Grammar that makes you cringe

[Ian H]

...people do it wrong...

According to whom? Who owns a language?

[mattc]

...people do it wrong...

According to whom? Who owns a language?

Dunno ... but one thing I'd like to know is whether people debate this in other languages.
For example, are 8yo german kids berated by their teachers for not conforming to German's much stricter rules? And does anyone defend them,saying "What IS wrong/right? According to whom?"*

Did latin evolve into a less strict language during the Roman period?

What I'm getting at is that some "rules" seem to provide useful structure e.g. adjective endings indicating gender/plurality of a noun. But others are just convention e.g. the i before e nonsense.

This is pure ignorant speculation; I'd love to hear from those with proper linguistic knowledge.

_{*I have no idea how to say this correctly in German.}

[Auntie Helen]

I know from my German friends there's a lot of discussion about the fact that the genitive case seems to be disappearing in German (they use the dative instead, or re-word the sentence to avoid the genitive). My friend disliked this as she felt the genitive had an important purpose but she despaired of German young people and their lazy speech!

"Das ist Helens Fahrrad" (genitive)

Das ist das Fahrrad von Helen" (dative)

[pcolbeck]

Double negatives.

[mattc]

... she despaired of German young people and their lazy speech!

"Das ist Helens Fahrrad" (genitive)

Das ist das Fahrrad von Helen" (dative)

That's interesting; in English I think of shortened versions as being the 'lazy' option. " Can't " etc
But your example takes longer to say when avoiding the genitive!

[mattc]

... But others are just convention e.g. the i before e nonsense.

I thought that these, such as your example, were made up later as a way of learning and recalling the convention, rather that it being a rule.

I think you're right. It was a truly rubbish example, but I couldn't think of a better one - I suspect, like most amateur english speakers, I'm not very aware of the rules until someone points them out! (Whereas with foreign languages, having had to learn them formally, I can remember most of the rules wot I have learned.)

Are we still allowed to incorrectly split infinitives?!?

[Wowbagger]

To boldly split where no man has splat before?

[Bledlow]

I think that may be one of the rules of English invented by old grammarians who thought that Latin grammar was right, & the closer you kept to it the better - and you can't split Latin infinitives.

[Ian H]

Double negatives.

Like wot Shakespeare and Chaucer both used.

[pcolbeck]

Chaucer had an excuse I'll let him off but I'll have to remonstrate with Will.

[drossall]

I think it's one of those things that change because enough people do it wrong...

Wrongly. Wrong is an adjective

[citoyen]

But others are just convention e.g. the i before e nonsense.

i before e except after "Old Macdonald had a farm"

[drossall]

There's a recognised process whereby languages simplify themselves...

What's always fascinated me about this is the question of where the complex languages came from? Did they just appear, complete with impossibly-complex rules? Surely languages must start simple? They can't develop from others if those have already decayed... Or was the first-ever language so hard that no-one could speak it?

Did latin evolve into a less strict language during the Roman period?

I believe that Greek did become less strict as the Greek empire spread and the language was used by a much wider population. By New Testament times (say the first century AD), koine (common) Greek was used as the lingua Franca - is that possible  - in the Roman Empire, but some people would write in a style that harked back to the classical Greek of hundreds of years earlier, when dialects were focussed on small city states.

Maybe that's the answer to my question. Complex languages evolve where small populations allow shared nuances to exist. Languages that spread across large areas and varying cultures tend to simplify to a kind of lowest common denominator.

[Bledlow]

Double negatives.

Like wot Shakespeare and Chaucer both used.

IIRC used to mean emphasis. "Not not" was more negative than plain "Not".

May have been them Latin-obsessed grammarians who changed that, as well.

[Bledlow]

What's always fascinated me about this is the question of where the complex languages came from? Did they just appear, complete with impossibly-complex rules? Surely languages must start simple? They can't develop from others if those have already decayed... Or was the first-ever language so hard that no-one could speak it?

You're confusing inflections with complexity. A language which conveys meaning via cases is no more complex than one which uses word order, prepositions, etc, it's just different. It seems complex to you because it's not how your language works.

