15%-20% if the service is good more if she is a cute.
crazytns on
September 3rd, 2008 12:21 pm
the word scarf !
crazytns on
September 3rd, 2008 12:10 pm
mmmk i want to know the origin of the word Phrontistery
elpollo on
June 8th, 2008 10:20 am
You rock girl.Nice rooster sound.
the_prophet on
June 5th, 2008 12:51 pm
The video is not available =(
roachmeistercom on
June 4th, 2008 8:09 pm
Is that how they make the rooster noise in Russia? –COOOK - ree - COOL! hehe
How fun. You rock as always. One runs short of superlatives after a while. Thanks!
phil_safc on
June 3rd, 2008 7:01 am
15 % tip, if its good service though i go higher, but if service is crap then 0%.
One thing that is annoying is when you leave a tip then another waiter comes across cleans table and takes it. Only seen it happen in Spain.
beaugosse on
June 2nd, 2008 4:10 pm
Oh wonderfull Marina ! would like to know all about the origin of the verb “to be”… It sounds so strange. To be or not to bee that is the question…
okay4now on
June 2nd, 2008 12:00 pm
15% on full service, up to 20% for sentimental reasons (server having really rough night or known money problems…or you frequent the place & are generally favored)
40-45% of full price on anything ‘comped’
1-10% on take-out, or semi-self serve, or no service ‘joints’–handing you a donut across a deli counter isn’t considered service either is doing a half turn to deliver the coffee of the day.
Sounds harsh but that’s the restaurant biz’s way of looking at it.
hutchiee on
June 2nd, 2008 6:04 am
Woo hoo finally got one!
errin on
June 1st, 2008 8:42 pm
Since the trend in recent lessons seems to be dates and their affordability, I thought I’d share a nice tip to anybody out there in the Los Angeles area, especially those near the Hollywood area who are into good live music to bring a date to…
A singer/songwriter/lyricist friend of mine by the name of Aimee Mann is going to be doing a free in-store appearance at 6pm June 3rd at Amoeba Records in Hollywood to promote her new CD. You can take this link to her website to hear her latest…
It’s a free show at a cool, spacious venue featuring a very talented musician. I’ll be going with my significant other (plus friends), and I’d recommend it to anybody in the area as a great free date, if dating and music are what you are into. Not sure how many of this student body is actually in the Los Angeles area, but it seemed like it was worth noting, especially given the ‘affordable date’ theme of recent lessons. Seemed like too good of a freebie not to share.
Peace, Errin : )
juanjat on
June 1st, 2008 8:13 pm
¡hey!
I would like to know the words “Black Jack.”
why does this card game is called like that!?
Black!? Jack!?? whose jack!?
that’s it!
saludos from Venezuela
p.d: habla en español
roadrunrnch on
June 1st, 2008 7:59 pm
Is the Teach in New York to do O’Reilly,?? Is that why She so quiet.?
randyw702 on
June 1st, 2008 7:52 pm
randyw702 on
June 1st, 2008 7:46 pm
Where does the term “eighty six “come from
gio.forever on
June 1st, 2008 6:52 pm
I was looking around and watched the TV. The news said: Universal studios and Hollywood streets in fires. That’s a terrible new for the cinema world and really a shame, the firemen reached to the incident place quicly to put out the fire. Some people use the word S.O.S to ask help, were this word come from ???, why we usually use this word to ask help ??? I heared its an acronym, well don’t know ..Hope you can help me in this incognite
StylinAzn on
June 1st, 2008 5:18 pm
What are the origins of the words:
Hobknobbing
Fetish
Bye bye
I’ve been so curious about this that its killing me. Please help me Marina as one of your Original Subscribers…Love Jess
I got 1. What’s the origin of the phrase “tongue and Cheek” and why is it called tongue and cheek
troublemaker1991 on
June 1st, 2008 3:45 pm
Dear Marina, I have a word request
Where does the word ‘pic-nic’ comes from? It seems kinda wierd to me to be honest with you.
lucyinthesky219 on
June 1st, 2008 3:45 pm
why is a donut called a donut? Also, why can you spell it doughnut or donut?
packyjack1 on
June 1st, 2008 3:44 pm
Marina,
Where the heck did the word “rinkydink” come from?
The word drives me crazy - Thanks!!
noserider222 on
June 1st, 2008 12:55 pm
Why is New York known as the Big Apple?
why is a place you buy alcohol known as a package store?
Mahalos
Ron
roadrunrnch on
June 1st, 2008 12:10 pm
Teach, How board are you getting. Your not having as much fun? Your Minions are crazy-geeks. What did you expect, smart people don’t have time for this crap. Beautiful people aether. Cheer up , at least we don’t crap on the carpet……much.
Hey Marina! Hope all is well. Here is a word I think is relevent to current events. The word is ‘politics’. Could it be that this word is made up of two words? The first, ‘poly’, meaning many. The second ‘tick’, a blood sucking insect. You’re doing great!!
twood22
troublemaker1991 replied on June 1st, 2008 3:03 pm:
Actually.. I could maybe provide the answer to that question.
The word ‘poltics’ comes from the Greek word ‘poli’ which means city and back in ancient Greece when each city was a different state, the word ‘politiki’ (in other words, politics) was used to describe all the things and the issues that had to do with the city-state, such as Athens.
You see, it’s quite the advantage of being Greek these days
roadrunrnch replied on June 1st, 2008 7:53 pm:
THE POLL-A-TAKERS of today[politician] are not leaders at all. They take a poll to see what they think. 56% of the American People are morons. No wonder the US is in trouble?
micheldiego replied on June 2nd, 2008 1:03 am:
And politics is a brother (big?) of police being both sons of greek city administation…
Poll comes from “head” so probably nothing to do with police or politics.
Another close word which has no relation with police is policy (of insurrance) comes from polyptychum a register a roll.
Hello Marina! This is my first comment on your site and I have a word for you
The word is : Lamprophony
the word means : Loudness and clarity of voice
Where this word comes and why does it means that ?
troublemaker1991 replied on June 1st, 2008 3:41 pm:
My lucky guess is that it also comes from 2 Greek words. ‘Lampros’ which actually means very shiny, but can also mean other things like great (in size) or in quality. For example lampro mialo means a great brain/mind. And the other part of that word, ‘phony’, comes from the Greek word ‘phony’ for voice. The same word is used for words like telephone (tele comes from the ancient Greek word for far) or microphone (micro comes from the Greek word for small).
So there you go another mystery solved by your trusty Troublemaker1991… tbh, this does not work for me xD need to find another slogan… or just let dear Marina do her job
annuddermale replied on June 1st, 2008 3:59 pm:
hmmm…lampros meaning “large” brought to mind “lampoon”…which is to satirize someone or something…
not that i think they’re related…
note to all: i said satirize, not satyrize (which isn’t a word, anywho)
hmmm…Marina?…any relationship between satire & satyr?…seems in both cases someone’s gettin’ fooked…
europe_guy on
June 1st, 2008 9:55 am
Dear Marina,
let me ask you about an English word DA (actually I am not quite sure how to spell it cause I am not native). I find it interesting that DA occurs in so many languages including English, German, Russian and others - perhaps its origin might be the same for all of them.
Thank you,
europe_guy
pagedoll on
June 1st, 2008 8:47 am
Is the o’reilly show on june 2 still a lock?
blahboy on
June 1st, 2008 8:22 am
Marina, where does the word “graffiti” come from?!
benthebozer69 on
June 1st, 2008 8:19 am
Could you please do the word cruciverbalist
19jones91 on
June 1st, 2008 8:13 am
Could you please do “Charlie Horse” as in the cramps you get in your leg?
capman911 on
June 1st, 2008 8:06 am
Marina how about the word hypermedia.
whopboy on
June 1st, 2008 7:57 am
Word Request: Medal, like an award you get for something you do, usually good at
eastcoast007 on
June 1st, 2008 5:34 am
Word request:
Where does the word “soccer” come from? Why do some countries call the game football and others call it soccer?
eastcoast007 on
June 1st, 2008 5:23 am
I always tip 20% to waiters. But sometimes a good bartender will get more than that. I do not tip at Starbucks or any place like that though.
Bob on
June 1st, 2008 3:20 am
Today’s Quote:- “If you haven’t got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me.”
That’s sad. If the Teacher’s pet doesn’t get to sit next to her, what’s the point? This should appeal to you.
ulkare on
June 1st, 2008 2:33 am
Police
its origins interest me
evil casserole on
June 1st, 2008 1:34 am
Wife beater… as in a white t-shirt
al golagniac on
May 31st, 2008 11:20 pm
Marina Dearest:
Saw yore interview on O’Reily…
Couldn’t help but notice that yore Bazooms were plastered / covered up with banners… am wondering if you / we were the victim of his producers prudish behavior… or if it was done to focus the viewers attn on yore beautiful eyes ?
Looks like you had a “Banner Day” on The Factor.
