Oh, boy. Strunk & White. That’s about as explosive as a topic as you can inject into discussions like this. 
Yeah, personally, I’m not as anti-Strunk & White as someone with my general grammatical stance should be. I’d be happy to teach my (once again, hypothetical) kids Strunk & White, with a healthy dose of skepticism/exceptions.
The problem is that some rules are meant to be broken, in the right way, but others really shouldn’t be. Kind of like when you teach your kid to always wait for the green light to cross the street, and then when he’s older he’ll figure out when and where it’s safe to jaywalk.
What?!
Ok, give me an example of a dangerous trap that one could fall into with preposition stranding.
lance armstrong won’t care about preposition stranding. They’ll consider that bugaboo just as silly as the rest of us. They just care that we acknowledge the importance of teaching some other rules they are unable to point to.
Indeed I have. Only a few posts back you say in response to the question, “Can you point to any single example of a rule of speech which must be explicitly taught?”:
Listening and discussing isn’t explicit, prescriptive grammar instruction, no matter how you slice it. So now it seems you’re abandoning your original assertions.
I agree that the term “grammar” refers to both descriptive and prescriptive notions of language–that’s just a minor semantic quibble. But the platitude, “You have to know the rules before you can break them,” doesn’t really apply to this particular distinction. People don’t have to learn the predicate nominative before saying something like, “It’s me,” when they knock on a door. But that was the logical implication of the deliberate gibberish you posted earlier.
We used “You have to know the rules before you can break them,” as a joking explanation why we, who should know better, could speak poorly but nobody else could.
What are the rules that are meant to be broken, and what is the right way to break them?
How about you speak for yourself, and I’ll speak for myself?
I can’t just list them, that would fill a book. It’s what we have conversations like this to talk about. And we won’t all agree on it either.
This is a stupid, stupid thread. It’s so funny to see people who are so determined to extinguish the possibility of prescription get so adamant about, well, anything.
Go ahead and write and talk however you want. There’s no English police. If you fail miserably to communicate or achieve your goals, don’t blame me.
When we let you speak for yourself, you make unsubstantiated claims, refuse to provide any sort of reasoning for your arguments and change what you’re claiming as it suits your needs.
I think you need a bit of give and take with how we present written grammar.
The role of English teachers should never be to prescribe arbitrary rules. Their role should be to ‘prescribe’ the rules that have naturally evolved from how speakers (and writers) are using the language (there’s a reason why books on grammar have to be updated). And I think technically that’s a ‘descriptive’ method. We have let go of a great number of grammatical rules that no longer serve the language, and we’ve created some too. It’s often helpful to think in terms of ‘appropriateness’ where grammar is concerned. Dell Hymes’ SPEAKING mnemonic applies to conversations in written form too, I would think.
We shouldn’t stop teaching each other how best to communicate, but we also shouldn’t hold on to ancient rules that no longer make sense now that English has moved on. There is a ‘correct’ way to speak and write English, but it’s not the way a small minority of language users use it. I personally believe it is, quite rightly, democratic.
The most important thing is that we’re communicating effectively.
Well put.
Please just pick a couple. I often read this rule-breaking idea in discussions of writing, but I never read the rules that should be broken. Rarely, someone invokes punctuation in The Road. I’d like to know what you think are examples worth mentioning.
Well, you are free to prove me wrong in my predictions. Based on your posts so far, my general sense is that you would not consider the (hoary, now largely mocked) proscription against ending a sentence with a preposition to be a rule which needs to be respected. My suspicion is that it is among the prescriptive shibboleths you would dismiss with your “I find mindless adherance to arbitrary rules silly too”, “I ain’t no English teacher”, and so on. Am I wrong about this? How do you feel about preposition-stranding?
As for my claim that you care that we acknowledge the importance of teaching some other rules that you are unable to point to: that you want us to acknowledge the importance of teaching some rules is manifest; it is the whole point of our disagreement. But you have never in this thread, even after repeated direct requests, pointed to any particular rule of speech which you feel it is important to teach explicitly. (Unless you count your claim that I could not have learnt the pronoun “one” on the playground? Would you like to claim that that particular word use is one which it is important to teach explicitly?). I am making note of that.
You didn’ t make a prediction, you spoke for me. Don’t.
It’s nothing to worry about.
You sound like a teacher. Maybe even an English teacher.
Okay. When writing in an informal setting like, say, a magazine article or blog or letter, break the rule against sentence fragments, judiciously. Like this.
Don’t do that in a formal paper though.
But here’s the whole problem with this thread - the word “rule.” I could just point to the above and call it a rule, or an elaboration of the previous rule, so it’s not really breaking a rule in the first place. The word “rule” implies that an authority made it, and that it is enforced somehow. That’s not really the case. It’s a social norm. Rule is a convenient way to think about it, that’s all.
And we all understand that, and shouldn’t be bashing each other over it.
The problem is that social norms in language are NOT prescriptive grammar.
The grammar of “social norms” is, by definition, descriptive grammar.
Until someone prescribes them, somewhere.
No,
Prescriptive rules are unnatural and must be taught. The fact that you can’t name a specific example demonstrates the fact that you are using the term incorrectly.