martin hainan
- 2016-05-02
in some kind of juicy irony you've been using the contraction of 'It is'
Contractions have always been acceptable written English. Having burdened your limited intellect by committing several of Shakespeare's sonnets to memory, I'm sure that you aware of that.
The phrase "juicy irony" is sweet; qualifying it inanely with "some kind of" is a beggar's banquet.
CarCarGo
- 2016-05-01
in some kind of juicy irony you've been using the contraction of 'It is'
This 'It's'.
[edited] can only conclude (being a linguistic PHD and all) that its because you never reached the level of education where they teach you how to spell it properly.
But see, instead of 'It is' people just started doing this contraction "It's".
Now they've started doing "Its".
And now to your 'current guidelines'. Where do you think those are issued from? Who issued the guidelines on the improper "It's"?
This is all beside the point though. The point being [edited] actually thought he was spotting 'levels of education' when he saw people using "Its" which is so damn funny and stupid at the same time lol
Then you screwed it up even more lol!
paul fox
- 2016-04-26
No matter how many parenthesis or superfluous punctuation that you add, "Please don't
get 'ability' confused with 'style." is poor writing and grammatically incorrect.
Fine, well, since you wasted your time, I will do you the honour of allowing you to waste mine.
The main reason being that we seem to be discussing 2 sides of the same coin without progressing beyond your opinion as to what constitutes a 'grammatical error'.
The fact remains that you understood my meaning. You understood it so well in fact, that you wrote 2 comments attempting to convince me to see the error of my ways.
If we were teaching second-grade NES university students then I would give much more credence to your argument, but we are not We are teaching ESL students who often care more about conveying their intended meaning when they speak or write.
Now before you jump down my proverbial throat, I am not saying that grammar isn't important, I am saying that OCCASIONALLY it's not AS important when teaching ESL as it is when teaching to NES, and the fact that grammatical 'errors' can sometimes be overlooked as long as the meaning is understood. (and if you try to say I would accept 'I very like' for example, simply because the meaning is clear, then we are not even on the same page)
There's too much narcissism coming from various corners of this discussion forum. it's not a classroom !
amused
- 2016-04-26
I'm really wasting my time explaining this to you, but for the benefit of more literate readers:
The subject/agent is understood as the person that is being addressed.
The error is not in the nouns in parenthesis. The error is in the complex transitive/intransitive nature of "confuse" with direct and indirect objects and the colloquial use of the verb phrase: "get confused ____ with".
No matter how many parenthesis or superfluous punctuation that you add, "Please don't get 'ability' confused with 'style." is poor writing and grammatically incorrect.
paul fox
- 2016-04-26
I certainly
cannot write Old English.
That's probably because you are a non-British English user. The sad truth appears to be that 500 years from now, what we use today may be considered 'Old English'
paul fox
- 2016-04-26
'Please don't confuse ability with style", is your meaning. I cannot "get
ability confused".
Once again your predictability is almost mind-numbing.
Try reading what I wrote, but more importantly, HOW I wrote it.
The words 'ability' and 'style' were deliberately written in parentheses, therefore the sentence was grammatically correct and with a clear meaning that you, (clearly), understood.
Had I chosen to write 'Please don't confuse ability with style', then I would have done so.
If you weren't so preoccupied with being promoted to 'Sergeant' in the 'grammar police', then you might actually recognise when someone is 'baiting' you !
amused
- 2016-04-25
Please don't get 'ability' confused with 'style'
"Please don't confuse ability with style", is your meaning. I cannot "get ability confused".
These recurring grammatical errors are not a writing style, just as my poor tennis playing is not 'my style of tennis'.
amused
- 2016-04-25
in one of your most recent replies *you*
used what was a grammatical error which is now considered the proper usage
All fields of study evolve and all have contemporary constructs and strictures. I certainly cannot write Old English.
Teachers of English should communicate in a manner consistent to these current guidelines, as you indicate that I did.
paul fox
- 2016-04-25
And to use it inadvertently, as you did
I didn't use it inadvertently - I used it deliberately in order to provoke your response. You can choose whether or not to believe that, but my reply to you had already been written, copied, and I was simply waiting to hit the 'paste' button - as I said, such is your predictability.
The corpus of your comments on this board quite clearly demonstrate your writing ability.
Please don't get 'ability' confused with 'style'. They are 2 completely different things, as you should know.
amused
- 2016-04-25
Its reputation has not risen over the years,
and it is still a long way from general acceptance.
Genuine English teachers would be embarrassed to use this word, especially in a teachers forum. And to use it inadvertently, as you did, contending "common usage makes them correct" is telling.
Googling vocabulary points, as several contributors are want to do, is also indicative of diminutive language skills.
The corpus of your comments on this board quite clearly demonstrate your writing ability.
paul fox
- 2016-04-25
50 years ago it was wrong. Its correct and proper today.
