I missed all the grammar classes in middle school because GT classes replaced the English classes and for whatever reason the school did not think we need to get grammar instructions. As a result, I would not be able to teach gramar without some kind of resource because I actually don't know a lot of the terms. I don't really know the rules but mostly I write by feel/sound.
That, in a nutshell, is exactly why it should be taught. Someone who doesn't learn the lingo can't teach it to someone else. If a teacher makes an editing mistake, the student can't articulate why they had it right. Etc.
Also, it's pretty easy to fall into bad habits, and knowing the rules makes them easy to correct. For example... sometimes I'm guilty of abusing ellipses... they look kinda cool... and they convey what I'm trying to say in the manner I'm attempting to say it... but once it gets out of control, I can look back and see where I'd be just as well served with commas and periods.
Count me as another individual whose GT pullout classes left me lacking formal grammar instruction. Yes, and... yes. About the ellipses... Of course, also the sentence fragment, I suppose. And parentheses. I love me a good parenthetical aside; and really, why restrict one's self to just one. So for me personally--sometimes?
Not in my case! LOL!! In my defense, I certainly do not approach formal writing with such grammar and usage. No, only e-mails and message board posts, where some unconventional applications of mechanics and punctuation serve as a surrogate for body language and tone. It's about the communication, after all.
Approximately 90% of my usage is osmotically-derived, which drove my thesis advisor bananas, as he was very much a "by-the-book" grammatical despot. It made him nuts that I had no idea what he was talking about half the time ("Ablative-- HUH??"). On the other hand, he had no perspective on when "correct" ticked right on over into "incomprehensible and therefore futile, since while grammatically punctilious, this sentence is also obscene in both length and technicality, rendering it distasteful or even repellent to the average, (perhaps even the non-average), reader." In my estimation, this is a cardinal sin as a writer.
Seriously; the man's journal article titles ROUTINELY ran four lines on the masthead and contained semicolons.
I like to think that he learned a thing or two about communication skills from yours truly. I was simply too stubborn to let grammar get in the way of communication. Most people simply
liked my editorial suggestions better than his, ultimately. My thesis committee members complimented me on the "clearest" introduction ever from our research group (as in "thank you so much-- now I finally understand what y'all DO in there!")-- the first that the PI had ever apparently "dispaired" of editing to HIS (rather than the student's) satisfaction.
I think he may have cracked a molar when he had to listen to that particular compliment. LOL. I was just far more concerned about clarity than making myself look 'well-educated.' That's something that I learned from a family member who was an author-- never forget that you are writing
to be READ and UNDERSTOOD. That trumps everything else.
I think this thread is talking about two different things, but using the term "grammar" for both of them. When I use the term grammar, I'm talking about identifying parts of speech (noun, verb, etc), parts of a sentence (subject, predicate, direct object, etc), and clauses (dependent, independent) and all the concepts that build on these basic ones.
But I think, when we talk about learning grammar by osmosis, people are actually talking about usage (subject/verb agreement, etc) and mechanics (punctuation, capitalization, etc).
So, yes, I think that one could learn usage and mechanics to a great degree by osmosis, but I don't think that one is going to learn grammar itself by osmosis.
Yes again. The thing is, if an individual writer's usage is excellent, then is a lack of formal grammar training
really a problem? I would suggest that it is probably not. This is another of those things like spelling, I'm guessing. Some people just
know when they are using passive voice or leaving modifiers dangling, and all the rules-rules-rules just serve to confuse them. With all of that said, I'm very pleased that my daughter has had the opportunity to learn intermediate and even some advanced grammar, but I don't know that I'd call it "essential" necessarily, and she seems to be in the group that found all of those rules about it all fairly perplexing.
The point about learning a second language is an interesting one.
