Calling pedants, teachers, wordsmiths and class warriors.

[shylock]

I have a question.

But surely the use of 'whom' in that instance is simply gramatically incorrect so doesn't it all get back to not being sufficiently well educated in the basics?

chocolatedot - that's exactly what ellbell is saying, and I agree, hypercorrection is more annoying. Excessive use of apostrophes would be another example.

As for "where does bad grammar end and dialect begin?" - well in general there's no such thing as bad grammar. All speech conforms to grammatical rules. they may not be the rules you use but they are rules. bad grammar is you when rules break the.

Bundle: I know a lot of "street" slang comes from films. But actually if you listen to people speaking, they don't speak exactly like any film character, but they use bits of language from all sorts of different places. I admit, I haven't been to Slough lately but I bet teenagers speak a different "street" language there than they do in say Colchester. Some forms will be common to the two but is that important? does community have to be a physical community?

Sorry I have not read whole thread but may I say to the person who doesn't like "ain't" that Sir Winston Churchill famously said of a portrait of him "It makes me look like an idiot - which I ain't!". Standards had obviously slipped at Harrow towards the end of Victoria's reign.

I was just thinking too about how my mum speaks. For instance, she routinely leaves the -ly off the end of adverbs. Do I notice it? Yes. Would I correct her? No way. But did I grow up and learn to speak correct?

Ha ha... I mean 'correctly' of course...

Yes. I did!

How far do you push this? A (distant) member of my family won't let his kids spend time with their grandmother 'in case they pick up her accent'. How hurtful is that?

Obviously this isn't the same issue that shylock started with, but since it has turned into a general discussion I thought I'd raise it.

slightly off topic I was rather alarmed today when my (bright) lower sixth form class in biology couldn't tell me what 'inhale' and 'exhale' meant!

FFS my 10 year old knows that!

do they not listen to the Prodigy?

(I suppose they are a bit young )

this has reminded me of an old schoolground threat -
"I'm going to frow you wif a stone"

• is enough to drive me to drink!

Sorry, but IMO "th" is not "f"

Elasticwoman, but Churchill was using it as a joke! He wasn't ignorant of the basic rules of his native tongue.
I don't care if the person fixing my electrics or delivering my post or performing Swan Lake uses incorrect grammar. I do object when they are supposed to be studying English at degree level and hoping to be teachers.

Clearly the students shylock is referring to do have a good grasp of English - I hardly think they'd be heading for a 2:1 if they didn't!

I wish I shared your confidence.
My five year old speaks with greater eloquence than those students.

There is a world of difference between a comment in classroom (possible done deliberately to annoy notoriously pedantic Dr Shylock for all we know) and the language these students use in their academic work and, for that matter, when standing in front of a class.

If they used that style of language in writing, then that would be a problem.

Plus they're undergraduates, not about to be unleashed on our children!

possibly

gah

Aloha: "Churchill was using it as a joke".
So how do we know that the OP's students weren't also joking?

Sounds like a bit of a cop out to me. "Ain't" was much more commonly used in 18th and 19th century aristocratic speech, or so I infer from reading novels from those centuries.

No, they weren't joking. In fact, yesterday the presentation from No 1 began, "There are free main fings I want to talk about today."

No 2 has used the formulation a number of times, in conversation, in the seminar. The first time I thought I'd misheard.

I'm a lot more bothered by the sentiments and level of articulacy the two statements reveal than the vernacular.

1. Very limited grasp on subject material, to the extent that the speaker cannot recall a single appropriate word to describe what he/she is attempting to formulate. I find it terrifying that these are the words of a graduating English lit student. This person could be teaching in a school in just over a year's time.

2. Shows complete lack of intellectual curiosity, rigour or interest in the subject. The speaker has evidently failed to comprehend the entire purpose of degree-level work and is instead bring a yr6-GCSE mindset to his/her work: topics are to be visited ONCE, in limited detail, and to revisit them from a different angle is deemed an assault on his/her blissful ignorance.

If that is the case, then how are these students about to graduate with an upper second class degree?

From a Russell Group university, no less!

Interesting topic. My mother teaching 40 children per class in very rough state Catholic schools after the war sought to teach them correct grammar - so no "for free" or rather than "free", prepositions correct etc etc Why would one want to change the grammar or even accent of pupils or our children? Simply because it can help them get jobs. It is not just exam results which matter when you're being assessed and indeed speaking to clients and customers. Obviously it depends on what you plan to do and for many jobs it matters not a jot.

We have had years of interesting debate with the children over words, grammar, accent, class. I remember the days of my under 5s saying "you was" because their nanny did but that changes once they get to school unless you send them to a school where the teachers say "you was".

Then was the teenage phase with that awful rising inflection at the end of sentences like a question but that seems to have died as death as did the even worse "like" every other word in sentences.

