NationStates Jolt Archive

Given that we're all typing on a forum and most people skip out on grammar, does anyone else believe they should continue to uphold the ideals of good spelling, defending the honour of the Queen's English? (Or the President's English)

(Or the President's English)
Have you actually heard President Bush's English?

Have you actually heard President Bush's English?

"I'm so glad you English speak American."

meh. grammar is generally important (bar capitalisation for new sentences... *cough*) but if people are bad spellers, it doesn't bother me, unlike many of the spelling/grammar nazis round here (and on other forums). i mean, as long as you're not using "txt/IM speak" or l337 (not in jest) i can understand what you're saying and feel no need to correct it for the sake of... hmm i don't even know why spelling/grammar nazis do what they do. self satisfaction? :confused: *shrugs*

point is: spell as well as you can, innit

Oh! Untie! I get it now! 500P3r 1337 d00d!!!!!11! r0x0r!

Spelling on the itnernet... well, that's a new concept. Punctuation and grammar are good to know since sentences can be so damn hard to read otherwise, but spelling... not so important.

Altough it bothers be that I always put the "H" one letter to late.
"ahve", "ahs", "botehrs". Why is that? We need to redesign the keyboards...

point is: spell as well as you can, innit

That's not even a word:( ;)

But generally, spelling isn't as important as grammar. I only think it's important because it keeps it easy to understand people. Most of the time, not really an issue.

I've no problems with typos or grammar errors (although many of them make me smile, I admit, or cringe). Many who post here don't have English as a first language, so there's little point indeed in interrupting a debatte to correct them. I find it's plain rude.
What I do have a problem with, thouh, are people who refuse to use punctuation and then type a post of 10-20 lines... honestly, how on earth do you expect me to read that? It makes me feel breathless after the first 2 lines already!

That's not even a word:( ;)

But generally, spelling isn't as important as grammar. I only think it's important because it keeps it easy to understand people. Most of the time, not really an issue.
quite if you write sentences without putting in due and appropriate grammer they just become really hard to read and understand and without commas you have to keep putting ands in and you sound like a frigging moron and im missing my clauses already :( plus it gives you a headache reading it sorry for my awfully contrived example but i think it proved its point didnt it and i know innit isnt a real word but i was attempting to sound chavish cos i should think without exception they cannot spell

edit: 3 lines, not bad :P
(on my resolution, anyway)

Given that we're all typing on a forum and most people skip out on grammar, does anyone else believe they should continue to uphold the ideals of good spelling, defending the honour of the Queen's English? (Or the President's English)

This doesn't seem to be so much about grammar as it is about orthography. My basic stance is this: I learnt your bloody language, so, please, have the courtesy to do so yourself.

It's not the mistakes of non-native speakers that bother me. It's the mistakes of native speakers. People who can no longer differentiate between "its" and "it's", "whose" and "who's", "where", "were" and "we're", and so on... Oh, and misused apostrophes. It just annoys me. I'm never quite sure whether to put it down to laziness, ignorance, or what.

debatte

debate

grammer

grammar

cos

because, or possibly 'cos

[/annoying spelling nazi

:p

was attempting to sound chavish cos i should think without exception they cannot spell

I should imagine you're right on that one

It's scientifically proven that most educated adults can distinguish a word as long as there's on letter in the right spot. At least words that they know.

This doesn't seem to be so much about grammar as it is about orthography. My basic stance is this: I learnt your bloody language, so, please, have the courtesy to do so yourself.

Quite. It's always struck me as rather ironic that non-native English speakers often have a better grasp of written English than many native speakers.

It's not the mistakes of non-native speakers that bother me. It's the mistakes of native speakers. People who can no longer differentiate between "its" and "it's", "whose" and "who's", "where", "were" and "we're", and so on... Oh, and misused apostrophes. It just annoys me. I'm never quite sure whether to put it down to laziness, ignorance, or what.
it could be due to dyslexia?
stupid jolt just swallowed a perfectly reasonable post on that... sufficed to say: i is dyslexic and while i do make an effort with spelling, i still make those kinds of mistakes. could explain something, at least. not everyone who makes those mistakes is dyslexic, of course, but... meh.
either that or they're just noobs ;)

It's scientifically proven that most educated adults can distinguish a word as long as there's on letter in the right spot. At least words that they know.

igpaehtits wsa itnnvede etclrvoy by aanitil eggare decarns

under context, maybe, but without it?

it could be due to dyslexia?


In some cases, yes, of course.