Words to consider: banner day, bazooms, Ta-Tas, getting plastered
P.S. i don’t watch his show …so don’t know if you got special treatment ?
roadrunrnch replied on May 31st, 2008 11:56 pm:
Don’t be afraid of being informed, You will not be made fun of here. Being stupid is not SEXY. O’Reilly’s smart thou He’s a megalomaniac narcissist . He dose appreciates the Teachers ……BRAINS AND GOOD LOOKS. So he’s ok with me.
roadrunrnch replied on June 1st, 2008 12:04 am:
( does appreciate, ) i r stuid.
roadrunrnch on
May 31st, 2008 11:08 pm
Guys watch South Park? season 6, Bebe’s Boobs Destroy Society. agh agh agh! too funny.
tha was great dude! i dig south park but dont watch much just because i cant handle any tv with commercials. i probably relate most with cartman overall. i love the ep where hes hunting hippies
Dear Marina,
I know I have already asked for one word, sorry (that’s not an apology but the word I asked for) but if you could explain one (or more) of the following words I’d also be grateful. They are mushroon, kiss and kinky. Of course asking for all these words would be too much but even one of them would be terrific. Thanks, and keep up the good work!
My parents have a big male cat named Kinky. When they found him, he had a broken tail.
svoboda on
May 31st, 2008 8:29 pm
I usually tip 15% of the bill, if the gratuity isn’t already added in and the service is good. If it is superior, I tip much better.But I have given a two cent tip when the service was really lousy. That is considered the ultimate insult, as not tipping could be considered forgetfulnes by the server, if they receive two cents, they know they weren’t forgotten, but rather that the customer voiced their oppinion of the service by “putting their two cents in”
I generally tip 15%, too. I spent nine years dealing various casino games, and I relied on tips for my livelihood. I learned that Canadians and the British do not generally tip. Most Asians don’t tip. Americans and Latinos generally do tip. Must be a cultural thing… Anyway, I no longer work in a casino, but I know the importance of tipping as a result of those nine years. So unless the service is lamentable, I will tip 15%
okay4now replied on June 2nd, 2008 11:33 am:
2 cents a wicked insult, but the ultimate is to dine & dash
19jones91 on
May 31st, 2008 8:16 pm
Hi Marina, I’d like to request “Charlie Horse”, as in the cramps you get in your leg…Thanks
Teach, Ms, OuR-LOVe-A , OR-[my]-LOVe-A,. very cute. shshshshshshhhhh!
ps where is Your cacapoo [dog] ?
spinkr on
May 31st, 2008 5:17 pm
Hej Marina! Do you know where the expression “wet your whistle” came from? (have a drink) kram och puss
tehasian1 on
May 31st, 2008 4:49 pm
I’d like to request the origin of the word “Chess” as in the board game. Thanks Hotforwords. And I really enjoy learning in your videos.
pagedoll on
May 31st, 2008 3:58 pm
well went to the cocomment thing and the only thing i could figure out is that i must be extra dense ’cause it was to confusing for this kid. thanks for the invite, but i’ll just keep on hangin’ out here. i’ve only had the internet for about 6 weeks and in that time i’ve come to the conclusion that this site is the only reason why i still have it…hope that puts a smile on your face.
Hey guys.. check out the top conversation in my cocomment widget and help me out with this discussion on this guy’s website about the idea of bad grammar. Come make some comments on his website and participate with me if you’d like!
roadrunrnch replied on May 31st, 2008 5:29 pm:
That poor guys page is a shadow of Yours. What happened to The Minions…..Help out Teacher,,,,,,, guys
I should’ve just copied the comments and replies from this site …
annuddermale replied on May 31st, 2008 8:37 pm:
i posted there…frankly i think there’s a meld of “bad grammar” and “slang” in the poster’s head. There absolutely must be rules for communication, which are bent by slang, but to say there is no such thing as bad grammar…well…
there ain’t no such…
buzzword replied on May 31st, 2008 8:54 pm:
it seems that i need a translator to get my point across.
pagedoll replied on June 1st, 2008 5:19 pm:
Iron Maiden rocked so hard! I’ll go see them again for sure! Good ol’ Bruce is pretty cool.
annuddermale… i never said that there aren’t any rules. only that there are various rules in various types of speech and that all are relative and should be evaluated without bias. when one is analyzing speech independently of one’s own cultural concepts, such as a linguist does, one cannot make a value judgment. it would be like me saying as a social scientist, this is the way the majority of us do it, so the rest of you are doing it wrong. that type of thinking is not acceptable in the social sciences. would you ever say that the majority of people in the u.s. are white, so white is good. what you are stating is that another person’s rules of grammar are not correct or acceptable within your perceived cultural environment. it is a contextual judgment that you are making.
Is it though, buzzword? I mean.. there are concrete rules within science and mathematics.. why can’t there be rules in language.. in otherwords.. why isn’t a double negative a positive in language when it is a positive in science? Isn’t it a slippery slope to allow “proper grammar” to just disappear?
When I am speaking about proper grammar.. I mean the ability to form sentences where the other person understands what you are saying.. allow it to stray too far and you may not be able to understand the other person at all.
I do agree that with the advent of texting.. the playing field has been leveled somewhat.. as proper grammar used to be the indicator of someone with a good education.. but everyone uses “text” speak these days.. BUT.. what’s the point of education if you can’t teach someone some basic rules of communication? I mean.. how do you teach your kid to speak if you don’t have any rules? Even the purveyors of “bad grammar” have some rules that they follow, right?
annuddermale replied on June 1st, 2008 7:31 am:
I agree that grammar rules are relative to the cultural environment, but find your implication that it is wrong (”one cannot make a value judgment”) specious. Language is fluid and culture is one of the influences that affects language, but cultural norms dictate grammar rules. Certainly evaluating grammar abjectively is difficult, but that does not mean it is wrong, nor does it mean that judgements cannot be made effectively.
Your use of the Airplane jive-talk scene is fallacious, in my opinion. The jive talkers are speaking a sub-language of English, and, whereas I would not judge their grammar “bad” for Jive, it is absolutely wrong for normal American English. Hence the stewardess’ problem with trying to communicate.
When one enters a different culture, one is judged based on that culture’s norms. Hand gestures considered acceptable, even good, in one country are judged rude in another country. That is a value judgement and is valid in context of the culture.
I’m not as sure about Marina’s example regarding text messaging, as to me that is not so much bad grammar but shorthand spelling. But u r a total sweetie, Marina - dig it?
annuddermale replied on June 1st, 2008 7:33 am:
argggg!!! objectively…
i need coffee…
micheldiego replied on June 1st, 2008 12:34 pm:
Of course we need rules to communicate even for language, and of course a commubity can set his own set of rules, and as Marina show us words or expressions permeate in time and geografy. The real question in my opinion is to understand Timbaland’s intention.
You probably read Thureau, and will agree that a poet has not only the right but even the obligation of desobedience of grammar. Is Timbaland a poet? No. In my mind a rap lyric desobeing grammar but being poetic is not bad grammar. Then is Timbaland’s intention to speak a “different” language. Probably it is a matter of identification to a “sub”-culture. Are this lyrics representative of jive or ebonics “literature”? I don’t think so. The intention is probably not to create a piece of “literature” of a diferent “grammar”. The intention is to make young people able to feel part of a “community” by spekaing a common “jargon”. In my mind the intention of Timbaland is not speaking a diferent language with his own grammar but speaking something easy to understand and at the same time specific. Simplifying the “usual” standard grammar not to speak anothe language but to make it easy (even lazy) and state a diference in the “disrecpect” of the established “grammar”.
annuddermale replied on June 1st, 2008 1:22 pm:
ah, but the question comes down to who should adapt…the community or the individual…
when i taught biology, i emphasized that individuals vary, but it is populations which evolve…i think the same could be be said of language…individuals may find their own way of communicating using individual grammar rules, but communities/cultures will decide what is worthy of being incorporated and becoming an accepted part of the language…
until that time, individuals who vary too far from the norm (outliers) will be considered grammatically-incorrect…and must learn the old axiom:
adapt or die!
buzzword replied on June 1st, 2008 1:25 pm:
micheldiego, linguistics and anthropology are sciences. good science minimizes the influence of subjectivity upon research and experimentation. objectivity is the goal of a any scientific study. your expectations of literature or poetry has no bearing upon the scientific study and understanding of another persons cultural performance and associated rules. i am talking about science not literature or art. you use the term, “my mind” this is of significance. you cannot establish to me the proof that your mind, containing the cultural rules, values and expectations of your society are the baseline by which all other people’s cultural identities are to be compared. at least not to produce a valid scientific theory that can be replicated or tested.
micheldiego replied on June 1st, 2008 2:46 pm:
Buzzword, I will never try to “desconstruct” grammar. Yet I “believe” that Kerouac or Rimbaud in their time had a desobedience obligation, and a creative role in “interpretating” and making language evolve. Language is alive and needs CREATION. Annudermale, probably you will agree with me in stating that language “evolve”. Adapt or die? maybe. Or maybe just being alive. Should be interesting in having Dawkins opinion on this matter, and perhaps on “l’air du temps” of modern english. Can poets be the creators of what will be the “evolution” of the language which is already in “l’air du temps”. Whatever, Timbaland lirycs are not poetic, still some slam lyrics are.
prospero811 replied on June 1st, 2008 3:31 pm:
Maybe part of the disconnect here is the loading of the words “bad” and “good.” I don’t think that the “Bad Grammar” parody uses the word “bad” in the sense of “evil.” It’s not saying someone who says “I are” is worse than someone who says “I am.” Bad grammar just means incorrect grammar.
