PDA

View Full Version : "Teach" is not a noun!



MartinHarper
29th-April-2005, 09:31 AM
"Teach" is a verb, not a noun.

Wrong:


(now in my opinion there teach was of a fair/ good /excelent standard and all aspects were covered and the class would have achieved the lesson and had fun doing so)....
But still the teacher will ponder on items and feel that there teach could be improved.....

Correct:


Now, in my opinion they taught well, covered all aspects, and the class achieved the lesson and had fun doing so. However, they will still ponder on items and feel that they could teach better.

In particular, if you would like to improve your teaching, please refrain from using the god-awful phrase "would you like another teach?".

Thank you.

David Bailey
29th-April-2005, 09:38 AM
Well, if you want a real abomination, how about "He gives good teach"?

Or "The teach was {the C-word}" - then you don't even know if it's a noun or a verb...

Gotta admit, until you said something, I never realised the word was being used that way - you're way too observant Martin, it's scaring me.

Aleks
29th-April-2005, 09:43 AM
Was this written by a native English-speaker?
It's an easy mistake to make if English isn't your first language.....

El Salsero Gringo
29th-April-2005, 09:53 AM
Many Ceroc teachers speak like this, i.e. "Have you learnt the teach for that move yet?". It means (as far as I can tell) the specific Ceroc teaching procedure, including words, actions, pauses, intonation etc. which is standardised. Learning the jargon is part of the CTA cloning process.

bigdjiver
29th-April-2005, 10:17 AM
Language is a living, dynamic thing. Todays rules were (a lot of) yesterday's slang.

ducasi
29th-April-2005, 10:23 AM
(now in my opinion there teach was of a fair/ good /excelent standard and all aspects were covered and the class would have achieved the lesson and had fun doing so)....
But still the teacher will ponder on items and feel that there teach could be improved..... While I agree that using "teach" as a noun here is fairly nasty, I don't normally have a problem with creative verbing of nouns and nouning of verbs. (Couldn't think of an appropriate example just now though!)

But I do have a problem with the use of there instead of their.

The thing is that we all know what is meant by the non-standard use of "teach" here and it doesn't cause too much of a problem understanding what is meant. It's totally different with there/their, your/you're, where/were and other similar homonym confusions. In these cases it's much easier to initially misunderstand what is being meant, and you need to do a double-take to figure out what's being said. (And I blame the government! :devil: )

You'll notice I don't have a problem with sentences starting with "But" or "And" either – just so long as they actually belong in a new sentence that is!

Oh, split infinitives are cool with me too – did you notice it? :wink:

(Is it any wonder I failed my Higher English? :grin: )

Generally, I've got to say though that spelling and grammar flames aren't very helpful. No-one came here to improve their english usage – not when there are more interesting things to talk about, like whether the word "crap" should be added to list of censored words on this forum. :wink:

Cheers!

Simon r
29th-April-2005, 11:05 AM
While I agree that using "teach" as a noun here is fairly nasty, I don't normally have a problem with creative verbing of nouns and nouning of verbs. (Couldn't think of an appropriate example just now though!)

But I do have a problem with the use of there instead of their.

The thing is that we all know what is meant by the non-standard use of "teach" here and it doesn't cause too much of a problem understanding what is meant. It's totally different with there/their, your/you're, where/were and other similar homonym confusions. In these cases it's much easier to initially misunderstand what is being meant, and you need to do a double-take to figure out what's being said. (And I blame the government! :devil: )

You'll notice I don't have a problem with sentences starting with "But" or "And" either – just so long as they actually belong in a new sentence that is!

Oh, split infinitives are cool with me too – did you notice it? :wink:

(Is it any wonder I failed my Higher English? :grin: )

Generally, I've got to say though that spelling and grammar flames aren't very helpful. No-one came here to improve their english usage – not when there are more interesting things to talk about, like whether the word "crap" should be added to list of censored words on this forum. :wink:

Cheers!

wow nice to see you have fitted in so well, in such a short time....
Amazing how supportive everyone was when you started out....
sorry about my grammer mistakes but i do work as well so just fit this in around coffee breaks, so thinking more of content than grammer....

Magic Hans
29th-April-2005, 11:56 AM
While I agree that using "teach" as a noun here is fairly nasty, I don't normally have a problem with creative verbing of nouns and nouning of verbs. (Couldn't think of an appropriate example just now though!)
...

