>be me
>writer
>hoping to publish a short story
>not quite there yet

>apply for teaching job in my field (stem)
>'okay anon, do these tests'
>one of them is english grammar
>i can only do 50% of the test

help me recover from this humiliation

i'm looking for a good, comprehensive grammar and syntax guide. also if anyone has an overview of how and why the rules have evolved and changed over the years then that would also be great

>>24598907 (OP)
First language speakers tend to not "know" grammar rules because they live it. Because it isn't a learnt skill but an instinctual behaviour, first language speakers can't explain how their grammar functions very well.

>>24598907 (OP)
Elements of Style by Strunk and White

>also if anyone has an overview of how and why the rules have evolved and changed over the years then that would also be great
English grammar is largely based on Latin grammar structures. You don’t need to know this, for your purposes, unless you’re planning on being a linguist or something.

>>24598912
Well done anon, extremely unhelpful post

>>24598976
>Elements of Style by Strunk and White
This is not a grammar book

>>24598907 (OP)
it would be better for you to read more. You need mountains of comprehensible input. Language and grammar are acquired naturally and organically from stories. You aren't reading enough.

>>24599001
Cheers cunt, I'm not here to help, I'm here to piss in your fucking pocket.

>>24598976
thanks for the rec but i think >>24599015 is right. i've looked through elements of style before and it wasn't what i wanted

>>24599017
anon, i don't actually have a grammar problem, it's more like what >>24598912 said.

i know i got the grammar right on the test. when i was asked to name things like 'auxillary nouns' though, i had no fucking clue what they were and i think that'll hurt me in the long run.

i want a resource that helps me name things so that i can better use the grammar skills that i already have.

>>24599015
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37134/37134-h/37134-h.htm
Learn to read.

>>24598907 (OP)
Understanding English Grammar, by Koln, Gray, Salvatore
I saw that one recommended somewhere

there is also the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, but that's insanely in depth for linguists I think

>>24599015
>>24599043
I think these posters stumbled in from bizarro world
>>24599048
is clearly a grammar book

>>24599056
thanks anon, this seems to be what i was looking for. i'll also check out the cambridge one later someday, seems like a fun book to have around

i'm gonna also look towards other posters. surely people have opinions on this stuff. and i'd like to hear about them

>>24599048
>>24599058
I've already read it, in middle school, which is fitting, because it's a style guide for middle schoolers. Its ability to teach grammar is only incidental to its prescriptions of style. It's not a comprehensive book on grammar.

>>24598912
It wasn't that long ago that diagramming out sentences was a common grade school activity. Children aren't taught grammar in any formal way because our education system has degenerated. We all know why, or probably (((why))) I won't derail the thread further.

I don't think there's such a thing as a "comprehensive" guide, but pic related might be what you're looking for. It goes pretty deep. I'm only up to the Bs so far but it's already taught me a lot.

If im understanding what your looking for check out Rediscover Grammar by David Crystal and its supplementary book Making Sense of Grammar.

>>24599100
Maybe OP needs the middle schooler book since he couldn’t even finish half of the grammar test for a STEM job.
>Children aren't taught grammar in any formal way
Since when? Most schools do teach grammar, unless you’re in the ghetto. Then you’re just coloring pictures of nikes

>>24599135
It's not what OP asked for, it's not what he needs, and grammar is not what the book provides, so MAYBE NOT.

>Most schools teach grammar
Poorly. Find me a single zoomer who even knows what a sentence diagram is. Besides me.

>>24599149
It doesn’t matter what schools teach if kids don’t give a shit. Probably less to do with the curriculum and more with the fact they’re all using AI to handle their cognitive faculties

>>24599116
Grammar is white people's terms of service

>>24599175
This is true but ai is recent and the decline is decades long.

>>24599149
>sentence diagram
How dumb are you that you think diagraming sentences is a signifier of anything other than special ed? Did they make you break down the syllables one by one as well?

>>24599183
Sentence diagraming was removed because it was shown not to materially help with teaching, unless the student had difficulty distinguishing words from one another. Which makes sense. Can’t imagine this being helpful for anyone unless all words look the same to them.

>>24599183
No they didn't make me do anything which is why I frankly didn't have an adult's grasp of grammar until I learned German in college.

>>24599198
>it was (((shown)))
Yes, diagramming is for children. It's just a foundational exercise but it assists in formal understanding. Handwaving away diagramming so you can coast by on intuition is why college students can no longer read Dickens, per some meme study i saw posted here as bait a month ago. It's also why OP admittedly doesn't even posses the vocabulary to precisely articulate for what he's looking (dangle this, nerd).


Tell ya huwhat, I'll give you an upvote if you can correct the following sentence (don't worry, it has nothing to do with diagrams):

We assured the staff, despite the mispelling on the reservation, that we were them.

>>24599227
Nice one. I'm betting nobody is going to post the correct version.

>>24599227
>>24599236
Samefagging.

>We assured the staff, despite the mispelling on the reservation, that we were them.
>We assured the staff, despite the misspelling on the reservation, that we were there.
Duhhhh….

>>24599275
>we were there
No that's modifying the semantics but good job on the misspelling at least (I couldn't resist). You did miss something.

>>24599227

> We assured the staff, despite the mispelling on the reservation, that we were them.
We assured the staff that, despite the misspelling on the reservation, we were they.

