Basic Grammar for GT, Courtesy of Mel and GCC

[Melethiel]

Nothing ruins your argument and credibility more than a poorly phrased post. If your post looks like a 2nd grader wrote it, it doesn't matter how good your argument is. I'm far, FAR less likely to take you seriously. So, because I'm a grammar freak and twitch and die a little every time somebody confuses your and you're, a basic grammar (and posting) lesson for all the denizens of GT:

1. your and you're
your = possessive. I have your book.
you're = you are.
Correct: You're a nice person.
WRONG: Your not listening.

2. there, their, and they're
there = location. My book is over there
their = possessive. I have their book
they're = they are. They're right here = They are right here.
Correct: They're over there.
WRONG: There over there.

(GCC's contributions start here)

3. To, too, and two.
To' is a word that goes in front of an indirect object, that is, a noun that receives the action of the verb. In the sentence "I gave a monkey to Tommy," the monkey is the thing you gave, but Tommy was the recipient of the monkey. Thus, to Tommy. 'To' can also be used on the front of a verb in order to make that verb into a concept or idea, and thus a thing or noun. Thus, in 'I want to give,' 'want' is the verb, and 'to give' is the thing you want to give. It is the direct object of the verb.
'Too' just means 'also.' "I want to give a monkey to Sally, too," means that you want to give a monkey to Sally as well as Tommy.
And two is the number 2. "I want to give two monkeys to Tommy and to Sally, too.

(GCC's contributions end here)

4. Punctuation. Seriously, a period goes a long way. A sentence should have a subject, verb, and a few phrases or clauses separated by commas. A general rule of thumb: unless you have really mastered the art of punctuation, a sentence should not be more than two lines. If I go five lines without seeing a period, something is seriously wrong.

5. Spell Checker. Now, because I'm nice, I'm not demanding that everyone learn how to spell. I'm just asking you to use a spell checker. Remember: every time a word is spelled incorrectly, GCC kills a kitten, because he's mean like that. (Current pet peeve: it's "literal," not "litteral.")

6. Colors. Just...don't. The only color I should see in your posts is black. If there is any red, purple, green, yellow (let's not even mention pink), I will pretend your post never existed. And go easy on the bold, italics, and underlining. If there is more of those in your post than plain text, I won't read it either. Go easy on my poor eyes.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

GCC's contributions continue here, but she wouldn't let me post them in the OP because no one will read the OP if it is too long:

Who vs. whom is one that trips people up a lot, but it is pretty easy. Both are relative pronouns, meaning that they refer to something else, and their meaning is thus 'relative' to the person, place, or thing in question. The relative pronoun (or, in the case of a question, the interrogative pronoun) simply changes based on how it functions in the clause. If it is the subject, that is, the thing doing the verb, you use 'who.' In the sentence "Who is that?" 'who' is the subject of the existential verb 'is.' In the sentence "That is him, who ate the cookie," 'who' is the subject, or doer, of 'ate,' so you use 'who' and not 'whom.' However, if the relative or interrogative pronoun is the recipient of the verbal action, or the thing acted upon in the course of the verbal action, you use 'whom.' "You are giving the cookie to whom?" asks about the person receiving the cookie, "You are offering whom in marriage?" asks which person is actually being married. In basic sentences, they function thus: "That is the person whom I drove." Whom functions as the object acted upon (drove). Alternatively, you can say "That is the person to whom I gave the cookie." Here the thing given is the cookie (cookie is the direct object), and the recipient of the verbal action (the giving of the cookie) is the person ('whom') in question.

Emendations from post #42:

Lie vs. Lay

'To lie' means 'to recline.' The subject is the recipient of the verbal action.

'To lay' means to place something, or to put something on something else. The subject is doing the action to an object.

You do not 'lie' an egg, and you do not 'lay' down to sleep. You lay an egg, and you lie down to sleep. No one says 'lie an egg,' but many people say 'lay down to sleep.' Both are wrong.

