't evolve willy-nilly. It evolves to meet emerging needs. Unfortunately, it also evolves with misuse."

Rules are made to be broken. I can tell plenty about an individual's origins and education through their use of the English language.

That said, who really cares? I don't feel a need to fetishize English grammar rules laid down in the 19th century by Oxford Dons bent on turning English into an elite old boy's club.

That said, who really cares? I don't feel a need to fetishize English grammar rules laid down in the 19th century by Oxford Dons bent on turning English into an elite old boy's club. ~ Isab at January 4, 2017 8:22 AM

The rules were standardized in education in the Education Act of 1902.

The Act was an attempt to give the country a standardized education, to unify the county in the face of the multiplicity of languages and usages found on the islands of Britain and Ireland.

And, Amy, I believe Elmore Leonard was talking about dialogue. Having a gangbanger say, "this is the guy about whom I was telling you" doesn't work, unless the gang is a group of renegade Oxford dons.

I knew Elmore and we talked about this, so I can tell you definitively that he wasn't just talking about dialogue!

Also, without fairly standardized rules of usage, those with a lower vocabulary and handicapped communication skills will find it difficult to express complex thoughts and emotions; to make themselves understood.

Lower language skills lead to a lower ability to reason; as well as a lower ability to argue one's position and make oneself understood by others.

Have you ever been in a conversation with someone who cannot express themselves because their vocabulary and ability to construct a complex sentence is limited? Have you ever tried to listen to them describe an event? I imagine it must be torture for cops to try to reconstruct crimes scenes in academically-challenged neighborhoods as witnesses describe "some guy" doing "some messed up shit."

We, as a society, no longer strive for social and cultural excellence. We laugh as mediocre rappers demean opera. We watch television shows that portray genial slobs as the cultural standard. We mock academic excellence, insisting that standards be lowered to the point that almost anyone who can fog a mirror is an "honor student."

I knew Elmore and we talked about this, so I can tell you definitively that he wasn't just talking about dialogue! ~ Amy Alkon at January 4, 2017 8:43 AM

Okay, okay, he says, slowly backing away.

I enjoyed Elmore Leonard's books and his writing.

Keep in mind, that effectively suspending the rules requires knowing what they are. Bending the rules because you don't know what they are does not produce good writing. And Leonard produced good writing.

In a book review of one of Dave Barry's compilations, Heather Mallick wrote of the author, "This is as descriptive as Barry gets, so why do I understand immediately what he is talking about? Sometimes, I have this suspicion that Barry is much smarter and wiser than he lets on." Leonard, too, was much smarter and wiser than he let on. And Leonard was a better (and more prolific) author than Barry.

"Lower language skills lead to a lower ability to reason; as well as a lower ability to argue one's position and make oneself understood by others."

Language skills are entirely situational. I'm not a better person or a worse one because I can't read Confucius in Mandarin Chinese or Tactictus in classical Latin.

I think you are confused about cause and effect and too caught up in technicalities. Learning complex English grammar rules does not make you a better reader, writer or communicator.

Look at Artemis for God's sake.

The reverse is true.

Having good to excellent reasoning skills and a large vocabulary allows you to learn and apply the pedantic rules of English grammar, along with a great many other far more useful language skills.

For an example of someone who really knows how to use the English language and break the rules for literary effect, you can't do better than Crid's posts.

One of the things lost in all of this is the manner in which people learned grammar in school. Many of us had teachers who would publicly berate students when they made a mistake. The ridicule was more severe if you were considered one of the top students. Some grammar snobs probably think that everyone who speaks incorrectly needs to feel the humiliation they were forced to suffer through.

"This is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OLxLK_R6jQ

I think use of the rules is being over-hyped on both sides of this argument. One needs to learn them to know how and when to break them. Also, learning the rules enables the speaker or writer to better communicate.

Rigid adherence to the rules makes one a poor communicator, as does ignorance of them.

And constantly pointing out violations of the rules in the writing and speech of others makes one an ass, not a racist.

Look at Artemis for God's sake. ~ Isab at January 4, 2017 9:46 AM

When Artemis/Orion actually follows English grammar rules, I'll look to him/her/it as an example of adherence to, or even knowledge of, the rules. Until then, he/she/it's just a bad communicator all around. Run-on sentences and random comma usage do not an effective writer make.

For an example of someone who really knows how to use the English language and break the rules for literary effect, you can't do better than Crid's posts. ~ Isab at January 4, 2017 9:46 AM

Agreed, Crid is a very effective communicator.

