S
Schultzz
Guest
Spelling is NOT grammar. For a “thinker” you don’t appear to be very smart.
- Status
R
R_McGeddon
Guest
Guess again, spelling comes under the umbrella of grammar.
If you’re going to point a gun, make sure it’s loaded.
M
mozier
Guest
Whenever one puts God into the same category as fairies, leprachauns, and Santa Claus, then they have already lost me. To do that is the height of irrationality, in my opinion.
V
VociMike
Guest
They should at least think it curious that the vast majority of people who believe in the former do not believe in the latter. And that essentially nobody actually does believe in the latter.
How many people have allowed themselves to be put to death for leprachauns anyway? Anybody got some numbers?
C
clmowry
Guest
Now that we are really off topic, you sure about this one?
“Spelling” and “grammar” are both parts of linguistics but I do not believe spelling is really a subset of grammar is it?
Then again, what would I know, I’m an engineer, they remove our grammar and spelling brain cells when we register for Calc III.
Any English majors out there?
Chuck
S
Schultzz
Guest
Who needs a gun? People of your genre always self-destruct. You implode under the weight of your false logic and pseudo-intellect. Not a great track record for “thinkers”. You will never think your way into ‘right living’ but you can always live your way into ‘right thinking’. To accomplish that you need to be spiritual. Spirituality has nothing to do with religion and very little to do with intelligence. When your thinking is either in the past or in the future it will be increasingly difficult to become spiritual. Spirituality happens in the present. That’s where your power comes from. When you become spiritual you will know who you are. All your “thinking” and rationalization will not take you there. It is either very difficult for atheists to remain in the “present” or for those who remain in the “present” to remain atheists.
If you would really like to improve your IQ you should learn more about spirituality. I can show you where to go to find out more about it. Don’t worry, it has nothing to do with Christianity or any other formal religion. Yet it will bring you much wisdom. Any takers?
M
melbourne_guy
Guest
Do you just type the first thing that comes into your thick head. Theres no basis for this statement.
M
melbourne_guy
Guest
Nice generalisation. FALSE LOGIC! You believe in a talking snake!
M
melbourne_guy
Guest
Why would you try to promote any brand of spirituality besides catholicism? Your starting to sound a bit newage there
S
Steadfast_love
Guest
“Nope” says the OED.
Contemporary linguists define grammar as the underlying structure of a language that any native speaker of that language knows intuitively. The systematic description of the features of a language is also a grammar. These features are the phonology (sound), morphology (system of word formation), syntax (patterns of word arrangement), and semantics (meaning) that all native speakers of a language control by about the age of six. Depending on the grammarian’s approach, a grammar can be prescriptive (i.e., provide rules for correct usage), descriptive (i.e., describe how a language is actually used), or generative (i.e., provide instructions for the production of an infinite number of sentences in a language).
grammar. (2008). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved April 14, 2008, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: search.eb.com/eb/article-9037632
But even without bothering to look at the facts, note that the post itself is textbook gamesmanship.
Ad homonem attack with plausable denyability:
“Guess again”
A falsehood vaguely stated:
spelling comes under the umbrella of grammar.
And a projection of violent irrationality and implied threat. (Watch out his ‘gun’ is loaded! Oh noes!1!!!)
If you’re going to point a gun, make sure it’s loaded.
:yawn:
R
R_McGeddon
Guest
It does not say an outright no.
Tell me if words are formed using letters, then tell me if these letters should be put into their correct positions or not.
That sounds like spelling to me.
Hominem, plausible, deniability. You’re not doing too well for someone attacking my grasp of English.
Is it really a falsehood?
That was sarcasm, something that seems to be lost on you.
Yes, quite!:yawn:
S
Steadfast_love
Guest
Well then yours is not an outright falsehood.
Oh, so THAT is what “Falls under the umbrella of” means now? That in morphology words are formed by letters? In that case your statement is demonstrably false.
morphology
in linguistics, study of the internal construction of words. Languages vary widely in the degree to which words can be analyzed into word elements, or morphemes (And are morphemes letters?)
morphemes
in linguistics, the smallest grammatical unit of speech; it may be a word, like “place” or “an,” or an element of a word, like re- and -ed in “reappeared.” So-called isolating languages, such as Vietnamese, have a one-to-one correspondence of morphemes to words; i.e., no words contain more than one morpheme. Variants of a morpheme are called allomorphs; the ending -s, indicating plural in “cats,” “dogs,” the -es in “dishes,” and the -en of “oxen” are all allomorphs of the plural morpheme. The word “talked” is represented by two morphemes, “talk” and the past-tense morpheme, here indicated by -ed. The study of words and morphemes is included in morphology (q.v.).
