Does grammar matter? - Andreea S. Calude 

Meritocratic discrimination, *sigh*

Lmao

Man just wanna say hi XDDD

Atleast he got a free book

@@mountaindew4178 XDDDD

+Riley & Mitsu Hej, B. Är du Svensk?

Lugh Summerson No, why do you ask? (Nej, varför frågar du ?)

lol

That's exactly what I thought lol

+Christopher Winne lel

I'm going to eat hay honey! I'm going to eat, hey honey! Yup, you're right!

Do you mean "I'm going to eat hay, honey!"? I don't think "hay honey" is something you can eat.

A perfect example of why grammar is important.

Common sense does

It would if it's in writing, but if it's in speaking it depends on context

Why is your 4 likes comment above the 3000 likes comment right bellow you XD

@@benediktjostingmeier4519 Not sure. Maybe it got pinned?

@@japanesefromzero maybe it just gave me a good laugh

If it's very informative as you said, can you tell me the answer of the opening question? 😂

GEORGEEEE

Your right, I liked this one too the animation is totally smooth and beautiful

+Liivika Hinto Ammmm...... Ok Thanks

+‫شادي هدره‬‎ you're*

+‫شادي هدره‬‎ It feels a lot more three dimentional and alive

Hahaha, sure.

*especially (different meaning)

alvallac21 correcting a 3 years old comment makes me slightly disgusted

@@TheLeftyGamer0 Why? What's wrong with that? Just don't pay attention to it

Hum!! "Silueta" in Portuguese. Advanced English (French actually) sounds like commun Portuguese

I agree with the praise for the artist but with one small quibble: the font used in the video made the numerous lower case “Ts” before “Is” look like “Bs” (as in “prescripbivists” and “descripbivists”).

True

Mine (told me it's more important) taught me to keep a good flow in mind and make sure (what you're saying or writing) your message concise and accurate. Grammar? If you're 90% correct, they'll get you just fine. No need to be perfect. And I never was.

In written and formal writing, it is important.

Yeah - it's important because it's our way of communicating, and we MUST be very precise, otherwise eventually, we will not understand what the other person is saying because of years and years of lack of grammar.

"Are"

I know that this was four years ago but I just want to say that as a Filipino, too, written language with good knowledge of correct grammar is important. Almost perfect grammar in spoken language also helps in places where it is important like Call Centers. Thank you! Grammar isn't only important in casual conversation. There is a difference between reading 'Your Helping' and 'You're helping' in a written language. Thank you!

Colonial mentality of the Filipinos needs to go away! Keep pushing keep thriving

Why is it sad

@@dropsht how is utilizing good grammar to communicate effectively even remotely connected to colonial mentality?

What you're saying is counter-intuitive. Good grammar actually helps convey ideas effectively and efficiently.

OMG LOL

it does. IT DOES. OMG

yes, and he has a hat :D

Cannot unsee

It didn't even realise it was the sea. I thought it really was a man smoking a pipe.

Hilarious fD with that example, you messed up.

Buenomars Yoda's speech is based on Japanese grammar so it would be: "With this, I do agree."

Lol

Who do you think you are, a prescriptivist?

@@officialhilariousfd What

Yeah , in casual situations but not at the office.

People didn't communicate with each other that much in past, they used to talk to each other mostly. Written communication would be mostly for official stuff Now we do written communication everyday, texting and all So we try not to be formal.

wut do u mean?

@@kunal1957 Exactly. The entire nature of how writing is used in our society has changed. Before writing was only ever the domain of the formal, of a preservation of language meant to be understood in a form seperated in time from when it was produced. (e.g a physical letter is usually read days afterwards, and books can be read up till centuries later at times) Now, most writing, such as in the form of texts, is just as spontaneous as speech. People have invented markers for tones, and certain symbols and combinations of symbols have evolved to take on the role of tone markers in their own right. "Registers" in linguistics refer to different degrees of formality or politeness, which can hugely alter what is considered appropriate in that context. Too much stiffness or too many politeness markers can seem rude in a casual context, and too few will seem uneducated/rude when dealing with "more polite society". In some languages, like Japanese, Korean, or Urdu, these distinctions can be of utmost importance to sound polite, or at least just "normal", in any situation of life. (And I would know... I natively speak Urdu XD) Historically, "writing" tended to occupy the realm of one register, more precisely structured in its clauses, more fully written out, etc, all features differentiating it from all forms of speech, be they formal or informal. I would even argue that any casual/immediate internet text-based communication has essentially formed a set of registers *within* the realm of "writing" itself, creating both "formal" and "informal" ways to write, the norms of which, if broken, can make one seem out-of-touch, or even downright pretentious or rude. Of course, many people are yet to become frequent users of these "internet registers", so it doesn't have universal prevelance in our cultures yet, but perhaps they shall be one day, we'll just have to wait and see, and watch that glorious human social project of language evolution run its course! :>

Grammer is the only gray matter.