And there is evidence of some education behind the words, bolstering my point that teaching one to communicate within the rules gives one the ability then to communicate inside or outside those rules.

However, not teaching students the rules because they are only for whites or snobs makes for an illiterate, and ultimately ignorant, population as ideas cannot be effectively communicated from generation to generation.

Language skills are entirely situational. I'm not a better person or a worse one because I can't read Confucius in Mandarin Chinese or Tactictus in classical Latin.. ~ Isab at January 4, 2017 9:46 AM

No, but if you were a Chinese writer, knowledge of the language's grammar rules would make you a better writer.

"Language skills are entirely situational. I'm not a better person or a worse one because I can't read Confucius in Mandarin Chinese or Tactictus in classical Latin. "

You're talking about a second language, though. That's a different situation. The fact that my knowledge of French is very meager doesn't inhibit my ability to communicate or think in English.

"I think you are confused about cause and effect and too caught up in technicalities. Learning complex English grammar rules does not make you a better reader, writer or communicator. "

I don't know... do you buy Orwell's concept of Newspeak? The concept there is that, by limiting the language, you can limit what a person is capable of thinking about. You can make a counter-argument that not all thinking and expression is in language; some is in visual arts, some is in math, etc. But both of those things are rather specialized mileaus and not suitable for a lot of ideas. (And I might note that those people who are ignorant in language skills are usually ignorant in those other areas too.)

There was an interesting editorial on one of the more conservative sites comparing Donald Trump's speech with that of past politicos, FDR, JFK, etc and noting the decline in rhetoric. I can't find it to provide a link, but I'll keep searching.

The author decried the decline of both the soaring rhetoric of past politicians, trying to imagine how Donald Trump might have given Winston Churchill's "never before in the field of human conflict" speech, "Well, it was tough up there, but the pilots were great, really great."

Read Tom Wolfe's The Kingdom of Speech (review here) for more information about how grammar structure enables the expression of complex thoughts.

In reviewing it, the reviewer gives an example of the Parahā, whose language is non-recursive and has no relative clauses. So, saying "bring back some of those nails Dan bought" requires several sentences to express the same thought. Without recursion in our language, we lose numbers and counting.

Do we really want to revert to a culture that counts with "one, more than one, and many?" We, and our language, evolved from that for a reason.

If we don't teach the rules and structure of our language we lose the things we gained from developing it.

The Guardian has it exactly backwards. Those who would give a pass to wrong grammar when used by minorities are the racists. Correct English is the same for everybody.

"You're talking about a second language, though. That's a different situation. The fact that my knowledge of French is very meager doesn't inhibit my ability to communicate or think in English."

You ability to think read and write in any language woild be seriously impeded if you started out learning grammar rules and then spent time working at applying them.

It would be a bit like expecting to learn how to play the piano by reading piano instruction books.

English grammar rules are no more than a codification of oral and written tradition. Most of which (unlike the order of operations for math for instance) is almost entirely arbitrary and based on social custom and history.

When you start studying other languages, like Japanese for example, you will learn how much of grammar and syntax is designed to convey gender and social status rather than information.

Keep in mind, that effectively suspending the rules requires knowing what they are. Bending the rules because you don't know what they are does not produce good writing.

Precisely. (

And I think James Baldwin, Lorraine Hansberry, Toni Morrison, etc. would take umbrage at the notion that proper English grammar belongs to one race or class. (

(Both of the "errors" above were things for which I got dinged in college writing, which prizes The Official Style above all.)

When "fairness" means equal outcomes, then any standards, whether wearing a suit or speaking/writing properly or being on time and clean, must go. People want to get rich without working hard, to be slovenly and stoned and not be judged. BUT that is not the real world.
Thomas Sowell has some great stuff on this.
As for grammar, it is necessary if you want to be understood. If all you are doing is grunting or mouthing slogans, you can ignore it. Otherwise, you both lose credibility and sow confusion.
Let's eat, grandma.
Let's eat grandma.
not the same thing.

Another classic example:

"Woman, without her man, is nothing."

Figure out how some punctuation changes will turn that into the opposite statement. (In the comic strip "Stone Soup," the self-spoiled, princess-like 13-year-old Holly reads it, is very impressed, and only then does she stop acting as though correct punctuation were some sort of chore that's beneath her station.)

And, from the 1952 "Monkey Business," with Marilyn Monroe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tyGBbhV1AM

The relevant part happens in the first 30 seconds, but check out the classic scene that happens soon after 2:40 as well.