>>24599282
>muh semantics
Wrong. “Them” in “we were them” is in reference to our misspelled names on the reservation. Changing “them” to “there” doesn’t modify semantics since “we” are already in the sentence. Creating a distinction between us and “them” (the misspelled names) is semantically redundant and goes against the message we’re trying to convey: that we are the same as the names on the reservation. Changing “we were them” to “we were there” actually clarifies the meaning of the sentence while correcting the grammatical error. You’re welcome.

>>24599116
>>24599133
thanks anons, i'll check these out tomorrow

>>24599321
That's fine, except no native English speaker would ever say "we were they."

>>24599448
>That's fine, except no native English speaker would ever say "we were they."
Except plenty would as a way of demonstrating how arch they are. It is a classed move. Also it is incorrect, because the tense is wrong, "we *are* they." The assurance is a sub-clause which requires it be given in present tense as its a paraphrase of what was said *at that time* in the past.

Compare to "Except us cunts told those cunts the typo meant shit because we are us."

>>24599460

Mine apologies.

>>24599227
Dat shiet easy yt boi, its “that we WAS them.” Dumb cracka ass

>>24598912
Fpbp. ESLs on suicide watch.

>>24599381
No, sorry. "We are they to whom those misspelled names were meant to refer" is something like what you were after but unable to reach. And the them has nothing to do with mispelled names, that's you misunderstanding grammar.

OP sounds profoundly retarded.

>>24598907 (OP)
I would recommend first reading an intermediate Cambridge grammar textbook to understand an overview of the different tenses, modal verbs, conditionals, clause constructions and especially what phrasal verbs are in English. Picrel is advanced level grammar that if you are a native speaker, you know intuitively, but is very hard for ESLs to grasp. For example reversing word order for emphasis is an advanced tier construction.
>Not only does OP not understand English grammar, but he is a faggot too

> an overview of how and why the rules have evolved and changed over the years then that would also be great
This is a completely different subject and kind of pointless to learn unless you study historical linguistics. Learning that English irregular verbs are actually regular but in separate categories makes them a lot more difficult than just labeling them as "irregular" and forcing rote memorization.

You will basically have to teach yourself English grammar even if you are native before you can teach it to ESLs
>t. former business English teacher that worked for a few multinational corporations

>>24598907 (OP)

I'd start with a little sentence diagramming workbook.

>>24599183
Sentence diagrams are like training wheels for actual formal theories of grammar. You may not like it, but it's trees all the way down, nigga.

>>24600212
anon i think picrel takes diagramming too far

what am i going to gain from diagramming anyways that i wouldn't gain from just reading the rules

>>24600098
>"We are they to whom those misspelled names were meant to refer"
This is grammatically incorrect because of the use of "they" as a subject complement after "are" and the relative pronoun "whom." Not to mention that you said to correct the sentence, not rewrite it entirely. You broke your own rules about “changing semantics” and still made a worse sentence. Hilarious.
>And the them has nothing to do with mispelled names
“Them” is the misspelled names. How are you getting filtered by the sentence you wrote yourself? And I’m glad that you’re finally admitting here that the “mispelling” on your part was a genuine mistake, rather than part of that retarded exercise.

>>24600212
>actual formal theories of grammar
Acshually? That’s so cool bro. No one gives a shit about grammar rules beyond their utility for clear and effective communication. This autistic diagram for an extremely simple sentence is also not helping your case of “this shit is deeper bro trust me.” Do me a favor and diagram up all these sentences like the anal-retentive obsessive you are.

>>24598976
>Elements of Style by Strunk and White
OP asked for a Grammar book, not a prescriptive style guide.
>English grammar is largely based on Latin grammar structures.
No. No it is not. This is laughably wrong. Modern English Noun declensions (to the extent we have any), and verb conjugations are in no way descended from, or even meaningfully analogous to, Latin grammar structures. Modern English syntax (such as 'leading dos', the progressive-aspect, the completely lack of a distinct past-participle outside of strong verbs) are fairly recent developments, and even the further back ones (the very concept of strong vs. weak verbs, the constant use of auxiliary verbs, the complete lack of a non-AV based future tense, the existence of umlaut-plurals, the cliticization of the genitive) is all pure Germanic, and has direct analogues in Dutch, German, Danish, etc. The only real grammatical feature of modern English which does descend from Latin is the use of the phrase 'X of Y' instead of 'Y's X', to denote possession in some circumstances. That's it.

>>24599810
Valid and true for your english variant.

>>24601147
>Modern English Noun declensions (to the extent we have any), and verb conjugations are in no way descended from, or even meaningfully analogous to, Latin grammar structures
I said English grammar was largely based on Latin, not that every single aspect of “modern English” grammar descended from Latin. Replying to a general statement with a laundry list of technical exceptions is a textbook example of obsessive histrionics. Show a little self-restraint.
>The only real grammatical feature of modern English which does descend from Latin…
Wrong. Why even type something of this length if you don’t even know about Bullokar? There is a reason the majority of the terminology we use to describe English grammar is of Latin and Greek origin, and the earliest English grammarians wrote their publications entirely in Latin. Connect the dots, or don’t. Not my fault you have poor impulse control. You respond to every technicality’s beck and call like a cucked Redditor, hungry for upvotes.

