General Grammar Rules

[Falcon]

I took 2 Gmat prep tests and got 35 and 38 in Verbal.When I visited this site , I find people talking about so many grammatical terms and rules.Though I am not aware of those rules , I still can get correct answer without actually knowing the exact grammar rule behind it. Do I need to learn those grammar rules or is it okay if I continue to practice like I have been doing?

Thanks,
Falcon

[RonPurewal]

I took 2 Gmat prep tests and got 35 and 38 in Verbal.When I visited this site , I find people talking about so many grammatical terms and rules.Though I am not aware of those rules , I still can get correct answer without actually knowing the exact grammar rule behind it. Do I need to learn those grammar rules or is it okay if I continue to practice like I have been doing?

Thanks,
Falcon

Story time:

Other than "clause", "subject", "object", and the basic parts of speech (noun, verb, adjective, etc.), I know no grammar terms at all.
None.
(If I use any other terms, I've probably just finished Googling them.)

If you hang around here much, you'll see lots of posts in which I admonish people for using too many terms, and advise them to ignore the terms and learn how stuff works.

You don't need to know what things are called; you just have to know how they work and how to use them.
(A very good analogy: You don't have to be able to name all the little parts of a doorknob in order to open a door!)

[RonPurewal]

In fact, even if you do know the rules, you should be consciously trying to move away from using rules"”and toward using examples and analogies.

Rules are awkward. Our brains are terrible at using them. (The scientists, programmers, and engineers among us are just less terrible at using them... but still bad.)

Making analogies to examples, on the other hand, is the single most fundamental way in which people become experts.
(The ability to make analogies to known examples is called "experience". Experience is a valuable commodity. It is what makes people experts.)

[RonPurewal]

Consider, for example, social conduct.
- If I asked you to define "rude", you probably couldn't.
"- If you had to judge whether someone's actions were rude, you wouldn't use rules to decide. You'd use your cumulative experience (= thousands and thousands of examples, collected in your subconcious).
- Autistic people have to use explicit rules for social conduct. This is exactly why autistic people have so much trouble with social situations"”"”because it's just not possible to make enough (or specific enough) rules. Moreover, even if such rules could be made, there's no way they could be deployed fast enough to be useful in real-time.

[RonPurewal]

I'm glad someone is finally asking this question, by the way. It's refreshing.

Welcome to the forum.

[Falcon]

Thank you so much Ron.

Other than "clause", "subject", "object", and the basic parts of speech (noun, verb, adjective, etc.), I know no grammar terms at all.
None.
(If I use any other terms, I've probably just finished Googling them.)

If you hang around here much, you'll see lots of posts in which I admonish people for using too many terms, and advise them to ignore the terms and learn how stuff works.

This did a world of good to my confidence :)

Thanks,
Falcon

[RonPurewal]

Excellent.

In fact, it goes further than that: Learning too much terminology will probably interfere with your ability to learn the finer points of the language.

This phenomenon is powerful, actually, and not at all limited to SC/language issues.
When people have a general term for some class of things, they normally become less inclined to understand the differences or subdivisions among those things.

E.g., People learning about basic human nutrition will eventually learn about "carbohydrates".
As soon as people learn this term, VERY few of them"”generally, the most scientifically-minded and/or curious"”will bother to learn any further distinctions or specifics among carbohydrates (e.g., sugars vs. starches vs. whatever). For the vast majority, the simple act of learning the term "carbohydrates" STOPS the learning process right there.
Weird but true.

You'll see a lot of the same phenomenon if you hang around these forums for a while.
There are, of course, many posters who are clearly learning large numbers of useful concepts and strategies. But, unfortunately, there are also many who are so engrossed in naming things that they just don't really learn how to use those things.

You should make sure you're in the first group.
(:

[Falcon]

Excellent.

In fact, it goes further than that: Learning too much terminology will probably interfere with your ability to learn the finer points of the language.

This phenomenon is powerful, actually, and not at all limited to SC/language issues.
When people have a general term for some class of things, they normally become less inclined to understand the differences or subdivisions among those things.

E.g., People learning about basic human nutrition will eventually learn about "carbohydrates".
As soon as people learn this term, VERY few of them"”generally, the most scientifically-minded and/or curious"”will bother to learn any further distinctions or specifics among carbohydrates (e.g., sugars vs. starches vs. whatever). For the vast majority, the simple act of learning the term "carbohydrates" STOPS the learning process right there.
Weird but true.

You'll see a lot of the same phenomenon if you hang around these forums for a while.
There are, of course, many posters who are clearly learning large numbers of useful concepts and strategies. But, unfortunately, there are also many who are so engrossed in naming things that they just don't really learn how to use those things.

You should make sure you're in the first group.
(:

Thanks a lot. I will definitely keep this in mind.

Thanks,
Falcon

[RonPurewal]

Excellent.