Well yeah, but the video mostly coves spoken language, not written.

@Mr. Panda you’re right, with someone that you’re comfortable with grammar isn’t as important, but if you’re trying to make a good impression then it absolutely is.

@@dzarko55 even when talking, using grammar is a good thing. Obviously grammar is much more limited when speaking, but it’s still possible to use it.

I read a lot for fun and the idea of not following grammar rules is sickening. I just finished “Of Mice and Men” and incorrect grammar was purposely used to show they were uneducated.

@@amazingsupergirl7125 exactly! Writing doesn’t need a “revolution”, just follow the rules for everyone’s sake.

+cooldude56g R.O.T.F.L.

+cooldude56g *Kind of. Your not smart.

+cooldude56g fuk No

+cooldude56g Short Answer: In verbal conversation: It doesn't matter at all. You have tone and body language to fill in the gaps. In writing it does as you have only the text to judge the intent, and the text can be around long after you are gone. Imagine the results of Grammar errors in the Constitution of the United States.

+Harvey Rabbit you seem smart. Can you use there in a way that could confuse me by not using the correct there? I am corrected on there all the time and I have never seen a need unless the person has issues keeping up with a story. I'm talking writing and reading.

It's like they took a page from Google's material design rules

*great. Congratulations

Me in 2021: hmm, things really advanced since 5 years ago. Nowadays, the animation in this video is more like a standard one. It's still impressive how they were able to accomplish this, to be honest.

I really liked the last animation, where the alien gets a part in the weaving of language😆

Becoming more and more dependent on technology isn’t a good thing at all.

Right man

Absolutely agree!

this sums it up perfectly!

I see a lot of comments trying to excuse grammatical irresponsibility with evolution of language. However, using the wrong words or misspelling words isn't evolution, quite the opposite in fact.

@@christmansonpunk2927 Same. There's a right way to use language and a wrong way. Use proper language people or risk the eloquence of your tongue to be greatly hampered.

+57Strudel Yes, I've got to agree with you on the importance of correctitude in written language, in order to make it understandable. And that's also something that I appreciate from websites and fandoms that develop their own set of rules for non-verbal written language. A couple of good examples could be: -4chan's text arrows to denote "storytelling mode = ON" -Specific fandoms' argots -The use of .exe, .jpg, .mp4 extensions in internet discussions And o many more.

agreed

i don't see written language as being that different though. you still have a person on the other end with a brain that can read things and easily figure out whether the sender meant "belonging to" to or not. . . just like we do when we are talking to each other

+pymai written language is extremely different. just read transcripts of extemporaneous conversations. They are very difficult to fully understand. There is so much information encoded in the pitch, rhythm, and volume of speech. For example, if I say something is pretty good, that could mean very good, somewhat good, average, or even below average. You would only know which one if you heard it. And, if someone was angrily telling you to stop doing something in a language you don't speak, you would probably get the message, whereas a transcription of his message would be worthless.

You can nearly always tell the difference between you're and your by the context of the sentence however. Which is why people say it is just being picky. Because if everyone knows what they meant, what is the problem?

Hahahhaha

i died laughing

@GeorgieTheMonkEIdk if u jokin' but its an expression. I died laughing means this: "im dying of laughter" but in a past tense

@GeorgieTheMonkE np

+subh1 correct you must be.

lol

Correct my friend you are... MMMMMMMMMMMMMM

He’s not... Yoda speaks with a OSV order

@@ungefiezergreeter6034 yes exactly

Hurrah, linguistics buddies! :D

+Ivan Solomon Nathan well ill be Just kidding; I love linguistics; I love how it changes; I'd identify as a descriptivist; however, that some people communicate so badly they fail to communicate at all annoys me greatly. Have fun with that run-on sentence, with many more semicolons than it needed.

Rachel Zimet ohmygodIloveyouandhateyouatthesametime

+Ivan Solomon Nathan I have fun angering my history teacher with sentences like that. My record is half a page on college-rule paper for just one sentence.