A definition of “bad” is “inaccurate, incorrect, or faulty: e.g. a bad guess.” If two people guess something, and one of them gets it wrong and the other gets it right, the one who got it wrong made a “bad guess.” That doesn’t make that person a bad person, or even a bad guesser. After all, that person may be a philanthropist who usually guesses everything right, but this time made a bad guess.
The same goes for “bad grammar.” Using bad grammar doesn’t mean you aren’t a good person. I hear a lot of people whose first language is not English using awful grammar. Some of them use grammar that’s not just bad, but downright abysmal. So, what? They’re fine people who haven’t yet mastered the language.
Others use “bad grammar” when writing poems and novels. There’s a lot of bad grammar featured in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath and the C.S. Lewis made up a stack of words in his poem Jabberwocky. Those are masterpieces of literature.
And, some “bad grammar” or “nonstandard English” spellings and meanings, eventually become “good grammar” and “standard English.” That must be tempered, however, by the general proposition upon which we all seem to agree. There are rules. If there are rules, they can be broken. If they can be broken, there is bad grammar. QED.
How does one determine what’s right or wrong is another question. If a debate arises as to whether one particular item is, in fact, bad grammar? Where do we look to find the rules? Who do we talk to? How does one build an argument to support a contention one way or the other? It can’t be that “anything goes.” If “anything goes” then there are no rules - and from what I can see, everyone has agreed “there are rules” (whatever they may be).
In the case of the English language, we have a couple of choices. For each item at issue, we can take a vote of each English language speaker (which would be the only way to get at their own knowledge or belief - their own “grammar in their head). The only way to get into someone’s head using present technology is to ask them. It seems to me to be more than obviously unfeasible to do that every time, on every issue, just in case the majority opinion has shifted.
So, what are we to do then? Well, it seems to me, as I’ve said before, that there are people that do this stuff for a living. They aren’t in a government office. They are people that work as lexicographers, linguists, and grammarians. They work on making dictionaries and they work on making books that expound upon English grammar. If I had a question regarding the proper usage of “who” and “whom,” I’d look it up. I wouldn’t ask around in order to “get inside someone’s mental grammar.” Looking it up in a generally respected source is probably the best way to get a good understanding of what is correct.
That doesn’t mean that dictionaries and grammar sources are “prescriptive.” Technically, they are expository of what the writers of the book believe to be the then current (at the time of writing) correct grammar or word usage. Whether they are “prescriptive” is in how they are used. They can be used prescriptively, and often should be used prescriptively (for example in grammar school, when kids are being taught English). If the textbook is not used prescriptively in grammar school or high school, then the teacher has no basis for grading papers. That’s obvious.
However, in general, people are free to take rules expounded in a grammar book and toss them out if they are found to be unsatisfactory. There has to be caution laid upon that, however. It is highly likely that the writers of a grammar book or a dictionary did more work on the subject, educated themselves better, and researched a bit more than the average person out there (me included). So, all else being equal, on most issues, a respected source like the OED is probably more likely to be correct than Joe Shmo on the street.
buzzword replied on June 1st, 2008 10:04 pm:
annuddermale,
you fail to mention the value that genetic diversity has had to the success of the species. a population that lacks genetic diversity lacks the resources to adapt to a changing environment. a few individuals may have in their genetic makeup the key to human survival if they are resistant to a disease or environmental shift. such an event could wipe out the majority of a human population yet a few of the individuals once considered outliers would survive and so to the species. diversity is detrimental to survival. your statement, “adapt or die” is about as simplistic description of evolution as i’ve ever heard. further still your attitude to those populations that are on the outskirts of society and are experiencing oppression and in some cases genocide is cold and heartless. would your sentiments be the same if you were to address the refugee camps in Darfur? adapt or die? a diversity of people and languages are a benefit to our humanity and species.
alright. I googled for “mental grammar” as this is what I was talking about the whole time.
qoute:
By “grammar,” I mean the internal mental grammar — the system of rules for a language that is stored in the brain/mind of a human being who is a native speaker of that language. I’m not using the word to refer to a system of rules printed in a book or on a computer screen. Your internal grammar is completely independent of the grades teachers may have given you in grammar classes; if you’ve always thought you were “really bad at grammar,” please set that thought aside.
It seems to me that aLx has scored an own goal by referring us to Suzette Haden Elgin’s “real world linguistics 101″.
In that she clearly states that
When you want to use language to communicate meaning, you have to use it according to its rules, which linguists call its grammar.
Note that she stated “its rules, which linguists call its grammar” i.e. the rules and grammar belonging to the language, and not “the rules and grammar which various individuals hold in their heads”.
True, she goes on to say that each individual has what linguists refer to (confusingly) as an “individual grammar” in their heads; however, that is not the grammar (good grammar) of the language but that individual’s imperfect understanding of the language’s grammar which can be close to what is commonly understood to be “good grammar” or far removed from it (bad grammar).
I suggest that aLx’s insistence on his views of language which seem to conflict with everyone else’s, is not “real world linguistics 101″ but “Ivory Tower Linguistics”.
no, bob, I’ve always been saying this. I said that grammar is something in your head etc., it’s internal, individual. I did say that by “grammar” I do not mean textbook grammars.
I never said that there are no rules. of course there are rules, of course language is rule-governed. but those rules are no textbook rules. this is crucial. the set of rules that allows you to use your mother tongue is set up at an early age. you’re not even able to read, you already know all the rules of your language.
so, this is why I said we’re talking about totally different things. “grammar” to me means individual grammar.
fighting about, say, double negatives is just a fight about style or taste or something, not about grammar.
prospero811 replied on June 1st, 2008 5:48 pm:
O.k. - there are rules.
Can you give an example of a grammar rule? (defining grammar using your intended meaning).
Also, you mention that at an “early age…you already know all the rules of your language.” I’m not sure I’m getting that. Are you suggesting that everyone who uses a language knows all the rules of their language? In other words, is it your contention that while their are rules, these rules are specific to each individual? Thus, the only way to break a grammar rule is to speak it incorrectly relative to how your own mind thinks you should speak?
I am trying to get what you mean by “individual grammar.” If by “individual grammar” you mean that every individual has his own grammar rules, which are self-contained in his or her own mind, then breaking the rule simply consists of imposing a rule upon oneself and then breaking that self-imposed rule. Is that what you are saying?
If so, that would mean that Prose Perro can say “I think me are come home tomorow yesterdayly.” ALx can then say “that’s bad (incorrect) grammar.” But, aLx might be wrong, if Prose Perro’s individual grammar says that it’s not incorrect. In fact, aLx’s statement that Prose Perro’s grammar was wrong is both right and wrong. ALx is right that Prose Perro’s grammar was “bad” under aLx’s individual grammar, but aLx is wrong under Prose Perro’s individual grammar.
I’ll change my terminology a little bit. “grammar”, as I used the term before, is now “i-language (internal/individual language)”. the description of the rules of a linguistic system which a particular group of people uses to communicate, I’ll call “grammar”.
note that this is just a description. it’s describing a set of rules. it’s just stating what you’ve found to be the case. that is important.
this is totally different from a textbook grammar. textbook grammars are prescriptive.
let me ask you this. I know, I’ve stressed that point before, but it’s an important one. most languages are only spoken. now, you wouldn’t say that the language those people that speak, but not write, doesn’t follow any rules just because you can’t pull out a big book out of a shelf, right? so, this is what grammar is to me. try and imagine that there are no books, that there is no written language, and then think about what grammar in this particular case means.
let’s have marina write an email to suzette haden elgin, telling her we got this weird discussion on here and asking her to present her point of view. :DD
how’s that?
buzzword replied on June 1st, 2008 9:24 am:
marina,
I never said there weren’t any rules. just that all rules are equal. no good, no bad. just different rules for different speech varieties. it is an issue of recognizing the validity of a people’s language, their cultural rules.
learning another culture’s rules would be good if you needed to function in their cultural environment. when people say, “you should practice good grammar” what they are really saying is that knowing these rules will help you gain acceptance in a particular cultural setting such as, academics, economics, etc. but by using the word “good”, which is value based one is also saying, “your grammar is bad, your way is bad, your cultural rules are bad.” which is not true.
