Wow! Since the "poke", as Facebook would put it, is at me, I will reply later when I have my wits thoroughly about me but for now, I just want to say ... Wow! .brad.1905h.mon.18feb08. Johanna Rubba <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Brad and other "correctionists" worry about "bad grammar," but we need to keep in mind that language changes, and tense/aspect systems change. It is very hard to stop linguistic change. Some changes may lessen the communicative effectiveness of the language, but context usually resolves this. We have to remember that human communities have invented their languages and will not allow them to decline to the point of nonfunctionality -- communication is too vital to human society. As I always insist, language is a reflection of thinking; if language degenerates, it is because thinking degenerates. A society will have a language that satisfies its needs and desires, and reflects its thinking habits. People sometimes claim that grammar improves thinking, but I think this is not so much because grammar introduces "better" thought patterns, but because, as a pursuit, it cultivates analytical habits of mind, and that is what improves thinking. Also, like other analytical pursuits, it reveals to the student the complexities of world phenomena that we take for granted, thus enriching the student's knowledge base and encouraging analytical thinking about other topics. Those of my students who don't mind linguistics often make remarks reflecting the latter effect. Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. Associate Professor, Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Dept. Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/