"The author decried the decline of both the soaring rhetoric of past politicians, trying to imagine how Donald Trump might have given Winston Churchill's 'never before in the field of human conflict" speech, "Well, it was tough up there, but the pilots were great, really great.'"

You can see why that is happening, though. The message that has been drilled into the American public the last couple of decades, concerning our nation's leadership, is that rhetoric is devoid of meaning, and campaign promises are only recruiting slogans. It doesn't matter how well spoken a person is when they are insincere.

Trump has affected a style that sets him apart from the bicoastal intelligentsia. To what extent this is intentional, and to what extent it's just him, is hard to say. But it gets listeners who are accustomed to tuning out everything that comes from Washington. The last President I can think of who is comparable is Truman.

> But it gets listeners who
> are accustomed to tuning out
> everything that comes from
> Washington.

It's not just that Washington and technocratic/professional figures are snooty and prim. I think the voters eventually recognized on a conscious level that all those people are just fuckin' weird. To speak and behave in the manner of a common political or higher economic operative is strange on an animal level.

"Agreed, Crid is a very effective communicator."

If tediousness and long-windedness is effective communication, sure, Crid's brilliant. Usually, when I read his stuff, I marvel as his inability to say in 400 words what a normal person can say in 40.

And I think you're stupid and socio-economically undercooked (vis-a-vis matters of courage and integrity).

Comprende-mundo?

Conan: "Have you ever been in a conversation with someone who cannot express themselves because their vocabulary and ability to construct a complex sentence is limited?"

OMG! Yes! I have a friend like that and sometimes it is just so nerve-wracking to listen to his "story" that I just walk away. Sometimes because I think he is done; and, at other times because it is just so darn hard to keep listening. He talks like fingernails on a chalkboard - and I don't mean his "tone." I am referring to his inability to form meaningful sentences.

And, wow, I never really thought about how hard it must be for the cops in such neighborhoods to try to figure out what happened!

And, wow, I never really thought about how hard it must be for the cops in such neighborhoods to try to figure out what happened!

charles at January 4, 2017 5:32 PM

Between those who are stupid, and those who play stupid, it is pretty difficult for the cops to ascertain much of anything.

Smart people dont talk to the police.

"You are how you speak."

True in Pygmalion, and true in life.

That's fine, Crid. You go right ahead and think that. And if it provides you some pleasure to imagine I'm sobbing myself to sleep over it, have at it.

Well Muffin, the mention of my name in a comment stream in which I'd taken no part summoned a bundle of insults from you. It was a surprise, but I'm apparently living in your head rent-free. Have you said what you need to say? Take your time. Be in your moment.

"A bundle"? Crid, your hypersensitivity makes you exaggerate. I said you were tedious and long-winded and then elaborated on that point.

That hardly constitutes a bundle of insults.

Oh, okay. I was worried that because your bitter sarcasm had come out of nowhere, I'd gotten under your skin or something.

Oh, come now, Crid. Isab and Conan paid you a compliment. If I let that pass, you'd wonder if I had gotten soft or something.

Isab Says:

"I think you are confused about cause and effect and too caught up in technicalities. Learning complex English grammar rules does not make you a better reader, writer or communicator.

Look at Artemis for God's sake.

The reverse is true."

Isab... you spend an inordinate amount of your time praising ignorance as a virtue and denigrating ignorance as a virtue.

Has it ever occurred to you that when someone who is highly educated communicates to those who are not that the difficulty in communicating complex ideas doesn't exactly land squarely on the shoulders of the person with the background to understand what is being discussed?

This is why you and I have such difficultly talking about scientific topics.

Your ignorance is a barrier that I cannot breach.

Yet you continually assert without good reason that your ignorance is actually a benefit because you claim to be unbiased as a result.

The sad irony here is that when I do try to dumb things down for an audience of non-experts I am accused of being patronizing.

It is a game that cannot be won. If I communicate as I would with other educated individuals I am accused of being a snob... and if I try and simplify things for the layperson I am accused of talking down to you.

Something about that arrangement stinks and it isn't on my side of the communication.

Quick typo correction:

"Isab... you spend an inordinate amount of your time praising ignorance as a virtue and denigrating knowledge as a vice."

On a comical note... I am highly amused by Isab and Conan asserting that Crid is an effective communicator followed by Crid saying the following:

"And I think you're stupid and socio-economically undercooked (vis-a-vis matters of courage and integrity).

Comprende-mundo?"

Yeah... Crid is the exemplar of high quality discourse around these parts of the internet.

