@Mrs. Davenport

So, you're saying that African-Americans don't have their own dialect? I never said Black=uneducated, you interpolated that (although the poster may hold that position). I googled shtrong and shtrange, and that's what came up. I followed the evidence. Now if you can provide something that refutes that, then do that instead of speculating of where it came from.

@Warsaw Will,

Sorry, for the late reply. Yes, I am aware of the existence of the pairing of not, or never, which I agree could/is another substitution, and nor, but I think it would be more accurate for me to say that I am more hopeful for the drop of the comma from the pairing. I just want to see more of:

I do not love her nor hate her.
I have never hurt nor killed another person.

Also, I have seen nor followed by "do/does" and I think it's similar to "fronting" (that's what I'll call it and link for the info.: http://sesquiotic.wordpress.com/2014/01/14/topics-we-front-them/). Here is a quote of "nor do/does":

"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing." ~Helen Keller~

Source: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/helenkelle121787.html

Now when I see the comma, my mind instinctively thinks "coordinating conjunction", but the "do/does" "fronting" has bothered me, syntactically that is.

I've also been having a "discussion" with Amazon reviewer who, if I am understanding correctly, does not believe in the perfect tense/aspect, or, as one other commenter has suggested, is a troll.

@Nathaniel George,

.5 of an inch=1/2 (of) an inch and .75 of an inch=3/4 of an inch.

@Warsaw Will,

"The writer of that Atlantic article thinks that traditional grammar teaching has a negative effect on students, cramping their writing and generally pitting them off English."

Really? (I find that) The converse is actually true. Seriously, my writing style before I taught myself grammar had been above average to high; now that gap is far greater. I can write Proustian length sentences because of my knowledge of grammar. Knowing grammar actually improves someone's understanding of how to compose sentences, via the (basic) syntactical elements. This is even more highlighted when thinking about phrases and clauses.

Here's the excerpt from that Sesquiotica article:

"First of all, the restriction of which to nonrestrictive clauses is not a grammatical law; it is a stylistic recommendation and does not have to be followed, even in North America (let alone in Britain)."

Source: http://sesquiotic.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/why-its-best-to-leave-grammar-advice-to-experts/

@sundy,

But that's the thing: language is not always logical. Further, some people choose to use 'which' without a comma and some introductory prepositional phrases can be left without commas. I'm reminded of a post on Sesquiotica where one of the articles states that setting 'which' apart with commas is a stylistic issue. Sometimes, I feel that 'which' reads better without commas, although I don't do it out of, as you would call, the logic of language.

I think that pushing grammar to its limits is beneficial because it can reveal holes in that logic.

Forgot to post this: That is why I posted the links. Origins.

@Warsaw Will,

I found something that pointed in the direction of its origin. I'm not agreeing with his literally/litrally distinction. The origin isn't definitive, but there's a possibility of it starting in Ebonics.

@jayles,

The only significant problem that I can think of would be understanding. If it can be explained well and the students understand it, then, yes, teaching would be very helpful. But maybe it has to be learned regardless for IELTS. Second, it is a great rhetorical replacement for "because". In my opinion, "for" used this way is very pleasing to both the tongue and the ear.

And:

http://people.sc.fsu.edu/~jburkardt/fun/wordplay/shtrange.html