Top products from r/grammar

We found 41 product mentions on r/grammar. We ranked the 97 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/grammar:

u/OrgasmicRegret · 1 pointr/grammar

/u/legeng Thank you for such s terrifically detailed reply. I will be going through each section in detail.

I think I mentioned it, but I'm a huge John Gruber fan, perhaps not so much his content, as I know Macs well on my own, but for the pieces he writes. Well researched, putting him at a huge time disadvantage, which seems to matter little to hostesses and me.

I would rather read a well trusted article, something I brliebe I can cite as he doesn't write much conjecture, except when he clearly is/does.

He has the advantage of many willing people who work within the walled garden of Apple to feed him data.

I seem to recall he lives by a book called The Elements of Style

I wonder: How important a book like this is?

Part of me says "get writing", get pre-releases into the communities I will be targeting. Then the programmer in me says, always read the documentation first :)

Thank you /u/legeng and /u/everyone-else-who-helped-me-out-here. I truly appreciate the honesty and candidness of your replies. Great sub-reddit.

u/smokeshack · 1 pointr/grammar

Hi, I'm an ESL teacher, too, and I'm working on a degree in Second Language Acquisition at Sophia University in Tokyo. You and I probably agree on way more things than we disagree on, so I think we've just gotten off on the wrong foot.

>Not sure where you got the idea that grammar = whatever sounds right to me

The basis of syntax is the "native speaker judgment". Really, it's the only objective measure of whether something is grammatical or not, because grammar only exists as a system in the heads of speakers of the language. Until we can scan brains at a fine enough level to actually read out the grammar of languages, we'll have to rely on the rather clunky method of asking native speakers and combining the results. I humbly submit that as a graduate student in linguistics with a few publications under my belt, my native speaker judgments are at least as valid as the next person's.

>"What sounds right" differs from person to person, region to region, and culture to culture

Yes indeed! This indicates that those people have different grammars. When my aunt from Georgia says, "I'm finna carry my mom to Piggly Wiggly's", she's speaking grammatically in her dialect. Her dialect has different grammar from mine, as a speaker from the Pacific Northwest, but it's grammatical in her dialect. One of the key assumptions of syntax, since back when Chomsky started generative syntax many decades ago, is that native speakers are by definition speaking grammatically within their own idiolect. In syntax, my aunt's dialect would be called a "stigmatized variety", because other speakers often judge it as "uneducated" or "incorrect".

>Giving people rules helps them to understand WHY something is the way it is, so that when they see a new sentence or grammar form, or try to make their own, they can interpret/construct it using these rules.

Unfortunately, our brains don't process rules quickly enough to use them productively. Michael T. Ullman has a very insightful model for this, called the Declarative/Procedural Model. Essentially, we have a system of declarative memory, seated in the parietal lobe, which includes things like state capitals, vocabulary, and where we left our keys. It's slowish, but practically limitless storage, and adults are very good at it. The sex hormones we get flooded with at puberty activate it. Procedural memory, seated in the basal ganglia, includes things like pronunciation, riding a bicycle, or playing a guitar. It's fast, largely unconscious, and kids are much better at it than adults. The sex hormones we get at puberty deactivate it. When native speakers of a language talk, fMRI scans show a lot of activity in the basal ganglia, and much less in the parietal lobe. Lower proficiency non-native speakers show much more activity in the parietal lobe, but as proficiency increases, they 'proceduralize' their skills, and show more activity in the basal ganglia. A key point, though, is that there is no known mechanism for converting the one kind of knowledge into another. Essentially, learners are learning the skill twice.

>If you actually reject formal grammar rules, how exactly would you go about teaching English to someone?

That's really two questions in one. I reject
pedagogical grammar rules, because they're inaccurate. Certainly I don't reject the concept of grammar, because of course there are utterances that are acceptable in English and utterances that are not. "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is a perfectly cromulent sentence in English, in terms of grammar, although it doesn't mean anything. "Colorless sleep green furiously ideas" is very clearly unacceptable grammatically, something that any native speaker of the language would pick up immediately.

When I go about teaching people English, I use an amalgam of approaches, chiefly Systemic Theoretical Instruction (uses lots of diagrams and cheat sheets, then guides students in internalizing the content), Focus on Form (lots of communicative practice with about 10~20% of the class focused on grammar, vocabulary, or some other formal aspect of the language) and a Process Syllabus (developing the course along with the students, focusing on what they want to learn and are ready to learn). When I want to teach students some aspect of grammar, I will generally give them a handout with a flowchart or other diagram that explains how to use it, then I'll have them try to apply it to a few written exercises. I sandwich that into the middle of a lesson involving more practice English use, such as practicing ordering at a restaurant or writing a blog, drawn from what the students tell me they're interested in and want to work on. If a learner wants to work on formal or academic English, then that's a specific variety of speech that they'll need to learn. The principle is the same, however: given a lot of practice and a little focus on form, they'll eventually internalize the grammar.

