BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Grammar

 
 
Axolotl
14:48 / 15.11.05
I am currently learning Russian, and doing so has made me realise that my formal knowledge of grammar is extremely poor. They keep throwing around terms like "declension" & "genitive", and I just sit there looking blank.
I have two questions: Firstly, am I alone in having little or no formal English grammar teaching at school? It seems to be a fairly important subject to completely ignore.
The second question is can anyone recommend some resources to help me fill this gap in my knowledge, either on-line or in print, preferably something aimed more at the layman.

(Mod Note: I wasn't sure where this should go, so I plumped for Conversation, but if you disagree feel free to move it)
 
 
Ariadne
15:05 / 15.11.05
No, you're not alone - the only reason I know (some of) these things is from studying other languages.

I'm not sure where best to start, other than that a good grammar book (one for learning Russian, I mean, rather than English) ought to explain the terms.
 
 
Jub
15:41 / 15.11.05
Try this thread for starters
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
16:11 / 15.11.05
Firstly, am I alone in having little or no formal English grammar teaching at school? It seems to be a fairly important subject to completely ignore.

No, you are not alone. Indeed, a while back a friend of mine (who is a primary school teacher) told me that in Britain over the past forty years or so children have either been taught phonetically or grammatically, depending on the teaching trends/the National Curriculum at the time. For example, according to my friend, in the 70's the preferred and enforced method of teaching English in state schools was using phonetics. As a result, most "children" from that period would have only encountered such words as (e.g) "nouns, adjectives, verbs" (etc) at around age twelve, when they would have had to learn another language at secondary school. I believe the current trend is to teach English using grammar as the starting point.

Hope that helps.
 
 
■
18:06 / 15.11.05
Yeah, what they said. Books on correct grammar tend to assume you know what they're talking about, as well, which is a pain in the bum. OUP's Practical English Usage is supposed to be quite good, and there books for people learning English as a foreign language that might be useful: one of the most popular is English Grammar in Use by Raymond Murphy.
What you probably need, though, is to get someone who can speak another language to try to explain how it all works. The difficulty, even for people who know English grammar, is that English doesn't change enough to make it obvious what you're doing. For example, pointing to how subjects modify verbs is pretty useless when you decline "to be" as:

I am
You are
He is
We are
You are
They are

and for such an important auxiliary, three changes doen't help to make how agreement works very clear. "To go" isn't any better.
It's a tricky point to get your head round unless you already know what I'm on about. In French you'd go:

Je suis
Tu es
Il es
Nous sommes
Vous etes
Ils sont

So you've got five. Une biche to learn if you're any older than ten, but very clearly distinct. Stick with it Phox, one day it will all go "ping" and you'll suddenly grasp what it's all about. Also, don't be afraid to ask the tutor as you're probably in a room where everyone else is thinking the same thing and just as confused.
 
 
Lurid Archive
18:19 / 15.11.05
I thought that nouns declined and verbs conjugated. Have I been wrong all these years?
 
 
■
18:47 / 15.11.05
You see? Even mathematicians knows grammar better than I do. [Hangs head in shame].
To be fair, though, I'm sure I remember my teachers using them interchangeably.
 
 
Mourne Kransky
19:08 / 15.11.05
Nope, nouns indeed decline and verbs conjugate. I learned a bit of grammar and parsing in English at Primary School but, like everybody else, learnt grammar mostly from studying languages other than English.

Latin was particularly useful from that point of view but only because grammarians seemed to spend a lot of effort retrofitting English with Latinate grammatical constructions in 18th and 19th centuries

Problem you have with Russian nouns is they have six cases to learn and some, like the prepositional or instrumental case, weren't simple equivalents of, say, German cases. The verbs were trickier yet, the hardest part being the moods or aspects of the verbs. I kept thinking I had got to grips with it because it was similar in principle to Italian and French perfect and imperfect past tense forms but it's still a bugger to get your head around.

It's a beautiful language to read and write. And often sounds exquisite too. One day maybe I'll learn more than the smattering I know presently. I don't know how far you've got, Phox, but keep it up! I've had a hunt about here for my original Russian language books and can't find them but they were standard book-tape type deals. The BBC also did good Russian language learning resources. I remember using their pronunciation tape a lot before going there and there was a sort of dopey soap called Do Sveedanya Lyeta (Goodbye Summer) full of melancholic Russian youths and complicated vowels to practise.

Just done a quick google and seems the good old BBC still does masses in that line. Might be worth pursuing. Youi certainly don't want dry, dusty lists of verb conjugations and stuff. You want something to immerse yourself in so that you stop worrying about the precise word ending required and just get the sense of what's being said.
 
 
■
20:26 / 15.11.05
Problem you have with Russian nouns is they have six cases to learn and some, like the prepositional or instrumental case, weren't simple equivalents of, say, German cases.

Well, that's turned me off Russian for life. That whole case thing gave me the willies in German. I tried Arabic a couple of years ago, and couldn't get past the three or four positions of the larynx for "h" noises or the double "m"s. For now, I'll stick with reasonable French and enough German to distinguish soap, cream and mustard (funny story about my dad in Munich hotel withheld).
 
 
Lurid Archive
20:36 / 15.11.05
Even mathematicians knows grammar better than I do.

Thats not actually a compliment, you know.

