Why do Westerners train in exotic unrealistic weapons and ignore practical ones like baseball bats?

[skribs]

By saying that it's not incorrect, you expressly implied that my previous explanation was wrong.

The difference is that I was saying you were wrong to be applying American English language rules to anything other than American English - not that you were wrong to be using the rules governing your particular language.

"Math" is incorrect in everything except American English - and I have no problem with it being correct there, until the point where it's argued that because it's correct there it surely must be "not incorrect" for the rest of the world.

If you're going to lie about what you said, it's best not to do it in a written conversation. This is the post I was replying to:

In proper English, the term "mathematic" (no s) can only be in such context as "mathematic ability", "mathematic process" or similar.

With no s, it would never be used in any other form. You would certainly never say anything like "I enjoy mathematic" because it makes no grammatical sense.

As for the abbreviated form, in any context you would only ever use "maths" and never drop the s, no matter the context.

You said there is no context in which you could ever use the abbreviation "math." You never said "there is no context in British English" or "there is no context, unless it is a convention of your local dialect." Most of my students that exhibit this kind of behavior are in the 4-7 year old class. Most people by age 8 (if not earlier) have learned that if someone sees you do something, you can't lie about it and expect them to believe you.

Going back to what you said, particularly this part: By saying that it's not incorrect, you expressly implied that my previous explanation was wrong.
You're putting words in my mouth. Words I did not say. You are assuming an implication that I specifically worded my post to avoid. But I should be used to that from you by now.

 

[Buka]

 

[pdg]

You said there is no context in which you could ever use the abbreviation "math." You never said "there is no context in British English"

The qualifier was in the opening phrase - "in proper English".

I wasn't using the term "proper" in a derogatory sense, but in the same sense as "proper noun" for instance.

Therefore, using the phraseology you suggest would have been an exercise in repetition. I would have been saying "in British English there is no context in British English".

In fact, it would also have been correct for me to just use "English" with no qualifier (because English is the language of England, just as German is the language of Germany and French is the language of France), American English is a modified derivative and subject to separate rules and interpretation.

You're putting words in my mouth. Words I did not say. You are assuming an implication that I specifically worded my post to avoid

In that case, it wasn't worded very well in terms of achieving that aim - or maybe it was under American English grammatical rules...

With an understanding based on the contextual interpretation using international/British/Scottish/Welsh/Irish/Australian/south African/empirical English (damn, "proper" is easier to type) then my assumption of your intent was perfectly acceptable.

 

[pdg]

View attachment 22665

Don't you start either

 

[skribs]

The qualifier was in the opening phrase - "in proper English".

Which means that anything which does not agree with you is improper.

In that case, it wasn't worded very well in terms of achieving that aim - or maybe it was under American English grammatical rules...

With an understanding based on the contextual interpretation using international/British/Scottish/Welsh/Irish/Australian/south African/empirical English (damn, "proper" is easier to type) then my assumption of your intent was perfectly acceptable.

No. Because you did read it correctly by the way you responded in the next post. It's not my fault you got offended when I told you that telling other people they are wrong is wrong. If that sentence seems convoluted, it's because that's the only way to make sense of your logic here.

 

[pdg]

I've just re-had a thought.

All these linguistic conflicts could be completely avoided if America took ownership of the language it has modified for generations and simply called it American. Desperately clinging to the "English" part kind of suggests a deep rooted sense of inadequacy that can only be quelled by maintaining a psychological link to the country that sent out the settlers.

Then there could be universal acceptance that it is what it is - a different language derived from a common source. One which allows general communication to take place but contains fundamental differences.

Just drop the English part of the name, we'll let you, we don't mind at all. After all, we let you have your own government and everything

Thing is, expecting us over here to qualify when we're speaking our own language by using a prefix is more than a little silly (British English, yeah right - I'm in England which actually makes it English English...)

 

[pdg]

Which means that anything which does not agree with you is improper.

Yes, but not necessarily incorrect in it's own context.

Improper doesn't have to have negative connotations.

 

[skribs]

I've just re-had a thought.

All these linguistic conflicts could be completely avoided if America took ownership of the language it has modified for generations and simply called it American. Desperately clinging to the "English" part kind of suggests a deep rooted sense of inadequacy that can only be quelled by maintaining a psychological link to the country that sent out the settlers.

Then there could be universal acceptance that it is what it is - a different language derived from a common source. One which allows general communication to take place but contains fundamental differences.

Just drop the English part of the name, we'll let you, we don't mind at all. After all, we let you have your own government and everything

Thing is, expecting us over here to qualify when we're speaking our own language by using a prefix is more than a little silly (British English, yeah right - I'm in England which actually makes it English English...)

I understood the American Revolution through historical context, but your arrogance in this post is helping me to understand it personally.

Yes, but not necessarily incorrect in it's own context.

Improper doesn't have to have negative connotations.

In what uses does it not have negative connotations?

 

[pdg]

In what uses does it not have negative connotations

In English, a great many.

In American, I honestly have no idea.