By escaping the trap of thinking of nonstandard Black English as a set of “errors,” and instead treating it as really is, a different system, not a wrong one, standard English can be taught by helping children develop an awareness of the contrast between their two speech varieties, and learn to use one without losing their pride in the other.
further there is a danger in associating the concept of “good” grammar with education, in that one’s education then becomes associated with intelligence. thus “good” grammar becomes associated with intelligence. individuals speaking non standard varieties of english that have not received formal education retain the same levels of intelligence as those that do speak the “standard” form and have received formal education. their lack of access to education because of language or disinterest in acquiring that education cannot be used to determine there intelligence.
buzzword replied on June 1st, 2008 9:27 am:
damn, block quote should have ended after stanford link. those words following the link are my own and not part of the quote.
prospero811 replied on June 1st, 2008 3:06 pm:
Saying someone is using good or bad grammar is not a moral judgment. Apparently, everyone is in agreement. There are rules to grammar, spelling, meaning, etc. If there are rules, they can be broken. QED.
prospero811 replied on June 2nd, 2008 4:20 am:
What’s an example of a grammar rule?
buzzword replied on June 1st, 2008 9:50 am:
bob, your description of this approach to linguistics as, “ivory tower linguistics” is misplaced. as this approach to linguistics is very applicable to those linguists and anthropologists working in the field far from the ivory towers of academics and u.s. mainstream culture. this approach allows the researcher to function without bias among the people and language of interest. as someone who has studied amid the poverty of the developing world, i can tell you that this approach is rooted in the common, often harsh realities of human existence. by recognizing that another person’s speech and cultural norms are as valid and worthy of understanding as one’s own, no matter how foreign, is an act of selfless understanding and respected scientific methodology. this is not the view of aLx alone, i don’t know who you include in your, “everyone else’s” but many respected linguistic and anthropological researchers apply it to their work. aLx and if i may, myself are not the only ones.
prospero811 replied on June 1st, 2008 1:56 pm:
Marina - I must be missing something - I can’t locate the discussion you are talking about. Can you help post a link in a reply to this message?
The longer this conversation goes on, the more confused I get!
To start with the last post by Buzzword, what I meant by “Ivory Tower Linguistics” was any formal study of language by anyone who calls themself a linguist and what I meant by “everyone else” was the “ordinary person in the street” who has no interest in studying language but only wants to use it to convey meaning to other “ordinary persons in the street”.
Next, let’s talk about “Good / Bad” Grammar. What I understand by “Good Grammar” is Grammar as it is taught in schools using Government approved textbooks - what you call prescriptive grammar.
“Bad Grammar” is anything that does not conform to this textbook grammar and is a continuum from minor variations through to a structure which is so different from the school-taught version that it is unintelligible to someone who has not encountered it before. (See Buzzwords link to “Jive” speak.)
it seems that i need a translator to get my point across.
I do not regard myself as an expert in language, (for example, I couldn’t recognise a subjunctive if I stepped in one on the street) and I have no problems with people using language which does not conform to what I was taught in school, as long as I can reasonably easily work out what a person is trying to say to me.
Also, I have had the good fortune to work in a number of foreign countries alongside people who were learning English, as well as working with foreign workers here in the UK, and I have always been popular with them because I have always tried to learn at least some of the local language or dialect and have taken the trouble to answer their questions about what is the “correct” way to say something in English.
When answering their questions, I have never felt able to say, “You must say it this way.” I have always said, “This is the way I would say it but other people might tell you another way.” So I have demonstrated that I recognize that another person’s speech and cultural norms are as valid and worthy of understanding as my own, no matter how foreign, and have acted consistently in a selfless way in trying to increase understanding.
Having got that out of the way, what are we actually arguing about here?
Re-reading all that has gone before, it seems to me that the crux of aLx’s and Buzzwords crusade is the use of the words “Good” and “Bad” and, as a Buddhist who is supposed to reject duality, I have to agree. Those words should, maybe, be expunged from all dictionaries, but none of us are going to live to see the day.
Maybe it is just a question of acknowledging that people have come to use those words unthinkingly without consciously attaching a value to what they are referring to.
Nevertheless, the terms “good grammar” and “bad grammar” are in common use. As I understand it, the title of Jamesatwar’s and Marina’s video was inspired by the reaction of school English teachers to the video titled “The way I are”.
The artists who produced that video must have realised that it would provoke a reaction when they put it into the public domain, and, as Buzzword has said before on this site, when you do something in public you had better be prepared to be offended, so I find it slightly incongruous that he is now defending a public figure who has been lampooned.
BillyB replied on June 1st, 2008 8:39 pm:
You can’t expung the words “good” & “bad” they have changed their meanings almost opposite of the original meaning & maybe even back again, depending on context, ie “goody two shoes” although “good” means “good”, but has a negative connotation. “Bad” has changed, to be admired, as Michael Jackson noted in his song I’m Bad .
Now could be just be bad again. But, pre Michael, it was I’m Bad, I’m Nationwide. Ironicaly the guy in ZZ Top named Beard, the drummer (without the beard) ran into my wife in California many years ago, (pre me) & invited her to a party in the ZZ Top penthouse. She was underage at the time (now thats bad). She declined, at least thats what she tells me.
Bad & Good are good words just a little inconsistant in their meanings. Cheers
buzzword replied on June 1st, 2008 10:14 pm:
yo, thanks for the clarification bob. i respect your attempts in diplomacy, that’s really cool. for the record i wasn’t offended by the video, unlike the blogger that inspired this deep blue. however i support the validity his argument regarding the concept of “good and bad” grammar. dude really, it takes something really heinous to offend me. i appreciate the effort in understanding our position. and you summarized simply enough. thanks.
imagine a ball game described in a book. two kids take a look at it and want to play this game. there are images in the book showing the game. the ball in those images is red. the kids don’t have a red ball. only a yellow one.
if they start playing the game with the yellow ball — do they play a game other than the game described in the book?
annuddermale replied on June 1st, 2008 2:29 pm:
not a great example, IMO…i ref junior, collegiate, and adult volleyball…that sport, and i’m sure almost all other sports, has proscribed specifications for the ball…too wide a variance and you’re not playing the game as described by the ruleset…
so if the kids used a yellow volleyball to play softball, then, yes, they are playing bad ball…
Bob replied on June 1st, 2008 2:53 pm:
That’s about as relevant as asking if people are reading the same post in here if their computer displays it in red letters instead of black.
Neither a “good” example nor a “bad” one, but a specious one.
prospero811 replied on June 1st, 2008 6:51 pm:
If the game is, for example, golf, then the answer would be that they are playing the same game. That’s because golf doesn’t have a rule requiring the ball be of a particular color.
At this point in this conversation, I’d like to chime in with the following lyrics of a song by The Police, one about words and grammar…
Don’t think me unkind
Words are hard to find
They’re only cheques I’ve left unsigned
From the banks of chaos in my mind
And when their eloquence escapes me
Their logic ties me up and rapes me
De do do do, de da da da
Is all I want to say to you
De do do do, de da da da
Their innocence will pull me through
De do do do, de da da da
Is all I want to say to you
De do do do, de da da da
They’re meaningless and all that’s true
Poets, priests and politicians
Have words to thank for their positions
Words that scream for their submission
And no one’s jamming their transmission
‘Cos when their eloquence escapes you
Their logic ties you up and rapes you
De do do do, de da da da
Is all I want to say to you
De do do do, de da da da
Their innocence will pull me through
De do do do, de da da da
Is all I want to say to you
De do do do, de da da da
They’re meaningless and all that’s true
And if Sting’s take on things isn’t intellectual enough for you, try looking into Noam Chomsky’s linguistic theories about the psychological power of grammar and the way it can be used just right as a sort of mind control. Rather than dwell too much on the ineffectiveness of bad grammar, it might be better to delve into the effectiveness of good grammar and how our brains are hardwired to it. De doo doo doo De da da da… Peace, Errin : )
errin replied on June 1st, 2008 8:13 pm:
Noam Chomsky’s concept is known as generative grammar. Here’s a link to a wikipedia article about it:
As several contributions to this special issue point out, ideologies of race are also ideologies of language, an unsurprising convergence given the long standing association between ethnoracial and linguistic differentiation promoted both in early linguistic theorizing and in (other) nationalist projects (Bauman and Briggs 2000). The ideology of linguistic markedness. In particular, the difficulty (which afflicts only white people) in seeing whites as racialized is matched by the difficulty (again, only for whites) in hearing white speakers’ language as racialized: as specifically white rather than neutral or normative-or standard. In such an arrangement, unmarked status confers power by allowing whiteness to move through the social world ghost-like, unseen and unheard, evident only in its effects. Likewise, the notion of a linguistic “standard,” which in the U.S. context is closely bound up with whiteness (Lippi-Green 19997), implies both unmarkedness (standard as ordinary) and power (standard as regulative)
Although there are numerous sociolinguistic treatments of Standard English from a variety of perspectives (e.g., Crowley 1989; Milroy and Milroy 1999; Silverstien 1996), scholarly opinion is remarkably unanimous. in nearly every discussion Standard English is located in opposition to nonstandard English (and sometimes to other languages); many commentators point out that Standard English, as it is usually defined, is not spoken at all but is a particular register of written language; and a number of authors note that Standard English does not, properly speaking, exist but rather is a prescriptive ideal. Such analyses, valuable as they are for correcting misapprehensions about the nature of sociolinguistic variation, do not always carefully distinguish between the notion of an idealized prescriptive standard, usually based on a formal written language, and the spoken vernacular believed most closely to approximate it. This spoken Standard English, as a primarily informal or coloquial variety, differs from formal written Standard English (Carter 1999; Cheshire 1999) but is still granted ideological authority as “the standard.” Thus spoken Standard English is positioned in relation not only to nonstandard English but also to what I call superstandard English. A linguistic superstandard is a variety that surpasses the prescriptive norm established by the standard. While available to some standard and nonstandard speakers rather than situational variety the superstandard is restricted neither to formal contexts nor to written language. For some speakers, the superstandard may be the everyday, “unmarked” variety for ordinary interaction.