But, like Xoc, I've found that my study of latin has been useful - even though I was an appalling student. Mostly, graamtical distinctions are either straightforward or nor worth bothering with if you ask me. OK, thats a little dismissive, but I mean that anyone can tell the difference between the imperfect and the pluperfect, whereas I have no idea what the grammatical distinction is between "shall" and "will" in english, even though I am assured it exists. The really hard thing for english speakers seems to be the subjunctive....tricky beast that it is. In the present tense, I can just about get it. But try the difference between an imperfect indicative and an imperfect subjunctive.
 
 
quixote
20:55 / 15.11.05
Russian was my first language, and my mother taught it in university. So I can say with absolute conviction that you've jumped in at the deep end. Nothing wrong with that, but be aware of it.

The cryptic link in the second comment goes to an internet grammar site, which is helpful. Just start parsing (English) sentences, with someone to make sure you've started out right, and it'll fall into place. The commenter above who said English is too undeclined / unconjugated to be very useful is partly right. But it's real murder learning the basics of grammar *and* a language like Russian all at once. Lots of people, by the way, myself included, only learned the grammar of their native language after studying a foreign one. You're not doing this backwards at all!

Comic books like Tintin (where there is a certain amount of actual speech) are a great way to learn languages. Get a copy in English, one in Russian, and enjoy.

All that said, a caveat: Russian does have a grammar, but once you've learned that, then you get to learn all the exceptions, which is how people actually use it.... Really, it's simpler to take a year abroad and pick it up by osmosis.
 
 
Mourne Kransky
21:00 / 15.11.05
The shall /will thing has troubled me all my life. I was taught at school that:

I shall
Thou wilt (archaic, but handy for Goth literature)
He will
We shall
You will
They will

was the Future Tense - next week I shall go to Boots and I shall buy some Neutrogena.
or
You will never be lovelier, Ganesh, than you are right here, right now.

I will
Thou shalt (archaic)
He shall
We will
You shall
They shall

was the Emphatic mood of the Future Tense - whatever you say to stop me, I shall go to Boots and shoplift some kirby grips!
or
Cinders, you shall go to the ball!

but I see all of the above widely abused, so who knows what the rules are now.
 
 
■
21:04 / 15.11.05
Sorry, tried rephrasing it a few times but it just didn't work. Probably shouldn't have said it. My point was that people whose specialities would normally be thought to lie outside a given area can often kick your arse if you try to be too clever. As you did.
Ooh, "shall" and "will"? I think it's something to do with conditional and perfect tenses, but I shall be/would be/am damned if I really know the difference. Just picked up a copy of Kingsley Amis' King's English hoping he'd sum it up quickly. Bastard gives it four pages. However, he does say:
"Do as you've always done. But never say anything that strikes you as unnatural; remember, if it strikes you that way it will certainly strike parts of your audience that way too."
He then asks us to look at "Should and would", where he says "I shall" will probably become as archaic as "I ween". he's got a point, but I'd like to know how to use it properly before it goes.
 
 
Lurid Archive
21:20 / 15.11.05
Don't sweat it, cube.

Xoc: I dunno. I only bring it up because I usually get asked to correct grammar for people writing maths english and I often look a fool when I can't decide the will/shall thing. "We will/shall demonstrate the effectiveness of blah blah complicated technical terms blah blah." Should that be emphatic? I have no idea and, as you say, convention more or less undermines the rule.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:27 / 15.11.05
Je suis
Tu es
Il es
Nous sommes
Vous etes
Ils sont


Six parts - it's il/elle est.
 
 
■
21:31 / 15.11.05
Shite. Hadn't noticed that. Typo, I promise. Followed by a quick count at which wasn't looking properly. Look, I've spent two months learning the lyrics to Amsterdam perefctly despite the fact that my audience din't speak a word of French. Gies peace.
 
 
Mourne Kransky
21:48 / 15.11.05
El Lurido, in your long and illustrious academic career, you will have learned that, when it comes to issues peripheral to your core subject, you can make up any old shite and be believed as long as you speak with sufficient conviction. I have parlayed a whole career out of that bluff.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:59 / 15.11.05
Xoc's version seems overcomplicated. Will functions with volition, shall with obligation or compulsion. I will go to the ball. You shall go to the ball. I shall comply, but with a heavy heart. The two are pretty much indistinguishable at this point, however.
 
 
Mourne Kransky
22:11 / 15.11.05
I defer to Sir Haus, as ever. If there is a difference, it's like the Schleswig-Holstein question. If anybody ever understood it, they are now dead, don't care or have gone mad.
 
 
Axolotl
11:54 / 16.11.05
Thanks for all your advice people. I may just focus on learning the correct usage, and worry about the correct nomenclature for the terms later.
Xoc: I'm just starting Russian, but it is going quite well. I've got a couple of teaching tapes, and access to the university language library, so I'm hoping to get my arse in gear and get up there soon.
quixote: Nice idea about the Tintin books, I may try it. As for taking a year out, first I'd like to be vaguely conversant and I'm not sure how practical it is, but it would be fantastic to do so.
 
 
Cat Chant
11:59 / 16.11.05
The situation I was taught for distinguishing will/shall was as follows:

I shall drown, nobody will save me! = simple future tense (person is predicting the likely outcome of hir situation).

But: I will drown, nobody shall save me! = emphatic/statement of volition (as in Xoc's you shall go to the ball example) person determined to die and to prevent anyone from saving hir.

It's totally archaic, though, as both Xoc and Haus have said. In fact, when I did a bit of TESOL, I discovered that shall is usually only used in distinction to "will" in English English* in questions - shall I open the window? not meaning the same thing as Am I going to open the window?

*Ie I think usage is different in Scotland and/or Ireland.
 
  
Add Your Reply