Since several folks here tend to be preoccupied with things like cognitive bias (I'm looking at you Isab), I thought it would be helpful to leave this link here:

http://cognitivebiases.com/the-dunning%e2%80%93kruger-effect/

"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which an unskilled person makes poor decisions and arrives at erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to realize their mistakes."

The take home message here is that many folks on this blog have far too much certainty in their positions when they also have no background or expertise to back up those positions.

I find it difficult to believe for example that folks like Crid, Isab, and Conan are all simultaneously experts in the following fields of study:

Science
Mathematics/Logic
Economics
Politics
Language

The list goes on and on for the subject material these folks feel competent to declare themselves as experts and criticize all those who hold different positions as ignorant or stupid.

I know for example where my expertise resides on those subjects and I adjust the potency of my arguments accordingly.

People who lack expertise in anything are likely to think they are an expert in everything because they simply cannot comprehend what it means to really understand something in depth.

To folks like this, superficial knowledge "feels" like expertise... and that is a very dangerous regime to live in from a cognitive perspective.

"Most of which (unlike the order of operations for math for instance) is almost entirely arbitrary and based on social custom and history."

This is an example of what I mean where superficial understanding masquerades as expertise around here.

The order of operations in math is in fact an arbitrary set of rules.

One can construct a completely consistent mathematical framework where one adds before they multiply.

What is most important in mathematics is that everyone knows what the rules are and follows them rigorously and consistently.

There are even entire systems of advanced mathematics where the communicative property breaks down entirely (i.e., quarternion algebra).

In such systems A*B does not equal B*A.

These sorts of systems are used heavily in quantum mechanics and have extreme practical value.

For mathematics to work you need to have a well defined and organized set of rules that are always followed. However, the initial setup of those rules does have some flexibility and is in fact arbitrary.

The order of operations is as much a social convention as certain grammar rules. The difference is if you break the order of operations you break all of the mathematics that is based upon that set of rules. If you great a grammar rule, the rest of the language remains largely intact.

Just to drive home why the contrast with mathematics doesn't work:

https://wikis.engrade.com/orderofops

"As you can see, it’s important that we agree on what we mean when we write a numerical expression; otherwise, no matter how well we understand math, we won’t be able to talk about it with anyone else because we’ll all be getting different answers!"

The reason we agree on a set of mathematical rules is no different than the reason we agree on a set of grammatical rules.

It is so that we can effectively get ideas across without confusion.

The only reason people might see them as different is a matter of degree and not a matter or principle.

When people break mathematical conventions it is extremely clear that they get different answers to the same problems.

When people break grammatical conventions the damage is less obvious, however there is good reason to believe that communication is hindered when people use different sets of grammatical rules.

If the purpose of language is to facilitate the communication of ideas between intelligent entities then a coherent set of standard rules is very useful (even if the damage done by breaking those conventions isn't quite as obvious as violating PEMDAS).

"I find it difficult to believe for example that folks like Crid, Isab, and Conan are all simultaneously experts in the following fields of study:

Science
Mathematics/Logic
Economics
Politics
Language"

The people so named will have to defend themselves, but I will point out that, not so long ago, in the Western nations we had what was called "middlebrow" culture. In it, the average middle-class citizen, and a lot of the poor, would be acquainted with at least the basics in all of these areas, plus literature, music, the peforming arts, etc. The average middle class junior-high student would know who Einstein was, what a logarithm is, the law of supply and demand, the 19-century U.S. political parties, the ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights, how to diagram sentences, and who Pyotr Tchaikovsky, Nathanial Hawthore, Robert Frost and Orson Wells were. Hit up any eighth-grader these days with any of those, and they'd be lucky to get two of them right.

Cousin Dave,

All of the items you mention are not evidence of expertise and that is the problem I am trying to address here.

Common knowledge items are sufficient to engage in casual conversations about a topic, but they are not sufficient to express deep conviction about anything.

My point is that Crid, Isab, and Conan are each guilty of expressing with deep conviction and confidence statements that are easily proven false by anyone with actual expertise... but they routinely deny those facts because they think they know better.

The example of the order of operations here is a prime example.

I am sure that Isab believes she was saying something profound and useful... but at the end of the day she simply was talking out of her ass.

The order of operations is in fact arbitrary, but one wouldn't know that with a high school, a college, or even an advanced degree education based upon general knowledge alone.

Most people don't have the foggiest clue what a quarternion is, or what a quantum mechanical operator is, or what the canonical commutation relationship is.

