/lit/ - Literature

>why is grammar hard
Because they stopped enforcing standards and rules in schools.

>>21283424
Brehe not Brahe, sorry

>>21283428
No fucking kidding. I'm trying to stop that as much as I can. Any advice for the product of a failed grammatical education in how to save others?

>whom
whom do you want to fuck?
i want to fuck him

>who
who fucks the hardest?
he fucks the hardest

if you'd use him, use whom. if you'd use he, use who. but most importantly, don't use whom unless you want to sound pretentious - which is a valid thing to want, from time to time. i do it on /fit/ to bait seethe out of brainlets.

that's all i know. grammar is a meme anyway: your writing has to be context-appropriate, of course, but if you're writing for effect then the best writing is the writing that has the most effect.

and if you're not writing for effect - if you're just doing freelance work churning out boilerplate for some website - then you shouldn't be using constructions complex enough to require attention to grammar, because the average consumer is barely conscious enough to qualify for being described as illiterate in the first place. you wouldn't describe a dog as illiterate because there are no literate dogs to distinguish it from.

>>21283428
this shit is so dumb. grammar is the least important thing a school can teach you. capacity for abstract thought and understanding how to apply reason to a novel situation to reach a conclusion that is at least rational, let alone CLOSE to valid, and not just based on pure emotion and prejudice, is the most important and only thing that anyone should care about a school imparting. if grammar's important in your work you can learn it in 6 months; it takes about that long to get competent in a job anyway. but nobody is EVER going to bother teaching you how to think for yourself. school is the ONE PLACE IN THE WORLD that it could happen.

rote memorisation of archaic rules that don't even apply to 99% of communication (what does grammar have to say about sexting lol lmao) just so that high trait orderliness cryptofascists can feel smug about all the children they've forced to metaphorically march in lines is the kind of pathetic landlord tyranny that deserves more guillotining than all the famines in ireland.

>>21283424
>be me, ESLfag
>know how to use who and whom correctly in English
>don't know how to do the same in my own language
>tfw

>>21283488
i don't even know how to use them in english. is whom used for the object of the SVO structure?

>>21283494
Probably? I don't learn rules, I just learn how to write things correctly. This anon >>21283475 gives a good example, although I didn't read anything in his post after the example.

>>21283424
Learn another language. Use Flashcards to learn vocabulary. Mark the part of speech that work is a part of on the back of the card with the translation. Is it a noun, a conjunction, and adverb??? You'll pick up the grammar of English this way, while learning another language, and enforcing the recognition of what part of speech they are.

A "but" or "because" is both a conjunction in both English and Latin. Even in something as aliens as Japanese, which has "particles" that are not in English, they have "buts" and "and" that are still conjunctions. Anything that is unique to English you will realize later, when your read about what you know and don't know. It's not that hard.

>>21283475
redpilled post

>>21283521
judging by the example, it looks like it does take the place of the object. in the first example it's done in a passive voice, so it reverses the order of SVO to OVS.

>>21283424

>>21283424
>>become an English teacher
Don't you need a diploma for that? Are Am*rican schools really so desperate? You don't know of any reference grammars at all?
>Not Brahe's "Grammar Anatomy" though
Why? I've never heard of it before, but it seems ok if you're as dumb as you seem.

>>21283524
>Is it a noun, a conjunction, and adverb??? You'll pick up the grammar of English this way, while learning another language, and enforcing the recognition of what part of speech they are.
The same word can belong to different parts of speech depending on the syntactic context. Especially in English. So what you're suggesting is a deeply flawed approach (also OP never said he has to know the parts of speech).
>Japanese, which has "particles" that are not in English
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_particle#In_English
Also, learning a whole new language to better understand an old one is in principle a nice idea but horribly impractical. OP simply has to learn the difference between nominative and objective cases in English, not memorise the Latin accusative and locative and ablaut suffixes.

>>21283553
Yes, BUT, you have to start somewhere, and OP did mention not knowing parts of speech, he mentioned he forgot how to teach Whom and Who properly, which are parts of speech. He forgot they were pronouns. Had he started with baby steps, like labeling things, than he would understand an English grammar book easily, and the harder parts of English would become easier to study once you hardcode the basics into your mind, by doing something completely different.

I didn't suggest learning another language to learn the other language. I suggested, that when you do learn another language, on the BACK, UNDER THE ENGLISH, you put what part of speech it is in BOTH languages, because it will be the same 95% if not 100% the same simple part of speech in BOTH languages. Therefore, when you do learn another language, you learn the basics.

