Re: Subject / Object / ?

Andreas Johansson wrote:

>Quoting John Cowan <cowan@...>:
>
>
>
>>Andreas Johansson scripsit:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>* This is not a rhetorical question. I am genuinely curious as to why
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>you
>>
>>
>>>>>apparently see a need for primary schools to teach kids how to analyze
>>>>>sentences in their native language.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Because that's the only way to make them able to reliably and
>>>>
>>>>
>>consistently
>>
>>
>>>>build and understand complex sentences in their own language.  [...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I must say this much surprises me. Particularly since I know plenty of
>>>
>>>
>>people
>>
>>
>>>who could not grammatically dissect the simplest sentence (altho they
>>>
>>>
>>likely
>>
>>
>>>could for a while during their school years), yet can read and write texts
>>>
>>>
>>of
>>
>>
>>>highish complexity perfectly well.
>>>
>>>It also seems a priori unexpected - why would not one's subconscious grasp
>>>
>>>
>>of
>>
>>
>>>one's native grammar suffice, when it clearly does for speaking? At least I
>>>"say" what I'm going to write in my head as I type it, which makes it hard
>>>
>>>
>>for
>>
>>
>>>me to believe the mental processes involved in the production of written
>>>
>>>
>>and
>>
>>
>>>spoken texts are _that_ different.
>>>
>>>
>>Remember that you are talking to a francophone, for whom this procedure is
>>essentially impossible due to the wide separation of spoken French and
>>written
>>French, which Christophe has himself characterized as "two separate
>>languages"
>>on many occasions.
>>
>>
>
>The thought occured to me, but Christophe's comments very much sounded like he
>believed them to be valid for all languages, and his comments about Dutch
>appeared to settle the matter.
>
>

Dutch the same applies - the local dialects can be very different from
the standard language(and they are quite numerous).  Depends on the
speaker, of course.