And yet they will be convinced that they understand mathematics on a deep level... they don't... and their ignorance precludes them from knowing that they don't understand.

I have no objection to the idea that people are familiar with the basics. I do object to the fact that many people familiar with the basics erroneously conclude that they actually know the subject on a deep level.

I also don't see a great way to break through that barrier without getting peoples hackles up because they end up getting insulted and feeling defensive.

There is simply no gentle way to tell someone that all that stuff they are so confident about is a load of nonsense.

"It is so that we can effectively get ideas across without confusion."

Artemis, you don't convey anything in English without a lot of confusion, and your confusion has nothing whatsoever to do with grammar or syntax.

Your problem is that the only argument you have is one from authority.

it isn't touting your own authority so much as it is attacking everyone else's authority, usually on the basis of some credentials you imagine everyone you disagree with, *doesn't have*

Watch the ball! Ignore the person throwing it. They don't matter.

> Most people don't have the foggiest
> clue what a quarternion is, or what
> a quantum mechanical operator is,
> or what the canonical commutation
> relationship is.

You've never been to school. You've never made any money.

I mean, it's like you've never met anyone or talked to anybody or made anything happen.

Isab Says:

"Watch the ball! Ignore the person throwing it. They don't matter."

Great... we are in agreement.

So why exactly have you completely ignored all the components of my post that deal with things like alternative algebras that demonstrate definitively that the order of operations is in fact an arbitrary set of rules chosen for a particular mathematical system?

You don't exactly seem focused on the ball here and your failure to actually address the material substance of my post seems a bit convenient for my tastes.

Simply put your statement was incorrect and you have failed to concede the point. Instead you have focused intently on everything else, while instructing everyone to keep their eye on the ball.

Crid Says:

"You've never been to school. You've never made any money."

Hey... didn't you hear... Isab has declared that we all need to focus on the ball and not the person!!!

It is a new world order don't you know.

Or like everything else with you guys I am sure the rules and expectations are quite different when the shit is being tossed at other folks.

Isab,

You know I can really see what you mean here:

"For an example of someone who really knows how to use the English language and break the rules for literary effect, you can't do better than Crid's posts."

Let's just take a snap shot of the literary brilliance flowing forth from this lauded individual:

"And I think you're stupid and socio-economically undercooked"

"Oh, okay. I was worried that because your bitter sarcasm had come out of nowhere, I'd gotten under your skin or something."

"I mean, it's like you've never met anyone or talked to anybody or made anything happen."

They almost make the eloquent words of Thomas Jefferson look like the writings of a mentally disabled chimpanzee, don't they?

Where has all of your outrage been about focusing upon the topic and not the people been this whole time?

Basically when other folks are being shit on you find it entertaining... but when you are being shit on then things have gone TOO FAR!!!

You really are quite thin skinned and a hypocrite.

When you learn to treat others as you want to be treated then you might deserve the careful treatment you expect for yourself.

Artemis,
So, now we know you are sarcasm impaired on top of everything else.

I think if you are going to continue to make arguments from a place of authority, you need to at least tell us where your experience and authority come from. You are very cagey about that and it is annoying. I would be very interested in knowing exactly what combination of study leaves you an absolute expert in: science, math, politics, language, logic and economics.

Also, just because I don't know how to rebuild a car engine doesn't mean I don't know how to drive. I am not a physicist, but I know enough of economics to have a reasonable opinion on topics such the impact of the minimum wage on the economy. I fully expect you to tell me why I am unqualified to hold any opinion on that topic, but until you tell tell us why you are an expert, I will assume the same about you. Prove to us that you have left the house or at least graduated from a program of study and have worked in the world, then maybe the rest of us will actually read what you post.

Sheep Mom,

My comprehension of sarcasm if just fine, but I am curious how you came to this conclusion given my almost entirely sarcastic post dated at January 7th at 4:55 AM.

Did you really think I was serious when I said this:

"They almost make the eloquent words of Thomas Jefferson look like the writings of a mentally disabled chimpanzee, don't they?"

Now onto the meat of your post:

"I think if you are going to continue to make arguments from a place of authority."

Actually I haven't.

An argument from authority requires two basic elements. The first of these is an authoritative claim. The second of these is that the claim is backed up by nothing more than the proposition that the claimant is correct because of who they are or by some feature of their credentials.

I have never actually done this.

Isab even agrees with this statement here:

"it isn't touting your own authority so much as it is attacking everyone else's authority"

Except that what she doesn't seem to understand is that calling another persons expertise into question on the basis of demonstrated fundamental misunderstandings of the subject material isn't a logical fallacy.