Superstandard English contrasts linguistically with Standard English in its greater us of “supercorrect” linguistic variables: lexical formality, carefully articulated phonological forms, and prescriptively standard grammar. It may also go beyond traditional norms of prescriptive correctness, to the point of occasionally over-applying prescriptive rules and producing hypercorrect forms. But the recognition of such difference is at least ideologically as linguistically motivated. it is precisely because of the robustness of the ideology of Standard English in the Unites States that those linguistic varieties generally classified as nonstandard-African American Vernacular English foremost among them-are regularly held up as divergent from the standard despite considerable overlap in grammar, phonology, and the lexicon. By the same token, the superstandard need not deviate substantively from the colloquial standard in order to be considered distinctive; because it is marked with respect to Standard English forms, even relatively slight use of supercorrection and hypercorrection can call attention to itself. Superstandard English is therefore a marked variety that may contrast ideologically both with the unmarked colloquial standard and with marked nonstandard English. However, because it draws on the prescriptive standard, it also contributes to the linguistic ideologies that elevate one linguistic variety over others. How these varieties come to e associated with particular racial positions-that is, how they become racialized styles-is likewise the work of ideology.”
15%-20% if the service is good more if she is a cute.
the word scarf !
mmmk i want to know the origin of the word Phrontistery
You rock girl.Nice rooster sound.
The video is not available =(
Is that how they make the rooster noise in Russia? –COOOK - ree - COOL! hehe
How fun.
You rock as always. One runs short of superlatives after a while. Thanks!
15 % tip, if its good service though i go higher, but if service is crap then 0%.
One thing that is annoying is when you leave a tip then another waiter comes across cleans table and takes it. Only seen it happen in Spain.
Oh wonderfull Marina ! would like to know all about the origin of the verb “to be”… It sounds so strange. To be or not to bee that is the question…
15% on full service, up to 20% for sentimental reasons (server having really rough night or known money problems…or you frequent the place & are generally favored)
40-45% of full price on anything ‘comped’
1-10% on take-out, or semi-self serve, or no service ‘joints’–handing you a donut across a deli counter isn’t considered service either is doing a half turn to deliver the coffee of the day.
Sounds harsh but that’s the restaurant biz’s way of looking at it.
Woo hoo finally got one!
Since the trend in recent lessons seems to be dates and their affordability, I thought I’d share a nice tip to anybody out there in the Los Angeles area, especially those near the Hollywood area who are into good live music to bring a date to…
A singer/songwriter/lyricist friend of mine by the name of Aimee Mann is going to be doing a free in-store appearance at 6pm June 3rd at Amoeba Records in Hollywood to promote her new CD. You can take this link to her website to hear her latest…
http://www.aimeemann.com/
It’s a free show at a cool, spacious venue featuring a very talented musician. I’ll be going with my significant other (plus friends), and I’d recommend it to anybody in the area as a great free date, if dating and music are what you are into. Not sure how many of this student body is actually in the Los Angeles area, but it seemed like it was worth noting, especially given the ‘affordable date’ theme of recent lessons. Seemed like too good of a freebie not to share.
Peace, Errin : )
¡hey!
I would like to know the words “Black Jack.”
why does this card game is called like that!?
Black!? Jack!?? whose jack!?
that’s it!
saludos from Venezuela
p.d: habla en español
Is the Teach in New York to do O’Reilly,?? Is that why She so quiet.?
Where does the term “eighty six “come from
I was looking around and watched the TV. The news said: Universal studios and Hollywood streets in fires. That’s a terrible new for the cinema world and really a shame, the firemen reached to the incident place quicly to put out the fire. Some people use the word S.O.S to ask help, were this word come from ???, why we usually use this word to ask help ??? I heared its an acronym, well don’t know ..Hope you can help me in this incognite
What are the origins of the words:
Hobknobbing
Fetish
Bye bye
I’ve been so curious about this that its killing me. Please help me Marina as one of your Original Subscribers…Love Jess
I got 1. What’s the origin of the phrase “tongue and Cheek” and why is it called tongue and cheek
Dear Marina, I have a word request
Where does the word ‘pic-nic’ comes from? It seems kinda wierd to me to be honest with you.
why is a donut called a donut? Also, why can you spell it doughnut or donut?
Marina,
Where the heck did the word “rinkydink” come from?
The word drives me crazy - Thanks!!
Why is New York known as the Big Apple?
why is a place you buy alcohol known as a package store?
Mahalos
Ron
Teach, How board are you getting. Your not having as much fun? Your Minions are crazy-geeks. What did you expect, smart people don’t have time for this crap. Beautiful people aether. Cheer up , at least we don’t crap on the carpet……much.
Hey Marina! Hope all is well. Here is a word I think is relevent to current events. The word is ‘politics’. Could it be that this word is made up of two words? The first, ‘poly’, meaning many. The second ‘tick’, a blood sucking insect.
You’re doing great!!
twood22
Actually.. I could maybe provide the answer to that question.
The word ‘poltics’ comes from the Greek word ‘poli’ which means city and back in ancient Greece when each city was a different state, the word ‘politiki’ (in other words, politics) was used to describe all the things and the issues that had to do with the city-state, such as Athens.
You see, it’s quite the advantage of being Greek these days
THE POLL-A-TAKERS of today[politician] are not leaders at all. They take a poll to see what they think. 56% of the American People are morons. No wonder the US is in trouble?
And politics is a brother (big?) of police being both sons of greek city administation…
Poll comes from “head” so probably nothing to do with police or politics.
Another close word which has no relation with police is policy (of insurrance) comes from polyptychum a register a roll.
Hello Marina! This is my first comment on your site and I have a word for you
The word is : Lamprophony
the word means : Loudness and clarity of voice
Where this word comes and why does it means that ?
My lucky guess is that it also comes from 2 Greek words. ‘Lampros’ which actually means very shiny, but can also mean other things like great (in size) or in quality. For example lampro mialo means a great brain/mind. And the other part of that word, ‘phony’, comes from the Greek word ‘phony’ for voice. The same word is used for words like telephone (tele comes from the ancient Greek word for far) or microphone (micro comes from the Greek word for small).
So there you go
another mystery solved by your trusty Troublemaker1991… tbh, this does not work for me xD need to find another slogan… or just let dear Marina do her job 
hmmm…lampros meaning “large” brought to mind “lampoon”…which is to satirize someone or something…
not that i think they’re related…
note to all: i said satirize, not satyrize (which isn’t a word, anywho)
hmmm…Marina?…any relationship between satire & satyr?…seems in both cases someone’s gettin’ fooked…
Dear Marina,
let me ask you about an English word DA (actually I am not quite sure how to spell it cause I am not native). I find it interesting that DA occurs in so many languages including English, German, Russian and others - perhaps its origin might be the same for all of them.
Thank you,
europe_guy
Is the o’reilly show on june 2 still a lock?
Marina, where does the word “graffiti” come from?!
Could you please do the word cruciverbalist
Could you please do “Charlie Horse” as in the cramps you get in your leg?
Marina how about the word hypermedia.
Word Request: Medal, like an award you get for something you do, usually good at
Word request:
Where does the word “soccer” come from? Why do some countries call the game football and others call it soccer?
I always tip 20% to waiters. But sometimes a good bartender will get more than that. I do not tip at Starbucks or any place like that though.
So that’s how you get to be the Teacher’s Pet.
I’ve never sat next to her.
That’s sad.
If the Teacher’s pet doesn’t get to sit next to her, what’s the point? This should appeal to you. 
Police
its origins interest me
Wife beater… as in a white t-shirt
Marina Dearest:
Saw yore interview on O’Reily…
Couldn’t help but notice that yore Bazooms were plastered / covered up with banners… am wondering if you / we were the victim of his producers prudish behavior… or if it was done to focus the viewers attn on yore beautiful eyes ?
Looks like you had a “Banner Day” on The Factor.
Words to consider: banner day, bazooms, Ta-Tas, getting plastered
P.S. i don’t watch his show …so don’t know if you got special treatment ?
Don’t be afraid of being informed, You will not be made fun of here. Being stupid is not SEXY. O’Reilly’s smart thou He’s a megalomaniac narcissist . He dose appreciates the Teachers ……BRAINS AND GOOD LOOKS. So he’s ok with me.
( does appreciate, ) i r stuid.
