Is it just me?

[The Mackem Shaver]

English doesn't have written rules of grammar...

Yes, it does.

Laws of Maths and Science change all the time; simple grammar doesn't.

All the time?

Example for maths in the last 100 years?

Whenever breakthroughs are made in science etc. new laws may need to be made and maths to prove them, like j being the square root of -1. The number zero was a relatively recent invention. In the last 100 years didn't Einstein come up with a few laws himself (although I don't know if that involved actual Maths laws). Quantum theory later needed new mathematics. Even the definition of infinity has been opened up for discussion, no longer thought of as a number but as a state. It's an ever-evolving subject.

Simple grammar, as opposed to the use of language, seldom changes and is needed for clear understanding, just as science needs to change to allow us to understand our world.
Now, give me an example where the use of "there" or "their" has changed.

Even then it would be more of a lexical change than a grammatical one. Recently some verbs that were static are used in the present continuous, e.g. 'I'm liking that'. I can't think of any examples at the minute but there have been changes to grammar since the 19th century and more recently the accepted way to use prepositions and split infinitives.

 

[ChopperHarris]

As to the mathematical comments, as a PhD mathematician, lecturer, and teacher, let me just plead with you to stop talking about that of which you know not.

Don't take the fun out of it! Reading half remembered (or made up) vagaries is the best part of these types of debate.

Can I recommend that everyone has a go at coming up with some sort of unproven and dubious incontrovertible statement?

I'll start with the fact that we needed a new type of maths when we went from analogue to digital because everyone knows that digital is just 1s and 0s and if you group to many 1s together they are too spiky to get through the kinks in the average aerial cable and so they did some new laws of maffs that ensured a near even distribution. FACT.

 

[dodgy]

Perhaps I'm just getting old. In fact, I know that's the case so maybe I should have said 'starting to act old'.

Yep, you are starting to exhibit geezer like symptoms. Do you have access to someone who will fill up a large balloon with nitrous oxide for you to take home? Small huffs of that will help you be more mellow......

Personally, I'm real tolerant when it comes to what kinda grammar members use. I realize there's guys here who live in third world countries such as Sweden and Liverpool. I cut em all some slack.

Martin

 

[UKRob]

It's grammatically correct, the dictionary says it is an intransitive verb when describing a cause of action. Therefore it can take a direct object e.g. I recommend he sees a lawyer. The example in the OP is the imperative form of this usage. The example of the health club is poor grammar as the friend joins the club you don't join the friend to the club.

There are many written rules of English grammar, and they can disagree, there is just no committee or academy giving an official set of rules. Grammar books now tend to describe how English is used and not prescribe how it should be used. As long as the person's meaning is clearly in the context then that's all that really matters. The example above follows grammatical rules, in terms of tense and word order, otherwise it would be illegible.

The example above I was talking about was: 'I dont consider it 2 B an academic subject like Maffs and Science because their really r no laws ... see?'

Vocabulary changes very rapidly either by making new words or taking existing words and giving them them a new meiinng or usage, but grammar doesn't. We still make plurals, conjugate verbs, make the different tenses, use the passive voice, make questions, make negatives etc. the same way we did hundreds of years ago.

Mackem, this is a very considered response and I agree with your conclusions entirely - however, I still think the usage is inappropriate , if only because 'recommend me' doesn't seem right.

 

[Johnus]

Martin. Yo Hommie! Big of you not to dis us for freestyling.

 

[UKRob]

Martin. Yo Hommie! Big of you not to dis us for freestyling.

Which is a good example of evolving usage but the grammar is still correct.

 

[fancontroller]

...if only because 'recommend me' doesn't seem right.

Shouldn't it simply be "Recommend a DE" ? Isn't the "me" superfluous? Especially in a forum where the object is to allow all readers to see the replies.

It's like the use of "off of" instead of just saying "off" or "from". Seems like it takes more effort to use these than use the old way. Same as texting "2" instead of "to"; on my phone it's a lot easier to text "to" than "2" which requires shift/number malarkey.

Mike, out of off of Chorley.

 

[SAINT12661]

Morning All,

A really interesting and sometimes humorous thread this one, keep it going!

Think we could head off at a tangent though when the replies to Dodgy's last post start to come in.

I've checked the above as best I can for grammatical errors, and think I'm ok!

Pete

 

[NotTheStig]

I could talk of the Oxford comma and the correct symbol to separate your clauses but I'm no expert and sometimes mistakes make grammar with

 

[SAINT12661]

I could talk of the Oxford comma and the correct symbol to separate your clauses but I'm no expert and sometimes mistakes make grammar with

The Oxford comma, not that old chestnut again!

Pete

 

[joe mcclaine]

Trying to figure out the English language is unpossible.

 

[The Mackem Shaver]

...if only because 'recommend me' doesn't seem right.

Shouldn't it simply be "Recommend a DE" ? Isn't the "me" superfluous? Especially in a forum where the object is to allow all readers to see the replies.

It's like the use of "off of" instead of just saying "off" or "from". Seems like it takes more effort to use these than use the old way. Same as texting "2" instead of "to"; on my phone it's a lot easier to text "to" than "2" which requires shift/number malarkey.

Mike, out of off of Chorley.

Yes that is correct, I was tired and not thinking properly when I posted yesterday. The example I gave before was only for recommending a course of action. So you could have 'recommend a DE razor' or 'recommend me a DE razor to buy'.

 

[Walkers]

Well at the end of the day a monkey on stilts is still a monkey. Each to their own and all that.

 

[WiffWaff]

as a PhD mathematician, lecturer, and teacher, let me just plead with you to stop talking about that of which you know not.

Well, that's us told then. I'm feeling suitably cowed

... considering you have such a mighty intellect... that's a bit of a cop out. You have to admit... don't you? No?

 

[Dr Rick]

You seem to have read something into my post that wasn't intended to be there, which is always a hazard of the internet.

None of the things the poster mentioned as "changes in the laws of mathematics" were anything of the sort, and I didn't think dissecting that fact in detail would improve the thread, hence the appeal to authority that seems to have angered you. They were all extensions to existing frameworks; additions, not alterations.

The closest thing to an actual change in the "laws of mathematics" there has been in recent times (eighty years ago) was probably the abandonment of the search for solid axiomatic foundations across all disciplines and the end of the Hilbert programme, brought about by the Gödel theorems. But these are foundational and philosophical concerns, and in any case reflect not any "change in laws" but rather a reassessment of the completeness of laws we might hope for; and in no way affected how mathematicians work, really.

 

[WiffWaff]

Fair enough. No harm done (I hope). Might try and work my way through the accumulated posts again, but probably not the best day for it. I think what you have hinted at here would rather interest me, but I'm obviously feeling a bit eggy today!