>OP simply has to learn the difference between nominative and objective cases in English, not memorise the Latin accusative and locative and ablaut suffixes.
I didn't say learn the conjugations or the case, just things like what the words are label, like a conjunction (different than conjugations,) nouns, pronouns, verbs, adverbs. If he doesn't remember Who is a interrogative pronoun, then he is going to struggle with harder concepts, that will be simple when he remembers the basics. Latin has simple basics that you should start with if you are self studying before you get into things like accusative or locative.

OP should very much learn another language, it can be something as simple as Esperanto or Dutch, but he should study the parts of speech as he studies that language from the bottom, and how it is put together instead of deconstructing a language he speaks naturally from childhood.

Also, English Particles are not the same as Japanese particles. Despite Wikipedia saying English has particles, it's not the same concept in Japanese. They are not small "nebulous" parts of speech in Japanese, as they are in English, they are in almost every sentence of Japanese that has more than "desu" in it. They are wa/ha, ga, o, he/e, ka, ni, o, etc. English doesn't have anything like that. "Ni" and 'he/e" and he can be like the English "to". But things like wa/ha can translate to "as for" in a clumsy way, but things like "o" and "ga" are completely untranslatable and depend on what verb and noun combination you use. And Ni and He/e are the same, but depend on where you put them in the sentence, and which comes first, so they have greater function than something like "to." I speak Japanese, so I know this.

I’m still not sure how I got this far either anon. Came into my Praxis English test with only a cram section the hour before and madly guessing during the test and passed anyway. Now I’m doing my final paper on Dickinson only weeks away from graduation. All while forgetting the differences between adjectives and adverbs. Life is strange like that

>>21283594
>he mentioned he forgot how to teach Whom and Who properly, which are parts of speech
Usually the point of classifying and defining parts of speech is to address how large groups of words behave. OP did not have issues with who-whom because they're pronouns or because he didn't know they're pronouns, but because he doesn't know the rudimentary English case system.
>Latin has simple basics that you should start with if you are self studying before you get into things like accusative or locative.
Accusative and locative are literally taught in the first few weeks of Latin classes. You can't do shit without cases in Latin, they're nothing other than basics.
The rest is barely-relevant blabbering by an autismal Jap or weeaboo. (Would learning the Japanese particles help him in recognising the English particles, if they're so different?) Learning the parts of speech is, again, very specific in English because, regardless of your claim:
>because it will be the same 95% if not 100% the same simple part of speech in BOTH languages
in English it frequently happens that the (seemingly) exact same word is NOT the same part of speech in different sentences.
>I love my home.
>We're home.
>My home address is...
The first is a noun, the second is an adverb, the third is an adjective. If OP mechanically learns that "home" is a noun, he will fuck up and teach kids incorrectly.

>>21283553
>Are Am*rican schools really so desperate?
The public schools are fucking awful. We have retards like OP teaching just because they "love children" and/or because they can't do so teach. We really need to genocide these midwit "I love children" types like OP who don't even understand basic English grammar.

My ESL friends are trying too hard. The average anglos are troglodytes who can barely utilise their own language. It's only matter of time before they start using Ebonics as their standard language anyways.

>>21283424
>Brahe's "Grammar Anatomy"
Never heard of this but why are you against it?

>>21283424
I can tell you, it's because this declension doesn't generally fit within the English language where words seldom change their form and you liberally use prepositions instead. We decline all the time in my native (polish) and who/whom is absolutely obvious to me but I struggle with prepositions instead.

>>21283650
Is there a tree outline breakdown of all english grammar?

>>21283424
>>become an English teacher
Why would you do this to yourself? I would rather literally flip burgers

>>21283475
Oh wow you have shown me the light, most people are dumb so I should be too.
>grammar is dumb
Not coming off as stupid is important.

>>21283424
>>give lesson on pronouns
They/them

>>21283424
Enter anon; to him, German.
Switching between German, English, French and the occasional Japanese for years raped my brain into having to often look up German grammar rules whenever I address a letter to either some official office or scribble a private mail to my granny. It's really embarrassing to admit and or come upon as I talk to someone and find myself scrambling for the right German word that seemingly only exists in English or French or Japanese in my head.

>>21284422
pretending that grammar isn't dumb is what is making you come off as stupid, anon.

i get having a preference for an orderly, prescribed, and regimented way of living. i'm the same. but you shouldn't invest your preference with moralising platitudes about nothing. to do so - is dumb.

grammar doesn't really describe anything meaningful or valuable about the english language. it's just a way that autistic people try to impose structure and order on an inherently chaotic system because those autistic authoritarians feel the need to make everything exactly the same as everything else.

ascribing virtue to order is midwit.

>>21284596
Thinking order is valueless is midwit. You are not clever for not liking rules.