When I was a kid at school (in England), starting a new sentence with the word 'and', (and hence using a capital 'A'), was wrong, wrong, wrong.
Perpetrators of this heinous 'crime' were punished severely and, in my humble opinion, this 'law' should remain in place.
paul fox
- 2016-04-25
Haha - Just as I predicted. You REALLY are sooo predictable
'Irregardless' was chosen as a 'wrong' word simply in order to get your (predictable) response, Miss Assumed
The following comment is taken directly from the M-W web-site, and you WILL find 'irregardless' in the M-W dictionary. A classic example that demonstrates the so-called 'differences' between what is 'common' and what is 'correct'. - You know, the one's you continue to complain about.
Usage Discussion of irregardless
Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance.
CarCarGo
- 2016-04-25
Common (or when it becomes the most common) will become the correct.
Its amazing you can be playing English-smarty and not understand that.
but let's listen to people who are the masters of the masters of English..
" I’m certainly not a member of the grammar police. And neither are my fellow lexicographers. Of course, there are those of us who still shudder over an errant apostrophe, or a ‘less’ lurking where there should be a ‘fewer’. But, as a breed, we’re far less likely to get distressed over the stretching of the more obscure rules of grammar or the entry of slang and textspeak into everyday language than the average man on the street. "
it might interest you to know (then ignore) that in one of your most recent replies *you* used what was a grammatical error which is now considered the proper usage! Can you find it? You wrote it. 50 years ago it was wrong. Its correct and proper today.
More here: http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2013/02/when-does-wrong-become-right/
How can you not know this? Its just the most basic of things you learn in the history of the English language (English 101)
amused
- 2016-04-25
Common usage makes them 'correct', irregardless of your opinion.
Priceless.
paul fox
- 2016-04-25
Common usage makes them 'correct', irregardless of your opinion.
amused
- 2016-04-25
Common and correct are not equivalent.
Correct and well-written are not equivalent.
Teachers of English strive to write well.
paul fox
- 2016-04-24
"completely incapable" and "perfectly correct" are sloppy
redundancies
Says who ? The phrase 'perfectly correct' is used by many NES and has been for years. Where do you get your 'information' from?
amused
- 2016-04-23
'completely incapable' is perfectly correct.
Grammar aside, precision in thought and communication are hallmarks of a good teacher.
"Partially incapable" and "imperfectly correct" are impossible, precisely because "completely incapable" and "perfectly correct" are sloppy redundancies.
paul fox
- 2016-04-23
Yes, I am English and I use English in 'British English' form.
In England, our language has hundreds of 'colloquialisms', and as such we would consider 'effective communication' to be far more important than someone's personal opinion as to the 'correct' use of compound negative constructions.
Where I come from, the phrase 'completely incapable' is perfectly correct.
amused
- 2016-04-23
Are you completely incapable of making a comment here WITHOUT any form of derisory
remark?
No. I'm partially incapable of making a comment with some form of derisory remark.
You might review your use of compound negative constructions, Paul. Are you a native speaker?
paul fox
- 2016-04-23
China should consider adding Australia to the list of non-native English countries, given the
prevalence of alcoholic johns that hail from that penal colony.
Are you completely incapable of making a comment here WITHOUT any form of derisory remark?
amused
- 2016-04-23
The purpose of this regulation is to protect Chinese consumers in the English Language education market in China, a worthy effort.
All government regulations vary in their efficacy and the degree to which they are implemented. No doubt many unqualified FTs will be denied continued employment in China. Unfortunately, many well-qualified competent English teachers will also be excluded.
China should consider adding Australia to the list of non-native English countries, given the prevalence of alcoholic johns that hail from that penal colony.
PhD teacher
- 2016-04-22
In other words, if you were born in (say) Germany but have (say) an Australian passport, are you considered NES or not?
Disgraceful. If you have English language abilities it shouldn't matter where you are born and what your first language is. Racist bastards.
concerned-nonnative
- 2016-04-22
I saw the same post earlier, it's a post on a forum of an English School, no sources, not even the name of the person who posted it. so, I'm wondering how reliable this information actually is. A new law was passed in February, why would they change it after 2 months? Having lived in this country for a decade, it's truly sad and disappointing to see how our qualifications and dedication mean nothing.
As of May 1st 2016, non-native-English speaking teachers will not be allowed to renew their FEC.
It's all in the article, but I cannot seem to find out if 'Native' means 'Passport Holder' or 'Birth certificate' as far as 'definition' goes.
In other words, if you were born in (say) Germany but have (say) an Australian passport, are you considered NES or not?
Not that it affects me, but I do feel sorry for the 'good' teachers who will essentially lose their jobs
I know of one married couple who have taught at the same school for more than 10 years, but under the new law they are not NES so it's 88