This gets particularly tricky in the past tense, because 'lie' becomes 'lay,' and 'lay' becomes 'laid.'

I lie (present) down to sleep. I lay (past) down to sleep.

The hen lay (present) an egg. The hen laid (past) an egg.

Mel and I: Pronouns in Prepositional PhrasesThis one really is simple, but people get it wrong all the time. I've been known to get it wrong myself.

First, prepositional phrases:

"He spoke to Mel and me."

"He spoke to Mel and I."

Which one is correct? The first one.

All you need to do is take out the other person (in this case, 'Mel') and you can see that "He spoke to me" is what you would say, not "He spoke to I."

Actually, the first one is doubly wrong because the word order should be switched. "I" comes last in a strong of prepositional recipients, but "me" comes first.

Thus, in the sentence "Give that to me," if we were to add another recipient, it should read "Give that to me and Mel," not "Give that to Mel and me."

Good vs. Well

This is one of my particular pet peeves. People say 'good' all the freaking time when they actually mean 'well.'

'Good' denotes a moral quality. 'Well' denotes quality in general.

Thus, when someone asks you "How are you today?" and you response "Good!" you are actually saying that you are a good person, not that you find yourself in an agreeable state. "I am good at baseball" should be properly rendered "I play baseball well." Notice that because you cannot say "I am well at baseball," since 'well' cannot modify a 'to be' verb, you have to introduce another more specific verb.

"I speak English good" is particularly hilarious.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

GCC kills a kitten, because he's mean like that.

It's true.

 

[Deut 5:29]

'Too' just means 'also.' "I want to give a monkey to Sally, too," means that you want to give a monkey to Sally as well as Tommy.

"Too" also means to a degree, such as too much, too long.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I forgot about one use of 'too.' In addition to the use of 'too' as a synonym of 'also,' there is also the 'too' of degree.

"The monkey whom I ate was too fat."

Note: 'whom,' because the monkey-as-referent was the direct recipient of 'ate.'

 

[Melethiel]

"Too" also means to a degree, such as too much, too long.

You're right, we were just about to add that

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

"Too" also means to a degree, such as too much, too long.

Beat me to it!

 

[Dark_Lite]

wat your sayin is grammer, should be uesd

italic/i?

 

[Deut 5:29]

I forgot about one use of 'too.' In addition to the use of 'too' as a synonym of 'also,' there is also the 'too' of degree.

"The monkey whom I ate was too fat."

Note: 'whom,' because the monkey-as-referent was the direct recipient of 'ate.'

Uck..spit..sputter..ahhh..gag...

 

[Apeleutheros]

Grammar is fine and all, but seriously: blah blah blah

I'm kind of a jerk when it comes to this. If I see that by making grammatical errors it will actually inflame someone's OCD, I will deliberately use poor grammar just to irritate them.

I tend not to take people seriously who get upset about things which really aren't that important. Regardless if a person types, "your", or "you're" it is easy to understand the way the word is being used by looking of the context of the sentence. Not everyone is very educated. I'm a high school drop out, and my punctuation and spelling are not perfect, but that does not mean that the Holy Spirit has decided that based upon my grammar I have nothing useful to add to a theological discussion.

Sorry, if I am coming across like I'm trying to flame you or something, but this is an online forum, not an English exam. As long as a person can write in English and form a legible sentence, it is not hard to connect the dots, or dot an i, or cross a T here and there. Poor English grammar does not nullify one's theological understanding. If it is really that hard for you to deal with then I think it's more of a personal problem than anything else...

... and I'm saying that in love

God bless

 

[Standing Up]

.

all good

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I'm kind of a jerk when it comes to this. If I see that by making grammatical errors it will actually inflame someone's OCD, I will deliberately use poor grammar just to irritate them.

OCD is an actual medical condition, and you should think twice before making light of it.

I don't make light of cancer.