Guys watch South Park? season 6, Bebe’s Boobs Destroy Society. agh agh agh! too funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tANgunpXZ-w&feature =related which one of the Guys are you?
tha was great dude! i dig south park but dont watch much just because i cant handle any tv with commercials. i probably relate most with cartman overall. i love the ep where hes hunting hippies
No commercials need be tolerated: http://www.southparkzone.com/
Thanks for that propero811
Guys; notice how the pretty little Blond controls the minions? and why?
Algolagniac, Algolagnia… or my made up word:
“Algolagniacaphobia” ( ¿fear of giving or rcvg pain ?)
P.S. if i ever had “Philologistaphobia” am sure that u have cured me !
goeduck I believe is the spelling its a large clam at least this is what their called in western north america
geoduck
What is the orgin and root word for etymology?
Dear Marina,
I know I have already asked for one word, sorry (that’s not an apology but the word I asked for) but if you could explain one (or more) of the following words I’d also be grateful. They are mushroon, kiss and kinky. Of course asking for all these words would be too much but even one of them would be terrific. Thanks, and keep up the good work!
My parents have a big male cat named Kinky. When they found him, he had a broken tail.
I usually tip 15% of the bill, if the gratuity isn’t already added in and the service is good. If it is superior, I tip much better.But I have given a two cent tip when the service was really lousy. That is considered the ultimate insult, as not tipping could be considered forgetfulnes by the server, if they receive two cents, they know they weren’t forgotten, but rather that the customer voiced their oppinion of the service by “putting their two cents in”
I generally tip 15%, too. I spent nine years dealing various casino games, and I relied on tips for my livelihood. I learned that Canadians and the British do not generally tip. Most Asians don’t tip. Americans and Latinos generally do tip. Must be a cultural thing… Anyway, I no longer work in a casino, but I know the importance of tipping as a result of those nine years. So unless the service is lamentable, I will tip 15%
2 cents a wicked insult, but the ultimate is to dine & dash
Hi Marina, I’d like to request “Charlie Horse”, as in the cramps you get in your leg…Thanks
How do you know Marina gets cramps in her legs?
Drop your drawers??? Why are they called drawers?
I would like it if you could please tell me the origin of the word “analysis.”
Beautiful is my word request and Ugly too!
I once met a beautiful mind at Coyote Ugly.
Teach, Ms, OuR-LOVe-A , OR-[my]-LOVe-A,. very cute. shshshshshshhhhh!
ps where is Your cacapoo [dog] ?
Hej Marina! Do you know where the expression “wet your whistle” came from? (have a drink) kram och puss
I’d like to request the origin of the word “Chess” as in the board game. Thanks Hotforwords. And I really enjoy learning in your videos.
well went to the cocomment thing and the only thing i could figure out is that i must be extra dense ’cause it was to confusing for this kid. thanks for the invite, but i’ll just keep on hangin’ out here. i’ve only had the internet for about 6 weeks and in that time i’ve come to the conclusion that this site is the only reason why i still have it…hope that puts a smile on your face.
I’d like to request the origin of the expression “Stoned”. Meaning to be intoxicated from drugs. Thanks.
Hey guys.. check out the top conversation in my cocomment widget and help me out with this discussion on this guy’s website about the idea of bad grammar. Come make some comments on his website and participate with me if you’d like!
That poor guys page is a shadow of Yours. What happened to The Minions…..Help out Teacher,,,,,,, guys
I should’ve just copied the comments and replies from this site …
i posted there…frankly i think there’s a meld of “bad grammar” and “slang” in the poster’s head. There absolutely must be rules for communication, which are bent by slang, but to say there is no such thing as bad grammar…well…
there ain’t no such…
it seems that i need a translator to get my point across.
Iron Maiden rocked so hard! I’ll go see them again for sure! Good ol’ Bruce is pretty cool.
iron maiden
annuddermale… i never said that there aren’t any rules. only that there are various rules in various types of speech and that all are relative and should be evaluated without bias. when one is analyzing speech independently of one’s own cultural concepts, such as a linguist does, one cannot make a value judgment. it would be like me saying as a social scientist, this is the way the majority of us do it, so the rest of you are doing it wrong. that type of thinking is not acceptable in the social sciences. would you ever say that the majority of people in the u.s. are white, so white is good. what you are stating is that another person’s rules of grammar are not correct or acceptable within your perceived cultural environment. it is a contextual judgment that you are making.
Is it though, buzzword? I mean.. there are concrete rules within science and mathematics.. why can’t there be rules in language.. in otherwords.. why isn’t a double negative a positive in language when it is a positive in science? Isn’t it a slippery slope to allow “proper grammar” to just disappear?
When I am speaking about proper grammar.. I mean the ability to form sentences where the other person understands what you are saying.. allow it to stray too far and you may not be able to understand the other person at all.
I do agree that with the advent of texting.. the playing field has been leveled somewhat.. as proper grammar used to be the indicator of someone with a good education.. but everyone uses “text” speak these days.. BUT.. what’s the point of education if you can’t teach someone some basic rules of communication? I mean.. how do you teach your kid to speak if you don’t have any rules? Even the purveyors of “bad grammar” have some rules that they follow, right?
I agree that grammar rules are relative to the cultural environment, but find your implication that it is wrong (”one cannot make a value judgment”) specious. Language is fluid and culture is one of the influences that affects language, but cultural norms dictate grammar rules. Certainly evaluating grammar abjectively is difficult, but that does not mean it is wrong, nor does it mean that judgements cannot be made effectively.
Your use of the Airplane jive-talk scene is fallacious, in my opinion. The jive talkers are speaking a sub-language of English, and, whereas I would not judge their grammar “bad” for Jive, it is absolutely wrong for normal American English. Hence the stewardess’ problem with trying to communicate.
When one enters a different culture, one is judged based on that culture’s norms. Hand gestures considered acceptable, even good, in one country are judged rude in another country. That is a value judgement and is valid in context of the culture.
I’m not as sure about Marina’s example regarding text messaging, as to me that is not so much bad grammar but shorthand spelling. But u r a total sweetie, Marina - dig it?
argggg!!! objectively…
i need coffee…
Of course we need rules to communicate even for language, and of course a commubity can set his own set of rules, and as Marina show us words or expressions permeate in time and geografy. The real question in my opinion is to understand Timbaland’s intention.
You probably read Thureau, and will agree that a poet has not only the right but even the obligation of desobedience of grammar. Is Timbaland a poet? No. In my mind a rap lyric desobeing grammar but being poetic is not bad grammar. Then is Timbaland’s intention to speak a “different” language. Probably it is a matter of identification to a “sub”-culture. Are this lyrics representative of jive or ebonics “literature”? I don’t think so. The intention is probably not to create a piece of “literature” of a diferent “grammar”. The intention is to make young people able to feel part of a “community” by spekaing a common “jargon”. In my mind the intention of Timbaland is not speaking a diferent language with his own grammar but speaking something easy to understand and at the same time specific. Simplifying the “usual” standard grammar not to speak anothe language but to make it easy (even lazy) and state a diference in the “disrecpect” of the established “grammar”.
ah, but the question comes down to who should adapt…the community or the individual…
when i taught biology, i emphasized that individuals vary, but it is populations which evolve…i think the same could be be said of language…individuals may find their own way of communicating using individual grammar rules, but communities/cultures will decide what is worthy of being incorporated and becoming an accepted part of the language…
until that time, individuals who vary too far from the norm (outliers) will be considered grammatically-incorrect…and must learn the old axiom:
adapt or die!
micheldiego, linguistics and anthropology are sciences. good science minimizes the influence of subjectivity upon research and experimentation. objectivity is the goal of a any scientific study. your expectations of literature or poetry has no bearing upon the scientific study and understanding of another persons cultural performance and associated rules. i am talking about science not literature or art. you use the term, “my mind” this is of significance. you cannot establish to me the proof that your mind, containing the cultural rules, values and expectations of your society are the baseline by which all other people’s cultural identities are to be compared. at least not to produce a valid scientific theory that can be replicated or tested.
Buzzword, I will never try to “desconstruct” grammar. Yet I “believe” that Kerouac or Rimbaud in their time had a desobedience obligation, and a creative role in “interpretating” and making language evolve. Language is alive and needs CREATION. Annudermale, probably you will agree with me in stating that language “evolve”. Adapt or die? maybe. Or maybe just being alive. Should be interesting in having Dawkins opinion on this matter, and perhaps on “l’air du temps” of modern english. Can poets be the creators of what will be the “evolution” of the language which is already in “l’air du temps”. Whatever, Timbaland lirycs are not poetic, still some slam lyrics are.
Maybe part of the disconnect here is the loading of the words “bad” and “good.” I don’t think that the “Bad Grammar” parody uses the word “bad” in the sense of “evil.” It’s not saying someone who says “I are” is worse than someone who says “I am.” Bad grammar just means incorrect grammar.