But notice the ways that this approach differs from a traditional, "transmission pedagogy" point of view. In a traditional classroom, I start from the point of view that the teacher has accurate knowledge, the students have no knowledge, and the buckets in their head must be filled with the garden hose of a teacher's lecture. In Systemic Theoretical Instruction, I start from the point of view that students have knowledge, and I offer support (called "scaffolding") to help them change and upgrade their existing skills. The students are active, and rather than memorizing rules
per se*, they're learning to apply a process that they can then internalize and make automatic. This agrees with the findings in SLA research on how learners build and adjust their developing language, which we call the "interlanguage". Rather than seeing their language as "broken" English, it's more productive to view it as a developing system including elements of their native language, English they've learned, and novel elements they've developed themselves.

If you're interested in reading more about this point of view, I recommend the following:

u/belikethefox · 6 pointsr/grammar

The Oatmeal, an online comic, has tons of hilarious and snarky posts about grammar.

Grammar Girl's quick and dirty tips is fun, but it's more topical than comprehensive. She also has a podcast that might be more interesting than just reading something.

That said, /u/meggawat recommended some great fun books that are easy reads.

I'm also fan of Woe Is I by Patricia O'Conner.

An important thing to keep in mind as you approach this vast and exciting grammar excursion: there is no universal, all-correct grammar. Grammar is socially constructed and often varies from user to user, from style guide to style guide and from one context (writing online to a casual audience) to another (writing a formal cover letter for a job application). Don't get too hung up on your "weak grammar." Words are for using and expression. Sure, grammar can afford some clarity, but even as I make my living off of its "correct" (or consistent) use, I question the prominence we place on "strong" grammar.

TL;DR: Have fun, but don't get too daunted by the details.





u/Dowf · 2 pointsr/grammar

Besides reading, pick up a grammar guide and brush up on whatever you think needs work. I'm not sure I'm allowed to link to amazon on this sub, but I like McGraw-Hill's Handbook of English Grammar and Usage. As you mentioned, it can take a while to improve, but a regular program of reading and writing practice should stand you in good stead when it comes to syntax and grammar.

By the way, Strunk & White can be helpful but don't take their book for gospel truth. Language is flexible.

e:word!

u/thespacesbetweenme · 3 pointsr/grammar

This comment is wonderful, because it shows the importance of situational awareness. While the example below is in relation to commas in a list, it still points out the importance of seeing it through to make your proper point.

Eats, shoots, and leaves.
The panda has a meal, fires it’s pistol then splits.

Eats shoots and leaves.
The panda eats bamboo and plants.

This shows how important this comment is. You need to always take a good look!

(Taken from the wonderful book Eats, Shoots & Leaves: A Zero Tolerance Approach yo Punctuation.

u/TheCheshireCody · 6 pointsr/grammar

There are formal grammar guides and more 'layman' and humorous guides, but I've found the best success just by learning from context. Read quality books in any field and see how authors write. Read articles in newspapers and magazines that are not sold on supermarket checkout lines, and notice the writing. Learn by osmosis, just by seeing correct grammar and observing it. You'll get a feel for comma placement, apostrophe use, and so forth. Honestly, that's how I learned.

I will say the few sentences you've typed above are pretty decent. Only a couple of minor, nitpicky, errors.

u/jefrye · 4 pointsr/grammar

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language is essentially the gold standard here, but it is pretty overwhelming.

Instead, the same authors have a much smaller and more manageable guide, A Student's Introduction to English Grammar, which I highly recommend. It's geared toward beginners and covers pretty much everything your average English speaker needs to know.

u/Melvin8 · 1 pointr/grammar

As a native English speaker, I don't know a book that would teach you the finer details of grammar. But I do know a book that discusses grammar in an entertaining way. Give Eats, Shoots, and Leaves a try. Even if you already know the grammar it discusses, at least you'll get to enjoy a great book.

u/jack_fucking_gladney · 1 pointr/grammar

Get a copy of Joseph Williams's Style: Toward Clarity and Grace. It's the best book I've ever found for improving the flow/clarity of your writing and the quality of your sentences. You should be able to find some dirt-cheap used copies.

u/tinygiraffe · 2 pointsr/grammar

The books Grammar Girl's Quick and Dirty Guide to Better Writing and Woe Is I helped me learn the parts of speech. They both break things down pretty simply and are easy to follow. Both use lots of examples, which I found helpful!

u/amandarinorange · 1 pointr/grammar

Here are a few grammar books that are not only helpful but also very readable. Actually, a quick Amazon search brings up a lot of books, but these are the ones I recommend from firsthand experience:

Eats, Shoots and Leaves

Woe is I

Grammar Snobs are Great Big Meanies (<-- probably the most informal of the 3)

u/Marzhall · -1 pointsr/grammar

As a companion to straight grammar, Strunk and White is an oft-suggested title for people interested in improving their prose, and was required reading for my journalism degree. Most of the 'rules' in the book are about writing in a fashion that makes you more readable and clear, but it may be something you're interested in.

u/Bubblykettle · 0 pointsr/grammar

I recommend The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation: An Easy-to-Use Guide with Clear Rules, Real-World Examples, and Reproducible Quizzes: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1118785568/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_8k..BbTMSGQQY.