Do you think that articles are tremendously complex and difficult to use? If your first language is Japanese, they're bizarre, baffling, & the rules for using them are of mind-numbing complexity & difficulty. Mrs B still gets 'em wrong sometimes, forgetting to use "a", or "the",  or using them wrongly. No equivalent in Japanese. She occasionally, when distracted, forgets the difference between 'he' & 'she', as well. English tenses are a minefield for speakers not only of Japanese, but also many other languages.

But for English speakers, Japanese has its own terrifying complexities. Not simpler: different.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Older Polish speakers complain about a current tendency to use prepositions rather than the dative. Both are grammatically correct AFAIU.

[toontra]

I imagine the texts, tweets and messages between rioting youths at the moment would make any grammarian cringe.  Not only lawless revolution but an illiterate one!

[drossall]

You're confusing inflections with complexity.

I'm not sure that that addresses the comment to which I was responding though?

There's a recognised process whereby languages simplify themselves...

[jeremaiah]

<<But what has happened apparently is that now the rules has changed >>

I don't think the rules have changed that much! 

  It was early in the morning I have noticed I seem to make a lot more mistakes in forums than I do when I normally write or chat. I wonder why that is.

...people do it wrong...

According to whom? Who owns a language?

I would say according to the rules. In any language there should be right and wrong, shouldn't it? Otherwise, how will we ever learn them 

I think it's one of those things that change because enough people do it wrong...

Wrongly. Wrong is an adjective

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/wrong_5
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/wrongly

English is only my second language, but based on this I would use 'do wrong' in the same way they are giving 'go wrong' as an example. Would that be wrong? Is it a rule or convention when it comes to this?

Bear with me, it's been a while since I've studied English grammar 

[Ian H]

...people do it wrong...

According to whom? Who owns a language?

I would say according to the rules. In any language there should be right and wrong, shouldn't it? Otherwise, how will we ever learn them 

How about, Right is when people understand you and Wrong is when they don't?

[pcolbeck]

Double negatives.

Like wot Shakespeare and Chaucer both used.

IIRC used to mean emphasis. "Not not" was more negative than plain "Not".

Yes it's a hangover from Anglo Saxon. That;s why Chaucer had an excuse. In modern English though it just ends up meaning the opposite of that which was intended.

[Ian H]

Double negatives.

Like wot Shakespeare and Chaucer both used.

IIRC used to mean emphasis. "Not not" was more negative than plain "Not".

Yes it's a hangover from Anglo Saxon. That;s why Chaucer had an excuse. In modern English though it just ends up meaning the opposite of that which was intended.

Except in practice it doesn't. Everyone understands what is meant.

[Cudzoziemiec]

You're confusing inflections with complexity.

I'm not sure that that addresses the comment to which I was responding though?

There's a recognised process whereby languages simplify themselves...

I think I'd like to modify my previous statement.
Languages don't simplify themselves, the people who use them start to express the same things in simpler ways. At the same time they create more complex ways of saying other things, which become the norm for that particular construction or situation.

[clarion]

How about, Right is when people understand you and Wrong is when they don't?

Good working definition, so long as it is sustainable.

When I worked in lighting, there was a difference between a lamp, a lantern, a light and a lunimaire, not to mention the differences between floods, spots, fresnels, pars (38, 56 or 64) and specific model numbers.

When i was teaching students, they often used 'lamp' for 'lantern', and wondered why I kept getting on their case about it.  If they asked another trainee for a lamp, they usually got handed a lantern, which was OK.  But there are times when it makes an awful lot of difference.  Like the time one lad was asked to bring a lamp up to the grid.  He walked up five flights of stairs with a Par 64 lamp, only to find out that what the person requesting had wanted was another lantern.  Words were had, and both understood the reason for using words carefully.

[drossall]

+1. The problem with the "as long as people understand" argument is that you don't know whether they have until they act on it. (Unless, of course, you are going to have an indefinite round of checking that your collocutors got the right messages.)

Therefore, the aim of language is to make sure that people understand first time, as opposed to simply believing that they have understood, getting the wrong message, and having to sort out the consequent problems - whether they be fetching the wrong lamp/lantern, marrying the wrong daughter, or starting a war that non-one intended