Happy New Year!

Unholy crispy critters! Been too long since I posted to this thing. Anyway, have a good new year, all.

I wish things could be better on my end, truthfully. Girlfriend's parents want to make life unbearable for both of us, and I am getting WHOLLY FUCKING TIRED OF IT!!!

If I knew how to chill out, I would. Good thing tomorrow is our anniversary. What a fun time that will be! (Insert sarcastic, smart-ass remark as you please).

Good grief, life sucks. I will be glad to be back to school, buried under my massive course load, where there is no time to make sense of anything, and I can blissfully surrender to the coma of academia

Reflections

This has been an interesting semester, to be sure. I began this class with a hatred of what I perceived to be grammar. I was taking this class to better my understanding of the English language, and I am positive that this class has helped me in this pursuit. I learned how to diagram a sentence (though I still have a long path ahead of me), what an appositive and a relative clause were, and the various patterns of sentences, like NP1 verb Adjective, for example. The things I have picked up over these last few months may not be at the fore of my brain in the coming years, but I am sure that somewhere, buried in the rat's nest that is my mind, I will still be able to access it when the situation calls for it.

Mulroy questions

The decline of Grammar

1. Why were only religious texts preserved at first?
2. In your opinion, were the advances of learning beneficial to those of us living today, or harmful?

Mulroy & the Greeks

In response to the question about Mulroy and the Greeks, I read that Mulroy says that the Greeks came up with a revolutionary method of writing, that shaped the way we think about writing and our present-day writing styles. The idea for the Greek alphabet apparently originated with the Phoenicians, who were the inhabitants of what is now Lebanon, and were at the fore of international trade and navigation during the dark ages. Because of the early Greek alphabet, we are blessed with the Latin alphabet, which we use, and the Cyrillic alphabet, used more commonly by the Slavic peoples, like Russia and the Czech Republic. Some of his contemporaries would say that the Greeks mostly communicated orally, and really had no need for a written language. However, Mulroy says that the written language served as a 'tipping point,' and led to the great advances we now have. I agree with Mulroy, and do not think that the world would be what it is today without the Greeks, and their strides in advancing language and knowledge.

Steve Martin in one of his best roles

SWE: Do we need it?

Well, if it were not for the institute of Standard Written English, I do not think many people would know how to communicate the way we need to in this modern world. I mean, how silly would it seem if a sentence were phrased like, "I seen them walking, and I ain't sure, but thinks I seen him murderize her life." Some of the preceding sentence is used in common lingo, either to just be playful and silly, or because we do not always talk as we write, and we cannot be anal with our word-usage at all times. Then we would be teachers. Oops! I kid, I kid, because even teachers do not necessarily talk as they would have us write.

The question now is: if SWE is a good idea, then how do we go about teaching it? I say that there should be an equal mix of theory and practice, live and let learn. Perhaps the instruction would begin at a young age, and the pupil would be guided firmly yet kindly, not dashing the hopes of the child, nor coddling them, because both of those alternatives do not lead to anything fruitful. As the instruction progressed, and the child got older and more learned in the ways of SWE, they would be guided to put their knowledge to practical use, such as tutoring the younger ages in the ways. Kinda like Jedis and their Padawans.

Mulroy on Pinker

The passage starts out talking about how "the study of grammar helps us to understand the great literature of the past and to speak and write eloquently." Mulroy moves on to give us the reader a look at how he gathers his information, or the sources he uses on the internet, rather, and how such wide distances for intelligible information would not have been commonplace in Medieval Europe. Later, when we get to the real meat of the passage, his take on Pinker, he begins by saying that Pinker is "generally unimpressed by the phenomenon of standardized languages." Uh-oh, I smell a debate a-brewing!

After this, Mulroy says where he disagrees with Pinker, and utilizes other thinkers like Lowth to back him up in his assertions. Overall, I finally am beginning to see how wide the schism truly is between all the great minds when it comes to an issue like this.

Video

This is just something I wanted to share with all of you.

Pinker

Pinker begins by saying that humans are unique in how we communicate, because nothing else in the known world has the power of speech, and how scientists believe this is improbable. He goes on to question how one can reconcile this, the rules that may or may not be required. He continues on by giving a brief history of how language mavenism began. I was quite fascinated with his arguments, and how much more clear his message was conveyed than the other 'authorities' we have read so far this semester. Unfortunately, one of those people, David Foster Wallace, took his life over the weekend. I blame myself for backing up one of our classmates in saying he was giving one of his contemporaries intellectual fellatio. Now, I obviously am not ACTUALLY to blame, but still, the speaking ill of the dead thing.

Mulroy interview

When asked about her take on whether or not literal meaning has fallen
into disfavor and disarray in the academic community, Professor Rothrock
suggested that it was more of a case of evolution rather than disarray.
According to her, language is an organic, living thing, and that those
who say it has fallen into disfavor employ the rhetorical situation
in a different way than she does. Genuine voice is hindered by rigidity of application, as well as traditional, historical constraints in the absence of the audience and purpose of each communication situation.
Language itself has evolved to fit the audience of the situation it is
used in. However, rigidity is sometimes required, if the situation calls
for it. Literal meaning is too confining, and the English language and its grammars need to be able to change shape.