I doubt it's true for the majority, though. ;)

It's always struck me as rather ironic that non-native English speakers often have a better grasp of written English than many native speakers.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=450933

*cough cough*

Just ignore the Swedish there. :p

On the inhabitants of England: "A true-born Englishmen does not know any language. He does not speak English too well either but, at least, he is not proud of this. He is, however, immensely proud of not knowing any foreign language. Indeed, inability to speak foreign languages seems to be the major, if not the only, intellectual achievement of the average Englishman."
Native English speakers in my opinion. For the most part, English speakers cannot really "speak" their own language without various grammatical errors. For example, in my dialect, "Would you like a carbonated beverage?" is: "Wanna pop?" The thing about foreign languages is just kinda thrown in there...the text has its points, however, many native English speakers can other languages.

i dunt min ppl hoo dnt speel proparli coz its only da itnerfet, hoo shud car wever i cn spel?!21 u cn stil reed it rite?! i cn! u all stoopid lol!!!1

:p

Can you believe I almost ran that through a spell checker just then? Suffice to say, I'm not a grammar Nazi, and I'm sure I make my fair share of typos and mistakes (which I'm sure someone will point out :p). But there is a limit of what I can tolerate, and the above example is that limit. People who write like that, and they are unfortunately common, need to be thwacked over the head with their keyboards. There's no excuse for it, it's just lazy.

It's scientifically proven that most educated adults can distinguish a word as long as there's on letter in the right spot. At least words that they know.

I think I actually do remember the thing you're talking about, but didn't it require the first and last letters to be correct? Sure I remember that.

sufficed to say:

The actual locution is, if I recall correctly, "suffice it to say." It is a subjunctive + it, not a past/perfect participle.

I think I actually do remember the thing you're talking about, but didn't it require the first and last letters to be correct? Sure I remember that.

Yaeh. Taht's the ieda aynawy. Can you udnertsand tihs?

Yaeh. Taht's the ieda aynawy. Can you udnertsand tihs?

Well, yes, but it's not like it's actually hard. For a four letter word, there are only two possible permutations (assuming the middle letters are different). Normally, only one of the two combinations is a valid word. For a three letter word, there's only one.

Five and six letter words obviously have more (six and twenty four respectively), but again, not many of those are going to be valid and even of those that are, there will probably be some that are obviously stupid under context. It doesn't seem that much of a huge thing to me.

It's scientifically proven that most educated adults can distinguish a word as long as there's on letter in the right spot. At least words that they know.

Unfortunately, there's nothing at all 'scientific' about that study. The words at the beginning were only slightly mixed ('there' -> 'theer'), and the later words were aided by context. Also, all the words used were common and simple.

Let's try with a random post from another thread, with a completely unknown context:

euitq ist lsaawy uskrct em as thaerr nriico ttha onn-nviaet nigehsl pesarsek nfoet aevh a eetrtb srpag fo nitwret lgseinh hnat aynm evtina espakesr

Now, can you distinguish those words easily without having to stop and think about it? (hint: correct answer is 'no'. or 'no, ma'm, if you are feeling polite)

Yaeh. Taht's the ieda aynawy. Can you udnertsand tihs?
Thaw? On, I t'nac ton.

Woh tuoba sith tnemirepxe morf ym dlo ecneics ssalc?

I hsiw I dah a racecar! /randomness

OK, I'll stop writing words backwords...now, most people can read the words, but not identify the colors. Unless they can't read. Give it a shot!

Red.

Violet.

Blue.

Now, can you distinguish those words easily without having to stop and think about it? (hint: correct answer is 'no'. or 'no, ma'm, if you are feeling polite)

Some of them are easy (the third word is obviously "always", "me", "as", "of" etc. are clearly going to be obvious) but in general it can't be done easily. The lack of grammar is also a problem.

For example, I knew the first word was either "quite" or "quiet", and the second was probably "its" or "sit". "quiet sit" was a viable option (without context, not knowing what came before it) but "quiet sit always struck me as rather ironic" is a bit weird. I think the actual sentence should read "Quite. It's always struck me as rather ironic that non-native [something something; later worked out as "english speakers"] often have a better grasp of written english than many native speakers."

Doesn't that mean you lied about your context?

Thaw? On, I t'nac ton.

Woh tuoba sith tnemirepxe morf ym dlo ecneics ssalc?

I believe you mean "Tahw?"

[/annoying backwards-spelling Nazi

I hsiw I dah a racecar! /randomness

hehehe... racecar

OK, I'll stop writing words backwords...now, most people can read the words, but not identify the colors. Unless they can't read. Give it a shot!


That one works best if you make people read them aloud.