>>21283428
We had pretty rigid grammar lessons at school but they really weren't worth shit. Nobody remembers anything from them and we just write what "feels" right
>t. France

How do you pronounce WhOmm

>>21284602
>order is valueless
>order is virtueless
these are different things you fucking retard.

a hammer has no inherent virtue but you still need it to build a table. if you love your fucking grammar so much then fucking justify it. explain to me why rules should be followed just for the sake of following rules, as if that's inherently better for no reason other than because the rules say so.

you are simply not clever.

>>21284703
Ay mang me just be sayin ams not ungood to done rules

>>21284703
I suppose just systems free and grammar right. thought oppress are rules you're to used rigid.

>>21283428
Actually it is the opposite. The education system tries to enforce grammar and spelling rules that never happened organically in English. For example, "ya'll" is unallowed I'm academia despite being used as a word in everyday speech. Same with "ain't". Example of a fake grammar rule is that "I don't have anything with which to write" is preferred to "I don't have anything to write with" because not being allowed to end sentences with prepositions was arbitrarily added to our language at some point despite never happening in spoken English.

>>21283424
How do you not know this? Were zoomers not taught this in elementary school? I remember learning it in 3rd grade. Who is the subject and whom is the object. Pretty basic stuff. If English isn't your native language I can understand the confusion but you said you've been speaking it your whole life and you teach it so you should really know this.

>>21283434
>I'm trying to stop that as much as I can.

Clearly not, seeing as you're a retard who doesn't grasp it well enough to teach it.

>>21284870
I'll just add that if it's the subject-object distinction that confuses you then I can try to help you understand this better. Once you get it it's very simple.

Whom tends to follow a preposition. It's that simple.

>>21284764
>"ya'll" is unallowed
That's because the proper contraction is y'all, not ya'll. And we would prefer you use the word disallowed rather than unallowed.

>>21284764
>For example, "ya'll" is unallowed I'm academia despite being used as a word in everyday speech. Same with "ain't".

We don't need academic papers to use "everyday speech". Written language in general always differs slightly from spoken language, usually it comes across as more formal. This is not a bad thing.

>>21284441
I know that feel. I have used English for so long that I forgot how to formally address officials in Portuguese. I speak like a damn Favelado now.

>>21284764
This is the norm. Brazilian Portuguese as it is spoken is surprisingly different from its "correct" written form, to the point that many Brazilians just straight up do not write correctly at all and never learn to.
Likewise, French and Spanish are super anal about the right grammar, but the people who speak it never adhere to the "true" rules.

>>21284931
I wonder why this is. Perhaps conventions of spoken language change too quickly for it to be worth capturing in written language. Having written and spoken language work the same way just seems intuitive. I understand having an exception for scientific language maybe, but why do we hate on people writing as they speak on like Facebook? A Facebook status doesn't need more precise and anal language than spoken language. Or maybe it is about the difference between reading versus hearing, like as phenomonelogical experiences. Or maybe I am no better than a dumb uneducated nigger who wants an excuse to use ebonics in the classroom. I worry about grammarly taking over our language and iutcorrecting the soul out of speech

>>21284886
What does "disallowed" accomplish that "unallowed" doesn't?

>>21285016
Well, unallowed isn't in the Scrabble dictionary and disallowed is. Unallowed is one of those words that isn't really a word but everyone knows what you mean so it might as well be a word.

>>21285016
>>21285043
It's like how everyone online started saying "unironically" when they meant nonironically, so now everyone accepts unironically as a word.

>>21285044
>nonironically
Why would I want to say it's 9x ironic?

>>21285061
That would be novemironically.

>>21285007
>I worry about grammarly taking over our language and iutcorrecting the soul out of speech
Already happens with Google Docs. I notice that all my colleagues writing is similar because they're afraid of challenging that fucking blue underline and autocorrect

>>21285007
>but why do we hate on people writing as they speak on like Facebook?
Weird, overly correct grammar in everyday shitposting sounds really anal to me; like if people were trying to make their obviously random opinions and gossips weigh more than they're really worth. I hate it in my native language though I don't notice such nuances in English (and most probably I write way too "formal" in english than I would like to because I am not able to make it succinct).
Official grammar rules lag behind the natural language development and make it stagnant, that's it.

I seriously have little idea what is going on when teachers start using writing mechanics jargon. It gets complex and confusing pretty quick but I just write what sounds right, and it’s usually good enough.

>>21283424
kek just lol @ anglo declensionlets

>>21283428
Proper Grammer is silly little rules for silly little people.

>english grammar
>hard
kek, are you monolingual?

>>21283424
Garner's Modern English Language is DFW approved.

>>21283424
>>21286040
Also see Chicago Guide to Grammar, Usage, and Punctuation, by the same author.