>>24601106
Diagrams are just an exercise bro, calm down. Everybody does exercises, from sportsmen to musicians to chess players.

>>24601299
Only a fat person would diagram a sentence about chocolate cake. So….

>>24601003
>This is grammatically incorrect because of the use of "they" as a subject complement after "are" and the relative pronoun "whom."
Wrong. Is this a chatgpt response? lmao

The verb "to be" is an exceptional case because of its semantic content. The object IS the subject so of course you wouldn't use an objective form, unless of course we were located in a passive clause( hence, whom.)

>“Them” is the misspelled names. How are you getting filtered by the sentence you wrote yourself?
No. How clauses actually work is clearly confusing to you. Excessive chatbot reliance has evidently rotted out your brain. As a remedial exercise, I suggest you diagram it out. Maybe thatll help.

>Not to mention that you said to correct the sentence, not rewrite it entirely
And yet, that's what you did, in spite of my instructions; not to mention you initially bragged about doing earlier in the thread. I was only showing you what a correct revision might actually look like.

>>24601290
>a textbook example of obsessive histrionics.
Link the textbook

>>24601324
>“We are they to whom those misspelled names were meant to refer”
The fact you think someone needs AI to perceive how unnatural and incorrect this sentence is, may be an indication you are actually ESL. I already explained to you why this was incorrect. Nothing to do with “semantics,” you wrote a sentence that was structured incorrectly.
>And yet, that's what you did…
I changed a single word, while you had to write an entirely new sentence to complete an exercise that you created. A sentence that was both wrong and completely unnatural from what a natural English speaker would say.

To top things off, you wrote “misspelled” as “mispelled” twice. Even the ESLs get that one right.

>>24601344
>I changed a single word, while you had to write an entirely new sentence to complete an exercise that you created. A sentence that was both wrong and completely unnatural from what a natural English speaker would say.
Yes, you changed but a single itty bitty word yet managed to fuck up so much: not only did you render the sentence illiterate gibberish because you don't understand how clauses work, but you also failed to grasp the crux of the example.

Furthermore I didn't "have" to write a new sentence. The correct sentence was already given. I wrote that second sentence to better explain to you the the grammatical function expressed in the example at hand in a perfectly direct manner. That's the last time I try and do you a favour, you retarded cretin.

>To top things off, you wrote “misspelled” as “mispelled” twice. Even the ESLs get that one right
Are the ESLs in the room with us right now? I misspelled misspelled exactly zero times, intentionally.

If you want some more homework, other than the diagramming I've already assigned, try and come up with something better than esl accusations to distract from the fact that you're wrong, and that your vague dumbass zoomer grammar "vibes" aren't sharp enough to shepard you through advanced grammatical constructions; neither is chatgpt sufficiently equipped either to save your ass, not at its current level of advancement, though admittedly if this matter were about counting the r's in strawberry you might have me beat.

Can you cunts please stop misspelling misspelt.

>>24601382
>Yes
I accept your concession. Frankly, I’m surprised it took you this long to admit how poorly worded your example was. It was probably too much trouble for you to come up with the correct version, so you opted to make a whole new sentence. Well, now you know better.
>advanced grammatical constructions
I’m sure if you tell the staff at Maggiano’s that “we are they to whom those misspelled names were meant to refer,” they will definitely not look at you in confusion or laugh at you for being an ESL retard. They’ll send your party straight up to the special dining room they reserve for advanced grammatical construction workers.

You do know the point of grammar is to communicate clearly. Right?

>>24599100
>retard needs to diagram every word in a sentence to understand it
>parents try to be encouraging by telling him he’s doing “advanced grammatical constructions”
>he needs to draw the Burj Khalifa every time he tries to parse out “Mary had a little lamb”

grim.

>>24601403
>You do know the point of grammar is to
fool other chimpanzee relatives in sex and food distribution?

>>24601438
He’s almost done with charlotte’s web. Give him a few more days.

>>24601403
It's clear to me. I think you're just dumb, unc. You literally can't keep more than two clauses straight in your head. On god lmao

>i-i-t wasn't clear
It wasn't clear to you because you are a smoothbrain and you need remedial diagrams

>>24601438
This chatbot fried zoomer is so mad his adhd brain can't tackle any grammar not dumbed down for inter city monkey esls raised by single mothers.

Let's see you shit your pants (can you even understand this?):

>London. Michaelmas term lately over, and the Lord Chancellor sitting
in Lincoln’s Inn Hall. Implacable November weather. As much mud in
the streets as if the waters had but newly retired from the face of
the earth, and it would not be wonderful to meet a Megalosaurus,
forty feet long or so, waddling like an elephantine lizard up Holborn
Hill. Smoke lowering down from chimney-pots, making a soft black
drizzle, with flakes of soot in it as big as full-grown
snowflakes—gone into mourning, one might imagine, for the death of
the sun. Dogs, undistinguishable in mire. Horses, scarcely better;
splashed to their very blinkers. Foot passengers, jostling one
another’s umbrellas in a general infection of ill temper, and losing
their foot-hold at street-corners, where tens of thousands of other
foot passengers have been slipping and sliding since the day broke
(if this day ever broke), adding new deposits to the crust upon crust
of mud, sticking at those points tenaciously to the pavement, and accumulating at compound interest.