 

[Melethiel]

.

In the beganning, their wast the leventh camandmant.

Just teasing yous too

Hey now! We haven't gotten to mixing up Bible quotes yet.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I'm a high school drop out, and my punctuation and spelling are not perfect, but that does not mean that the Holy Spirit has decided that based upon my grammar I have nothing useful to add to a theological discussion.

Also, seriously, theology is a tough field. You're no less a Christian, and the Spirit has no less interest in you or anybody for being other than academically inclined. That's perfectly fine, and in at least one way, it is the better path.

But I'm not going to graduate school because theology is easy, and I'm not studying first century Greek for six hours a day because I think reading the Scriptures in translation is just a good a foundation for studying theology.

I wouldn't have a problem with your post if it was merely "You know what I am saying regardless of my grammar, so I choose not to care," and that was that.

But when you bring in academic credentials into it, you touch a bone, my friend. Theology is more than reading the Bible and jotting down the conclusions that well up from your responses. And it is more than memorizing what the Scriptures explicitly say. It is a rigorous, demanding academic field that requires linguistic precision and is not, by the way, done on the online message board environment.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I graduated with a 5th grade reading average myself and had taught myself to read much better later in life.

Now, I don't know where I am at right now with my grammer but my limited vocabulary is certainly not a secret around these parts, I want to say, "Say what"?

And yet I too get a bit rolley eyed when I need a dictionary as a mediator between myself and the person who is speaking to me.

Goes both ways I suppose.

 

[New_Wineskin]

Nothing ruins your argument and credibility more than a poorly phrased post. If your post looks like a 2nd grader wrote it, it doesn't matter how good your argument is. I'm far, FAR less likely to take you seriously. So, because I'm a grammar freak and twitch and die a little every time somebody confuses your and you're, a basic grammar (and posting) lesson for all the denizens of GT:

Good thread .

It brings up *my* opinion of grammar freaks ... they are disingenuous . Language is for communication . If something can be understood as is , then the message performed it's created job . Context can help solve some ambiguous statements . Questions can help solve the rest . If one can correct a statement , then the message was received - no need for corrections . If one truly doesn't understand a statement , they would have no idea how to correct it . Correcting someone is merely an excuse to side-track a thread . It takes away any credibility of the one doing the correcting as they show that they are more interested having their way with the wording than the message of the post .

English is a blankety-blank ( fill in with your favorite negative term ) language - wierd rules and pronunciations and far too many exceptions to rules . And , it is constantly changing . Everyone who uses it must deal with that . Language was made as a tool for communication . And , a tool is not always used as recommended . The owner can use it for whatever use they desire . The English/British are great at manipulating the language for jokes and riddles . If grammar freaks would have their way , most humor would be banned .

Let us continue as we have been . The grammar freaks can ignore the English-usage commoners . And , the English-usage commoners can ignore the grammar freaks .

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

It brings up *my* opinion of grammar freaks ... they are disingenuous . Language is for communication . If something can be understood as is , then the message performed it's created job . Context can help solve some ambiguous statements . Questions can help solve the rest . If one can correct a statement , then the message was received - no need for corrections . If one truly doesn't understand a statement , they would have no idea how to correct it . Correcting someone is merely an excuse to side-track a thread . It takes away any credibility of the one doing the correcting as they show that they are more interested having their way with the wording than the message of the post .

You'll note that we have made a thread of it, and you'll rarely find either of us actually correct a person in the middle of a thread. I personally abhor a thread sidetracked by grammar, which is why we made a separate thread. I was recently corrected on a typographical error by a person that was just trying to get a cheap slam against me, so I went off on his mistakes throughout the thread. But to my knowledge, that was the only time I've mentioned somebody else's mistakes in a thread.