:clap: :rofl: :clap:

Oh dear .... here we go again!! :what:

In the red corner, the accuracy-ists, pedants and correctionists.

In the blue corner, those who care more about getting the message across, and less about it's syntax.

Ding ding! Seconds out! Round three thousand, eight hundred, and ninety two .... and ..... errrrr .... a half!!

Ooo! Ooo! btw, whilst I still have your attention, I'd like to state that teaching doesn't, in actual fact exist (bit like centrifugal force), it's simply what happens on the other side of learning (like centripetal force) .... that is, of course, complete and total fact .... and ..... errrrr .... not personal opinion at all ..... errrrrr ..... in the slightest!! [did I just digress then??]

El Salsero Gringo
29th-April-2005, 12:11 PM
I'd like to state that teaching doesn't, in actual fact exist (bit like centrifugal force), it's simply what happens on the other side of learning (like centripetal force) .... that is, of course, complete and total fact .... and ..... errrrr .... not personal opinion at all ..... errrrrr ..... in the slightest!![/SIZE] [did I just digress then??]Who said centrifugal force doesn't exist? Just try doing any kind of analytical dynamics in a rotating frame of reference without it.

What about those of us in the (purple?) middle, who care about the message AND the syntax?

ducasi
29th-April-2005, 12:14 PM
wow nice to see you have fitted in so well, in such a short time....
Amazing how supportive everyone was when you started out....
sorry about my grammer mistakes but i do work as well so just fit this in around coffee breaks, so thinking more of content than grammer.... Oh dear...

What I was trying to say is that petty worries about "correct" English use of verbs and nouns are misplaced. There's no such thing as "correct" English.

But I though I should contrast what was a minor use of non-standard English with something that has a greater potential to confuse – where homonyms are mixed up. It's a very easy mistake to make – I do it all the time, especially with "it's" and "its". :blush:

I didn't mean to criticise anyone for making any mistakes. :blush: I didn't call anyone crap at anything. :wink:

As I said, "spelling and grammar flames aren't very helpful. No-one came here to improve their english usage."

If there was criticism, it was directed towards Martin for his original post more than anything or anyone else.

Sorry if you took it the wrong way – I think we all need to think more about useful content than grammar.

:flower:
<hr>A wee aside: you can separate English into "standard" vs. "non-standard" and "formal" vs. "informal". In this forum we're all going to use informal English. That's cool – Formal English is for textbooks, newspapers, legal documents, etc. Non-standard English, again is pretty much common to all of us – we all use words differently depending on our culture, background, education, etc. And that's OK too. I use non-standard Scottish words and grammar, technical jargon, "cool" phrases, and whatever, varying depending on who I am trying to communicate with. There should be no value judgement based on the use of these words. Ultimately we're all just trying to get along and be understood. :nice:

David Bailey
29th-April-2005, 12:18 PM
Language is a living, dynamic thing. Todays rules were (a lot of) yesterday's slang.
Indeed, especially for English. But from ESG's explanation, it sounds like "teach" is a Ceroc-coined-term, rather than a What-The-Young-People-Are-Calling-It-Now term.

So for clarity, it's probably best to avoid using that term, unless and until it spreads out into the wide world.

Unless that word was being used as part of an diabolically cleaver language-indoctrination scheme as part of the Clone Wars, you can never put anything past these Evil Ceroc Teachers you know...


I didn't call anyone crap at anything. :wink:
Neither did I - didn't help me, won't help you. You'se flamebait now, boy... :D

Simon r
29th-April-2005, 12:18 PM
Oh dear...

What I was trying to say is that petty worries about "correct" English use of verbs and nouns are misplaced. There's no such thing as "correct" English.

But I though I should contrast what was a minor use of non-standard English with something that has a greater potential to confuse – where homonyms are mixed up. It's a very easy mistake to make – I do it all the time, especially with "it's" and "its". :blush:

I didn't mean to criticise anyone for making any mistakes. :blush: I didn't call anyone crap at anything. :wink:

As I said, "spelling and grammar flames aren't very helpful. No-one came here to improve their english usage."

If there was criticism, it was directed towards Martin for his original post more than anything or anyone else.

Sorry if you took it the wrong way – I think we all need to think more about useful content than grammar.