>>24601731
I like how the deliberate absence of correct existential verbs produces a "non-subject" structure to the ontology of this descriptive passage.

>>24599198
Is that what it looks like? Wtf its so odd and messy.

>>24601403
>You do know the point of grammar is to communicate clearly
Where does it say that? Grammar has no intrinsic point.

>>24601704
You seem to fall back on zoomer vernacular when you’re getting embarrassed. I guess there’s no point in keeping up the disguise when you’ve been rightfully clocked as an ESL. Good riddance!

>>24601731
>retard ESL copy/pastes the Dickens excerpt from that ragebait article posted a month ago
>th-that’ll show him!
You’re such a pitiful, predictable creature.
>Let's see you shit your pants
You would probably want to see that. I can tell you’re Indian.

>>24601748
deliberate absence of brain cells in this niggas head. Go back to Pseud Town you dumb nigga

>>24601731
>This chatbot fried zoomer is so mad his adhd brain can't tackle any grammar not dumbed down for inter city monkey esls raised by single mothers

Very stream of consciousness, anon. Are you feeling alright?

>>24601833
I'm sorry you're ignorant of the text.

>>24601764
It is. But when you’re making tools for struggling students who have trouble distinguishing words from one another, these are the lengths you have to go to.

Shut up guise I’m building advanced grammatical constructions

>>24598907 (OP)
>grammar learning sources?
Immersion, which is to say trick a bitch into loving you.

>>24598912
>believes that being a native gives him a command of the English expected in an academic context
>believes native speakers don't make grammatical mistakes
>believes their everyday idiom is sufficiently complex to regularly engage all the rules of grammar
>implying half the people isn't unaware of the difference between its and it's
grammar didn't done nuffin

>>24601952
>>believes that being a native gives him a command of the English expected in an academic context
I am an academic native, an academic, son of an academic, raised by academics.
>believes native speakers don't make grammatical mistakes
Not in English they don't. English is the whorespread left behind after through useage. Yes: useage. English is its native useage, its correct rules are created in use by natives.
>believes their everyday idiom is sufficiently complex to regularly engage all the rules of grammar
Might want to read Chomsky there fellah
>implying half the people isn't unaware of the difference between its and it's
It's doesn't matter: we been gone doing this long time fellah. We made orderly Norman-French our bitch. Now we be gonna raping your language for its words.

You're also want to look up sociolect differentiation in English, son, pick up that can, son.

>>24601952
>implying half the people isn't unaware of the difference between its and it's
implying half the people isn't unaware? You mean implying half the people AREN’T unaware. ESL retard.

>thread full of retarded faggots arguing over who has the best grammar
>none of them writing anything of note
>all of them will die having done nothing with the so-called intelligence they believe they have
You all deserve this, you know.

>>24598907 (OP)
huh, what kind of questions were you not able to answer?

>>24602141
They asked him to explain what a sentence meant, without giving him enough scratch paper to diagram it all.

>>24602070
I'm a native so I can't be wrong, sorry

>>24598907 (OP)
Cambridge's A Students Introduction to English Grammar or Oxford's Modern English Grammar.

>>24602198
No elements of style is better

>>24602203
Elements of Style is just a big list of exceptions for you to memorize so you can pretend to be smart because trivia! Oxford and Cambridge are about understanding grammar and the exceptions so you can actually use the exceptions to your advantage instead of being retarded.

>>24602218
You are anal-retentive and too concerned with what other people think of you. Like a woman who thinks reading all the Harry Potter books will prepare her for watching the movies.

>>24602239
nta but you might be retarded. Descriptive grammar is not the way to make friends.

>>24602243
Even capitalization rules are too much for you to handle. Why would anyone take your advice on grammar?

>>24602243
>Descriptive grammar is not the way to make friends
>no I don’t talk to native speakers I just recite grammar rules all day
Being hyper-fixated on rules and being unwilling to adapt is clear Asperger’s, by the way.

>>24601828
>I-i know, i-i'll stutter post like the other anon just did and hopefully nobody notices my IQ is 56, the same age as my Dad when his shriveled silent gen dick puffed out one last se-man up which to knock my crack whore mudda.

Erm, uh, nice try

Aside from exposing yourself as a retard unfamiliar with grammar, who's too stupid for children's grammar drills, and who can't even understand one the english language's most celebrated writers, you're creatively bankrupt on top of it all. You'll never come up with something intelligent, not least of all because you're illiterate and therefore couldn't express it in the miraculous, reality-shattering event that you did, so at least come up with something funny or just fuck off back to Claude so your ai waifu can encourage to slit your wrists and join xir in the Matrix, not that you could even manage that, because, as has been mentioned already, your brain has ai-trophied. Also, you're ugly.

>>24601850
Fuck off peterstein poster

>>24602192
This is true though. Accents and ethnic speech quirks are always going to stand out more than poor grammar. I taught second language learners and they picked up on grammar rules fast, to the point they probably used them more consistently than I do. But their thick accents, Indian and Slavic especially, made it a lot harder to understand them despite their knowledge. Funny thing is most ESL instructors are taught not to help with accents: apparently it’s culturally insensitive to do so.

So now we got a bunch of ESLs who have great grammar, but nobody can understand a thing they’re saying. Would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

>>24602169
The assmad is so palpable. Are you gonna cope post the entire thread to try and disguise the fact your knowledge of grammar is as inadequate as your peenis and the idea of children's grammar exercises causes you to break out in painful hemorrhoids?