English is a blankety-blank ( fill in with your favorite negative term ) language - wierd rules and pronunciations and far too many exceptions to rules . And , it is constantly changing . Everyone who uses it must deal with that . Language was made as a tool for communication . And , a tool is not always used as recommended . The owner can use it for whatever use they desire . The English/British are great at manipulating the language for jokes and riddles . If grammar freaks would have their way , most humor would be banned .

Speaking of disingenuous...

It has become something of a commonplace that English is a particularly difficult language. Unfortunately, this is one of those nasty ideas that takes hold without evidence.

I would point out, first, that Melethiel is not a native English speaker.

Second, all languages evolve. That doesn't mean there isn't a proper way to speak them.

Third, and more importantly, it becomes clear the more languages you learn that all languages have numerous irregularities. Some languages are more flexible than others- Greek, for instance, can do a number of fabulous things with word order where English is semantically bound to a tighter syntax- but irregular verbs a perfectly common.

Moreover, the rules we pointed out that are true regarding who vs. whom are true is most languages with all words.

"He gave his glove to him." "I gave him the glove."

He, his, [to] him, and him are the same word declined into four different cases: nominative (subject), genitive (possessive), dative (indirect object), and accusative (direct object).

"Who battles whom?" "He is the person whose glove I took." "To whom did you give the glove?

Who, whose, [to] whom, and whom are the same word, but declined into nominative (who), genitive (whose), dative ([to] whom), and accusative (whom).

This is not odd when you look at languages in general. German, Latin, and Greek all do this, as do the majority of languages (in the interest of full disclosure, I will admit that Hebrew does not decline). In these languages all nouns- even proper nouns!- have different case endings depending on their function in the sentence.

ανθροπος πεμπει ανθροπον ανθροπου ανθροπω.

You can tell just by looking at the words that three of the four words in that sentence are basically the same word (you don't even have to be able to recognize Greek letters). And a literal, wooden English translation would read:

(a) man sends (a) man (a) man (a) man. (the 'a's are in parentheses because Greek does not have an indefinite article, the English 'a,' as opposed to the definite article, 'the')

However, just like he, his, [to] him, and him, and just like who, whose, [to] whom, and whom, the word spelling changes according to its function in the sentence. So the sentence actually readings:

A man sends a man of (another) man to a man.

Suddenly, not only do we know the meaning in a way we wouldn't if we were lacking in grammar skills, but we also know to look out for a context involving slavery.

Besides declinations, there are also tons of irregulars. The past tense of λυω (I loose or I am loosing) is ελυσα (I loosed). Just like you add an -ed on the end 'kill' to get 'killed.' But then there is λεγω (I say or I am saying) which in the past becomes ειπον (I said). Looks nothing like it! And where λυω in the future is λυσω (you just add a sigma before the final vowel, which is the normal future ending), the future of λεγω is, of all things, ερω! And that looks nothing like λεγω or ειπον.

λυω, λυσω, ελυσω.

λεγω, ερω, ειπον???

My point is twofold:

A. Grammar is indeed important, especially when discussing biblical studies. If we don't understand English grammar, I find it hard to believe that we can properly understand the word of God as revealed in the original Greek.

B. English really isn't that hard. Only our pronouns decline, and it has no more irregulars than any other language.

 

[Melethiel]

That, and manipulating words for humor is completely different from writing an unintelligible post.

 

[Thekla]

I have no objection to employing appropriate grammar. On the other hand, there are many I have interacted with over the years who have not, and yet have such a strong and beautiful faith ... their love for Christ overcame their (mis)use of the language.

I would hate to have this goal silence anyone !

 

[Thekla]

Speaking of disingenuous...

It has become something of a commonplace that English is a particularly difficult language. Unfortunately, this is one of those nasty ideas that takes hold without evidence.

The use of prepositions in English is very difficult for some non-native speakers to learn.

EDIT:
Here's an 'article' on prepositions from an ESL instructor:
http://www.bobgrubic.com/
(right side, download as pdf)

from the article:

"Prepositions pose more problems for the non-native speaker or learner of English than any other part of speech."