Did you do a double think on the grammar here?

[Awumminnscotland]

My 7 yr old was reading the "blub" as she calls it on the back of her reading book and tells me that her teacher said this was wrong, that it should be "strongest". I'm afraid my eyebrows couldn't get any higher on my head and my mouth dropped. But maybe my expectations are too high?
I'm 52 and in primary didn't get taught much grammar but I knew this...
Not a teaching bashing thread just a v surprised mum and I know most mums of 7 yr olds are younger so just looking for perspective really.

I feel like grammar is a changing thing though. Loads of people will think the way it's written in the book sounds wrong. So then the strongest becomes correct. Or at least not eye brow raising wrong.

I know grammar pedants don't like to hear this. But language and how it's used has always evolved.

Depends if you subscribe to descriptive or prescriptive rules. The stronger would be prescriptively correct, the strongest is now in common usage, therefore descriptively correct.

For those being prescriptivist- you understand that some forms become archaic over time, right? And thus the world doth change... How do you think it feels at the moment when something goes out of fashion? It feels like you feel now. Weird and wrong. Get with the programme!

EthicalNonMahogany · Today 11:10
For those being prescriptivist- you understand that some forms become archaic over time, right? And thus the world doth change... How do you think it feels at the moment when something goes out of fashion? It feels like you feel now. Weird and wrong. Get with the programme!

Yes, we know....

If I had a fiver for every time I've heard/read this about language changing and evolving on MN I'd be a very rich woman. But it will do that by itself and 'unconsciously'. It doesn't need us to consciously and artificially help it along. My degree included learning Old English and Old Norse, and of course reading Middle English, so I do know that language evolves. I would argue that, yes, new words will be coined and some will drop out of use but grammar structures are there to help understanding and precision in expression.

I know for sure that (what many would call) the lowering of standards in written English can result in misunderstandings and ambiguity. I think it's important to adhere to established conventions in formal written language and to strive for clarity. Everyday speech is a different matter.

It doth not change that much.
Going out of fashion does not mean 'wrong'. Formal English is an aid to clarity, as pointed out by CoffeeCantata.

Also, for what it's worth, 'Get with the programme' is
(1) not used correctly in the context, and
(2) a strange mishmash of American and British English.

It's just a slightly different way of saying it, not incorrect - 'the stronger the better', 'There were two candidates, that muppet cast his vote for the weaker because he always picks the posh sounding bloke'.

I'm afraid you are both objectively wrong about the function of grammar and linguistic structure @mathanxiety and @CoffeeCantata, the process of users trying to create emphasis and power in their affective language is exactly what pushes language along and changes it. The 'unconscious' bit is that it's quite Darwinian- if something isn't understood, it isn't productive.

When I wrote 'get with the programme' what it means is what you understood by it. My making a "mistake", in your eyes, or writing something strange, contributes to the pool of usages of that rather odd expression, and thence to what it means.

Anyway! some people are really energised by the notion of rules and the idea of social certainty, some are not. There's quite a lot of research on it.

Stronger, the comparative form of the adjective, is correct here. As PP have said, the superlative form - strongest - should be used for more than two.
“The stronger” implies the stronger one, is an example of ellipsis, and is also correct.

The reading book is correct - there are only two things in the competition so a comparative word is needed, not a superlative.

I understand the points people are making about 'language evolves' and so on, but this doesn't really apply where someone is 'correcting' something that isn't incorrect.

Pedantic point aside. The teacher was wrong to say this is wrong as stronger is correct even if the teacher says strongest sounds better or what ever.

So did the teacher actually say that this example is incorrect? Or has she taught the comparison and superlative recently and your daughter has picked up that 'the' usually comes before a superlative and therefore, the teacher implies this is incorrect?

You do get mistakes in many books/ text books so the assumption that there might be a mistake isn't far fetched.

Even if the teacher is wrong, I can never understand the vitriol of some on here, do you all never make mistakes in your job, do you never have to look up things to double check?

A teacher has hundreds of spontaneous interactions everyday without the luxury of being able to leave a class for 5 minutes to research. There will be occasional mistakes. What is important is that the children are cared for and taught social skills and guided in their learning.

Calling her 'stupid' or saying she wants to 'look smart' is really unecessary.

If you are going to start a thread complaining about grammar, you really need to ensure that your grasp is top-notch first! I am not sure that your own grammar knowledge is quite as good as you think it is. I am spotting quite a few mistakes…

While "stronger" is technically correct, both are perfectly acceptable. Stronger sounds more old-fashioned.

@Awumminnscotland

Also, saying that it's not a teacher bashing thread, does not mean that it's not.

If you wanted clarification that you were right as you had to 'double think' then you could have just shown the blurb. No need to mention the teacher if you didn't want to teacher bash.

It's the "the" beforehand that throws it to strongest in my view.

Agreed, however we don't know exactly what the teacher said. She may only have drawn attention to it so that the child was clear on the meaning in current usage. Whenever I am reading with my class and we come across expressions and structures they are not familiar with, we discuss it and assimilate into their modern understanding. We only have the paraphrasing of seven year old to go by.