Now the 8 year olds who do loads of grammar at school and are quite good are learning MSN speak and take huge pleasure in laughing at my writing "you" when they know the rule is to write "u" if you're on-line (in their world, not mine - I cast men into oblivion if they type "u").

"Why do children feel they have to hide their intellect or else get picked on?" - on that topic they don't if you send them to the right school. One reason some of us who are able, pay.

Beauty... ah yes Labour can dumb down children into one size fits all comprehensiveness and let the brains of the child stultify but they can't take away beauty. We are all born with these natural advantages or disadvantages. I never realised when I was growing up as my mother was wise enough not to mention it, that they thought I was better looking than the others but my sister who only just told me, for her it was a big thing. Why did she think it mattered our bone structures differed? I suppose because all you musmnetters are more likely to buy a woman's magazine with a beautiful woman on the front cover rather than an ugly one. So we have this interesting situatino where most people won't admit they prefer beauty but their behaviour shows that they do. So in effect many people are liars on this issue.

Xenia - I think you a being a bit contradictory.

Human physical beauty is a huge natural advantage, but it is entirely dependent upon life's genetic lottery. Why should it be taboo in families to acknowledge that one child is particularly good looking? The knowledge will be circulating in the collective family subconscious in any case, where it is a lot more dangerous.

i always find your posts very interesting xenia.
how much is "correct" grammar and the perception of beauty moulded by a desire to assert identity and inclusion in a group and exclusion of those with different views?
i am not suggesting that we don't have our own intrinsic responses to beauty, whether facial appearance or language, but that strong feelings about incorrect grammar and ugliness are motivated by a need to show status and superiority

ROFL @ pointydog

Surely you don't think it's right for parents to go round saying - you're the pretty one etc. In fact isn't it an English tradition anyway not to go on about looks at all because we're not such a superficial nation, thank goodness. Glad I don't live in Brazil. Obviously if my daughters dress up to go out I might say they're pretty but I'd never say who was the best looking of the 5 or the cleverest for that matter even if those things are clearly known. I just don't think it aids family harmony. It's bad enough when they ask me which I love best which is a silly question as I genuinely love them all the same.

Yes, on the fitting in thing all groups do it. It's not particularly nice and teenage girls are probably the worst example of it - who is in and who is out and who are you speaking to and who not. My 8 year old barred a friend on his web site the other night and we had a discussion about on line behaviour etc and inclusion. If they say no one likes X because he's new to the school I would always say well let's try to make friends with him, imagine you were in his position etc. But it's how most societies work, isn't it even mothers or fathers at school gates looking each other up and down.

I think it's perfectly all right, in fact I think it is psychologically healthy to acknowledge (a) everyone's natural advantages (b) the skills they have developed.

In our family we do it all the time. We go into immense detail about physical and psychological traits and how they are interlinked. I don't think it has done us anything but immense good - excellent for the self-esteem and for boosting our self-confidence.

As grannyc says people often do want to show status. I don't think I'm particularly bad actually. I'm a Catholic and I sort of delight in my old car but then I suppose that's even worse, I'm pouring scorn on those around me who like to show off their wealth through their rather awful flashy cars. The internal ability to be happy with what you have rather than unhappy about what you don't have materially or even in terms of personal relationships is perhaps important to personal happiness. You need an internal contentment - the sun is shining or in my case today I can actually hear (after yesterday's ear treatment) rather than how awful I don't have a new dress because I can't afford it.

But in terms of children we tend to want them to do reasonably well as well as be happy and if they speak in a certain way in this country it can make their life easier so go for it. What is sad is children whose schools say speak and write how you like and the children have no idea that for certain people they will meet in life and work with the fact they split an infinite or say "on the weekend" rather than "at the weekend" will reflect badly on your child. Let them know and they say tough I'll speak how I like but don't keep them in ignorance.

I am in agreement with Anna8888 about the importance of beauty. i am less interested in human physic al beauty, but the importance of the opportunity to experience, enjoy and appreciate beauty in the natural world and the arts.
However, i am still wating for an answer to NQC's question about the aledged relationship between low-grade beauty and political correctness.

I see plenty of examples of cinfusion between beauty and consumerism and materialism, and the effects o9f mass production.

Also, isn't a concept of beauty in the arts too wrapped up in a cultural context to be rooted in any absolute standards? Diffferent scales in music, different cultural traditions and disciplines in art, and surelt individual taste? Even amongst very experienced and sensitive critics of art, there is a merked difference in taste. should we all work to some benchmarked standard of beauty? Part of the strength of the importance of beauty is the personal experience of absorbing it.

I agree with Aloha re language.
language is a precision tool. I think it's fine to go 'street' in certain colloquial conversations, but if you want to be able to get everything you can out of our power of speech, the more accurately you are able to use it, the greater it's effect will be. We undersell young people by sanctioning a descent into language as a blunt tool.