***** Why on earth would you want to?

I'm not im. Capitalise start of sentence, and I'm is always capitalised and is short for I am so NEVER im.

I can’t bear “them” versus “those.” Them strawberries are delicious!”

There was one time someone texted, "Oh hey, your back!" I was like, "What's with my back?" And they answered, "You just came back, so your back." English is not my first language and I was laughed at by people for not understanding that 'your' referred to 'you are'. Then, I met people with their messed up 'their', 'they're', and 'there', and so on. Well, I meant my classmates in English language class mistook those too in speaking, and I wouldn't be so confused. But in writing.... It keeps confusing me.

I’m not strict on things like “their” or “there,” but where bare minimum grammar is necessary to understand, that’s where I’m strict.* Fixed and simplified your sentence. Oh, and your original sentence had LOADS of grammar mistakes.

@@ihatememes565 jeez, passive aggressive much? Thanks for the edit nonetheless

+Ethan Wagner There shouldn't be any grammatical errors while speaking at all-- It wouldn't sound natural and people parrot what others say... which is grammatically correct unless you live in an area with non-standard vernacular. IE: Grammatically correcting the way African-Americans talk using a standard vernacular vs. their own would show up as a massive amount of error, but not for them. I ain't never gonna do that = I won't ever do that. Their constructions are different from the dialect, but only wrong depending on your perspective.

+Ethan Wagner gmamrar is as imptoarnt as splnelig. the way you reach a conclusion doesn't matter so long as the conclusion is met. you only need a set of cues to figure out what is meant. the fluff between ideas is a waste of time.

Conor Raypholtz I didn't say that spelling wasn't important.

Well, the people who correct every grammatical error are just trying to teach you to not make the same mistakes again in order to improve your grammar skills.

Egg I agree with you.

Okay, that’s fair. That’s a completely valid point, and it might be worth preserving grammar just for that

this is absolutely right. I'm not a native English speaker, nor do I usually have people around me who can speak the language with me. but I am always trying to learn the language more. and it is indeed difficult to understand when native speakers speak in a certain manner and use verbs that are usually invented by them only or if the verbs are in reference to something that are common among them. for example, it took me a while to understand what people mean when they say they ship someone. I still don't understand if how they came up with it but I understand the meaning. there are many more I can't remember right now.

Do you have a source for this? For mw and most non-native English speakers I know find grammar to be the biggest roadblock

@@Somerandomdude-ev2uh How can it be a roadblock? If it doesnt help them, then they can ignore it. I think that grammar is a hard thing, thats why they called it the "roadblock", because they had to spend much time learning it. But if they learned, it actually helped. It also depends on the way they learn/the way they are taught. - I am not a native english speaker by the way

@@Twiphed what country are you from? You have a pretty fine understanding of English comapred to others.

Baloung iI

Really.... Like how?😦

I suppose you could use the word “amazed” to avoid ambiguity

Explains*

dunno

+Alex Stefanov (umnikos) it doesn't as long as you can allow looseness in your phrasing. If you can make sure that everyone who is supposed to get the message understands it correctly you are fine either way. But say you are handling some legal issues whether it's constructing a contract or a bill. Grammar suddenly matters a whole lot more. Same goes for public speeches and everything else that exposes your message to a broad audience who have more freedom of interpretation. As soon as misinterpretations can lead you to fatal consequences grammar will become important to you if you want to avoid it happening.

+John Smith It is clear from the video that every language or dialect( Ebonics, Cockney, Journalese, Internetese, etc) has a set of rules and the users normally follow them. Or break them. But even for breaking a rule it is necessary for it to exist in the first place. So, yes, grammar DOES matter!

Daniel Santos you don't break rules because you know them though. You break them because you didn't register the rules you broke in the first place, so no. The rule doesn't exist to you as far as you're concerned the moment you broke it. Therefor it doesn't have to exist for you to phrase your sentence as you did.

+John Smith That makes sense!

What makes grammar wrong?

What's SOV and OSV and VSO? Does the Arabic language allow letters to be switched in words?

MischievousMoo S means subject V means verb And O means object

"short vowels placed at the end of the word". That's called grammatical case

@@minecraftminertimeThis REALLY late, but "S" means "subject of a clause", "V" means "verb of a clause", and "O" means "object of a clause".

No debate is ever over unless you close your mind. I have grown tired of experts declaring the conversation to be over, usually because it allows them to declare themselves to be the arbiters of fact.

