We weren't taught the rules and terminology of English grammar to the extent we were taught it in Latin and French.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Grammar and punctuation test.
- Thread starter Stat Brother
- Start date
We weren't taught the rules and terminology of English grammar to the extent we were taught it in Latin and French.
That was my point. If children were taught the rules and terminology of English grammar it would be beneficial when learning a foreign language.
Same here re score, and totally agree, I can still write a business letter better than most people I know.
Nottseagull
Well-known member
Indeed. I didn't know that the pluperfect tense was the one that used 'had' before I learnt French, but there again you didn't need to; you just picked it up!
Why would you need knowledge of the correct terminology in order to become a proof reader? I only have a vague understanding of those terms yet I always thought my grammar was up to proof reading standard. If you have time, could you take a look at some of my posts and give me your professional opinion, please?
North Stand Chat - Brighton & Hove Albion
Last edited:
Herne Hill Seagull
Well-known member
Notts, you're absolutely right - I did not have to pass some kind of grammar theory test in order to become a proofreader and freely admit that if somebody asked me to identify the genitive case or the imperfect subjunctive, for example, I'd struggle as much as the next man.
I had to demonstrate that I could do the job, practically. It's much, much more important to have an understanding of the application of the rules than the arcane and often impenetrable terminology. But a strong grasp of at least the basics does help to understand what's being done wrong, if anything, particularly where that understanding helps to make meaning clear in your writing.
I had to demonstrate that I could do the job, practically. It's much, much more important to have an understanding of the application of the rules than the arcane and often impenetrable terminology. But a strong grasp of at least the basics does help to understand what's being done wrong, if anything, particularly where that understanding helps to make meaning clear in your writing.
Nottseagull
Well-known member
OK HHS I just started reading your blog, and right at the beginning noticed you had followed 'firstly' with 'second'. Shouldn't you have used 'secondly'? 
I don't think anybody would be able to identify the imperfect subjunctive in a text written in English.
Herne Hill Seagull
Well-known member
Second and secondly are synonyms, but you're right from a consistency point of view, it would have been better to use 'secondly'. (This is why even proofreaders have other proofreaders check their writing.) If you read what you wrote yourself, your brain does part of the reading for you, fills in the words, and you miss such mistakes. You cannot proofread your own work perfectly. I make no claims that my blog is grammatically perfect, by the way - it's a hobby, not my job!
Herne Hill Seagull
Well-known member
Which kind of demonstrates my point! I couldn't have told you that – I know how to apply were or was, for example, but not what that grammar form is called. I proofread the sort of written stuff you'd see in everyday use, but would not be able to teach grammar.
Mental Lental
Well-known member
14/14 for me.
The whole "there, their, they're" thing is so basic that sometimes I think people must be deliberately getting it wrong just to wind up the grammar pedants.
The whole "there, their, they're" thing is so basic that sometimes I think people must be deliberately getting it wrong just to wind up the grammar pedants.