0
Just the truth Posted 21 years ago
HAVE MISSED THE BOAT
THERE'S BEEN MORE FLUMMOXING THAN MEETS THE EYE
Charles-James N. Bailey
Consider the possibility that English grammar has been misanalysed for centuries because of grammarians’ accepting fundamentally flawed assumptions about grammar and, not least, because of a flawed view of the history of English; and that these failings have resulted in a huge disconnect between English grammars and the genius of the English that really exists among educated native-speakers. The development of the information age and of English as a world language means that such lapses have even greater negative import than formerly. But what is available on the shelves has fallen into sufficient discredit for grammar to have forfeited its place in the curriculum, unrespected and little heeded by the brighter students.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
C.-J. Bailey is University-Professor emeritus of the Technische Universität Berlin, having occupied the chair of English and General Linguistics there. He took his AB fromHarvard with highest honors in Classical philology and his PhD in linguistics at the University of Chicago with the only designation available-"with honors." He has other degrees from the aforesadi Universities and Vanderbilty University after studies in Firenze, Zürich, Basel, and Cambridge University. Prof. Bailey is a member of the European Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters, the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies (life fellow), the NY Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the International Association of Phonetic Sciences (fellow), the American Linguistic Society (life).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
JTT: If you want to read the rest of this, you'll have to type,
HOW GRAMMARS OF ENGLISH HAVE MISSED THE BOAT
into a Google search. The second hit is a downloadable hit. It doesn't take you to a website.
Linguistics Studies
Prescriptive Grammar
Prescriptive Grammar - Centuries of Error
HOW GRAMMARS OF ENGLISHHAVE MISSED THE BOAT
THERE'S BEEN MORE FLUMMOXING THAN MEETS THE EYE
Charles-James N. Bailey
Consider the possibility that English grammar has been misanalysed for centuries because of grammarians’ accepting fundamentally flawed assumptions about grammar and, not least, because of a flawed view of the history of English; and that these failings have resulted in a huge disconnect between English grammars and the genius of the English that really exists among educated native-speakers. The development of the information age and of English as a world language means that such lapses have even greater negative import than formerly. But what is available on the shelves has fallen into sufficient discredit for grammar to have forfeited its place in the curriculum, unrespected and little heeded by the brighter students.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
C.-J. Bailey is University-Professor emeritus of the Technische Universität Berlin, having occupied the chair of English and General Linguistics there. He took his AB fromHarvard with highest honors in Classical philology and his PhD in linguistics at the University of Chicago with the only designation available-"with honors." He has other degrees from the aforesadi Universities and Vanderbilty University after studies in Firenze, Zürich, Basel, and Cambridge University. Prof. Bailey is a member of the European Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters, the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies (life fellow), the NY Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the International Association of Phonetic Sciences (fellow), the American Linguistic Society (life).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
JTT: If you want to read the rest of this, you'll have to type,
HOW GRAMMARS OF ENGLISH HAVE MISSED THE BOAT
into a Google search. The second hit is a downloadable hit. It doesn't take you to a website.
Top answer
It's going to take me awhile to get through that one, JT, but the French Connection is an interesting point.
- It's going to take me awhile to get through that one, JT, but the French Connection is an interesting point.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
81 Answers
0
It's going to take me awhile to get through that one, JT, but the French Connection is an interesting point.
00
Thanks for the link JTT.
I am really looking forward to reading this tonight after work.
Note; Anyone who doesn't have MS Word installed, for whatever reason, can easily open the document by using the 'view as HTML' link, or by opening it with 'OpenOffice' which is a free 'open source' alternative to MS Word..
I am really looking forward to reading this tonight after work.
Note; Anyone who doesn't have MS Word installed, for whatever reason, can easily open the document by using the 'view as HTML' link, or by opening it with 'OpenOffice' which is a free 'open source' alternative to MS Word..
00
re:
Dear all, I don't think it is at all helpful to the questionners to have their threads degenerate into personal squabbling over technical points blah blah blah. If you want to squabble move it into the new linguistic thread. Most of this original thread has been pretty pointless.
My position is not that of a trained teacher or a technical grammarian, I just try to give the nat
Dear all, I don't think it is at all helpful to the questionners to have their threads degenerate into personal squabbling over technical points blah blah blah. If you want to squabble move it into the new linguistic thread. Most of this original thread has been pretty pointless.
My position is not that of a trained teacher or a technical grammarian, I just try to give the nat
00
Good idea. Move these discussions to a place where escape is not possible. You put forward an issue, you defend it. Not too much to ask of language teachers, is it?
Perhaps, Nona, I should have, like Mr P with his IRONY, put up a big sign that said LIGHT-HEARTED JOKE.
Lighten up everybody! Don't take things so seriously. Why do the native speakers seem **** bent on believing t
Perhaps, Nona, I should have, like Mr P with his IRONY, put up a big sign that said LIGHT-HEARTED JOKE.
Lighten up everybody! Don't take things so seriously. Why do the native speakers seem **** bent on believing t
00
I'm sure no one would ever accuse you of being 'Miss Manners', JT.
MrP
MrP
00
0
Here is the link to the MS Word Document [url="http://www.orlapubs.com/AL/HGOEHMTB- OnlineEd-20020818-2.doc"]HOW GRAMMARS OF ENGLISH HAVE MISSED THE BOAT[/url]
00
Hi JTT,
Just because Mr Bailey writes something I don't have to agree with him. I'm still allowed my own opinion surely?
Also, I think your point about mods running away from these discussions is a little judgemental. We are all here voluntarily, for different reasons I'm sure, and I for one feel no obligation to tie up my much of precious time on these debates. We are here
Just because Mr Bailey writes something I don't have to agree with him. I'm still allowed my own opinion surely?
Also, I think your point about mods running away from these discussions is a little judgemental. We are all here voluntarily, for different reasons I'm sure, and I for one feel no obligation to tie up my much of precious time on these debates. We are here
00
From: HOW GRAMMARS OF ENGLISH HAVE MISSED THE BOAT (ref above)
Consider the English pronoun pairs, her : she, him : he, me : I, us : we, and them : they. It is easy to show that the uses of these paired forms are not directly related to functional (subject and object) “cases” in the manner of Latin and Anglo-Saxon but exhibit uses that remind us more than a little of the Ro
00
Hi Nona,
You are, most assuredly, allowed your own opinion but, as Daniel Moynihan [if I’m not mistaken] said, you’re [generic ‘you] not allowed your own set of facts. Things that you [generic ‘you] won’t defend or supply proof for, really have little place in these types of discussions.
Opinions are always welcome but if they don't stand up to scrutiny, well then, ...
You are, most assuredly, allowed your own opinion but, as Daniel Moynihan [if I’m not mistaken] said, you’re [generic ‘you] not allowed your own set of facts. Things that you [generic ‘you] won’t defend or supply proof for, really have little place in these types of discussions.
Opinions are always welcome but if they don't stand up to scrutiny, well then, ...
0
Related Questions