Sorry proberbly did miss read your intentions :flower:

El Salsero Gringo
29th-April-2005, 12:26 PM
If there was criticism, it was directed towards Martin for his original post more than anything or anyone else.I didn't think Simon was having a go at you - at least if he was, I misunderstood him.

Loads of people on the Forum have 'original' spelling and grammer, just like many (others) have 'original' dance moves... Sometimes it's fun to pedanticate over what someone says and sometimes it's useful to go in for a bit of disambiguation, especially when you know the other person gives as good as they get. English is a great language and I get a kick out of playing with it. But I'm very happy for other people to mangle it as much as they like and for any reason they care to, as long as I can understand their meaning.

Rhythm King
29th-April-2005, 01:49 PM
pedanticate
And there I was thinking it was "pedanticise" :whistle:

R-K :wink:

David Bailey
29th-April-2005, 02:10 PM
And there I was thinking it was "pedanticise" :whistle:

Haven't you heard? That's the New Official Hybrid of "pontificate" and "pedanticize" - do keep up, please.

Lou
29th-April-2005, 02:13 PM
And there I was thinking it was "pedanticise" :whistle:
I need to come home. I was thinking "pedanticize, surely"?!

Lou
29th-April-2005, 02:14 PM
Haven't you heard? That's the New Official Hybrid of "pontificate" and "pedanticize" - do keep up, please.
:rofl: Excellent crossed post! :D

Chicklet
29th-April-2005, 02:52 PM
, as long as I can understand their meaning.
THIS IS NOT A DIG AT ANYONE.

May I please ask that posters spare a thought for those of us who were taught in what is now often regarded as "the old fashioned way".

I CANNOT understand the meaning (see what I'm doing here) of anything written in textspeak.

I CANNOT (easily) understand the meaning of a post if an incorrect word eg there/their/they're is used.

I CANNOT (easily) understand the meaning of a post without punctuation.

REPEAT, this is NOT a dig, merely a statement of fact that I suspect may reflect the views of a few fellow posters.

I find the use of incorrect words, as above, offensive (yes I'm really saying offensive :eek: ) to my eyes and if the post is long, I am very unlikely to persevere with it.......in order to understand the meaning of the post....it's just too much like hard work!

REPEAT, this is NOT a dig, merely a mention that some of us out here will NOT BE ABLE to understand the meaning of a post unless it is written in a form with which we are conversant. :flower: Perhaps this is our failing.......perhaps it isn't.

Rhythm King
29th-April-2005, 02:53 PM
I need to come home. I was thinking "pedanticize, surely"?!
Only if you're American, surely? :whistle:

David Bailey
29th-April-2005, 03:07 PM
Only if you're American, surely? :whistle:
Hey, cool new Avatar there, where did you get it from :)

Zebra Woman
29th-April-2005, 03:25 PM
Hey, cool new Avatar there, where did you get it from :)

And yours David.....

Very ...er

'Morris'/'Riverdance' ? :rofl:

Notice you are giving her some hip leads :wink:

Rhythm King
29th-April-2005, 03:27 PM
Hey, cool new Avatar there, where did you get it from :)
I couldn't possibly say :whistle:
Ask NG - oh, you already have :rofl:

David Bailey
29th-April-2005, 04:43 PM
And yours David.....
Hey, that's a latin couple, it says so in the description, I quote "Latin dance couple".

So there - if it says it on the interweb, it must be true.

Northants Girly
29th-April-2005, 05:07 PM
I couldn't possibly say :whistle:
Ask NG - oh, you already have :rofl:Oh dear :eek: what HAVE I done? :rolleyes:

Zebra Woman
29th-April-2005, 05:15 PM
Hey, that's a latin couple, it says so in the description, I quote "Latin dance couple".


So there - if it says it on the interweb, it must be true.

:rofl:

Yeah right :rolleyes:

And which 'Latin Dance' demands that the Lady's knees are kept at least a foot apart while she dances? :eek:

Remind me not to go to THAT styling class :wink:

Hey! Has she got 2lb of spuds stored in the front of her dress? Very disturbing the way it's swingin' . :really:

El Salsero Gringo
29th-April-2005, 05:20 PM
Hey, cool new Avatar there, where did you get it from :)I'm sure I recognise that red dress dress - isn't that Clive Long in a wig? Is there something you're not telling us?

