Smart Phones And The Flynn Effect

[phinds]

... I don't have any data on this, but I suspect that a large fraction of middle school and high school English teachers in the US don't have a firm grasp on the proper use of pronouns.

I think you are right but the issue is much worse than that. The additional problem is the young people these days simply don't CARE about the intricacies of proper grammar. They see it as an unnecessary burden to be bothered with and when all their friends speak poor English, why should they not do the same. It's much like vaccinations in that there is a herd level that is required and when enough of the herd uses poor English it becomes the norm. When we were young, poor grammar was considered as sign of ignorance and would be called out. Today it is ignored.

When my kids were young, they used proper grammar but I think really only because they KNEW I would call them out on it if they didn't. Now that they've left the nest some years ago they don't always, and they really don't care.

 

[fresh_42]

Just between you and I, I think you are right. The wife and me were discussing this the other night.

Pronouns in English retain the last vestiges of the concept of grammatical case -- different forms for words depending on what part of the sentence they appear in. Way back in the Cretaceous, when I was in Jr. High, we learned how to diagram sentences, which reinforced the ideas of subject, direct object, indirect object, and other concepts that have implications on whether you use I or me, he or him, she or her, we or us, and they or them. In my opinion, it's a shame that this isn't taught much any more, or even at all. I don't have any data on this, but I suspect that a large fraction of middle school and high school English teachers in the US don't have a firm grasp on the proper use of pronouns.

We have similar developments here. E.g. people stop using the genitive, or they use it incorrectly with a "Deppen-Apostroph" (not sure, Google translate gave me "douchebag apostrophe"). The reason is, that we use the genitive 's' as an appendix and not as in English with an apostrophe. Nevertheless people spread apostrophes all over the place. 'Peter's interests' are 'Peters Interessen' in German, but 9 of 10 people will use the English apostrophe. Also immigrants, at least kids and teens use a so called 'infinitive German', i.e. they do not conjugate verbs at all!

 

[phinds]

Well, language is evolutionary and the POINT of it all is to be understood, unambiguously, so in the long run language will likely evolve to forms that if spoken today would (and do) make us old persnickety people grit our teeth) but it will be clearly comprehensible to its (not it's) speakers.

 

[Mark44]

E.g. people stop using the genitive

That's just about the only vestige of cases left in English -- that we attach 's to the end of a word to denote possession. E.g., "the dog's bone".

it will be clearly comprehensible to its (not it's) speakers.

The exception, of course, is it's, which is the contraction of "it is."

English speakers seem to be just as confused as German speakers about when to use an apostrophe and when not to. You can hardly walk into a grocery store and not see a sign offering, "Banana's" on sale.

 

[Evo]

It's iodine. Iodine has been shown to increase IQ by as much as 15%. Now there is an idiotic trend (at least in the US) to eliminate iodized salt and use un-iodized "trendy" salt.

And iodine’s mental benefits may even help explain the Flynn Effect, which observes that IQ rose about 3 points per decade in developed countries throughout the 20th century. It’s been thought that improved health and nutrition were the driving forces of the Flynn Effect. Now, it appears that iodine alone was responsible for roughly one decade of that remarkable climb. All the more reason, then, for the rest of the world to follow suit and relegate iodine deficiency to the history books.

The economists found that in the lowest-iodine areas—the bottom quarter of the study population—the introduction of iodized salt had stark effects. Men from these regions born in 1924 or later were significantly more likely to get into the Air Force and had an average IQ that was 15 points higher than their predecessors.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...ne-to-salt-boosted-americans-iq/#.XHLbDOhKiM8

The effects of iodine on intelligence in children: a meta-analysis of studies conducted in China.

Abstract
This study quantifies the effects of iodine on the intellectual development of children using a systematic manual literature search of Chinese publications related to iodine deficiency disorders. The Chinese Medical Reference Database, Medline, and Cochrane library were searched electronically in Chinese and English. Inclusion criteria included: studies conducted in China, comparing children (<16 ys) living in naturally iodine sufficient (IS) with those in severely iodine deficient (ID) areas, or children in ID areas born before and after the introduction of iodine supplementation. Intelligent Quotient (IQ) was measured using Binet or Raven Scales. The iodine sufficient control groups were comparable socially, economically, and educationally with the study groups. Random effects models were used in the meta-analysis. Effect size was the standard deviation IQ point (SIQP), which is equivalent to 15 IQ. Thirty-seven reported studies, total 12,291 children, were analysed. The effect size was an increase of 0.83, 0.82, and 0.32 SIQP respectively, for the children living in IS communities compared with those living in ID areas with no iodine supplementation, with inadequate iodine supplementation, or children who had received iodine during their mothers' pregnancy and after birth. These equal to 12.45, 12.3, 4.8 IQ points. Compared with that of children whose mothers were persistently exposed to ID, the total effect size of the 21 entries was an increase of 0.58 SIQP (8.7 IQ points) in the group receiving iodine supplementation during pregnancy

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15734706

 

[fresh_42]

"Banana's" on sale.

Ouch! And you can find this sign here as well.