Imagine for example you were talking to someone who asserted with great confidence that the earth was flat. You would be fully justified to conclude that this person had no substantial background or expertise in geography. Furthermore, you would be fully justified to question why they keep asserting things with confidence about a subject they have shown they have very limited grasp of.

This is the kind of thing we are talking about here.

Isab made the following claim earlier:

"English grammar rules are no more than a codification of oral and written tradition. Most of which (unlike the order of operations for math for instance) is almost entirely arbitrary and based on social custom and history."

The claim consists of drawing a contrast between the social customs she attributes to grammar rules and the apparently non-arbitrary rules of algebra known as the order of operations.

What I am telling you and her and everyone else here is that this claim she made is as wrong as believing the earth is flat. In other words, it isn't just a little wrong... it is completely and utterly wrong.

This claim alone justifies a belief that Isab cannot possibly have substantial expertise in mathematics because if she did she almost certainly could not have made this error. This was not a trivial misconception about how math works.

I didn't justify my contention on the basis of my authority. I didn't claim I was right because I said so.

I demonstrated that this claim was incorrect by providing links and examples of mathematical systems that do not obey the traditional order of operations.

These examples included both quantum mechanical operators (which incidentally is associated with things like matrix algebras) and pointing toward higher dimensional algebras including the quarternion algebra.

That was my proof... not because of who I am.

"I would be very interested in knowing exactly what combination of study leaves you an absolute expert in: science, math, politics, language, logic and economics."

Sure... my expertise resides in the fields of science, mathematics, and logic. Which incidentally is where you will usually find me adding to conversations here.

For things like politics, language, and economics I certainly have an interest and I am well read... but it is not my field of expertise.

In otherwords, my resume would not indicate to anyone I have a specialty in politics, language, or economics... but someone looking at my resume would instantly conclude that I have expertise in science, math, and logic.

This is what I am talking about when it comes to me understanding where my background and expertise resides. I have differential levels of knowledge across different areas and I adjust my discourse accordingly.

Many folks here speak with utter confidence and authority about topics they are simply lay persons at.

It is fine to hold opinions on these subjects, but it is also important to recognize that there may be serious gaps in knowledge and to therefore converse with an openness to the possibility that you might have missed something important.

I challenge you to find one example of me jumping into a conversation about geopolitical struggles as if I knew everything that was going on. It has never happened.

"Also, just because I don't know how to rebuild a car engine doesn't mean I don't know how to drive."

In this example you are someone who knows how to drive but doesn't have the foggiest clue how to rebuild an engine giving a lecture to a mechanic on how to fix your shot transmission.

Such behavior wouldn't make you wise, it would make you an arrogant fool.

"I am not a physicist, but I know enough of economics to have a reasonable opinion on topics such the impact of the minimum wage on the economy. I fully expect you to tell me why I am unqualified to hold any opinion on that topic, but until you tell tell us why you are an expert, I will assume the same about you."

You are welcome to hold any opinion you want Sheep Mom. However, my question to you is this... what does it mean if your opinion runs contrary to that of the vast majority of experts? Does this mean you are likely to be wrong... or that they are all likely to be wrong?

The point is that based upon a lack of expertise your confidence in your opinion should be adjusted accordingly.

Simply put, you should have more confidence on topics where your background knowledge is high and less confidence on topics where your background knowledge is low.

The entire point of the Dunning-Kruger effect however is that people with low background knowledge also lack the self awareness to know that their background knowledge is low... so they assume it is high anyway and then are very confident, but frequently wrong.

"Prove to us that you have left the house or at least graduated from a program of study and have worked in the world, then maybe the rest of us will actually read what you post."

Sheep Mom... please don't be so dense.

If you want proof I know what I am talking about here please look up background material on quarternion algebra.

I don't just know about these things because they come to me in a vision.

The only way for me to "prove" to you I have the goods here is to bring up points that others have not mentioned and to be correct.

I have done that, which is consistent with the notion that I actually have some relevant background here.

Sheep Mom,

I'll even save you some time and provide you a link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternion_algebra

If you have sufficient background in mathematics that site should explain in detail to you why the order of operations you learn in elementary school is not in fact a set of hard and fact rules.

Instead they are a mathematical convention that differs from one algebraic formulation to another.

What most people understand as the order of operations is simply a set of rules chosen for convenience over algebra for the set of real numbers.

The order of operations we use happens to be useful for efficient notion when it comes to the expanded form of polynomial expressions. However, there is nothing inherent in the structure of mathematics that demands that our conventional rules absolutely had to be that way.