Zebra Woman
29th-April-2005, 05:30 PM
I'm sure I recognise that red dress dress - isn't that Clive Long in a wig? Is there something you're not telling us?

B******...he's two timing you ESG !!! :eek:

I think it was the 'Tardis Trousers' and the potential for space travel that attracted him....mostly :whistle:

Whitebeard
29th-April-2005, 11:54 PM
THIS IS NOT A DIG AT ANYONE.

May I please ask that posters spare a thought for those of us who were taught in what is now often regarded as "the old fashioned way".

I CANNOT understand the meaning (see what I'm doing here) of anything written in textspeak.

I CANNOT (easily) understand the meaning of a post if an incorrect word eg there/their/they're is used.

I CANNOT (easily) understand the meaning of a post without punctuation.

REPEAT, this is NOT a dig, merely a statement of fact that I suspect may reflect the views of a few fellow posters.

I find the use of incorrect words, as above, offensive (yes I'm really saying offensive :eek: ) to my eyes and if the post is long, I am very unlikely to persevere with it.......in order to understand the meaning of the post....it's just too much like hard work!

REPEAT, this is NOT a dig, merely a mention that some of us out here will NOT BE ABLE to understand the meaning of a post unless it is written in a form with which we are conversant. :flower: Perhaps this is our failing.......perhaps it isn't.
I'm with you there Chicklet. The teaching of English went through a very bad period where it was deemed that a child's ability to express theirself should not be constrained by matters grammatic or spelletic. The consequence: a generation who are essentially semi-literate and who now hold posts of responsibility.

I did not learn grammar. I absorbed it through it through the material I read so avidly in my youth. Even newspapers were well written - not so any more. Never mind your/you're, what about may/might, and whatever happened to collective nouns???

That's the downside, and I've surrendered. My bleatings (echoes of sheepman) aren't going to achieve anything. The upside is that ladies have been liberated and become assertive; they approach, .....request a dance. Wow !!!, am I suddenly desirable - or is it that the ladies are getting desperate.

No matter, go with the flow, enjoy ,.....

Clive Long
30th-April-2005, 12:17 AM
<< cut >>
Oh dear .... here we go again!! :what:

In the red corner, the accuracy-ists, pedants and correctionists.

In the blue corner, those who care more about getting the message across, and less about it's syntax.
<< cut >>
Send the hate mail my way.

Well I'm in the red corner mainly because the people there own the blue corner territory.

What I mean is that if the grammar and spelling are "somewhat" standard in your writing you are actually more likely to get your message across than if you are more "creative" in the way you write, simply because people can follow what you have written.

Yes, yes, yes, language is evolving and eveyone "owns" their version of the language, that's why we enjoy reading different writers.

But for me, :yeah: to everything that Chicklet wrote (now there's a surprise). :angry: to Martin for criticising and correcting so publicly. It came across as very high-handed, although I feel he wrote with the best of intentions.

Pointing out that a post is difficult to disentangle because it has no recognisable structure is probably going to be hurtful to some people.

I want to read all different points of view, to make me confront my lazy prejudices, so please make it easy for me by using a few commas or full-stops. I don't think you are an imbecile because you don't write the way I do. Maybe you don't care if I don't understand what you are writing - but I care that I don't understand. Maybe it's my failure to understand that is the problem.

Clive

El Salsero Gringo
30th-April-2005, 12:24 AM
Clive,

Have you been drinking again?

David Bailey
30th-April-2005, 08:32 AM
Send the hate mail my way.

OK then, you're a nasty avatar-discussion-disrupter.

So there, that's you told - go back and stand in that corner until you're ready to have a proper animated gif of your own like the grown-ups.

Oh, hold on...



What I mean is that if the grammar and spelling are "somewhat" standard in your writing you are actually more likely to get your message across than if you are more "creative" in the way you write, simply because people can follow what you have written.

:yeah: OK, good point, you're forgiven, this time.

On a boringly serious not, I know a little bit about communications theory, and language is like any other tool. You have to know the rules before you can bend them. The rules do depend on the medium. For example, in Usenet-style posting (i.e. this forum), there are particular conventions such as avoiding EXCESSIVE USE OF CAPS :)

But just because the rules are different, doesn't mean that one should get sloppy with sentence structure, grammar and even spelling. For the simple reason of self-interest, if nothing else; as Clive said, the clearer your message, the more likely it is to be persuasive.