 

[fresh_42]

It's iodine. Iodine has been shown to increase IQ by as much as 15%. Now there is an idiotic trend (at least in the US) to eliminate iodized salt and use un-iodized "trendy" salt.

I think we have a law that it must be added, although probably not to sea salt. But usual salt has to have iodine added, simply because in former times people often had goiters. We even have salt with fluorides added.

 

[fresh_42]

That's just about the only vestige of cases left in English -- that we attach 's to the end of a word to denote possession. E.g., "the dog's bone".

The genitive in German is closer to an attribute than it is to possession. People replace the genitive by the dative, which is more of a belongs to. But I also observed a vanishing accusative (replaced by a nominative). And here we have the same problem which @phinds pointed out: tv moderators and news speakers whose business the language is can't speak correctly anymore either. And worst of all: most people don't even realize it!

 

[phinds]

And worst of all: most people don't even realize it!

And those folks would like be mildly embarrassed if it was pointed out to them but for younger people, they don't even CARE.

 

[Evo]

The genitive in German is closer to an attribute than it is to possession. People replace the genitive by the dative, which is more of a belongs to. But I also observed a vanishing accusative (replaced by a nominative). And here we have the same problem which @phinds pointed out: tv moderators and news speakers whose business the language is can't speak correctly anymore either. And worst of all: most people don't even realize it!

I find that to be true and it's alarming. I was trying to be helpful and correcting a non-English speaker's use of English and was chastised by another member telling me to accept it because it was just the language "evolving", soon English as we knew it will not be recognizable, it will just be a mix of anything goes slang and txt spk. I know my grammar and punctuation has gone down the drain, my use of commas, for example. I know languages evolve, but this isn't a case of words changing, it's the basic rules of the language being forgotten.

Edit: Just saw phinds' post about this same thing. Geeze, is it phinds' or phinds's?

 

[Bystander]

Geeze, is it phinds' or phinds's?

That's actually "dealer's" choice.

 

[phinds]

Edit: Just saw phinds' post about this same thing. Geeze, is it phinds' or phinds's?

 

[DennisN]

it will just be a mix of anything goes slang and txt spk. [...] Geeze, is it phinds' or phinds's?

Idk. (sorry, I could not resist ).

 

[fresh_42]

Edit: Just saw phinds' post about this same thing. Geeze, is it phinds' or phinds's?

That's exactly the point where the dative comes in here: "post of phinds". It sounds weird even in English ...

 

[fresh_42]

Edit: Just saw phinds' post about this same thing. Geeze, is it phinds' or phinds's?

We have a rather old fashioned solution for this. The difficulty: How to append an 's' at Gauß to indicate his algorithm? Apostrophe is forbidden, 'ßs' as well, and the English bypass 'Gaußean' does not exist. Halt! It does exist and is probably even of the same origin. The solution is an additional 'i' to make it "Gaußischer Algorithmus". I assume that it is of the same origin since the German 'i' is pronounced 'ea'. But very few people know this.

And now for the funny part of it: We figured that out at university with the active help of an American!

 

[PeterDonis]

That's exactly the point where the dative comes in here: "post of phinds". It sounds weird even in English ...

Actually, in English that's still considered a genitive. In German, IIRC, it is considered a dative.

See the note on expressing the possessive periphrastically here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_possessive#As_determiners

 

[fresh_42]

Actually, in English that's still considered a genitive. In German, IIRC, it is considered a dative.

I know, but it's probably a degenerated dative. It's difficult to translate cases if they do not exist formally. Even the question word for dative doesn't exist anymore in English: who - nominative; whose - genitive; whom - accusative; ? - dative.
Probably: "The John his trousers."

 

[PeterDonis]

it's probably a degenerated dative

The "history" section of the same Wikipedia article seems to suggest that the periphrastic form of the genitive evolved from Old and Middle English. (The quote given from the Wycliffe Bible, for example, has "the ymage of God", and the literary periphrastic form is mentioned a little later on.)

Also, as you note, the dative in English doesn't even exist formally (and hasn't since about the transition from Old English to Middle English, as far as I know). To me this makes it unlikely that a particular form of another case is a degenerated dative.

 

[Bystander]

"King James's King James' Bible," or "King James's King James Bible?"

 

[fresh_42]

"King James's King James' Bible," or "King James's King James Bible?"

I would have chosen "James' bible". What I find more disturbing is "people's ", I mean they are many, aren't they?

 

[Klystron]

More chilling in aspect than loss of syntax may be restricted vocabulary.

A group of students and faculty at my university attempted to translate popular fiction and classic literature into modern slang forms including Ebonics in an effort to assist teachers and improve minority employment. IIRC research indicated working vocabularies of 600-700 words among sample populations. A related paper on causes of violence within peer groups -- originally focused on environmental lead contamination -- found miscommunication initiated significant numbers of violent encounters.

It must be frustrating to possesses intelligence but lack a vocabulary to accurately express your thoughts.

 

[fresh_42]

It must be frustrating to possesses intelligence but lack a vocabulary to accurately express your thoughts.

Indeed!