This video doesn’t debate anything. He’s just throwing ideas and concepts out there for us to ponder. To have a good base for language is just as important as letting the language live and evolve within one culture, national society as a whole, and worldwide. England and America both have similar grammatical bases. At the same time, the language evolves within our own countries. We don’t have a problem understanding each other’s grammar. The differences are in pronunciation, slang, and phrases. I taught English in Japan for three years. What a nightmare it would’ve been without grammar rules. It’d be just as big of a nightmare to put all the students in a room together to talk and learn from each other every night. These are both correct in their own ways: How are you? I’m fine thank you. And you? What’s up? Nothing much. We know the video is very effective because there are so many comments. It’s not ineffective just because you don’t like the reactions. Maybe you should go ahead and get in the pond, if you’re going to be a silly goose. ❤️🤟🏻

@@amazingsupergirl7125 Descriptivism doesn't mean no grammar rules. It means the rules are descriptions of how speakers of a language use said language. It doesn't mean errors don't exist; it's about acknowledging variation in language without making a judgement on which variety is better or arbitrarily deeming certain variations to be errors. As I said in my original comment, prescriptivism has a place in pedagogy, so language learning in Japan is part of that. It's not about whether I like the reactions or not, and the video isn't debating anything. It's the fact that this is a linguistics video, but most of the comments here are from people arguing against and not understanding the consensus view in the field.

Yeah I am more surprised by the comments than I expected. I shouldn't be, considering that this video is far too brief to convey how the approaches actually affect the actual work of linguists though. An example such as looking at how descriptivism allows a linguist to more accurately to document an undocumented language would've done a lot for the video. The video is pointing towards how the approach affects linguistics, but the comments are focused on English pedagogy. This I'm not surprised by, but that's exactly the reason to expose people to the possibilities of other languages and how they might be misconstrued with a prescriptivist approach. The idea seems to be to open up viewers to the idea that conventions can change and vary, yet has resulted in people defending particular conventions, so yeah, not that effective.

+xapemanx it may be when we are interacting with people who haven't had access to learning about "proper" grammar. sometimes it is better to speak to someone in a way they can understand which, in my opinion, is more respectful and less important than asserting our linguistic prowess.

xApemanx Communications and understanding is by far the most important tho.

I am terribke at speling

You mean well grammar

It ain’t never doesn’t not matter.

How is it crucial?

@@ReddoFreddo proffesionalism? I consider it to be quite important

@@m.farrelnugroho5504 Why is it quite important?

Me too

+Adolf Hitler lmao

It does not always change, but other languages are more susceptible than others. You give an idea to support your theory but not counter evidence.

+Adolf Hitler "but SOME languages are more susceptible than others." Talking about grammar and making mistakes, get your shit together Adolf.

What comment was deleted? All my comments are still there.

Or is this someone else?

Great! Should I point out the incorrect grammar in your comment then?

daraldlee Yes, absolutely!!

daraldlee should of is grammatically wrong, but should've is pronounced "should-av" similarly to should of so many people adapt the wrong grammar.

There's a difference? This makes it seem like there's a bunch of tiny grammar errors I make that I didn't even know about.

The point is to make other people understand, whether it's should have or "should of". If some people are using "should of" and others are understanding, nothing wrong with it. That's their choice.

What if it's "should"+ "have"= "should've?"

Exactly. Descriptivism was made by dumb people who couldn't adhere to the 'correct' term, so they chose to become really defensive about their retarded selves and started using 'Your' instead of 'you're' and don't even get me started on they're their and there. Fucking go to school and learn.

+Kanika Sharma fuck...you're

+Kanika Sharma Agreed. Although, I wouldn't say it was created by dumb people, rather idiots will adopt it because of the reason you mentioned.

No... it's how language changes over time. Imagine we would still speak Old English, or something even older. I do agree that it is often easily used to defend their mistakes though.

+Frans A. I don't think language changing over time is a problem, but rather HOW those changes happen. If we can improve a language, all we need to do is agree on the changes and rewrite the rule book. But in reality people commit the changes casually, before agreeing on it. Since language is a matter of communication, and not only internal monologues, I see no way in which this is more beneficial. On a side note, that part about how "descriptivism gives us insight about how our minds work" is complete nonsense. As if perscriptivism doesn't?

kibordpengin Oh right, thanks for that, you dipshit.

***** "Oh, right. Thanks for that, you dipshit"*

+kibordpengin You're wrong by all accounts on this one. www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/can-i-start-a-sentence-with-a-conjunction

Jonathan Sharman "By all accounts you're wrong on this one"*

Lugh Summerson Quotes don't require punctuation, you halfwit.

