Why Do People Get Confused With Basic Grammar?

[Ms. Anonymous]

The differences between:

your - you're
there - their - they're
should of - should have
's - s' - s
it - it's
his - he's

Shouldn't they've learnt this from primary school?
It's not that hard.
I'm not picking on others to make myself feel better because I'm really not that sad.
They must be pretty dim not to understand the basic. I mean, how do you not get it??

Also, English is my second language, which means that I may not be perfect at it, but at least I can understand the basic grammar.

What's so hard about it?

[Kp]

lol WELL DONE YOU! I am in total agreement with you!

[Frank]

Why are some people so insecure that they need to make themselves feel better by picking on other people's grammar?

[Flash Kellam]

Dear Ms. Anonymous:

The explanation is as simple as it is straightforward.

Two generations ago, our society put the political left in charge of public education.

Now, every time a teenager speaks, we see the results of that mistake.

Flash Kellam

[Peter]

Why Do People Get Confused With Basic Grammar?
•Ms. Anonymous asked 29 mins ago -
4 days left to answer
The differences between:

your - you're
there - their - they're
should of - should have
's - s' - s
it - it's
his - he's

Shouldn't they've learnt this from primary school?
It's not that hard.


Let us ask if you are asking the right question; or a question that will practicably yield itself to an answer. As for the latter, you have introduced such a broad ranging question—having lived through it all, I could give a comprehensive dissertation in tens of thousands of words—that we are left only to be chagrined and to rue at what seems a coarsening of society where you would previously have expected the opposite. As for ultimate practicability, the best one can hope for is to hope against a tidal onslaught that has been in progress since ca. 1970.

As for the former, I would counter that for the greater part such “People,” are not and do not get “confused” at all. Were that the case, then they would be among those who in greater measure write with correct measure. The outcome of confusion—same as with you—same as with us—is to learn and strive and acquire the habit of “getting it right” until….until it is not that hard.

Now, if you will be so kind, let us have some fun parsing your new found English grammar—I see thing you should have been confused about but were not—or did you choose to ignore, just like the ignorant masses who alleviate the possibility of confusion with ignorance and contempt? …just kidding so let’s get started.

It appears rather than learning English via “Empire” style or “Colonies” style—as do so many—you have perhaps opted instead to do both. Hence, the unnecessarily more affected-sounding past participle verv use where present perfect is called for, respectively:

Instead of: If they had learnt (with past participle of learn),
You might have said: If they had learned (present perfect of learn).
(You see, in the past they would have been presently learning grammar; but would not already have mastered it back then.)

Wait, another nit…..While good grammar could be a thing one takes from primary school, if still or in the past still in primary school, wouldn’t the learning of grammar be taking place “in” that school; so that one is (or was) learning it “in” school, and not “from” school?

Now for your example: “should of” versus “should have.”
Once again, here, you have a case of the neo-wisdom by which “know-how” must yield to that of “know not how” or find oneself having become Pariah. On that count may I offer that with “should of” it is not the grammar that fails people, or even the tongue spoken. It is said, truthfully, that the primary organ of speech is the ear; so, if people hear “shoulduv” because people speak indistinctly, it is no surprise that they speak as they hear and write as they speak, and spread the inf(l)ection they would not “of” spread had they known and always spoken “would have” and “should have”…and if only their parents had thus spoken as well, . Don’t you see…how it is that people believe not what they are taught when there is a more frequent lesson by the ears in which to “believe.”

Now, what of thee with thy “Shouldn't they've learned…(shouldn’t they’uv of learned? bit of artistry! Considering your Britishism tendencies, I am inclined believe, that in polite deference to the online Babel known as Social Media, you were aware…but chose (or were influenced by the Internet herd) to set aside what should be grammatical disdain for contractions (other than in dialog) in proper English writing. Even so, would you not agree that our abhorrence for the sin of mixed metaphor should be no greater than our contempt, in principle, for…for…for abysmal contraction admixture? For it is an abyss in which we find ourselves just trying to tease out meaning from contradictory meaning in that “shouldn’t-of-they’d-of-like” bit of prosaic versification. Maybe, with a syllogistic trick or two we can try (and see).

From “Shouldn't they've learnt this from primary school?” we are not restricted, as we should be, to only one inflection with one interpretation that follows…. Had there been only one, the standard, unequivocal, contraction then no confusion could arise. Accordingly, we are left with:
•Should not the’ve learned…from (in)…school?
o [As written, a sentence-fragment-to-sentence run-on grammar violaton with indistinct meaning.]
•With (logical) reversal of the negative, we have:
oShould they’ve learned…in…school?
o[A fragment with multiple tenses so no clear meaning so grammatically incorrect.]
•Clearly and inarguably the only way out of grammatical confusion would have been to use the non-standard contraction, in any writing:
oShould not they have learned this [sic] in school?
o{Now we have a standard idiomatic usage of singular, unambiguous meaning (in both British and American dialects) which proves that “should’ve” (in other than speech alone) is a contraction formation diction error; and that using the contraction with the contraction, shouldn’t, as its antecedent was a grammar error…a double grammar error.

But that is not all of aberrant grammar to be found, as you might have suspected by the “[sic]” indication above. Once taught and expected to be learned before 6th grade, since the 1970 onset of the grammar abrogation movement in U.S. schools, misuse of the positional adjective/pronoun forms, this and that, are now among the most common mistakes in the English language, with error far outpacing exactness. The use of “this” to mean “that” appears to be a misusage originating in the US largely as a kind of sound-good-feel-good affectation meant to convey a sense of easy familiarity, and promulgated largely by vocational and self-subscribed “writers” who had yet to master basic grammar skills. Ironically, “this” for “that” errors are all too frequently to be found in business, professions, and military-/naval-services technical documentation where the inappropriateness of “cutesy” and “feel good” affectations should be, but far too often is not, clear to any nominally trained writer. The example sentence (as otherwise emended) provides a suitable example by which to recognize and correct or preclude such errors.

“Should not this have been learned in primary school?”

“The (or you could write, “that sentence…”) sentence errs in that “this” can and must only refer to something that is immediately present, proximate, visible, not at distance, or removed in conception or thought, not out of sight or presence. As written, the sentence, rigorously interpreted, has only itself as an antecedent point of reference. Its literal and only precise meaning is
•“Should not this [sentence] (its selfsame sentence) have been learned in primary school?” To refer to anything outside the very, “this” sentence that refers to this sentence, one must say “that sentence.” So you have:
•Should not that (grammar, in primary school long ago) have been learned (then and there and not now

Is it really so hard to grammatically write “the” or “that” (most of the time) and “this” (almost none of the time)? Here’s how:

1.When writing use “the” unless position or ordering is important.
2.Always try “that” first…before writing “this.”
a.Due to it persistence and out of bad habit, “this can seem or feel right even when wrong.
b.That will always stand out as wrong if misapplied.
3.If “that” does not cry out, “Use ‘this,’” then keep “that” where it is.
4.When viewing on line replacing “this” with “that” will be render sentences grammatically correct in the vast (yes, vast) majority of cases.
5.Get used to not seeing “this” as a word connoting affection, or as any other emotion laden descriptor; it is not. (And when most “writers” write things like “affectionately known….” Someone else is usually waiting haplessly to be snowed.