I get it though... most people graduate high school and/or college and think they know all there is to know about addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division... the reality however is that they really have barely scratched the surface.

"Except that what she doesn't seem to understand is that calling another persons expertise into question on the basis of demonstrated fundamental misunderstandings of the subject material isn't a logical fallacy."

Did I ever claim that it was a logical fallacy? No, I did not,

Logic isnt the problem here, and neither is the English language.

What I said, and I stand by, is that you have proved incapable of addressing a point directly.

You proceed on every occasion, to get lost in the weeds of attacking the authority and the expertise of the person refuting your lame and off point arguments.

If we may return to the topic for a moment...

Anyone who says "Language Evolves" or "Rules were made to be broken" as an excuse for bad speech should be removed from the gene pool.

Change is not always improvement. Honorable people appreciate and applaud changes that improve the precision and accuracy of language.

People who say "Language Evolves" or "Rules were made to be broken" as an excuse for bad speech are promoting vaguer and less honest communication. Of course if you are evil and want to control people, this is a good thing.

"Change is not always improvement. Honorable people appreciate and applaud changes that improve the precision and accuracy of language."

Vaguer? VAGUER???

You, frankly, are full of it.

Give examples....of something noteworthy that improved the *precision* (whatever that is) of American English.

What is language for? To communicate. As a 21st century American, you would not understand the speech of 16th century London or of 21st century rural Whales for that matter.
It doesnt make you right or them wrong.

What counts is that they can communicate within the society that they live.

The vowel shifts and word changes that transformed classical Latin into French, Spanish and modern Itallian were not directed in any way. Nor did they improve clarity. So I am not sure what term you use, other than evolution.

As Artemis has so amply demonstrated, ( as I knew he would) effective communication is far more than grammar, and syntax.

"As a 21st century American, you would not understand the speech of ... 21st century rural Whales...." ~ Isab at January 8, 2017 4:37 PM

Whales that live on the farm? Nobody understands them.

Aah, I'm just messin' with ya. I know you meant Wales.

"Wales, Richard. Wales."

Isab,

None of what you are claiming is actually backed up by facts or evidence... none of it.

"Did I ever claim that it was a logical fallacy? No, I did not"

Who cares if you claim that saying that all someone does is use arguments from authority isn't accusing them of only using fallacious arguments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

That is what an argument from authority is. It has a very specific definition and you can't just change it to suit your needs from moment to moment.

If I accuse someone of theft and they then say that I accused them of criminal activity it doesn't make sense to say "Did I ever claim you committed a crime???... no... I just accused you of stealing other peoples property".

Look, if you didn't know what an argument from authority was, that is fine... but ignorance isn't a defense from having used the terminology incorrectly. Just own the mistake if you didn't know what an argument from authority was.

And if you did know what it was, own the fact that you accused me of exclusively using fallacious arguments.

Pick a lane and show some integrity, don't be a weasel.

"What I said, and I stand by, is that you have proved incapable of addressing a point directly."

That is also incorrect.

I addressed your claim extremely directly in my posts at January 5, 2017 6:01 AM and January 5, 2017 6:13 AM.

I even provided you with a link to a webpage that specifically addresses the incorrect substance of your post.

Instead of responding to any of this and acknowledging your error you have instead focused on everything but the facts and are instead intent on talking about authority.

Who cares about authority?... the facts show you are in error and I presented those to you on multiple occasions.

"You proceed on every occasion, to get lost in the weeds of attacking the authority and the expertise of the person refuting your lame and off point arguments."

No Isab, when you are wrong you chose to focus on anything and everything except the facts and evidence that show you are in error.

You can stick your fingers in your ears all you like and yell "la la la" at the top of your lungs, but it doesn't change the fact that you made a factually inaccurate claim.

Just own it already instead of being a weasel.

Also, if you are so sensitive on conversations here becoming personal, then I encourage you to practice what you preach. Let's not forget that I wasn't even here and you started in with a personal swipe at me.

Live by the sword die by the sword. If you can't take it then you shouldn't be dishing it out.

I assure you that if you treat me with respect I will return the favor. It starts with you here because you are always the one instigating shit.

Isab Says to Alan:

"You, frankly, are full of it."

Good grief, you bitch and moan about personal attacks against you and you're first comment to a newcomer is to provide no substantive argument and attack him.

You follow up with an attack against me here:

"As Artemis has so amply demonstrated, ( as I knew he would) effective communication is far more than grammar, and syntax."

