# The grammar of teaching (not the teaching of grammar) **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 13, 2024, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grammar-of-teaching-not-the-teaching-of-grammar/1010194 "2024-11-13T11:58:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![gnoitall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gnoitall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnoitall)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2024, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grammar-of-teaching-not-the-teaching-of-grammar/1010194/21 "2024-12-03T16:41:11Z")
> [@OldGuy](#): > > Italian, Spanish, etc, are probably as close to Latin as modern English is to Old English Which is to say, not very close at all. We’re not speaking Anglo-Saxon, and Itslians are not speaking Latin. (Except maybe in church.) ---
**Author:** ![DPRK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2024, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grammar-of-teaching-not-the-teaching-of-grammar/1010194/22 "2024-12-03T19:48:38Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > > [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > > > It was imposed by people who thought Latin was the perfect language. I ask, if that was why did the daughter languages mostly lose those inflections? > > If Latin was actually any damned good, we’d still be speaking it. We don’t, so it isn’t. Harrumph! 😉 There seems to be some cyclical evolution going on where a complex system of inflections develops, then is gradually lost, then a new system of inflections comes into use, and so on. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2024, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grammar-of-teaching-not-the-teaching-of-grammar/1010194/23 "2024-12-04T01:14:04Z")
What Italians speak is a hell of a lot closer to classical Latin than English is to Anglo-Saxon. Partly, although not entirely, this is due to 1066 and all that. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2024, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grammar-of-teaching-not-the-teaching-of-grammar/1010194/24 "2024-12-04T02:37:20Z")
> [@OldGuy](#): > > We are still speaking Latin – maybe not you and I, but people are. Italian, Spanish, etc, are probably as close to Latin as modern English is to Old English Like this you mean …??? > [@Opening lines of Beowulf in the original Old English](#): > > Hwæt. We Gardena in geardagum, > þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon, > hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon. > Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum, > monegum mægþum, meodosetla ofteah, > egsode eorlas. Syððan ærest wearð > feasceaft funden, he þæs frofre gebad, > weox under wolcnum, weorðmyndum þah, > oðþæt him æghwylc þara ymbsittendra > ofer hronrade hyran scolde, > gomban gyldan. þæt wæs god cyning. > ðæm eafera wæs æfter cenned, > geong in geardum, þone god sende > folce to frofre; fyrenðearfe ongeat > þe hie ær drugon aldorlease > lange hwile. Him þæs liffrea, > wuldres wealdend, woroldare forgeaf; > Beowulf wæs breme blæd wide sprang, > Scyldes eafera Scedelandum in. > Swa sceal geong guma gode gewyrcean, > fromum feohgiftum on fæder bearme, > þæt hine on ylde eft gewunigen > wilgesiþas, þonne wig cume, > leode gelæsten; lofdædum sceal > in mægþa gehwære man geþeon. > Him ða Scyld gewat to gescæphwile > felahror feran on frean wære. > Hi hyne þa ætbæron to brimes faroðe, > swæse gesiþas, swa he selfa bæd, Not close. Not even remotely close. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2024, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grammar-of-teaching-not-the-teaching-of-grammar/1010194/25 "2024-12-04T03:48:14Z")
> [@md-2000](#): > > English is full of what would be understood words that we don’t say in order to shorten our speech. > “I gave him the news” is essentially “I gave the news to him”. Indirect object is just a cute way of saying “leave out the preposition”. Imperative uses the implied “you” as in “get out!” which is actually “You get out!”. > > After all, what about “I talked to him”? “I told him”? “I told him the news”? > > English is weird. Languages are “weird”; it’s not just English, and I’m not really sure that the various quirks of languages make them “weird”. All languages leave out things to shorten speach. In Japanese, subjects are often not specified and you have to infer who or what did the action. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2024, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grammar-of-teaching-not-the-teaching-of-grammar/1010194/26 "2024-12-04T04:17:33Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > Not close. Not even remotely close. I said Old English but meant I guess Middle English – Chaucer’s English which goes like this: Whan that Aprille with his shour **e** s soot **e** , The droghte of March hath perc **e** d to the root **e** , And bath **e** d every veyne in swich licóur Of which vertú engendr **e** d is the flour; Whan Zephirus eek with his swet **e** breeth Inspir **e** d hath in every holt and heeth The tendr **e** cropp **e** s, and the yong **e** sonn **e** Hath in the Ram his half **e** cours y-ronn **e** , And smal **e** fowel **e** s maken melody **e** , That slepen al the nyght with open y **e** , So priketh hem Natúre in hir corag **e** s, Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimag **e** s, And palmeres for to seken straung **e** strond **e** s, To fern **e** halw **e** s, kowthe in sondry lond **e** s; And specially, from every shir **e** s end **e** Of Eng **e** lond, to Caunterbury they wend **e** , The hooly blisful martir for to sek **e** , That hem hath holpen whan that they were seek **e**. I can definitely get the gist of that ---