Chicklet
30th-April-2005, 08:46 AM
The teaching of English went through a very bad period where it was deemed that a child's ability to express theirself should not be constrained by matters grammatic or spelletic. The consequence: a generation who are essentially semi-literate and who now hold posts of responsibility.

I did not learn grammar. I absorbed it through it through the material I read so avidly in my youth. Even newspapers were well written - not so any more. Never mind your/you're, what about may/might, and whatever happened to collective nouns???


I think I was at school a little later :wink: than Mr Whitebeard, but I wasn't in the UK for the first ten years....last vestiges of empire and all that :rofl: , we WERE red penned for incorrect use!

I completely agree with the notion that much of what I hold dear was absorbed through reading. Far flung corners in the 70s did not have a lot of TV, we occupied ourselves with lego, story tapes and a plethora of dog-eared books. I was addicted to the Chalet School series where the English girls (no, they weren't British, they were very English) were continually correcting their European schoolmates! There is one particular old form of useage that has stuck with me more than any other from these books...I CANNOT ask for something with "can I have" or "please give me"....even now I cringe if I hear anything other than "please MAY I have".....but I'm quite comfortable as an old fashioned kinda gal (and yes I iron well too!!) :grin:

Oh, and I also actively boycott retail establishments advertising "roll's" or "paper's".....that'll learn em :devil: (sic :innocent: ).

Heather
30th-April-2005, 09:42 AM
THIS IS NOT A DIG AT ANYONE.

May I please ask that posters spare a thought for those of us who were taught in what is now often regarded as "the old fashioned way".

I CANNOT understand the meaning (see what I'm doing here) of anything written in textspeak.

I CANNOT (easily) understand the meaning of a post if an incorrect word eg there/their/they're is used.

I CANNOT (easily) understand the meaning of a post without punctuation.

REPEAT, this is NOT a dig, merely a statement of fact that I suspect may reflect the views of a few fellow posters.

I find the use of incorrect words, as above, offensive (yes I'm really saying offensive :eek: ) to my eyes and if the post is long, I am very unlikely to persevere with it.......in order to understand the meaning of the post....it's just too much like hard work!

REPEAT, this is NOT a dig, merely a mention that some of us out here will NOT BE ABLE to understand the meaning of a post unless it is written in a form with which we are conversant. :flower: Perhaps this is our failing.......perhaps it isn't.


:yeah: :yeah:
Well said, Chicklet,
I wholeheartedly agree with you!!!
As a teacher, I am frequently dismayed at the apparent level of literacy in some of the posts I read.
To think I all I had to worry about was Gadget's spelling!! :rofl: :rofl:
:hug:
Heather,
XX

Whitebeard
30th-April-2005, 10:33 AM
Clive,

Have you been drinking again?
Just a wee dram or two of the golden nectar.

But I expect you were addressing the other Clive; the Long one, not this unbeknown.

El Salsero Gringo
30th-April-2005, 11:08 AM
Just a wee dram or two of the golden nectar.

But I expect you were addressing the other Clive; the Long one, not this unbeknown.Hehehe, I was talking to Clive (Long) but I did think you both sounded a bit wibbly-wobbly!

My personal grammar hates are:

-fewer vs. less
-when people say to go and do something, instead of to go to do something (I have Mr. Steane the history teacher for that)
-I am very happy to make arrangements to meet people, but I will never meet with them, or (even worse) meet up with them.

I also prefer my infinitives unsplit, and an demonstrable lack of prepositions at the end of my clauses. (OK, at the end of my hooveses, given my avatar.)

TheTramp
30th-April-2005, 11:18 AM
Personally, I can live with grammatical errors generally. I can also live with spelling mistakes (quite a lot of time I don't think I even notice them as I read quite quickly). I don't think I know what a split infinitive is :D

They're/Their/There does bug me a bit, if I notice. As does to/too and other similar common errors. But I can also live with that.

The things that I can't live with, are capital letters, or huge blocks of text without punctuation, or paragraphs (preferably with a line spaced in between them). Those messages, I just don't ever read.

