Why do we spend so much time learning grammar in the public school system?

[erobz]

The nitpicking of slight grammar corrections for best value of the thread reader is best done by private email

I don't think it's "best done" at all. Otherwise, I agree.

 

[gleem]

Maybe the brainwashing just that effective that I just do it without any concept of it?

Why spend so much time on grammar? So I could determine what you meant without reading it several times.

Maybe the instruction was so effective that I do it without thinking about it? Maybe.

 

[erobz]

@gleem If you can do the proper calculation without thinking about the underlying theory, it is irrelevant. No one will ever actually find themselves with five consecutive "that" words in a sentence they have constructed without alternatives that will be better for conveying the idea.

 

[Mark44]

What I'm saying is there is no good reason for that behavior today. As far as I can tell it exists because of science once being an endeavor for the affluent in society.

It has nothing to do with science, but everything to do with class; e.g., the historical difference in education levels between royalty and the local gentry, who are presumed to be better educated, and the peasants, who may have had little education or even none at all.

There's an expectation that people who speak for a living, such as TV reporters, teachers, and others or those who need to write reports as part of their jobs will be able to use their own language in a way that is grammatically correct. You seldom hear someone on a TV news show say something like, "The senate didn't do nothing today, as they was not in session."

@gleem If you can do the proper calculation without thinking about the underlying theory, it is irrelevant.

I think you missed @gleem's point, where he surmised that he had learned grammar so well that he didn't need to think about it. That is not to say that the instruction he received was irrelevant.

 

[erobz]

It has nothing to do with science, but everything to do with class; e.g., the historical difference in education levels between royalty and the local gentry, who are presumed to be better educated, and the peasants, who may have had little education or even none at all.

There's an expectation that people who speak for a living, such as TV reporters, teachers, and others or those who need to write reports as part of their jobs will be able to use their own language in a way that is grammatically correct. You seldom hear someone on a TV news show say something like, "The senate didn't do nothing today, as they was not in session."

I think you missed @gleem's point, where he surmised that he had learned grammar so well that he didn't need to think about it. That is not to say that the instruction he received was irrelevant.

I think you are missing my point. I can learn (and have learned) the acceptable (or very close to) speech/writing patterns with nil application of conceptual knowledge of the grammatical theory that dictates "this is correct". Like I said. I couldn't tell you what a verb is or give an example of one at this moment without looking it up, (let alone the exotic grammatical entities discussed here)! Yet here I am... communicating effectively.

 

[symbolipoint]

@gleem If you can do the proper calculation without thinking about the underlying theory, it is irrelevant. No one will ever actually find themselves with five consecutive "that" words in a sentence they have constructed without alternatives that will be better for conveying the idea.

The use of "That" was a informal assignment which the teacher gave to the class. Repassing that event into the topic here seemed a stimulating and related idea.

edit:
The use of five "That" in a row was an informal assignment which the teacher gave to the class. Repassing that event into the topic here seemed to be a stimulating and related idea.

 

[Mark44]

I think you are missing my point. I can learn (and have learned) the acceptable (or very close to) speech/writing patterns with nil application of conceptual knowledge of the grammatical theory that dictates "this is correct".

I don't think I'm missing your point. I agree that what you write does seem to show me that you have good skills in writing, so some of what you have complained about must have sunk in over the years.

Like I said. I couldn't tell you what a verb is or give an example of one at this moment without looking it up,

Even though I don't see anything wrong with your writing, it seems very unfortunate to me that you don't know what such a basic part of speech is. I have a hard time believing that you wouldn't be able to pick out the verb in a simple example such as "Mary ate the apple."

My argument here is that you seem to be thinking that whatever amount of time you spent learning grammar in grades 1 through 12 was a waste of time. I disagree with this assessment. In your current job aren't there times when you have to deliver some sort of formal report to your professional peers? For myself, whenever I had to speak in front of my peers or students or prepare some document as a presentation, I put in a lot of effort to make it polished and professional. I was able to do so because of my knowledge of the subject area as well as my grasp of grammar.

(let alone the exotic grammatical entities discussed here)! Yet here I am... communicating effectively.

The examples you're referring to, with multiple "that"s really have only a small connection to grammar. As such, they were not very germane to the main thrust of this thread.

 

[berkeman]

Thread is closed for Moderation to consider a report from a member about this thread...

 

[Mark44]

Edited to remove erroneous information.
If anyone has a good reason to reopen the thread, please PM me. Otherwise, the thread will remain closed.