I think learning a language can be advantageous to learning the different tenses because you essentially learn these tenses when you're learning said language.

The only tenses I learned in school was past, present, and future. However, I do know that there is more to add to this list like future anterior.

So, are count nouns quantifiable then?

Proper nouns are always capitalized because they refer to a specific thing.

Do modifiers create split infinitives?

Verbs are essentially complements of noun phrases?

I like that they tried to break it down, but it would be greatly appreciated if you could give examples of your own during class, especially for complex transitive.

This is so important because there are people that haven't learned the difference between, for example, nonrestrictive and restrictive clauses while they are in high school. I think teachers should teach this in class and everything pertaining to grammar and stop expecting students to already know these things.

Or am I going about this the wrong way when "clause" is used here?

So, in a sense, where a comma or any punctuation separates a sentence, besides a period, the two phrases are two separate groups of words put together?

Of course, there are still good reasons to learn so many things about syntax. I wish more people felt that way. There are people I have encountered that think they are the smartest people when it comes to the English language and how to speak it. It frustrates me because I know, while they are smart and they form sentences in a way that may not be easily understood by people who are less educated than them, they still have more to learn too.

Referent is a synonym for 'refer.'

It means the thing that a symbol (such as a word or sign) stands for.

“Referent.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/referent. Accessed 14 Sep. 2020.

I think specific doesn't need to be here.

Wouldn't the sentence be: There are also words that carry little meaning of their own?

I agree and disagree with this. I think that it is hard for adults to learn a new language, but not in the way that you think. Children can learn a new language easily not because they want to but because they have to if they want to be able to communicate with the people around them and let people know what they want.

Children have more leisure time to learn a new language as well, and the first thing that they learn is trying to speak the language and not trying to create sentences, depending on their age. In time, they have to read and write in that language. Adults have other responsibilities other than trying to learn a new language, so they don't have time to spend copious amounts of hours trying to speak a new language. However, adults already know how to read, write, create sentences, and have knowledge of what objects to connect words with.

Children are learning more than just a language; they are trying to learn about the world and how it works all at once. Adults already have this advantage, so it's hard to think that a child would come out of learning a language infinitely better than an adult.

If an adult who doesn't speak English wants to learn and they live in an area where English is the only language spoken, they would have to learn, and they would learn more vocabulary than a child.

An adult who doesn't speak English and stays within their community of people who speaks their language wouldn't have to learn English, but if they didn't have anyone that speaks their native language around them, they would be forced to learn English.

There are so many factors to consider, so I agree and disagree.

Children are so easily influenced that it is easy for them at a young age to pick up different languages if they are exposed to it.

This is why it is important to make sure you're teaching children the correct ways of life before it is too late, in a sense.

So, it is only right that you try to teach them the "correct way" concerning the English language, whatever that may be.

I understand this as this was something I had to go through in high school. I would be given back papers that had comments about my writing, such as awk or frag and at the time, I had no idea what those abbreviations meant.

So, wouldn't it be a teacher's job to inform their students about what's wrong with their writing instead of writing comments that already infers that students know what you're talking about?

Even so, shouldn't teachers first already have knowledge about what they are trying to correct before telling students what's right and wrong? Or at least educate themselves about it before they teach it to students? I think this is important especially in English classes.

Perhaps, but don't we all have different ways of understanding a learning things? Wouldn't it sort of be the same for understanding the English language?

I feel like we should be only able to say what is right and wrong in the language that we speak. I don't think it's right for someone who only speaks English to tell someone who speaks Korean that they are wrong.

One thing that is correct is that there is room to make a mistake in languages, and there are also wrong ways to speak and write things.

I think that this is a good think. I'm thinking about synonyms here. There are many options you can use to say something, and I think it's pretty cool. There are ways to not be redundant.

In the Caribbean, not many places have buses like we do in the U.S., but they have vans and those are called "buses."

So many people are confused about this and for good reason. I've been told that the correct one to use all the time is "between you and I."

This sounds like the more grammatically correct way to say this.

I see this so often, but I think it's unavoidable sometimes. There are certain phrases that end with a preposition, so why change it if it's not technically wrong?

For example, the phrase, "where did you come from?" is a question, but the preposition 'of' is at the end. I wouldn't try to change this to "from where did you come from?"

People don't talk like that in real life, so why should I chose to write like that, unless I'm writing a book that takes place in a different time period.

Am I wrong about this?

I'm having a hard time agreeing wholeheartedly with this. I agree with the first sentence. I've learned Arabic and I was terrible at creating sentences--I still am--even though I know a lot of vocabulary.

However, I don't think it's right to tell someone who speaks a different language than you to say that they are speaking their language wrong. Who are you to tell them that when their language has been around before you?

This word is still used in books, specifically in dialogue.

I just find this so fascinating. It's so simple but you never stop to think all the time about where these words come from. You can make multiple words out of one word that have more or less the same meaning.

I don't agree with this at all. All language has grammar and structure to form sentences. I think that is what makes language unique. In English, you form sentences by subject-verb-object. In Arabic, sentences are normally structured verb-subject-object.

This is basically what grammar is, I would like to think. There are correct ways to write a sentence, and essentially, when you're writing and editing your work, sentence structure plays a big part in the changes you make. Fragment sentences, for instance, are incorrect.

While this is a grammar and syntax class and learning the "proper" way to say and write things are important, I think that the way people say things, 1). gives a person character, 2). people talk like this regularly and it is friendly, and 3). when people used to talk like this it was a part of their culture and community of people. Sometimes the way you spoke was an indication of your background and education. In some ways it's still that way.

Sometimes it's weird to realize that when you're trying to correct someone's way of speaking or writing, your sort of erasing away some of the things I've mentioned, but I digress.

Testing. It works!