I never said there weren’t some that enforced it; there were. But no worthy teacher would lower a grade by a whole letter for that alone. Of course there have been any number of poor teachers.
Proscriptivism was never a universal thing, even when it dominated certain education circles. More than once I’ve witnessed former students insisting that their teacher enforced some such pseudo-grammar rule in a past class I also was enrolled in, where I am quite sure that never happened. Some people get odd ideas in their heads. “My teacher taught” me isn’t necessarily an accurate description of how the idea got into their brains.
Well, Knorf, the English Department’s grading system at Ball State University was called a “limiter” system. If one made one grammatical or spelling mistake on an essay, the grade was limited to a B. Two mistakes limited the grade to a C. I believe three caused a D and four, an F, but it may have been three mistakes for an F. The department’s rationale was that it was a college class and the students should have learned grammar and spelling before they got to college. Many students who had never failed an assignment were terribly surprised when they got their first themes graded.
The Department also did not allow absences- any over three absences and you either withdrew or failed. Dire illnesses did not excuse one from this rule.
English 101, 102, and 103 were probably responsible for more class withdrawals and dropouts than any other classes back then (late 70s, early 80s).
I disagree. Whether you agree with this rule or not, it was once common for teachers to mark down papers for errors, as in california jobcase’s example.
So it wasn’t universal. As long as it was dominant, so what? That makes your blanket declaration suspect from your own words. BTW, while proscriptivism is occasionally found, the dominant form of the word is prescriptivism.
Again so what? We all have agreed about this. We’re only disagreeing on your characterization of teaching practices.
Now we’re just nitpicking. I never said that a paper wouldn’t be marked down for usage/grammar errors, but just that a whole letter grade because of “they/their” alone is unlikely at best. Regardless, such a practice would be incredibly lame, even if one thought it was an error in the first place.
I’d like to see a cite for california jobcase’s claim. If it’s true, that’s just about the least constructive way to teach writing I’ve ever heard of.
Gee, thanks. Is the SDMB a place to expect formal writing and professional editing practices now?
My mentioning the “Common Errors” website was an aside. A non sequitur, if you prefer. Hope that’s ok with you. I apologize if that wasn’t clear. ETA: geez, it wasn’t even in the same post!
Fine, so maybe a paper was graded down to a B somewhere solely for the use of they or their as a plural pronoun. That legitimizes nothing.
Wrong. For example, until I recently learned better here on SD, “none” can be either singular or plural. I thought it was always “not one” and always singular, but I was dead wrong.
There is one, but it’s ad-hoc, and violates so many common conventions of English that it proves that it is a deficiency in the language that has been covered up with a Band-Aid. The lack of good gender-neutral pronouns is definitely a deficiency in English, and most Romance languages as well (plus probably a whole host of others too).
You can definitely say either “no apple is” or “no apples are”. Zero can be either singular or plural. I agree with your generalization, but only when the number is used: “zero apples are blue”. Negative one is an amusing exception to just about any treatment. Should it be “negative one apple is” or “negative one apples are”? I could care less. (BUT NOT MUCH! )
If English were defined by someone like Bertrand Russell, it’d be “There is no apple A such that A is …”
If singular gender-neuter “they” is ad hoc, then what part of our language isn’t? I’d say “in common use since the formative period of modern English” should qualify any construct as a little more than simply ad hoc.
)