David Bailey
30th-April-2005, 11:51 AM
My personal grammar hates are:


Hee hee, that's just asking for trouble...
{pedant mode}
Well, personally I get steamed about:
- Words such as "vs." rather than "versus".
- Lack of space after hyphens.
- Inconsistent clause and capitalisation usage with lists.
- Full stops inside bracketed sentences.
{/pedant}
:wink:

This type of discussion is very old - may I suggest some netiquette rules for anyone looking for guidance?

For example, core rules of netiquette (http://www.albion.com/netiquette/corerules.html) or, for the more geeky of us, there's an interesting RFC here (http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html).

Graham
30th-April-2005, 12:04 PM
The whole point of standardised spelling, grammar, punctuation and typography is to make something easier to read. If you want something to be easily read, try to follow the conventions as closely as possible. The readers will actually subconsciously correct minor errors. The more mistakes you make the more conscious effort the reader has to make to reconstruct what you were trying to say, and the more effort the reader puts in, the less enjoyable the experience.

I would encourage anyone feeling particularly emotional when they write a post to reread it slowly a couple of times at the end, and in particular look out for places where you've missed out a word (especially "not") or changed the way you were going to say something half-way through. We all make mistakes (there are even several in this thread committed by those in the red corner!) so posts don't have to be perfect - they're just more likely to make an impact if they're reasonably easy to read.

David Bailey
30th-April-2005, 01:04 PM
I would encourage anyone feeling particularly emotional when they write a post to reread it slowly a couple of times at the end, and in particular look out for places where you've missed out a word (especially "not") or changed the way you were going to say something half-way through.

:yeah: :yeah:


Always good advice. Also, as Ducasi mentioned a while back, assume anything you say here can be seen by anyone and everyone, at any time in the future...


We all make mistakes (there are even several in this thread committed by those in the red corner!)
I know, and some particularly immature people take a childish delight in pointing them out... Hey, I've got to get my jollies somehow, it's 8 hours until I get to dance again.

bigdjiver
30th-April-2005, 04:41 PM
A simple spelling test:
write
right
wright
rite

Somehow we are supposed to respect a language that can render the same sounds in a multitude of different ways. In a rational world we might just use something like "ryt" for all of them and save our fingers some work.

Somehow we can get by in spoken English with people usually being able to determine which of those four words we intend by the context in which they are used, but in written English there may be a hoo-ha if the wrong spelling is used.

I have known very intelligent dyslexics. I have known many handicapped people. I have seen many people make mistakes in a hurry. I am happy to accept them as they are, and look for good thoughts amongst the "bad" English.

Our language has its uses, but it is a bit of a mess. It has to evolve. A bit more tolerance pls.

Lou
30th-April-2005, 06:06 PM
A simple spelling test:
write
right
wright
rite

Somehow we are supposed to respect a language that can render the same sounds in a multitude of different ways. In a rational world we might just use something like "ryt" for all of them and save our fingers some work.
What? And lose much of the richness and beauty of our interesting & historical language? I totally disagree. Would you rather we all spoke exactly the same dialect too?


Our language has its uses, but it is a bit of a mess. It has to evolve. A bit more tolerance pls.
Have I mentioned how much I hate the use of txt spk in a forum? :rolleyes:

Dammit. I forgot. First rule. Don't post to a pedantry thread with jetleg.

MartinHarper
30th-April-2005, 07:04 PM
Somehow we can get by in spoken English with people usually being able to determine which of those four words we intend by the context in which they are used...

Spoken English has the benefit of intonation, body language, and pronunciation.

The "teach" thing irritates me in spoken English too - as Salsero noted, it might be a Ceroc-ism.

bigdjiver
30th-April-2005, 08:55 PM
One of the ways groups define themselve is develop their own dialect. This forums use of "muggle" and now "Harper-link" being just two examples.

David Bailey
1st-May-2005, 10:45 AM
One of the ways groups define themselve is develop their own dialect. This forums use of "muggle" and now "Harper-link" being just two examples.
Gadget's inspiringly-thorough FAQ (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3458) covers a lot of the common terminology. Although not Harperlink as yet...

I'm in two minds about this area of group-specific terminology.

On the one hand, it makes it easier to communicate for those who know the area in question.

On the other hand, it can act as a barrier - "secret language", "I'm in the in crowd", etc., creating cliques. Which we probably have enough of in MJ as is...

On the third hand (!), language evolution is unavoidable, and "specialists" in any area require specialised vocabulary to an extent.