 

[Tez3]

Which means that anything which does not agree with you is improper.

No, it doesn't, in British English proper is another word for genuine or specific to.

ADJECTIVE

1. BRITISH
   denoting something that is truly what it is said or regarded to be; genuine.
   "she's never had a proper job" ·
   real · genuine · actual · true · bona fide · kosher
2. of the required or correct type or form; suitable or appropriate.
   "an artist needs the proper tools" ·
   right · correct · accepted · orthodox · conventional · established · official · formal · regular · acceptable · appropriate · suitable · fitting · apt · due · de règle · meet
3. (proper to)
   belonging or relating exclusively or distinctively to; particular to.
   "the two elephant types proper to Africa and to southern Asia"
   synonyms:
   belonging · relating · pertaining · related · relevant · unique · peculiar · associated with
   

 

[Tez3]

I understood the American Revolution through historical context, but your arrogance in this post is helping me to understand it personally.

Then you will know that those in America at the time paid much less tax than the people in Great Britain so had far less to moan about.

 

[skribs]

No, it doesn't, in British English proper is another word for genuine or specific to.

ADJECTIVE

1. BRITISH
   denoting something that is truly what it is said or regarded to be; genuine.
   "she's never had a proper job" ·
   real · genuine · actual · true · bona fide · kosher
2. of the required or correct type or form; suitable or appropriate.
   "an artist needs the proper tools" ·
   right · correct · accepted · orthodox · conventional · established · official · formal · regular · acceptable · appropriate · suitable · fitting · apt · due · de règle · meet
3. (proper to)
   belonging or relating exclusively or distinctively to; particular to.
   "the two elephant types proper to Africa and to southern Asia"
   synonyms:
   belonging · relating · pertaining · related · relevant · unique · peculiar · associated with

The first two examples show the absence of proper as a bad thing.

The third example is "proper to" which is not what was said, and contextually inaccurate.

 

[pdg]

Seeing as the first definition shows "genuine", we can use that.

English as a language is the language of England - just as an Englishman is a man from England.

American (English) as a language is not genuine English because the modifications made are such that it's no longer the same thing. It has become genuine American.

Therefore, it is no longer proper English. It is, by definition improper English - all the while being proper American.

Being improper, or non-genuine, is not necessarily a negative state, it does not imply being better or worse - unless it's being presented as proper.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Seems we do and it does lol. Found this from the BBC to help students, made my head hurt to be honest, give me a meaty bit of literature or history even geography to get stuck into any day!
Calculus skills - Higher Maths - BBC Bitesize

I never liked math(s) much. I'm easily good at it, but find it...meh. It's too picky for my tastes, and most of it was easy enough I got bored in class. Maybe if I'd ever gotten to theoretical math, I'd have liked that, but there's not much theoretical math in a Psych major.

 

[pdg]

It's too picky for my tastes

You know what would make maths better?

If it was even more picky

 

[JowGaWolf]

Seems we do and it does lol. Found this from the BBC to help students, made my head hurt to be honest, give me a meaty bit of literature or history even geography to get stuck into any day!
Calculus skills - Higher Maths - BBC Bitesize

Just think. It gets worse. The US has "New Math" that teaches kids how to add by subtracting. Then they want parents to help at home.

 

[skribs]

Just think. It gets worse. The US has "New Math" that teaches kids how to add by subtracting. Then they want parents to help at home.

I think the problem with a lot of the Common Core stuff like this is that it makes sense to the teacher who created the concept, and it makes sense the way they teach it, but once it becomes standardized it's problematic.

We had a similar problem my 8th grade year in Middle School. We got a disciplinary system that was taken from another school. The other school had students create it and they embraced it, and it worked really well. Our school, none of the students and only half the teachers even respected it, let alone embraced it. The parents thought even less of it. It didn't work well at all.

 

[Tez3]

Just think. It gets worse. The US has "New Math" that teaches kids how to add by subtracting. Then they want parents to help at home.

As long though as I have a calculator or a pen and paper I can do those old 'sums' ( what we used to call all maths lol) we used to get like 'if it takes a road worker three hours to dig up half a mile of road how long does it take him to dig a mile and three quarters?' I remember there were so many like that!

 

[JowGaWolf]

if it takes a road worker three hours to dig up half a mile of road how long does it take him to dig a mile and three quarters?'

My brain hits analytical mode with question like this. Because a mile and three quarters of road isn't going to be consistent lol. The one thing I like about physics is that it's measured on "if all things are consistent" I can work with that. If all things are consistent, how long does it take him to dig a mile and three quarters? This question calms my brain and has me focus things being consistent. I literally feel the difference when I read the 2 sentences. One makes me feel like I have figure out a bunch of other stuff. The other makes me feel like I only have to figure out one thing.

Me and my crazy mind

 

[pdg]

'if it takes a road worker three hours to dig up half a mile of road how long does it take him to dig a mile and three quarters?'

From observing the council workers around here, the answer would be about 16 months.

And once he's filled it back in, someone from a different department would come and dig it up again to do something else.