The problem here isn't me Isab... it is you.

You simply do not know how to defend your position on logical grounds.

You attack people and then whine and moan when you are attacked and declare how unfair it is.

Grow up.

Better quickly correct my typo of "you're", which should be "your"... because all those folks who demand that we stick to the subject don't have a repeated habit of ignoring content and focusing on typos.

But sure... pointing out lack of experience and background is off limits... all other ad hominems are apparently fair game though. How convenient.

Alan,

By the way, there was nothing so egregious about your post that it warranted being told you were full of shit.

An adult would have expressed their disagreement with you in a more constructive manner.

Unfortunately this board is infested by a confederacy of dunces who aggressively attack anyone they disagree with instead of actually engaging in proper debate.

Then they piss and moan if someone points out their errors.

"Give examples....of something noteworthy that improved the *precision* (whatever that is) of American English."

Writers of the late seventeenth century (the time period including the development and establishment of English Colonies in the America's... hence the proper birth of American English as opposed to English spoken in Britain) engaged in a project to establish precise rules for the usage of punctuation like the comma, semicolon, and colon.

Prior to this time frame all of these punctuation marks were pretty much used interchangeably (and were basically just a signal to pause for a breath).

This allowed for the delineation of lists in a must more regimented fashion, which is of great import for conveying ideas accurately and without confusion.

For example, which of the following lists is more precise:

1 - I traveled to Athens, Georgia, Paris, Texas, Berlin, New Jersey, Moscow, Idaho and Hawaii.

2 - I traveled to Athens, Georgia; Paris, Texas; Berlin, New Jersey; Moscow, Idaho; and Hawaii.

The second list is far more precise and does not lend itself to confusion in the same way that the first list can.

Again... you are being far too aggressive with your position when you apparently do not know what you are talking about.

"As a 21st century American, you would not understand the speech of ... 21st century rural Whales...." ~ Isab at January 8, 2017 4:37 PM
Whales that live on the farm? Nobody understands them.

Aah, I'm just messin' with ya. I know you meant Wales.

"Wales, Richard. Wales."

Conan the Grammarian at January 8, 2017 5:07 PM

Yea, my bad. I have never claimed to be a great speller. I am a bit creative. And I'm also a lousy typist.

Followed by three seperate wordy posts from Artemis.....

Anyone read them, and can give me the gist?

Conan, the biggest problem with being a grammar Nazi, is how often you end up hoist on your own petard.

The only people who should be correcting anyone's English usage, are parents, school teachers, and editors.

In any other situation, it is just ill mannered.

I know, Isaac. I even said earlier it makes one an ass. I figured you were good natured enough to take it in stride. I've put some silly typos out there myself. Without an edit function, you're hosed on this site after hitting SEND if you have a typo or if auto correct "corrects" something and you don't catch it.

Like if auto correct "corrects Isab to Isaac.

Isab,

I will make it really simply for you since you apparently have the attention span of a toddler and can't seem to ever acknowledge when you've gotten your facts completely wrong.

This is what you say when you feel you are being attacked:

"Watch the ball! Ignore the person throwing it. They don't matter."

This is what you say to a new person you disagree with:

"You, frankly, are full of it."

So far as I am concerned the only one full of it is you because you throw a tantrum when you feel things have gotten personal, but you are always instigating shit by attacking other posters.

You do not deserve respect because you don't have respect for other people.

Also... I know you can't help but read what I write, you just can't bring yourself to acknowledge that once again you don't know what you are talking about.

http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/obituaries/anne-martha-saxon-slater/article_8e06699d-05fa-5fd7-9acd-491506f5181f.html

This is a dying thread, but here is a link to some information about one of my mentors is college.

In addition to being an excellent linguist and teacher, she was probably the smartest woman I ever met.

It is a shame that you didn't also meet folks like Noam Chomsky who developed the theory of universal grammar. This theory ascribes a genetic component to the development of language and suggests that the underlying rules of grammar are not quite as arbitrary as you contend.

But what would Noam Chomsky know about linguistics, right???

Although... if we step out on a ledge here and open ourselves to the possibility that a distinguished MIT professor of linguistics knows more than some random blog poster about grammar, it does kind of call into question the main thesis of your argument here:

"English grammar rules are no more than a codification of oral and written tradition. Most of which (unlike the order of operations for math for instance) is almost entirely arbitrary and based on social custom and history."

If there is indeed a genetic component to language development then the grammar rules you are talking about cannot possibly be "no more" than historical accident.