When asked if it was possible to fix the literal meaning using a
textbook or other implements, she said that it needed to be taught in a
rhetorical sense , with a focus on audience and purpose dictating the style,
not in the isolation of a classroom, with all the established rules as the only guide. Language loses power if it is used too literally. Much like politics, it can be seen as tyrannical if the rules are adhered to with such fervor. Language needs to therefore be flexible with each application. She goes on to state that the rules should be learned, and properly applied, but we should be wary of purist views, since language is the tool for communication that people use, and people are likewise organic and evolving.

Beason

This reading assignment dealt with Larry Beason, and his explanation of what it meant to be 'bothered' by errors. The piece started off explaining the practice of following rules and regulations of the English language, and, one would suppose, grammar as an extension. According to the article, errors are bad because they interfere with the natural flow of communication. I personally am to the point of thinking that we should cover more hands-on work with grammar, rather than these wordy explanations of why we are wrong, with no ACTUAL explanation. Prepositions and clauses are still not my area of expertise, and I wish we could cover it in class, as well as being responsible for the material in our books.

Tense Present, take two

Well, the last time I wrote about this article, it was not as in-depth as it should have been. I liked the article because the writer knew what he was talking about. The course of modern language has shifted quite a bit, and we do not know where we stand anymore. However, as one of our fellow classmates pointed out, the writer is about as brown a nose as can be possible. He was preachy, and apparently did not want to offend, because he was making serious strides in the sucking it up department.

Alt Blog

Just in case you guys are interested, my separate blog is writerfox.blogspot.com. This is where I maintain my writings and such. Drop by and comment on that if you so choose.

Tense Present

This article by a man called Wallace is an in-depth look into what language and its usage means in this day and age. Many words are long since forgotten, and some have been so over-used that they have lost their original meanings, it seems to me. This weekend, my father used a word to describe one of my television shows that I had never heard before. "Falderal" was the word, and it essentially meant nonsense. The point of Wallace's article was driven home unintentionally by someone not even in the class. How interesting this world is sometimes!

Mulroy, Chapter 1

Upon entering this grammar class, I expected to read interesting, intellectually-stimulating material. I just never knew what a treat I was in for. Mulroy's approach is not without style or a certain bit of in-your-face controversy to make the reader sit up and pay attention. He writes as though he is the alpha male of the intellectual community, and reminds me a bit of Ezra Pound, who felt that if you did not understand what he said, you were beyond hope.

The chapter essentially pointed out all of the flaws in the teaching styles and methodology of modern educators, going so far as to feel pity for those who do not know how to properly attribute a passage from The Declaration of Independence, one of this nation's greatest documents. It saddened me to read this, that many people do not know a few passages from this great document, but it also seemed that Mulroy was one of those stick up his butt types, who would sooner point out all the wrong things, rather than praise the correct, and help with the things that needed improvement. I think that what he has to say has just enough truth in it to make me question my own perceptions of what I have been taught up to this point, about anything, grammar or no.

autogrammography

The following paragraphs are what I feel about the subject of grammar at this time, based on past experiences, and the overall issue as I understand it.

Grammar is essential, so I am told, because it is imperative for the structure of sentences. By extension, these sentences make up what should be a logical, well-thought whole. My experiences with it have not been the best. Coming from California to Oklahoma in the fifth grade, to a brand-new method, is something that has plagued me for over a decade. I still do not fully understand what a preposition is.
When I speak to people, or write my own imaginative thoughts down, nobody outside of the educational field seems to point out any mistakes in my sentence structure. Is this because they are dumb? Far from it, I should think. Do I simply have the preternatural ability to make my thoughts known in a logical way? I don't know. What I do know is this: English and writing have always been a fascinating thing to me. The total understanding of these concepts may always continue to elude me, but I feel that as long as I keep my resolve firm, I will endure and do well for myself.
The question still remains: why is grammar essential? Based on previous experience, I see no inherent value to knowing what passive or active voice, prepositions, et al. are, aside from fully utilizing a Mad-Lib.
Grammar has never been a fun or easy subject, and when I moved to a new place and method, I was treated completely without respect to my abilities and mental faculties, simply because the method was unfamiliar. Everyone else knew the songs and all associated materials, and do please excuse me for not being in the state when some uptight bitch decides that her 'widdle boy' needs some help, bless him. So, since I was made to feel like a mentally deficient reject, I did the truly idiotic thing, and turned off my brain when the material was presented to me, robbing myself of actually learning it.
All told, I would love to be able to recognize a participle, infinitive, or other things. As a person who enjoys writing, and wants to be taken seriously as a writer, knowing such things could be nothing besides beneficial. My self-imposed ignorance has allowed me to coast my way to victory so far, but the path is slowly turning uphill, and I am losing steam as I forge ahead in my academic career. Ironically, several people who knew the method that made me feel like a lesser human still relied on my help to get them through the annals of High School.
So, is grammar important? I am told so, and I hope that it is, because I want to be able to communicate and write to the best of my ability.

First post

I created this blog for the purposes of my Grammar class at East Central. Deal with it.