>>24604190
>>24604219
>Replies with his personal fetish art, a Reddit meme from 2016, and word vomit containing all the adjectives his slow mind can come up with
If you told me it would be this easy to break your mind, I would have done so earlier.

>>24604240
a simple no would have sufficed

>>24598912
jfc I hate bri ish spelling

>>24604190
>gets called Indian
>starts spiraling immediately

you cannot redeeeeeem it, saar

>>24604115
There are no grammar rules in descriptive grammar, it describes usage and judges the quality and effectiveness of usage. Prescriptive grammar prescribes usage through rules and exceptions to rules. Rather sad you could not reason that out, their names are very descriptive. Nta, I am the previous anon.

>>24604423
Nowhere in the post you’re quoting is there any suggestion that descriptive grammar is rule-based. There is in fact an explicit distinction being made between descriptive grammar (emphasizing how language is actually used, by talking with native speakers) as opposed to prescriptive grammar (obsessing over rules like the ESL studying for a citizenship test). The fact you’re struggling to parse this out is fucking hilarious.

>>24604471
I get that but the post as a whole in context of the thread suggests not having actually thought through and understood what these things are, left them as bits of trivia to recite which is ironic considering that last line. The weirdly constructed green text does not help, forcing things with a quote taken out of context. I bet he is great fun at parties.

>>24604423
>esl retard tries to “erm actually” like a true redditor
>accidentally reveals he got filtered by a two sentence reply
never change, /lit/

>>24604543
>I get that
You clearly didn’t. You made a retarded response defining things that were never in contention to begin with. You write like a kid with Asperger’s, spewing word vomit instead of addressing the content of a post.
>The weirdly constructed green text does not help
You can’t accuse others of being ill-informed when you get tripped up over two sentences. I wonder if you’re capable of even parsing out this reply, or if you’ll need to diagram it out like the other retard ITT.

>>24604190
why do troons always think posting their porn is a rebuttal? do they get off on the humiliation?

>>24604609
>I wonder if you’re capable of even parsing out this reply, or if you’ll need to diagram it out like the other retard ITT.
So you don't know what descriptive grammar is and you do reduce it to a bit of trivia? Sentence diagrams in descriptive grammar are not about parsing sentences, they are about analyzing usage.

>>24604730
Wow, you really struggle with reading comprehension. The last sentence had nothing to do with descriptive grammar. Are you hallucinating, or is your brain still stuck on the first sentence? They should put you in a zoo lmao

>>24604385
>>24604644
I hope you're not angling for a career in creative writing. Maybe you should slink back to the off topic coomer threads that suddenly populate the board with illiterate retard tourists like you around

>>24604800
You project your fetishes onto others when you get humiliated. The fact you randomly talk about creative writing, even though none of those users mentioned it, probably indicates you write some shitty web novel where you go into even more detail about your strange fantasies. Stop being a degenerate and learn to talk like a human.

>>24604800
>Maybe you should slink back to the off topic coomer threads

you're the only one ITT who posted porn lol

>>24604830
i missed the porn my hand is ready

>>24604800
mind broken
ESL BTFO

>>24604800
SAAR YOU CANNOT HAVE MONEY I CAN HAVE MONEY DO THE NEEDFUL

>>24604814
>>24604830
>>24604839
>>24604843
LMAO WE NAILED EM

>>24604858
Why is every response from you an image now? What happened to your advanced grammatical constructions? Are you degenerating? Don't leave us hanging, saar.

>>24604870
Because you're boring and haven't said anything else for me to make fun of in a while. just cheap theatrics. How many posts has it been since you even broached the topic of grammar? Still working on grokking that Dickens passage?

>>24604956
You got filtered by a sentence you wrote yourself. I don't think that's happened to anyone on this site before.

>>24604956
>you're not talking about grammar

nigger you posted fetish art after being proven wrong

>>24604999
porn is based and idc about the argument, just standing for all artists out there. unless it had brown people or scat

>>24605004
does it count if the poster is brown

>>24605024
ACK. What if george floyd linked a photo of the statue of venus? you cant let the unwashed hordes degrade the art. i didn't see the post though, and its true such curation is not to be trusted

Can't believe no one's mentioned the GOAT

>>24605102
I don’t live in Chicago though

>>24599198
>turtle The ran slowly and steadily

>>24601324
>The verb "to be" is an exceptional case because of its semantic content

“To be” isn’t in any of the sentences you wrote though

>>24604988
Is that your confabulated head canon? Surely you're aware the thread is still up and everyone can read you fail, then, and subsequently.

>>24605158
Is, bro

>>24605203
>We assured the staff, despite the mispelling on the reservation, that we were them.
>"We are they to whom those misspelled names were meant to refer"
Where is “to be” here?
Also Ctrl F shows your reply was the second instance of “to be.” The first is from the OP thanking another user for something unrelated.

>>24605225
Are... as in are you serious?

>>24605225
He won’t answer since he knows his reply was nonsensical. I don’t know where a tard that has to draw blueprints to learn grammar gets that level of confidence. Probably drug abuse.

>>24605225
And "were" in the first quote

>>24605234
See for yourself.