**Author:** ![SCAdian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scadian/32/3292_2.png) [@SCAdian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SCAdian)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2024, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grammar-of-teaching-not-the-teaching-of-grammar/1010194/27 "2024-12-04T04:33:06Z")
> [@Schnitte](#): > > What makes me doubt, though, is that a sentence such as “I’ll teach you” or the imperative “Teach me” appears to be grammatical, yet it has only one object - which conflicts with the rule that you can have a direct object without an indirect one. Are these simply exceptions from the rule that an indirect object also needs a direct one, or is the theory that the direct object is there, only elided? I would say that “you” and “me” are direct objects in those sentences. ---
**Author:** ![Moonrise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moonrise/32/14764_2.png) [@Moonrise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moonrise)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2024, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grammar-of-teaching-not-the-teaching-of-grammar/1010194/28 "2024-12-04T07:51:33Z")
> [@DPRK](#): > > > [@LSLGuy](#): > > > > > [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > > > > > It was imposed by people who thought Latin was the perfect language. I ask, if that was why did the daughter languages mostly lose those inflections? > > > > If Latin was actually any damned good, we’d still be speaking it. We don’t, so it isn’t. Harrumph! 😉 > > There seems to be some cyclical evolution going on where a complex system of inflections develops, then is gradually lost, then a new system of inflections comes into use, and so on. Indeed. Languages can be classified in various types, depending on how they build words and sentences : analytical, fusional, agglutinative, and polysynthetic and they slowly drift from one type to another in the course of time. Latin (partly) losing its inflections is an example of that. It has nothing to do with it being “perfect” or not. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2024, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grammar-of-teaching-not-the-teaching-of-grammar/1010194/29 "2024-12-04T12:39:51Z")
> [@OldGuy](#): > > > [@LSLGuy](#): > > > > Not close. Not even remotely close. > > I said Old English but meant I guess Middle English – Chaucer’s English which goes like this: > > Whan that Aprille with his shour **e** s soot **e** , > The droghte of March hath perc **e** d to the root **e** , > And bath **e** d every veyne in swich licóur > Of which vertú engendr **e** d is the flour; > … > > I can definitely get the gist of that Yeah, I agree that’s much more readable to modern English speakers. Then again, when considering the timeline, the time interval from modern English back to Olde English is less than the time interval from modern e.g. Spanish or Italian to even Vulgate Latin, much less the Real Thing: Classsical Latin. ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2024, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grammar-of-teaching-not-the-teaching-of-grammar/1010194/30 "2024-12-04T12:57:25Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > the time interval from modern English back to Olde English is less than the time interval from modern e.g. Spanish or Italian to even Vulgate Latin Is it? Old English began to be used in writing in the 8th century, and what we would call Modern English was certainly around in the 18th. So that would be about a millennium. Vulgar Latin must have been around when the West Roman Empire collapsed, which would be the 5th century; and what Dante wrote in during the 14th century would probably be accepted as Italian in the modern sense. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2024, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grammar-of-teaching-not-the-teaching-of-grammar/1010194/31 "2024-12-04T20:45:05Z")
That seems to be true. Apparently, Hungarian seems to be undergoing a process in which postpositions (like prepositions except they follow the noun–English has one I am aware of) are getting closer and closer to the nouns they govern (a process called clitilization) and eventually result in a declension. I know no Hungarian and cannot elaborate. But English shows no sign of such a process. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2024, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grammar-of-teaching-not-the-teaching-of-grammar/1010194/32 "2024-12-05T06:06:33Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > English has one I am aware of) I can think of two in English. At least I think they’re postpositions. “Ago” as in “It was three years ago” And “Hence” as in the phrase “three years hence.” ---
