On Nov 14, 2010, at 5:55 PM, Brett Reynolds wrote:
> Roughly to the extent that traditional school grammar is agreed upon by all.
Traditional grammar is NOT agreed upon. What are you talking about?
> Another example and a quote:
> -It's impossible to tell whether extinct animals were able to interbreed, so where does that leave them?
It may by impossible now for us to tell, but there is/was a definitive answer. Those animals could have interbred or not. There is a correct answer. Our understanding of the process did not change the reality. Grammar is dependent on human understanding.
> -"Current estimates suggest that at least 10 per cent of animal species hybridise in nature. Birds, butterflies and coral reef fish all include huge numbers of hybridising species. These hybrids are not necessarily weak, sterile or deformed, but are frequently found to be healthy individuals capable of reproducing. Even the blue whale, the largest animal that has ever lived, has been found to breed in the wild with the fin whale, producing fertile offspring. In plants, hybridisation is so common that botanists have found the BSC (the interbreeding concept) practically unworkable." http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15821389.000-the-species-enigma.html
My point exactly. We might not have the correct theory, but there is a reality that we have failed to define. Grammar does not exist in the same way.
>
> Best,
> Brett
>
> -----------------------
> Brett Reynolds
> English Language Centre
> Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
> Toronto, Ontario, Canada
> [log in to unmask]
>
> 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/
|
