MSGID: 2:221/6.0 5f2a062a   
   REPLY: 1:153/7715.0 f29b5280   
   PID: SmapiNNTPd/Linux/IPv6 1.3 20200711   
   CHRS: LATIN-1 2   
   TZUTC: 0300   
   TID: hpt/lnx 1.9.0-cur 2020-04-15   
   Hi, Dallas!   
      
   Dallas Hinton - Wayne Harris <0@7715.153.1> writes:   
      
   > WH> Interesting. :-) Maybe it decides on what's correct by observing   
   > WH> people's wisdom and in this case it can't really make up its mind.   
   >   
   > It's also possible that it chooses based on my previous habits - I'm   
   > going to make a deliberate attempt to use Hi, name for a while and see   
   > if gmail changes its habits!   
      
   Let me make a prediction.  It will not change its habits.  It will keep   
   on not making the correction.  Otherwise it would never offer good   
   advice to people with the usual skills. :-)   
      
   > WH> These references seem to be dictionaries of English usage.  Pretty nice.   
   > WH> But I'm looking for a respect[ed] grammar book.  Do you know any?   
   >   
   > I don't think there's much distinction between usage books and grammar   
   > books ... a huge overlap in content and maybe it's just the title that's   
   > offputting?   
      
   Let's take a look an example (of what I'm talking about) for   
   concreteness.  Have a look at this book.   
      
     https://books.google.com.br/books?id=YHoSAAAAIAAJ   
      
   Let's take a random example (for concreteness too).  Look up page 212,   
   Rule V.   
      
     PRONOUNS must always agree with their antecedents.  [...]  This is the   
     friend whom I love;'' ``That is the vice which I hate;'' [...]   
      
   Now we know what the rule is.  If the writer is considered a great   
   authority, then we'd be excused by going with his opinion when conflicts   
   occur (among authorities).   
      
   This question of authority happens to be a little relevant in grammar   
   matters because rules are not all agreed among them all.  It's not like   
   mathematics, where truth is mostly implied by the axioms.   
      
   Also, it's hard to find the rule you're looking for (whose name one   
   usually doesn't quite know), so a good grammar book would also be wisely   
   and extremely well organized so that we may get some help in answering   
   questions that arise.  (``What is the right thing to do in this   
   sentence?''  In other words, ``which rule should I look up right now to   
   answer the question I have while writing this paragraph I'm writing to   
   someone important?''  This is often hard to find, which is why we tend   
   to ask people who know --- or worse, just guess and move.  It's a good   
   skill to know where to look and solve problems by ourselves, but it   
   turns this is hard in English.) (Also, I find it very ugly to write   
   correctly without actually knowing the rules and the sense in the rule.   
   Writing correctly out of habit is not quite proper.  If we don't know   
   the rule, we don't really know how to write.)   
      
   Natural languages are (unfortunately) not based on formal grammars.  So   
   the result is a huge set of rules.  A mess.   
      
   Anyhow, perhaps I'll keep Lindley Murray's ``An English Grammar'' as my   
   first pick.  But I think the subject is much too hard for me to make the   
   choice.  I think someone with experience has made their choices and I   
   should definitely get their advice.   
      
   [...]   
      
   Thanks! :-)   
      
   ---    
    * Origin: nntps://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/123 90/1 120/340 601 123/131 154/10 203/0 2 124 221/0 1   
   SEEN-BY: 221/6 360 226/30 227/114 702 229/101 275 424 426 664 1014   
   SEEN-BY: 230/0 240/1120 1634 1895 2100 5138 5832 5853 8001 8002 8005   
   SEEN-BY: 249/206 317 261/38 280/5003 5006 313/41 317/3 320/219 322/757   
   SEEN-BY: 335/364 342/200 382/147 423/81 2454/119 4500/1 5020/1042   
   PATH: 221/6 154/10 203/0 221/1 280/5003 240/1120 5832 229/426