**Author:** ![Moonrise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moonrise/32/14764_2.png) [@Moonrise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moonrise)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2024, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grammar-of-teaching-not-the-teaching-of-grammar/1010194/33 "2024-12-05T07:42:45Z")
English has a few clitics too : _I’m, I’ll, you’ve, she’d, aren’t_, etc. They cannot be pronounced without the supporting word, which makes them clitics. Besides, English, like all languages, is also undergoing grammaticalization, a process through which some words lose their original semantic content and acquire a purely functional role. One of the hallmarks of grammaticalization is phonetic erosion. A classic example is “going to”, used to indicate the future. Contrast the following examples : 1. _I’m going to the city_ BUT NOT _I’m gonna the city_ 2. _I’m going to talk_ AND _I’m gonna talk_ In the second example, “going to” is undergoing grammaticalization and becoming an auxiliary that indicates a future action. It’s ‘eroded’ form “gonna” is acceptable. In the first example, “'going to” still has its original meaning of “moving from one spot to another”. As a result, the ‘eroded form’ doesn’t work. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2024, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grammar-of-teaching-not-the-teaching-of-grammar/1010194/34 "2024-12-05T13:29:27Z")
> [@Moonrise](#): > > English has a few clitics too : _I’m, I’ll, you’ve, she’d, aren’t_, etc. They cannot be pronounced without the supporting word, which makes them clitics. I’m not disputing you here. You’re clearly the expert and I am … not. Please explain a bit more what you mean by the snip above. Which is the “supporting word”? By “pronounced” do you mean spoken, or just used as in writing or speaking? Can you provide an example or two? ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2024, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grammar-of-teaching-not-the-teaching-of-grammar/1010194/35 "2024-12-05T14:18:45Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > That seems to be true. Apparently, Hungarian seems to be undergoing a process in which postpositions (like prepositions except they follow the noun–English has one I am aware of) are getting closer and closer to the nouns they govern (a process called clitilization) and eventually result in a declension. I know no Hungarian and cannot elaborate. But English shows no sign of such a process. Un-fucking-believable. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2024, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grammar-of-teaching-not-the-teaching-of-grammar/1010194/36 "2024-12-05T15:22:42Z")
Good catch. Ago is the one I was aware of, but I think you are right about hence. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2024, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grammar-of-teaching-not-the-teaching-of-grammar/1010194/37 "2024-12-05T17:08:03Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > postpositions I thought of a couple more. “Through” as in We were busy the whole day through. “Apart” as in Keep those two combatants apart. Though apart here might be an adverb I guess. “Notwithstanding” ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2024, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grammar-of-teaching-not-the-teaching-of-grammar/1010194/38 "2024-12-05T22:11:41Z")
> [@JKellyMap](#): > > Un-fucking-believable. (To clarfiy: this is an _infix_, as opposed to a prefix or suffix.) ---
**Author:** ![Jebbilene](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jebbilene/32/3414_2.png) [@Jebbilene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jebbilene)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2024, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grammar-of-teaching-not-the-teaching-of-grammar/1010194/39 "2024-12-09T03:22:25Z")
Looking at _I’m, I’ll, you’ve, she’d, aren’t_: the supporting words can stand alone as words, i.e. _I_, _you_, _she_, _are_. The clitics are the reduced forms _m_, _ll_, _ve_, _d_, _nt_. You cannot use the reduced forms on their own. They need to be attached to a stand-alone word. They are a lot like suffixes, but people don’t want to put them in the same category as straight-up suffixes for various reasons. They are pronounced together with the stand-alone word, and in English they are often written with an apostrophe. Sometimes, words go from being stand-alone, to being clitics, to being affixes. This is one way languages can acquire case / tense markings for nouns / verbs. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2024, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grammar-of-teaching-not-the-teaching-of-grammar/1010194/40 "2024-12-09T12:46:58Z")
Thank you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-grammar-of-teaching-not-the-teaching-of-grammar/1010194.md?page=1)