>>24605235
Lmao you keep embarassing yourself

>>24605244
Your explanation for why the grammar was correct involves a verb that wasn’t even in the original sentence. You’re a tard.

>>24605240
No, you don't seem to understand. Are, is, were, etc are forms of being i.e. "to be."

For example, when you answer a phone, and someone asks
>Is this anon?
You don't say
>Yes, this is him
You say
>Yes, this is he
Or
>I'm he
>etc
It's not something you'll ever hear, not in this decade, but that's what's considered grammatically correct. You'd hardly hear it fifty years ago either, but the educated population would have at least heard of it. Nowadays if you mention it, as I have here, you get grandiose illiterate babies throwing shit fits

>>24605247
You are stupid. It's been demonstrated repeatedly.

>>24605263
>It's not something you'll ever hear, not in this decade, but that's what's considered grammatically correct. You'd hardly hear it fifty years ago either
So even if the retarded sentence you came up with was grammatically correct, it’s so archaic that it may as well be completely unintelligible to native speakers. This is why you’re all alone reposting fetish art.

>>24605263
>Are, is, were, etc are forms of being i.e. "to be."
>”to be or not to be”
>are or are
Lmao

>>24598907 (OP)
The grammar my hammer for banging out meaning
luscious and tasty of deliciousness teeming
but stekering shikkarous and labbering blitherous
the box of my wonders and glimmering numerous
crushed under babbles beligerous and twinging temgorous

>>24605289
if i still archived anymore i would screenshot this post because the non-sequitor is very funny but may also be true somehow given the mystic nature of the world

>>24605263
>ESL learned english from a book dated over 50 years ago
>coping because no one understands him
It’s alright saar, we send fresh new textbook to your village. Send 60 rupees Saar

>>24605289
It's not really archaic, you're just a nigger.

It'll never obsolete because, again, as I already explained, it's a rule derived from the meaning of being itself, which isn't going away any time soon.

Now, understand that the problem here is not that you didn't know the answer to a grammar 101 question I came up with in five seconds---it's that you were unable to even understand the correct answer and its explanation when given.

If you're even the same original anon, no. 1 you don't understand how basic clauses function and relate to eachother and no. 2, when I gave you another sentence to illustrate the same principle, you literally couldn't parse it. You and evidently several other anons in this very thread can be told (as you were in my explanation) about the verb "to be" and you can't recognize that "is" is a form of that verb. That's a SEVERE problem. You had to ctrl-f and when you didn't see any hits on the literal words "to be" and you did victory laps for 3 days until someone else brought it up.

It's really stunning. This entire thread is proof-pudding on the degenerate state of modern education on grammar---again, it's not that zoomers are just uneducated, it's that the average zoomer is SO uneducated that he isn't even equipped with the basic faculties necessary to educate himself at all! When he's given the answer! This is a SINCERE problem. It's clown world.

I don't know what the fuck this thread became but study another language or find some old English grammar book. It is quite dated but I oddly enjoyed paging through "A Royal English Grammar." It can be found easily.
It helps also to translate the weird Latin terms into English
>Nominative means naming case

>>24605353
Your IQ is so low you have to be brown. Post hand

>>24605355
>>24605263
>It's not really archaic
>You'd hardly hear it fifty years ago
Why do you make this so easy? You admit it would have been weird and old fashioned for people to speak this way over 50 years ago. Meaning that grammar is even older than that. That’s archaic.
>This entire thread is proof-pudding on the degenerate state of modern education
Proof-pudding? I know you’re trying to say “the proof is in the pudding,” but if you’re going to shorten it, why not just say “proof?” You’re such a fucking retard lmao

>>24605387
>proof-pudding

>>24605387
>proof-pudding

>>24605387
>it's archaic
Actually that's not what archaic means. Some of Chaucer's language is occasionally archaic--it's an extreme term. This is not even obsolete. Probably it would be called "rare," and the only reason for that designation is because the masses are now like they always were, namely uneducated retards, such as you are. You are black retarded gorilla nigger and the truth is you're not entitled to comment on how educated white people structure their language and communicate.

>Proof-pudding
It's an offhand coinage clearly constructed from the phrase that it could fit into my sentence in exactly the manner i desired. Intelligent people form these themselves and have no trouble understanding those of others.

>>24605419
Archaic means old fashioned. Look it up, that’s the definition. Stop digging for excuses in the proof-pudding-in-your-ass.
>It's an offhand coinage
“Proof is in the pudding” means something is self-evident. But if you’re saying “this thread is proof on the degenerate state of education,” then it’s not self-evident anymore. The thread is the proof now. So not only did you misunderstand the phrase, but your “coinage” was completely unnecessary. The one word you could have used is in it already, but you retardedly tacked on “pudding” as if it’s doing something there. Fucking hilarious

>>24605437
>Archaic means
Whatever I cause it to mean. OED is a useage dictionary. Puddings contain a coin by the way, and it looks like you swallowed.
>>24605419
You need a good shooting for political reasons.

>>24605448
>Whatever I cause it to mean
So you finally admit that you have no idea what words mean, so you just prescribe your own retarded guesses and expect others to know what you’re talking about. Makes sense. Only a drooling retard would write “proof-pudding” and genuinely think that’s something clever. “Offhand coinage,” lmfao

>>24605469
You missed that I abused both of you, therefore I'm not either of you.

