[Tanada]

If English is thy first language or thou feel confident in thy second language skills take this 16 question grammar quiz and post thy results.

http://m.staples.ca/sbdca/en_CA/cre/pro ... ammarquiz/

[Newfie]

88%, better than I thought.

[dsula]

97% correct, and English is not my first language. That was too easy.

[Synapsid]

Nazis not Nazi's

[dorlomin]

Nazis not Nazi's

[Beery1]

Woo-hoo! 100%. Though I must admit a couple of the later ones were tough. I found out that although I might know the correct grammar, sometimes I get lazy.

[Keith_McClary]

"Noble thou feelest thyself still, and noble others also feel thee still, though they bear thee a grudge and cast evil looks."
Thus Spake Zarathustra - Nietzsche (Thomas Common translation)

[careinke]

88%, Didn't think you could use the same answer.....

[dolanbaker]

97%, OK

[dinopello]

94%

I don't know some of the rules but go by what sounds correct.

[Newfie]

“From now on, ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.”
― Winston Churchill

[Shaved Monkey]

97%
I must be edumacated

[Pops]

97% - pretty surprising!
Like Dino, I have an idea what sounds right but memorizing grammar rules (not to mention math rules) is like trying to breath water; it makes my butt pucker like I'm crawling across a talus slope above a deep canyon or trying to climb a chalkboard.

[Keith_McClary]

94%

I don't know some of the rules but go by what sounds correct.

Monkeys 'understand' rules underlying language musicality

Many of us have mixed feelings when remembering painful lessons in German or Latin grammar in school. Languages feature a large number of complex rules and patterns: using them correctly makes the difference between something which "sounds good", and something which does not. However, cognitive biologists at the University of Vienna have shown that sensitivity to very simple structural and melodic patterns does not require much learning, or even being human: South American squirrel monkeys can do it, too.

"Our ancestors may have already acquired this simple dependency-detection ability some 30 million years ago, and modern humans would thus share it with many other living primates. Mastering basic phonological patterns and syntactic rules is not an issue for squirrel monkeys: the bar for human uniqueness has to be raised"

I also got 94%. Whom would of thunk?

[Outcast_Searcher]

94%. Who and whom always turned my brain inside out, and it seemed as relevant as inkwells to me while growing up. I had also always assumed that e.g. and i.e. were essentially the same thing, so I learned something.

Now, given the poll results thus far, I am going to assume there is a lot of selection bias going on for who takes the poll -- or a lot of people are VERY lazy when they write.

Reading the typical internet discussion thread, between spelling and just using the correct word (not a word with a vaguely similar sound and a COMPLETELY different meaning -- don't they correct anyone's English papers in K-12 anymore? Or do they even study formal English?) -- the typical person seems to belong a LOT lower in the scoring than the poll showed. And now it's showing up in a lot of supposed formal journalism in supposed "high quality" papers and magazines. The WSJ comes to mind, where the supposed "editors" can't use the proper words in a title, much less spell them. If a journalist doesn't need to be reasonably well versed in the language she writes in, who does?

It "feels" to me like the same issue as inability for cashiers to make change when the cash register breaks -- basic lack of meaningful K-12 education.

Then again, when over half of people don't believe in a solid science which has been refined for 150 years (i.e. evolution) -- perhaps I expect WAY too much from pre-college schooling.

[Subjectivist]

You know that statement reminds me of the anecdote from Sam Clemens aka Mark Twain, one day while working for a newspaper he witnessed a reporter being berated by the editor for using "its" when he should have used "it's". In the 1800's editors took their job very seriously anf felt bad grammar made their profession look bad in the eyes of the reading public. Somewhere around 1930 the news profession lost its desire to be accurate above all else and has been declining ever since.

[Keith_McClary]

... so I learned something.

When I read the explanations I realised that I did know the rules, but had forgotten.

a lot of selection bias going on for who takes the poll ... -- don't they correct anyone's English papers in K-12 anymore? Or do they even study formal English?).

Perhaps only old fogies care to take the poll.

The WSJ comes to mind, where the supposed "editors" can't use the proper words in a title, much less spell them. If a journalist doesn't need to be reasonably well versed in the language she writes in, who does?

A Forbes headline had "flare" for "flair", giving it a humorous meaning. I was enough of a Nazi to register for a login so I could comment on it. They actually fixed it.

Our pompous former mayor has a Ph.D. in education administration, but has trouble with "me", "myself" and "I". He liked to be called "His Worship". We referred to him as "Himself's Worship". He signed his name with Ph.D. in a letter to the Provincial Premier (a lawyer) in which he misused the terms "notwithstanding" and "as such". Whatever you may think of lawyers, they do, of necessity, know how to use the language.

There was a cartridge video game (Nintendo NES?) that would pop up messages in Gothic script like "Thou hath awakened the dragon".