A definition of “bad” is “inaccurate, incorrect, or faulty: e.g. a bad guess.” If two people guess something, and one of them gets it wrong and the other gets it right, the one who got it wrong made a “bad guess.” That doesn’t make that person a bad person, or even a bad guesser. After all, that person may be a philanthropist who usually guesses everything right, but this time made a bad guess.
The same goes for “bad grammar.” Using bad grammar doesn’t mean you aren’t a good person. I hear a lot of people whose first language is not English using awful grammar. Some of them use grammar that’s not just bad, but downright abysmal. So, what? They’re fine people who haven’t yet mastered the language.
Others use “bad grammar” when writing poems and novels. There’s a lot of bad grammar featured in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath and the C.S. Lewis made up a stack of words in his poem Jabberwocky. Those are masterpieces of literature.
And, some “bad grammar” or “nonstandard English” spellings and meanings, eventually become “good grammar” and “standard English.” That must be tempered, however, by the general proposition upon which we all seem to agree. There are rules. If there are rules, they can be broken. If they can be broken, there is bad grammar. QED.
How does one determine what’s right or wrong is another question. If a debate arises as to whether one particular item is, in fact, bad grammar? Where do we look to find the rules? Who do we talk to? How does one build an argument to support a contention one way or the other? It can’t be that “anything goes.” If “anything goes” then there are no rules - and from what I can see, everyone has agreed “there are rules” (whatever they may be).
In the case of the English language, we have a couple of choices. For each item at issue, we can take a vote of each English language speaker (which would be the only way to get at their own knowledge or belief - their own “grammar in their head). The only way to get into someone’s head using present technology is to ask them. It seems to me to be more than obviously unfeasible to do that every time, on every issue, just in case the majority opinion has shifted.
So, what are we to do then? Well, it seems to me, as I’ve said before, that there are people that do this stuff for a living. They aren’t in a government office. They are people that work as lexicographers, linguists, and grammarians. They work on making dictionaries and they work on making books that expound upon English grammar. If I had a question regarding the proper usage of “who” and “whom,” I’d look it up. I wouldn’t ask around in order to “get inside someone’s mental grammar.” Looking it up in a generally respected source is probably the best way to get a good understanding of what is correct.
That doesn’t mean that dictionaries and grammar sources are “prescriptive.” Technically, they are expository of what the writers of the book believe to be the then current (at the time of writing) correct grammar or word usage. Whether they are “prescriptive” is in how they are used. They can be used prescriptively, and often should be used prescriptively (for example in grammar school, when kids are being taught English). If the textbook is not used prescriptively in grammar school or high school, then the teacher has no basis for grading papers. That’s obvious.
However, in general, people are free to take rules expounded in a grammar book and toss them out if they are found to be unsatisfactory. There has to be caution laid upon that, however. It is highly likely that the writers of a grammar book or a dictionary did more work on the subject, educated themselves better, and researched a bit more than the average person out there (me included). So, all else being equal, on most issues, a respected source like the OED is probably more likely to be correct than Joe Shmo on the street.
annuddermale,
you fail to mention the value that genetic diversity has had to the success of the species. a population that lacks genetic diversity lacks the resources to adapt to a changing environment. a few individuals may have in their genetic makeup the key to human survival if they are resistant to a disease or environmental shift. such an event could wipe out the majority of a human population yet a few of the individuals once considered outliers would survive and so to the species. diversity is detrimental to survival. your statement, “adapt or die” is about as simplistic description of evolution as i’ve ever heard. further still your attitude to those populations that are on the outskirts of society and are experiencing oppression and in some cases genocide is cold and heartless. would your sentiments be the same if you were to address the refugee camps in Darfur? adapt or die? a diversity of people and languages are a benefit to our humanity and species.
this is exactly what I was saying. we’re talking about different things.
alright. I googled for “mental grammar” as this is what I was talking about the whole time.
qoute:
–> real world linguistics 101.
It seems to me that aLx has scored an own goal by referring us to Suzette Haden Elgin’s “real world linguistics 101″.
In that she clearly states that
Note that she stated “its rules, which linguists call its grammar” i.e. the rules and grammar belonging to the language, and not “the rules and grammar which various individuals hold in their heads”.
True, she goes on to say that each individual has what linguists refer to (confusingly) as an “individual grammar” in their heads; however, that is not the grammar (good grammar) of the language but that individual’s imperfect understanding of the language’s grammar which can be close to what is commonly understood to be “good grammar” or far removed from it (bad grammar).
I suggest that aLx’s insistence on his views of language which seem to conflict with everyone else’s, is not “real world linguistics 101″ but “Ivory Tower Linguistics”.
no, bob, I’ve always been saying this. I said that grammar is something in your head etc., it’s internal, individual. I did say that by “grammar” I do not mean textbook grammars.
I never said that there are no rules. of course there are rules, of course language is rule-governed. but those rules are no textbook rules. this is crucial. the set of rules that allows you to use your mother tongue is set up at an early age. you’re not even able to read, you already know all the rules of your language.
so, this is why I said we’re talking about totally different things. “grammar” to me means individual grammar.
fighting about, say, double negatives is just a fight about style or taste or something, not about grammar.
O.k. - there are rules.
Can you give an example of a grammar rule? (defining grammar using your intended meaning).
Also, you mention that at an “early age…you already know all the rules of your language.” I’m not sure I’m getting that. Are you suggesting that everyone who uses a language knows all the rules of their language? In other words, is it your contention that while their are rules, these rules are specific to each individual? Thus, the only way to break a grammar rule is to speak it incorrectly relative to how your own mind thinks you should speak?
I am trying to get what you mean by “individual grammar.” If by “individual grammar” you mean that every individual has his own grammar rules, which are self-contained in his or her own mind, then breaking the rule simply consists of imposing a rule upon oneself and then breaking that self-imposed rule. Is that what you are saying?
If so, that would mean that Prose Perro can say “I think me are come home tomorow yesterdayly.” ALx can then say “that’s bad (incorrect) grammar.” But, aLx might be wrong, if Prose Perro’s individual grammar says that it’s not incorrect. In fact, aLx’s statement that Prose Perro’s grammar was wrong is both right and wrong. ALx is right that Prose Perro’s grammar was “bad” under aLx’s individual grammar, but aLx is wrong under Prose Perro’s individual grammar.
alright, let’s try this. maybe that helps.
I’ll change my terminology a little bit. “grammar”, as I used the term before, is now “i-language (internal/individual language)”. the description of the rules of a linguistic system which a particular group of people uses to communicate, I’ll call “grammar”.
note that this is just a description. it’s describing a set of rules. it’s just stating what you’ve found to be the case. that is important.
this is totally different from a textbook grammar. textbook grammars are prescriptive.
let me ask you this. I know, I’ve stressed that point before, but it’s an important one. most languages are only spoken. now, you wouldn’t say that the language those people that speak, but not write, doesn’t follow any rules just because you can’t pull out a big book out of a shelf, right? so, this is what grammar is to me. try and imagine that there are no books, that there is no written language, and then think about what grammar in this particular case means.
err. correction.
“… you wouldn’t say that a certain language which people speak, but not write, doesn’t follow …”
oh, hey, I got an idea.
let’s have marina write an email to suzette haden elgin, telling her we got this weird discussion on here and asking her to present her point of view. :DD
how’s that?
marina,
I never said there weren’t any rules. just that all rules are equal. no good, no bad. just different rules for different speech varieties. it is an issue of recognizing the validity of a people’s language, their cultural rules.
learning another culture’s rules would be good if you needed to function in their cultural environment. when people say, “you should practice good grammar” what they are really saying is that knowing these rules will help you gain acceptance in a particular cultural setting such as, academics, economics, etc. but by using the word “good”, which is value based one is also saying, “your grammar is bad, your way is bad, your cultural rules are bad.” which is not true.
damn, block quote should have ended after stanford link. those words following the link are my own and not part of the quote.
Saying someone is using good or bad grammar is not a moral judgment. Apparently, everyone is in agreement. There are rules to grammar, spelling, meaning, etc. If there are rules, they can be broken. QED.
What’s an example of a grammar rule?
bob, your description of this approach to linguistics as, “ivory tower linguistics” is misplaced. as this approach to linguistics is very applicable to those linguists and anthropologists working in the field far from the ivory towers of academics and u.s. mainstream culture. this approach allows the researcher to function without bias among the people and language of interest. as someone who has studied amid the poverty of the developing world, i can tell you that this approach is rooted in the common, often harsh realities of human existence. by recognizing that another person’s speech and cultural norms are as valid and worthy of understanding as one’s own, no matter how foreign, is an act of selfless understanding and respected scientific methodology. this is not the view of aLx alone, i don’t know who you include in your, “everyone else’s” but many respected linguistic and anthropological researchers apply it to their work. aLx and if i may, myself are not the only ones.
Marina - I must be missing something - I can’t locate the discussion you are talking about. Can you help post a link in a reply to this message?
here.
The longer this conversation goes on, the more confused I get!
To start with the last post by Buzzword, what I meant by “Ivory Tower Linguistics” was any formal study of language by anyone who calls themself a linguist and what I meant by “everyone else” was the “ordinary person in the street” who has no interest in studying language but only wants to use it to convey meaning to other “ordinary persons in the street”.