But I still dislike "teach".

El Salsero Gringo
1st-May-2005, 12:28 PM
On the other hand, it can act as a barrier - "secret language", "I'm in the in crowd", etc., creating cliques. Which we probably have enough of in MJ as is...

On the third hand (!), language evolution is unavoidable, and "specialists" in any area require specialised vocabulary to an extent.
Yeah, right. Especially things like "First Move" or "Winder Ripcord Seducer"

But I still dislike "teach".Me too.

El Salsero Gringo
1st-May-2005, 12:53 PM
"Teach" is a verb, not a noun.
Being in a grammatical mood this morning, it's just occurred to me that the correct noun-form is the gerund - teaching.

"His teaching of the move was adequate/excellent"
"Have you learnt the teaching of that move yet?"
"...feel that their teaching could be improved..."

Lou
1st-May-2005, 01:50 PM
One of the ways groups define themselve is develop their own dialect. This forums use of "muggle" and now "Harper-link" being just two examples.
Ahh... but we're not alone in our adoption of "muggle". The term made the OED last year, as the allusion appeals to a number of groups, including hackers. ;)

I strongly suspect we're on our own with MartinHarper, though! ;)

( :hug: @ Martin - we must have another dance soon. :grin: )

bigdjiver
1st-May-2005, 09:47 PM
For the record, I dislike that usage of "teach" too.

Lynn
1st-May-2005, 09:57 PM
On the third hand (!), language evolution is unavoidable, and "specialists" in any area require specialised vocabulary to an extent. Yes, I'm doing part time teaching course (handing in my assignments on Wed :clap: ) and we have been told 'learning the language of the discipline' is one thing that students have to do and we have to help them. There will be words used in very different ways with distinct meanings in that discipline and that is acceptable.

Having said that I don't like 'teach' used in that context either.

Whitebeard
1st-May-2005, 09:59 PM
For the record, I dislike that usage of "teach" too.
At first I thought this thread might have stemmed from a post of mine in which I referred to the teacher (lightheartedly and with great respect) as "teach".

Would you find this a more acceptable use of the word???

Lynn
1st-May-2005, 10:07 PM
At first I thought this thread might have stemmed from a post of mine in which I referred to the teacher (lightheartedly and with great respect) as "teach".

Would you find this a more acceptable use of the word???Well I would for one. That would be using the term 'the teacher' and shortening it to 'the teach', like 'the prof', 'the doc'* etc. If I heard the expression 'the teach' out of context I would assume it meant 'the teacher'.


*Of course there is one reference where I would say it would have to be 'The Doctor'.

David Bailey
1st-May-2005, 10:12 PM
At first I thought this thread might have stemmed from a post of mine in which I referred to the teacher (lightheartedly and with great respect) as "teach".

Would you find this a more acceptable use of the word???
Totally fine - that's a common abbreviation, it's been around for ages.

If anything it's almost out-of-date now, makes me think of "Goodbye Mr Chips" for some reason :)

Whitebeard
1st-May-2005, 10:18 PM
If anything it's almost out-of-date now, .....
You might be forgiven for assuming that I'm thoroughly out of date in every way !!!

Tessalicious
1st-May-2005, 10:19 PM
From that difficult position of being a closet pedant of the txt spk generation, I hope I'm still allowed to join the red corner, and express my dislike of verbs being used as nouns incorrectly in general, as I'm positive that 'teach' isn't the only example.


... I referred to the teacher (lightheartedly and with great respect) as "teach".

Would you find this a more acceptable use of the word???

Surely in this context, it's a nickname, and as such it should at least be 'Teach'? :whistle:

Clive Long
1st-May-2005, 10:21 PM
You might be forgiven for assuming that I'm thoroughly out of date in every way !!!
Not out-of-date, more ..... retro chic.

You closet-Clive, you.

Whitebeard
1st-May-2005, 10:32 PM
Not out-of-date, more ..... retro chic.

You closet-Clive, you.
Yup, that's quite a nice way of putting it - I'll go along with that. An image to cultivate.

I've been in that closet an awful long time. Nice to be out in the open at last.