The instruction is straightforward, and the practice sets are very helpful.

u/collegestudent4 · 1 pointr/grammar

I'd check out Warriner's. It's a good continuing textbook style grammar book. I used the Warriner's series through middle and high school. It's a little old, but the grammar hasn't changed. You can probably find a pdf on the internet somewhere. Haven't found it on a non-torrenting site yet. Definitely worth the investment.


Amazon Link of Book I Had in Middle School

Amazon Link for the Complete Guide

Edit: More links

PDF for some overview and practice

Punctuation and Such Guide

u/Karlnohat · 3 pointsr/grammar

> With all of this being said, I'm very traditional in my grammar when writing academically, to the point of writing subject pronouns after "to be" verbs and the use of "be" in the present subjunctive rather than an indicative present conjugation.

Could you please provide us with a simple pair of contrasting examples that would show what you mean by 'the use of "be" in the present subjunctive rather than an indicative present conjugation'?

.

------

ADDED:

> While "them" as a singular object pronoun is often used conversationally, it isn't specified as a singular pronoun in books like The Blue Book of Grammar. Colleges and college professors often refer to books of grammar like these.

Is "The Blue Book of Grammar" the same book as the one by Jane Straus, The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation?

u/passthepigs · 1 pointr/grammar

The Elements of Story: Field Notes on Nonfiction Writing is, as the name suggests, more focused on story structure than on grammar, but it shows that many familiar rules apply in both cases. Plus, it's just a very fun read.

u/zeptimius · 1 pointr/grammar

Buy and read Style:Toward Clarity and Grace (get a later edition if you can). This little book explains what’s wrong with your sentence and how to rewrite it. I wish I’d found that book ten years ago. It’s the perfect antidote to the kind of bone dry and boring writing that you’ll encounter in any academic institution.

To be clear, the passive voice is not bad in itself, and anyone who reduces writing advice to simplistic and rigid rules such as “never use the passive” is missing the point. The point is more that you use verbs to convey something other than action, and nouns for something other than actual things.

For example, a movement isn’t a concrete thing, but Transcendentalists are concrete people. Characterizing isn’t a concrete action (that’s why it reads so badly in the active voice). Belief is an action, not a thing. And so on.

u/slightrightofcenter · -4 pointsr/grammar

I would highly recommend The Elements of Style by Strunk & White. It's a brilliant book originally written in 1918, I believe.

u/agent_spooky · 1 pointr/grammar

The Elements of Style by Strunk and White is a classic. It's useful for rote memorization of grammar rules and fundaments. Once you've got a decent grasp of those rules, pick up Williams and Bizup's Style, which is better for practical use.

Edit: Silly me — I didn't actually address your request, OP. You probably want a book on sentence diagramming. I haven't read any, but you might check out the top results on Amazon.

u/EdwardCoffin · 1 pointr/grammar

>> For questions of usage, one must consult a prescriptive grammar.

> Er, say what?

Here are some definitions and comparisons of prescriptive and descriptive grammars:
google english grammar prescriptive vs descriptive.

From Chapter 1. Preliminaries of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language that you have been citing:

> The aim of this book
>
> Description versus prescription
>
> Our aim is to describe and not prescribe: we outline and illustrate the principles that govern the construction of words and sentences in the present-day language without recommending or condemning particular usage choices. Although this book may be (and we certainly hope it will be) of use in helping the user decide how to phrase things, it is not designed as a style guide or a usage manual. (emphasis mine) [page 2]
>
> Standard versus non-standard
>
> That is not to say that controversy cannot arise out of points of grammar or usage. There is much dispute, and that is precisely the subject matter for prescriptive usage manuals. (emphasis mine) [page 4]

The authors of the book you have been citing from themselves would seem to think you are misusing their book ("without recommending or condemning particular usage choices"), and would direct you to a prescriptive guide ("precisely the subject matter for prescriptive usage manuals"). The sections I quoted from are visible using Look Inside on Amazon, and as pointed out below, in the online preview of chapter 1

Edit: Added references to the Cambridge Guide Grammar.

Edit2: Corrected the name of the book in question, elaborated on the two quotations, and linked to the online preview.

u/silly_linguistics · 1 pointr/grammar

There are a lot of great reference books out there, but as far as actually learning, I'd look into ESL grammar texts. I personally like Betty Azar, specifically Understanding and Using English Grammar.

u/ich_auch · 2 pointsr/grammar

then I would suggest "Rules of Thumb" a writing guide one of my college professors wrote. It has really handy suggestions for improving your writing and it's small, concise, and easy to use.

u/Santini_Air · 1 pointr/grammar

Check out The Elements of Style. It is fantastic, and really a must-read. The glossary alone will probably answer your questions. The rest is gravy.

u/nomoremermaids · 1 pointr/grammar

The Oxford Style Manual. I bought one several months ago to fill in the holes in Chicago. It is fantastic.

u/l33t_sas · 3 pointsr/grammar

Introducing English Grammar by Borjars and Burridge is a great overview of English grammar for someone without much background in linguistics.

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language by Huddleston and Pullum is VERY comprehensive, but also significantly more difficult.

Also, check out this introduction to English linguistics