"Proof-pudding" is a standard phrase in English by the way.

>>24605477
If you could read, the point still stands. Nothing “you caused to mean” has any bearing in your life or ITT. You can’t control definitions anymore than the undulations of whatever pathetic life you lead.

>>24605481
Oh you can control definitions mate. Read D&G as a political text.

>>24605437
>Archaic means old fashioned
An extreme degree of old-fashionedness of which the rule is no example.

So, you're wrong, once again.

>Proof is in the pudding” means something is self-evident.
You could bother to take literally ten seconds to verify whether your understanding before posting, but really it's a lifetime of such poor habits that have caused your monkey retardation here on display for us now. Pic related. Uneducated zoomer retardation has to be experienced to be believed, like this thread.

So you're demonstrably wrong yet again. Honestly, why do you bother posting and spreading your lazy pig ignorance?

thinking of masturbating soon

>>24605481
>undulations
I don't think you know what that word means, sweatie. Try a dictionary sometime instead of coasting by on vibes with your brain turned off. Pray you can turn it back on

>>24606941
>ESL can’t comprehend words over 5 letters
>thinks it’s being used incorrectly
Retard.

>>24606248
>retard doesn’t know what archaic means
You made an archaic sentence no one has used or even heard used over 50 years ago. Keep coping.
>AI definition
What do you think it means when something is being judged after being tried or experienced? It means the experience itself (not some external proof) justifies the final outcome. Aka, it is self evident. You are so illiterate, that you’ve posted an explanation that proves me right. How embarrassing lmao

>>24605419

why not just say “proof”? just reading the sentence shows proof works exactly the same semantically for that sentence. adding “pudding” brings nothing to this. not sure why you’re defending this so adamantly

>>24606248
>AI SLOP
looks like this faggot’s brain has ai-trophied. Good riddance

>>24606248
“the proof of the pudding is in the eating (or tasting)” is the original phrase. so the quality (or low quality) of something is experienced through experiencing it.

your original sentence was about this “thread demonstrating the degenerate state of education”. “proof pudding” would only make sense if you were actually going through that said education first-hand, not by just reading a thread on /lit/.

>>24601147
Reddit answer.

>>24607637
It is. It's such a lousy usage it's a tell you really don't know the word

>>24607649
>it proves me right
That's funny because it describes exactly how I used the term, meanwhile the only way it suggests "self evidence" is to so far generalize the term as to render it useless and insufficient to justify your claim I used it wrong to begin with

>archaic
You still don't know what that. Honestly, what the fuck do you know? Everything out of your mouth is wrong. You don't know clauses, parts of speech, idiom, vocabulary, anything, and yet you continue to reply and embarass yourself.

>>24607670
Because I'm a native speaker with an iq above 56 so idiom comes naturally to me.

>>24607684
Google summary confirming what I already know and am showing you is different from having a chatbot do your analysis for you, not that you'd understand that. Notice how you don't contest the point, because I'm right and you and your jeet squad are wrong yet again.

>>24607725
Are you brain damaged? How zoomers write, such as can be read in this thread, is directly a product of their education in the English language;furthermore their thoughts here expressed are literally about english education

>>24608927
>meanwhile the only way it suggests "self evidence"
I said “self-evident,” not “self evidence.”Self evidence” would be evidence that you (the self) exist. Completely irrelevant to this discussion, and only a mistake an ESL could get confused with.
>I used it wrong to begin with
I know you did. The phrase is “the proof is in the pudding,” not “the proof is in the /lit/ thread that mentions the pudding.”
>Because I'm a native speaker with an iq above 56 so idiom comes naturally to me
You think having a 57 IQ is something to be proud of? Are IQ tests weighted differently in the shithole you hail from, or is this just another subconscious concession you’re making to avoid further embarrassment?

>>24608927

>How zoomers write, such as can be read in this thread, is directly a product of their education in the English language;furthermore their thoughts here expressed are literally about english education

Then the proof isn’t in the pudding anymore. The proof is in the thread. If you think education has degenerated, and you say “the proof is in the pudding,” then the degeneracy can be proven just by experiencing the education.

But pointing to a thread as proof of a separate concept (degenerate education), means the proof exists outside the pudding. In that case, you would just say “this thread is proof of so and so…”

This is self-evident by the way, because the sentence would work without you retardedly adding “pudding” to it. The fact people have to break this down for you as to why the phrase “proof pudding” doesn't work here is honestly sad.

>>24608964
>I said “self-evident,” not “self evidence
lmao self-evidence meaning you the general quality of being self-evident, you utter mong. You have major trouble with forms

>I know you did. The phrase is “the proof is in the pudding,” not “the proof is in the /lit/ thread that mentions the pudding.”
You must be melting down this is gibberish

>You think having a 57 IQ is something to be proud of?
Does not logically follow from what I said, retard. Can you even tie your shoes?

>>24608927
>”this entire thread is proof-pudding on the degenerate state of modern education”
>yes “pudding” is completely necessary for the above sentence. i am not ESL by the way
be for real

>>24608985
>lmao self-evidence meaning you the general quality of being self-evident
You’re just replying with word salad again. I wonder if your mind is broken for good?
>You must be melting down this is gibberish
Your self-admitted IQ isn’t high enough to understand this. Read Hegel’s The Phenomenology of Spirit and you’ll understand. Try not to diagram every word he writes or you’ll be stuck for years.