Magic Hans
4th-May-2005, 06:27 PM
...
On a boringly serious not, I know a little bit about communications theory, and language is like any other tool. You have to know the rules before you can bend them. The rules do depend on the medium. For example, in Usenet-style posting (i.e. this forum), there are particular conventions such as avoiding EXCESSIVE USE OF CAPS :)

But just because the rules are different, doesn't mean that one should get sloppy with sentence structure, grammar and even spelling. For the simple reason of self-interest, if nothing else; as Clive said, the clearer your message, the more likely it is to be persuasive.
It's the age old problem of communication breakdown! Unfortunately, with everyone coming from slightly different backgrounds, and more and more coming from different cultures, words can quite easily take on different contexts from one mouth to another's ear!!

[in fact, even from mouth to one's own ear!! I remember doing some co-listening, where what I said was directly repeated back to me, in my words ... and, from time to time, I did not recognise that which I had, indeed, said!!]

And so, with all our differences, trying to get the same message across to many people at the same time is, as far as I'm concerned, nigh on impossible! Especially without the use of body language and voice intonation.

I like the definition of communication I came across in some psychology book somewhere:

Communication is defined by the response I get!!

!an

MartinHarper
20th-September-2006, 07:28 PM
Many Ceroc teachers speak like this, i.e. "Have you learnt the teach for that move yet?". It means (as far as I can tell) the specific Ceroc teaching procedure, including words, actions, pauses, intonation etc. which is standardised. Learning the jargon is part of the CTA cloning process.

Now you've been through the cloning process, could you verify your earlier comments?

El Salsero Gringo
20th-September-2006, 07:33 PM
Now you've been through the cloning process, could you verify your earlier comments?It's not as "standardised" as I thought.

I'd still refer to the "teaching", though - as in, "have you learnt the teaching of that move".

David Bailey
20th-September-2006, 08:48 PM
I'd still refer to the "teaching", though - as in, "have you learnt the teaching of that move".
Hmmm, still sounds like a noun in disguise to me.

What's wrong with "Do you know how to teach that move?"

El Salsero Gringo
20th-September-2006, 09:38 PM
Hmmm, still sounds like a noun in disguise to me.

What's wrong with "Do you know how to teach that move?"Of course it's a noun in disguise - it's a gerund.

Cruella
20th-September-2006, 09:38 PM
:confused: Teach is a verb. 'Mrs Brown decided to teach the class how to dance.' I guess I'm looking at this all to simplistically. (It's the only way i understand things).
I have a question for you boffins, 'wet' can it be a verb? As in 'The rain wet his clothes'

El Salsero Gringo
20th-September-2006, 10:32 PM
:confused: Teach is a verb. 'Mrs Brown decided to teach the class how to dance.' I guess I'm looking at this all to simplistically. (It's the only way i understand things).Yes, "teach" is verb. But "teaching" is a noun, as well as a participle. Just like cleaning ("have you done the cleaning") and dancing ("my dancing is crap tonight.")
I have a question for you boffins, 'wet' can it be a verb? As in 'The rain wet his clothes'Yes, it can. To wet.

Don't you work in a school?

Cruella
20th-September-2006, 10:35 PM
Yes, it can. To wet.

Don't you work in a school?

Yes and we were teaching verbs to the 8 year olds. I said that wet could be a verb and the teacher wasn't convinced!

El Salsero Gringo
20th-September-2006, 10:39 PM
Yes and we were teaching verbs to the 8 year olds. I said that wet could be a verb and the teacher wasn't convinced!Sack the teacher.

Cruella
20th-September-2006, 10:44 PM
Sack the teacher.

No, her name was Margaret not Sack!

bigdjiver
21st-September-2006, 01:41 AM
...I have a question for you boffins, 'wet' can it be a verb? As in 'The rain wet his clothes'
Yes it can, as in "But officer, it said wet paint.".

Cruella
21st-September-2006, 07:47 AM
Yes it can, as in "But officer, it said wet paint.".

In that context it's an adjective surely? (Unless there's a joke in there somewhere, that I'm not seeing!)

Beowulf
21st-September-2006, 08:23 AM
In that context it's an adjective surely? (Unless there's a joke in there somewhere, that I'm not seeing!)

yes there is..

(and an old one at that !)

I think the rest of the joke involves a man out from the pub unable to find a public convenience so relieves himself against a freshly painted wall. :rolleyes:

Can't wet be a Proper noun too? as in the band Wet Wet Wet? ;)