Or perhaps you’d like to weasel your weasel words into yet another meaning?
Even without resorting to looking up information, note that in common usage people talk of spelling and grammar, just as they speak of peas and carrots, lighting and thunder, or this and that. That is to say, as two distinct things.
Gamesmanship is NOT a “grasp of English.” You may be good at sarcasm but you equivocate.
That depends on your still changing definition of what you meant. Care to go again?
Still, since you’ve been caught in a falsehood that macho-man sarcasm blows back on you. Oh imagine the look on your face when you realize that it is *your *guns that are not loaded!
M
mlchance
Guest
You still haven’t advanced an actual argument. Why is that all too often those who deride people of faith can’t rise above derision when challenged to provide a substantive defense of their beliefs?
– Mark L. Chance.
M
melbourne_guy
Guest
I am agnostic, i believe when i see evidence. Iv directly responded to the title of this thread on why theists are considered delusional, thats my argument! you quoted it but dismissed it as insulting (which it wasnt). If you think it was a lame and pathetic argument then it should be easy for you to refute. Please stop asking me for another argument because itll just be my old one but reworded.
R
R_McGeddon
Guest
Grammar is the study of the rules governing the use of a given natural language.
Does spelling not come under these rules?
No weasel words needed or used from me!
Just because something is in the vernacular, it does NOT make it correct.
For example, Cockney rhyming slang in London or any street slang for that matter, is in common usage. It is, nonetheless, incorrect.
There has been no equivocation on my part.
Where have I done this?
Anytime!
My gun is still loaded!!Still, since you’ve been caught in a falsehood that macho-man sarcasm blows back on you. Oh imagine the look on your face when you realize that it is *your *guns that are not loaded!
S
Schultzz
Guest
It’s no sin to be stupid, but do you ever think that you might be abusing the privilege? You sound like a little kid. How old are you?
V
VociMike
Guest
So what God-excluding evidence do you offer that accounts for the existence of the universe? Such evidence is crucial if your viewpoint is to be considered somehow more rational than that of theism. Otherwise what you hold to is just another form of faith.
C
clmowry
Guest
“That word, you keep using it, I do no’ think you know what it means.” - Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride (1987)
Sorry, I couldn’t resist…
Lets see if I can get this right: Remember “I is an engineer.”
“Linguistics is the scientific study of language. General (or theoretical) linguistics encompasses a number of sub-fields, such as the study of language structure (grammar) and meaning (semantics).”
“Grammar is the study of the rules governing the use of a given natural language, and, as such, is a field of linguistics. Traditionally, grammar included morphology and syntax; in modern linguistics these subfields are complemented by phonetics, phonology, semantics, and pragmatics.”
“Morphology is the field of linguistics that studies the internal structure of words. (Words as units in the lexicon are the subject matter of lexicology.) While words are generally accepted as being (with clitics) the smallest units of syntax, it is clear that in most (if not all) languages, words can be related to other words by rules. For example, English speakers recognize that the words dog, dogs, and dog-catcher are closely related. English speakers recognize these relations from their tacit knowledge of the rules of word-formation in English. They intuit that dog is to dogs as cat is to cats; similarly, dog is to dog-catcher as dish is to dishwasher. The rules understood by the speaker reflect specific patterns (or regularities) in the way words are formed from smaller units and how those smaller units interact in speech. In this way, morphology is the branch of linguistics that studies patterns of word-formation within and across languages, and attempts to formulate rules that model the knowledge of the speakers of those languages.”
None of which seem to cover “Spelling”.
Spelling on the other hand seems to fall under:
“Orthography of a language specifies the correct way of using a specific writing system to write the language.”
“Spelling is the writing of a word or words with all necessary letters and diacritics present in an accepted standard order. It is one of the elements of orthography and a prescriptive element of language.”
I’m guessing this is why my elementary school used to have me take “spelling” and “language arts”.
I always wondered why they were not one class.
Chuck
M
mlchance
Guest
So, IOW, you actually don’t have an argument. I’m not sure how I’m to refute something that doesn’t actually advance a conclusion based on a series of propositions.
– Mark L. Chance.
R
R_McGeddon
Guest
I can’t help but think that to use a language correctly, as stated above, you must spell the words correctly as well.
- Status