>>24608981
>Then the proof isn’t in the pudding anymore. The proof is in the thread
How can you write this sincerely? Is your brain so seriously atrophied it's unable to see the thread as the pudding.

>because the sentence would work without it
Logically irrelevant when it works WITH it too. I could call the thread proof, i could call it proof-pudding, which is a more specific case.

>The fact people have to break this down for you as to why the phrase “proof pudding” doesn't work here is honestly sad
The only thing breaking down here is your third world brain that clearly has difficulty with abstract concepts, which is on full display in both this conversation as well as the broader topic of grammar. The proof is in the pudding, I guess.

>>24608998
>You’re just replying with word salad again
It's not word salad just because youre stupid and uneducated

>read Hegel
I've actually read Hegel--in German and English. You never have and never will. You don't have the capacity for abstract thought or critical thinking--you couldn't even piece the sentences together

>>24609001
>Logically irrelevant when it works WITH it too. I could call the thread proof, i could call it proof-pudding
If the sentence works without you adding “pudding” then why add it in the first place? Why do you go out of your way to add “pudding” to random sentences? Is that your autistic fixation?

I can assume the microplastics clogging up your brain from swallowing the empty pudding containers would explain your 57 IQ.

>>24609009
>It's not word salad just because youre stupid and uneducated
You wrote a whole rant on how posting your fetish art collection was somehow grammar related, but now you’re getting cold feet?
>in German
So you’re an ESL paki living in Germany. Thanks for being candid.

>>24609017
I already told you, >>24608927 ; in addition I use it because it works, it's more specifically applicable to the matter at hand than a general phrase. I don't know why basic communication is tripping you up so hard, then again you write like an esl

>>24605342
>may also be true somehow
It is true:>>24604190
He’s been rabidly sperging ever since

>>24598907 (OP)
Bad idea

>>24609025
You didn’t do anything except prove you don’t know what archaic means. The only information you’ve successfully messaged with your “advanced grammatical constructions” was that you’re a pudding-obsessed ESL who loves fetish porn. What a way for this thread to turn.

>>24609021
>knowing several languages makes me a paki
You're on /lit/, we don't pride ourselves in being stupid niggers here. And let's be clear, you're the fucking moron who doesn't know "is" is a form of "to be." How about you go back to the first grade, or at least back to whatever tranny discord you're visiting here from.

>>24609035
So you’re an ESL paki living in Germany, got it. How many pudding pops you put away, sport? Don’t choke on the sticks. Remember we told you those aren’t for eating.

>>24609034
Repeating a lie until people believe it only works when they can't scroll up and read to the contrary, although I'm sure it makes you feel like a big winner. We can all see you and your buttbuddies scratch your peanut heads at complicated grammatical acrobatics, like "is" and "were" and "are," and we're all laughing.

>>24609046
Except you did repost fetish porn, along with a paragraph of you dilating over being proven wrong: >>24604190
A person who was confident in being correct wouldn’t have continued engaging, by the way. You clearly feel the need to prove something, which is why you keep returning to get abused, again and again. You should just sit down and have a pudding pop. Proof-pudding.

>>24609051
That's a photo i took from your discord. Is that why it makes you so upset? Does it hit too close to home?

>>24609035
>How about you go back to the first grade, or at least back to whatever tranny discord you're visiting here from
Posting something like this >>24604219 and genuinely thinking people believe you’re /lit/ is fucking hilarious. Why even bother posturing so hard when you’ve already exposed yourself as a Redditor?

>>24609070
>believe you’re /lit/ is fucking hilarious.
That's great bud you learned how to use "is"

>>24609035
>knowing several languages makes me a paki

pakis know urdu, punjabi, and a tiny bit of english. so you’re really not an ESL, you’re a ETL.

>>24609077
If you say so. Being a brown retard is your area of expertise, after all

>>24609075
>>24609080
Mentally destroyed. The ESL can’t rebut his own broken words.

>>24609082
Downie cope

>>24609084
this entire thread was you coping and you know it. you’re so incredibly insecure about your knowledge, to the point you were goaded into poasting these gems:
>>24604190
>>24604219
there are not the responded of a educated or balanced person. and everyone here will see and know this

>>24605342
>thinks it was a non-sequitor
No that anon was truly that retarded. So in a way yes, there is still magic in the world.

>>24609089
Downie cope part 56 to be continued forever

>>24609095
>no ur coping
Yeah you suddenly withdrawing after literal days of seething doesn’t quite paint that picture. At least you were quite amusing.

>>24609095
>56

he’s giving us his true IQ. 57 was way too high for this tard lmfao

>>24609098
I'm still be here, waiting for you to say anything about grammar, or even anything original. It's important to put downie tourists who have trouble with "is" and "were" in their place, otherwise you'll stick around and ruin the board with low iq trash like you ruined OP's thread.

>>24609104
>More reddit spacing from the posterchild for abortion

>>24609112
Keep coping tard. Everyone with eyes can see you’re a Redditor.

>>24609115
>stop no you’re lying
>uh actually i got that from your discord….heheheh
lmao

>>24609115
>>24609122
Get a room

>>24609077
>ETL

>>24609124
Saar you are free to join. Bring the pudding pops