Attn grammar buffs: is my professor making shit up?
I'm a college senior in a writing intensive major, and I needed an upper division English credit to finish up my degree.
One of the course options was grammar related, so I figured it'd be simple shit, but this is a page from the text. I've never seen this. The professor called it "non-traditional." He wrote this text.
I go to a real four-year public university, and this guy has been teaching there for decades, but this looks like it could be some bullshit.
Is something fishy or am I just a grammer pleb?
This is crazy. I've only ever heard about these things happening in Private/Catholic/Boarding Schools. Funny enough I, as an English Major, took a Math pre-req my final semester and it was similar.
This is what happens when they don't dig far enough to find that your professor has done far too many drugs in his lifetime, may have a mental disorder, and definitely has a book to sell.
This is the beginning of the chapter. Some of the abbreviations are explained earlier in the book, but still.
I'm really thinking this is shit he made up that's he's teaching out of a book he wrote, which ≠ education.
I mean, is a professor allowed to teach a theory he came up with that nobody else uses?
I feel like it means something
This is the kind of information I was looking for, thanks.
I feel like "fundamental English grammar" is a kind of misleading course name, given the content, but so long as it isn't pulled directly from the instructor's ass, guess I'll suck it up and re-learn my native language for the sake of three credit hours I could have spent reading Shakespeare instead.
the first "application" doesn't make any sense. nothing changed from "kts" to his transformation unless he's under the impression that someone might mistakenly use the past tense form of "sea" and would need to refer to his method to correct their mistake.
>she being drive fast.
>i shall have being study.
the fuck is this? "here's a sentence written by a five month old fetus. here's how we decipher it."
can you post the rest of the assignment ? it's kinda interesting (at least for me), never seen formal language theory applied to natural languages because, even though it was invented to formalise natural languages they failed to do it.