Next, let’s talk about “Good / Bad” Grammar. What I understand by “Good Grammar” is Grammar as it is taught in schools using Government approved textbooks - what you call prescriptive grammar.
“Bad Grammar” is anything that does not conform to this textbook grammar and is a continuum from minor variations through to a structure which is so different from the school-taught version that it is unintelligible to someone who has not encountered it before. (See Buzzwords link to “Jive” speak.)
I do not regard myself as an expert in language, (for example, I couldn’t recognise a subjunctive if I stepped in one on the street) and I have no problems with people using language which does not conform to what I was taught in school, as long as I can reasonably easily work out what a person is trying to say to me.
Also, I have had the good fortune to work in a number of foreign countries alongside people who were learning English, as well as working with foreign workers here in the UK, and I have always been popular with them because I have always tried to learn at least some of the local language or dialect and have taken the trouble to answer their questions about what is the “correct” way to say something in English.
When answering their questions, I have never felt able to say, “You must say it this way.” I have always said, “This is the way I would say it but other people might tell you another way.” So I have demonstrated that I recognize that another person’s speech and cultural norms are as valid and worthy of understanding as my own, no matter how foreign, and have acted consistently in a selfless way in trying to increase understanding.
Having got that out of the way, what are we actually arguing about here?
Re-reading all that has gone before, it seems to me that the crux of aLx’s and Buzzwords crusade is the use of the words “Good” and “Bad” and, as a Buddhist who is supposed to reject duality, I have to agree. Those words should, maybe, be expunged from all dictionaries, but none of us are going to live to see the day.
Maybe it is just a question of acknowledging that people have come to use those words unthinkingly without consciously attaching a value to what they are referring to.
Nevertheless, the terms “good grammar” and “bad grammar” are in common use. As I understand it, the title of Jamesatwar’s and Marina’s video was inspired by the reaction of school English teachers to the video titled “The way I are”.
The artists who produced that video must have realised that it would provoke a reaction when they put it into the public domain, and, as Buzzword has said before on this site, when you do something in public you had better be prepared to be offended, so I find it slightly incongruous that he is now defending a public figure who has been lampooned.
You can’t expung the words “good” & “bad” they have changed their meanings almost opposite of the original meaning & maybe even back again, depending on context, ie “goody two shoes” although “good” means “good”, but has a negative connotation. “Bad” has changed, to be admired, as Michael Jackson noted in his song I’m Bad .
Now could be just be bad again. But, pre Michael, it was I’m Bad, I’m Nationwide. Ironicaly the guy in ZZ Top named Beard, the drummer (without the beard) ran into my wife in California many years ago, (pre me) & invited her to a party in the ZZ Top penthouse. She was underage at the time (now thats bad). She declined, at least thats what she tells me.
Bad & Good are good words just a little inconsistant in their meanings. Cheers
yo, thanks for the clarification bob. i respect your attempts in diplomacy, that’s really cool. for the record i wasn’t offended by the video, unlike the blogger that inspired this deep blue. however i support the validity his argument regarding the concept of “good and bad” grammar. dude really, it takes something really heinous to offend me. i appreciate the effort in understanding our position. and you summarized simply enough. thanks.
here’s a thought.
imagine a ball game described in a book. two kids take a look at it and want to play this game. there are images in the book showing the game. the ball in those images is red. the kids don’t have a red ball. only a yellow one.
if they start playing the game with the yellow ball — do they play a game other than the game described in the book?
not a great example, IMO…i ref junior, collegiate, and adult volleyball…that sport, and i’m sure almost all other sports, has proscribed specifications for the ball…too wide a variance and you’re not playing the game as described by the ruleset…
so if the kids used a yellow volleyball to play softball, then, yes, they are playing bad ball…
That’s about as relevant as asking if people are reading the same post in here if their computer displays it in red letters instead of black.
Neither a “good” example nor a “bad” one, but a specious one.
If the game is, for example, golf, then the answer would be that they are playing the same game. That’s because golf doesn’t have a rule requiring the ball be of a particular color.
However, if the kids don’t have a ball, but have a Frisbee, they can play Frolf, but not golf. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePGLJ3Z_zz8
At this point in this conversation, I’d like to chime in with the following lyrics of a song by The Police, one about words and grammar…
Don’t think me unkind
Words are hard to find
They’re only cheques I’ve left unsigned
From the banks of chaos in my mind
And when their eloquence escapes me
Their logic ties me up and rapes me
De do do do, de da da da
Is all I want to say to you
De do do do, de da da da
Their innocence will pull me through
De do do do, de da da da
Is all I want to say to you
De do do do, de da da da
They’re meaningless and all that’s true
Poets, priests and politicians
Have words to thank for their positions
Words that scream for their submission
And no one’s jamming their transmission
‘Cos when their eloquence escapes you
Their logic ties you up and rapes you
De do do do, de da da da
Is all I want to say to you
De do do do, de da da da
Their innocence will pull me through
De do do do, de da da da
Is all I want to say to you
De do do do, de da da da
They’re meaningless and all that’s true
And if Sting’s take on things isn’t intellectual enough for you, try looking into Noam Chomsky’s linguistic theories about the psychological power of grammar and the way it can be used just right as a sort of mind control. Rather than dwell too much on the ineffectiveness of bad grammar, it might be better to delve into the effectiveness of good grammar and how our brains are hardwired to it. De doo doo doo De da da da… Peace, Errin : )
Noam Chomsky’s concept is known as generative grammar. Here’s a link to a wikipedia article about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_grammar
There’s a reason the pen is mightier than the sword.
do you prefer minimalism or government & binding?
“Language Ideology and Superstandard English
As several contributions to this special issue point out, ideologies of race are also ideologies of language, an unsurprising convergence given the long standing association between ethnoracial and linguistic differentiation promoted both in early linguistic theorizing and in (other) nationalist projects (Bauman and Briggs 2000). The ideology of linguistic markedness. In particular, the difficulty (which afflicts only white people) in seeing whites as racialized is matched by the difficulty (again, only for whites) in hearing white speakers’ language as racialized: as specifically white rather than neutral or normative-or standard. In such an arrangement, unmarked status confers power by allowing whiteness to move through the social world ghost-like, unseen and unheard, evident only in its effects. Likewise, the notion of a linguistic “standard,” which in the U.S. context is closely bound up with whiteness (Lippi-Green 19997), implies both unmarkedness (standard as ordinary) and power (standard as regulative)
Although there are numerous sociolinguistic treatments of Standard English from a variety of perspectives (e.g., Crowley 1989; Milroy and Milroy 1999; Silverstien 1996), scholarly opinion is remarkably unanimous. in nearly every discussion Standard English is located in opposition to nonstandard English (and sometimes to other languages); many commentators point out that Standard English, as it is usually defined, is not spoken at all but is a particular register of written language; and a number of authors note that Standard English does not, properly speaking, exist but rather is a prescriptive ideal. Such analyses, valuable as they are for correcting misapprehensions about the nature of sociolinguistic variation, do not always carefully distinguish between the notion of an idealized prescriptive standard, usually based on a formal written language, and the spoken vernacular believed most closely to approximate it. This spoken Standard English, as a primarily informal or coloquial variety, differs from formal written Standard English (Carter 1999; Cheshire 1999) but is still granted ideological authority as “the standard.” Thus spoken Standard English is positioned in relation not only to nonstandard English but also to what I call superstandard English. A linguistic superstandard is a variety that surpasses the prescriptive norm established by the standard. While available to some standard and nonstandard speakers rather than situational variety the superstandard is restricted neither to formal contexts nor to written language. For some speakers, the superstandard may be the everyday, “unmarked” variety for ordinary interaction.
Superstandard English contrasts linguistically with Standard English in its greater us of “supercorrect” linguistic variables: lexical formality, carefully articulated phonological forms, and prescriptively standard grammar. It may also go beyond traditional norms of prescriptive correctness, to the point of occasionally over-applying prescriptive rules and producing hypercorrect forms. But the recognition of such difference is at least ideologically as linguistically motivated. it is precisely because of the robustness of the ideology of Standard English in the Unites States that those linguistic varieties generally classified as nonstandard-African American Vernacular English foremost among them-are regularly held up as divergent from the standard despite considerable overlap in grammar, phonology, and the lexicon. By the same token, the superstandard need not deviate substantively from the colloquial standard in order to be considered distinctive; because it is marked with respect to Standard English forms, even relatively slight use of supercorrection and hypercorrection can call attention to itself. Superstandard English is therefore a marked variety that may contrast ideologically both with the unmarked colloquial standard and with marked nonstandard English. However, because it draws on the prescriptive standard, it also contributes to the linguistic ideologies that elevate one linguistic variety over others. How these varieties come to e associated with particular racial positions-that is, how they become racialized styles-is likewise the work of ideology.”
Mary Bucholtz, Texas A&M University, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 11(1):84-100.
I’m not sure this has something to do with “The way I are” or with “Bad grammar”
I will