There is the grammer of business and law. Those forms of grammer have to be precise, and therefore, the rules must be agreed upon and held to.

Grammer between two individuals may not matter, up until the moment when two people begin to misunderstand one another. If both are not using correct grammer, then the moment of misunderstanding may not be obvious until it's too late.

+C0d0ps i do not speak alien XD no seriosly, i cant understand XD

TheNonsenceGirl 16 1. I am writing in English with proper grammar. 2. My comment was asking if the video's answer is an answer. Since, it was not a yes or no answer, aka a direct answer. It was hard to understand what "side" they are on.

They aren't taking a specific side. They are stating the facts so that we can form our own opinion.

C0d0ps I

C0d0ps You're not supposed to just pick the answer the side the maker of the video is on. You're supposed to form your own opinion based on the given points. Since when is this a new thing?

What? “It’s” stands for “it is.” And “we’re” stands for “we are.” So all of the four contractions you listed have an apostrophe in place of one letter. All. Not two. You are the quintessential example of why we need grammar. So how many words are acceptable to figure out or guess based on context? Just those four words? 100 words? Is every single word going to be a guess? Instead you could learn “its, it’s, were, and we’re” so everyone who communicates with you in writing doesn’t have to solve a word puzzle every time. I’ll choose four incorrect words, too. Everyone can change four words and reading can be decoding instead. Feel free to reply whatever millennial comment you have. I never read replies.

I learned that from a David Mitchell video. And now it frustrates me, too, when people say, "I could care less".

It performs the exact same function as "I couldn't care less", so what's the difference?

***** That's what would happen if you interpreted it literally. But that's neither how it's intended to be interpreted nor how it's commonly interpreted, which is where meaning actually comes from. Not all language expressions mean the sum of their parts, e.g. "kick the bucket" has nothing to do with either kicking or buckets.

How is "I could care less" unacceptable? It is grammatically correct.

Benet Zheng It's just nonsensical. See +Crystal Kanashii's comment.

yup

Would have

Should've/should have: If someone says they should have done something, it means that they did not do something but that they wish they did, or that they think they may have been benefitted by doing. Example: I should've gone on a walk today because it was sunny. (i.e. I didn't go on a walk but I wish I did) Could've/could have: If some one says they could have done something, it is a hypothetical (something that did not happen but might have). By saying that they could have done something, they are claiming that they were able to do some action at some time in the past. This one is a bit tricky but I feel like would and should are kind of special cases of could. If you understand this one it will make the other ones easier. Example: I could have gone on a walk today. (i.e. I had the choice to go on a walk today (whether or not I actually did)) "Could have" and "should have" are pretty similar in that they both talk about things in the past that were not done. But "should have" communicates specifically that you wish that you did what you had the opportunity to do (that you wish you did what you could have done). Would've/would have: If someone says they would have done something, it means that they were unable to do something that they might have done if not for something that prevented them from actually doing it. It means that they intended to do something, but were prevented from doing it. Example: I would have gone for a walk today if it weren't raining. (i.e. I wanted to go on a walk but was unable to) Also, all of these sayings are talking about the past, specifically the Could is the past tense of can, would is the past tense of will, and I think that should is the past tense of shall (but don't worry about that. Shall isn't used often. We normally use either will or should in places where it may have been used if it weren't obsolete.) Example: Old: Shall I go to the store? Modern: Should I go to the store? Old: I shall go to the store. Modern: I will go to the store. I'm not trying to sound condescending. I just don't know whether English is your first language. I also don't know why specifically you mix these phrases up so I wanted to make it as clear as possible. If this isn't clear enough, these phrases are called modal verbs. I actually just learned that when I looked up what they were called.

@@kingfish5280 yes i was saying (5 years ago) that it was hard for me to accept the trend of others swapping the 'have' for 'of'. I was seeing it everywhere 5 years ago I guess. Maybe it stopped or maybe I accepted descriptivism, idk.

@@GoPieman Oh... Well this is awkward

And even if I'm understanding your point right, even in that sentence, that's still SVO word order with passivization added. The only changes are that the agent ("John") has been demoted to an oblique noun phrase, the patient ("the ball") promoted to a subject noun phrase, and the verb phrase altered to show passivization (here with a "be"-passive almost exclusively found in Standard Average European languages like English).

@@liammurray2318 ...damn, you replied to a 2 year old comment.