English grammar is a lie. It's based on confused latin copying.
You're talking about something that happened long ago.
For most of its existence, English was not considered an important language. Until the Roman Empire collapsed, Britannia was populated by a Celtic people who spoke Brythonic, a Celtic language related to Welsh, of which we have very little evidence so we can't reconstruct it. Then the Angles, Saxons and Jutes sailed over to seize the abandoned Roman province, and they developed a patois that was a mixture of their Germanic languages; we now call it Anglo-Saxon, but until recently it was more often known as "Old English."
Civilization in "Angle-Land" was backsliding at this point since, by Roman standards, the occupiers from
Germania were barbarians. There was no central government and each region developed its own dialect of
Anglisc. The concept of a formal, standard grammar was inapplicable.
By the beginning of the second millennium CE, the Anglo-Saxon people were starting to get organized and
Beowulf had been written in Anglo-Saxon... just in time for the Normans to invade and make French the language of government and commerce. Thousands of French words were assimilated and many of the grammatical complexities of Anglo-Saxon were lost, and the language became Middle English; Chaucer wrote the
Canterbury Tales in Middle English. But there was still no standard language, since English had no official status; if you traveled fifty miles you'd find people speaking a noticeably different dialect, with different words and different pronunciation.
Finally, by the 14th century, the French rulers assimilated into their conquered people and adopted English. (This is not as unusual a situation as you might expect: the Mongols conquered China and then became Chinese. The Achaemenid Empire adopted Aramaic, the language of a minor tribe within their realm, which remained the everyday language of Mesopotamia for two thousand years after the Aramaeans vanished from history.) So finally, English was the official language of a country with a strong central government. Eventually London was established as the capital city, and the London dialect of Early Modern English exerted influence on all the regional and local dialects. Standardization slowly began to set in.
Then a major technological change occurred: the printing press. The vast increase in the availability of written material gave people a reason to learn to read and write, so formal education began to trickle down to the common folk. A written language exerts a powerful influence on a country, so the standardization of English continued. By the turn of the 18th century, something like half the people in England were minimally literate, and America was not far behind.
With all these people learning to write, they needed to learn how to write correctly. Now that I've given you the context of the evolution of the English language, you can understand why the whole idea of "rules of grammar" was--literally--foreign. The only language that had been studied formally by any significant number of people was Latin. There were plenty of books available for learning to write Latin, so the educators of the time simply took one of them and translated it into English, and began teaching from it.
This led to some lessons so preposterous that it's hard to believe that the students were able to stop laughing. They were taught that English nouns are declined by case, just like Latin nouns, and they had to memorize the paradigm:
- nominative: the boy
- genitive: of the boy
- dative: to the boy
- accusative: the boy
- vocative: O boy!
This is, of course, where the old myth comes from that you must not split an infinitive. This is pure Latin! In Latin you can't split an infinitive
because it's all one word. "To love" =
amare. Ditto for ending a sentence with a preposition. You can't do it in Latin, so they taught that you can't do it in English either.
But this nonsense hasn't been taught for a hundred years. My mother started elementary school in 1916 and she was taught the rules of English grammar, not Latin. Well okay, she was told never to end a sentence with a preposition; some myths are hard to kill.
Native english speakers speak in different styles depending on the area they were raised in and many other cultural influences each with their own "quirks".
While pronunciation and vocabulary can vary wildly from one dialect to another, English grammar tends to be pretty standard. You have to drill down almost to the level of the individual word to start noticing differences between British and American grammar, such as their "I'll have to wait until your suggestion is approved by department before we can move forward," whereas we say "approved by
the department."
Devoid of comprehensibility without correct grammar , English is not. As Yoda (ungrammatically) might say.
That's not a grammatical error. It's not a construction you often hear in casual conversation, to be sure, but it is quite properly used for rhetorical emphasis: "I may have a beard and a bong, but a hippie I am not."
To some degree yes. I mean, this all depends on the context. I am a big defender of everyday use of language. I think this is correct in most contexts, even though it has errors that grammar classes will try to eliminate.
These "errors" are the sounds of a language evolving. Elizabeth I would send Elizabeth II back to school to learn proper English.
Prepositional phrases are useless to learn about and aren't illuminating at all as far as grammar is concerned.
I'm not sure I agree with that, but perhaps the point is that they're not difficult to understand, nor to compose correctly. You have a preposition and then you have an object. That's about all there is to it. Prepositional phrases are constructed in exactly the same way in most (all?) Indo-European languages, so it's something that most foreign students don't have to put much effort into learning.
There's too many holes in the whole theory behind them that I don't feel like digging into.
Such as your ability to freely end that sentence with a preposition, instead of expanding it to ". . . . behind them, into which I don't feel like digging." But at least that sentence can be resequenced to obey the old Latin rule. How about the sentence, "I don't want to be thought of as just your friend." There's no way to put that "of" in front of its object, because the object of the (putative) prepositional phrase is also the subject of the sentence!
dywyd - you're out of your league here and it's just too taxing on my time and energy to hold you by the hand and walk you through things.
I feel like a mama bird that has to partially digest everything and then regurgitate it into the baby's mouth.
Well you wouldn't if you gave up making nonsensical claims.
* * * * NOTE FROM THE MODERATOR * * * *
Please maintain civil discourse. Keep the discussion moving forward by challenging specific things in the other member's post, rather than resorting to character assassination.