Science is not just about a careful and systematic approach to
expanding knowledge; it is also a way to share that goal with other
interested parties. That is why we develop academic fields and
subfields. One person cannot simply declare himself right; positions
are subject to peer review.
Scientists have been characterized (present, perfect, passive)
as "certain" in some previous posts, but I would assert the
opposite--a good scientist tends to be skeptical of all positions,
perhaps especially his/her own. Even when evidence seems
overwhelming, as it is for evolution and global warming, a good
scientist presents those as the best current explanation of the
evidence, not as a final and definitive answer. This may seem wimpy
to some, but it is a cornerstone of what good science is all about.
When someone wants to offer a new way of seeing things within
the academic fields, it is customary to present a Review of the
Literature in some form or another. Those who propose the new way of
seeing things are under the obligation to show that they have
reviewed the current literature and understand it before they offer
something new. That doesn't mean presenting the weaknesses of that
view, but presenting its strengths. The burden, as it should be, is
not on the status quo position, but on the person who is proposing
the new view to explain why it better accounts for the observed
facts.
I don't present this as a post to Brad; like many on the list, I
find discussions with Brad unpleasant and unproductive. But I think
it's important to assert ground rules that can make it possible for
us to discuss issues in a useful way.
It is helpful to know what most experts currently believe about
a topic. We should be able to post that without fear of attack.
Craig
On 12/6/2010 9:51 PM, Brad Johnston wrote:
> Karl,
>
> I'm sorry you're angry but remember, YOU took it to the list
and YOU
> are the person who is angry. And YOU are the person who
called me a
> "troll", which is OK. That's what angry people do. No
problem.
>
> But as long as were here, let's let the list look at your
definition
> and let them decide if it is what we (Karl and Brad) are
looking
> for, which is the kind of definition you say "can be found in
any
> decent grammar text".
>
> These are your words exactly, from 02dec10. "My definition:
The past
> perfect in English is a compound tense that combines the
primary
> past tense with the perfect, which is a secondary tense
system. The
> past perfect prototypicaly functions to locate an event prior
to a
> second past event."
>
> I replied, (this is exact): "Don't be impatient. We're
getting
> there. The question was, How do you define it? Tell me what
the past
> perfect is." And you replied, "The past perfect functions to
locate
> an event prior to a second past event". So if I say, "I went
to the
> store yesterday and bought potatoes", the past perfect
functions to
> locate the prior event, going to the store, from the second
event,
> buying the potatoes? 'Zat how it works? Or do you want to
adjust
> your definition? And you replied, "No, I don't want to change
it. It
> is correct." So, ATEG, here is the definition: "The past
perfect
> functions to locate an event prior to a second past event".
Is it
> good or is it not-so-good? Is it what we're looking for? or
can we
> do better? (Remember, we're talking about Teaching Grammar.
That's
> what this is all about.)
>
> .brad.06dec10.
>
> ------------------------- *From:* Karl Hagen
<[log in to unmask]>
> *To:* [log in to unmask] *Sent:* Mon, December 6, 2010
> 8:39:21 PM *Subject:* Re: common irregular verbs
>
> Pot, meet kettle. Everyone else on the list agrees with
Eduard. For
> my money, the real arrogance is in thinking that you are the
only
> one who knows the truth about the perfect.
>
> Further, my discussion about the perfect with you was off the
list,
> and you have just misrepresented what I told you in private
to the
> entire list.
>
> For the record, I gave you a definition, and then I corrected
your
> imprecise paraphrase of my definition. I did not back away
from it.
>
> I should have known that you were too stupid to understand
the
> distinction.
>
> Also, I stand by my use of the perfect in my last message to
the
> list. It's Standard English, and the only thing you
demonstrate by
> trying to ridicule it is your complete ineptitude as a judge
of
> English grammar.
>
> Once again you have demonstrated why you deserve to be
shunned, and I
> deeply regret my folly in writing to you.
>
> This will be my last message to you. I am adding you back to
my idiot
> filter.
>
>
> 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/
>
.
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/