While I'm not a spelling or grammar nazi (not least because I hate this anglophone trend of tacking "nazi" on the end of everything lately) I do appreciate good spelling and grammar.
And while bad spelling and grammar do bother me, I wouldn't point out their bad spelling/grammar to posters unless they're 1) beating up on someone else for using bad spelling/grammar or 2) being assholes anyway.:) After all, I make my own share of esp. grammar/vocabulary mistakes, so there.

The shock factor (as in "Holy shit, how stupid do you have to be to not know how to spell that?") is much higher in my native language. I'm kind of snobbish in that regard, I guess.

Oh, and typos, forgotten words etc. are okay on the Internet, happens to everyone.

annoying backwards-spelling Nazi

*takes it to next level*

?egnarts gnieb tsuj ro ,cibarA etirw ot gnitpmetta rekaeps hsilgnE na ,hsilgnE dab gnitirw barA na I mA

!larutan sleef sihT

Some of them are easy (the third word is obviously "always", "me", "as", "of" etc. are clearly going to be obvious) but in general it can't be done easily. The lack of grammar is also a problem.
I knew my post had a point in it somewhere... :p

Doesn't that mean you lied about your context?

But of course - at the time that was the post right below mine. Lying was necessary; that or slightly less laziness. And cultivating this level of sloth is really tricky, and I didn't want to undo any of my hard work ;)

What is a spelling nazi? It doesn't actually make sense if you think about it. A pedant would perhaps be a more appropriate term and less universally offensive as well.

I personally think it's a bit depressing that so many people seem to regard spelling as unimportant. We all make the odd mistake but excessive errors just tend to detract from the effectiveness of one's communication; whether on here or in the real world

I've only ever made comments about it if the poster is being annoying anyway; there's something deeply laughable about receiving a lecture from someone who can spell with about the same level of ability as a nine-year-old.

I knew my post had a point in it somewhere... :p

Yeah, yeah, ok. But it depends on how you define "easily". I should think it would be fairly easy to do it by the third or fourth read through, picking up steadily harder words each time.

But of course - at the time that was the post right below mine. Lying was necessary; that or slightly less laziness. And cultivating this level of sloth is really tricky, and I didn't want to undo any of my hard work ;)

LOL. Although it does invlaidate your claims, because the one thing anyone reading that post would not expect it to be about would be the English language in general, spelling in particular.

I personally think it's a bit depressing that so many people seem to regard spelling as unimportant.
I've always viewed spelling as something rather unimportant, because in English, people usually understand you anyhow. Another reason is if I really funked something up, there's usually spell-check on the program. If there isn't, and I know I funked up, I can just whip out a dictionary. As for formal papers, there should be a group of people that comb through it for errors that are bound to happen. Only for me, those errors are much more common.

I wish English was like Swedish, and I could spell everything without actually learning some funked up way that totally differs from the sound it makes, sometimes. But then again, I learned phonetics in school.

And cultivating this level of sloth is really tricky....
!dias eh tahW

?egnarts gnieb tsuj ro ,cibarA etirw ot gnitpmetta rekaeps hsilgnE na ,hsilgnE dab gnitirw barA na I mA

!larutan sleef sihT
.skram noitautcnup sdrawkcab emos deen yllaer ew dnA .dias uoy tahw tuo krow nac I ,yaw rehtiE. ?ecnereffid a ekam ti seod tub , era uoy esoht fo hciwh wonk t'nod I

Qstnueio si, cna you stlli ndrstnduea me?

Cmon now, Aint nuttin wrong with ppl that cant speel, Dont use punctuation or abreeveeate sentinsis. Yall wunt ta rip on the bad speelers rip on mee.
It does not matter how someone spells, so long as others can understand them.

When others spell badly, I feel better about myself.
So back hoff the bad speelers, and let them liv there lifes. :) lol

Cmon now, Aint nuttin wrong with ppl that cant speel, Dont use punctuation or abreeveeate sentinsis. Yall wunt ta rip on the bad speelers rip on mee.
It does not matter how someone spells, so long as others can understand them.

When others spell badly, I feel better about myself.
So back hoff the bad speelers, and let them liv there lifes. :) lol

Your post made my eyes water. Water with rage!! **shakes sword-cane**

.skram noitautcnup sdrawkcab emos deen yllaer ew dnA
.enif si siht, haN

!krow t'now taht, tiaW .gnihtemos ro rorrim a si deen I tahW

Qstnueio si, cna you stlli ndrstnduea me?[/QUOTE]
....hsinapS ton sti epoh I. ?"si qstnueino" si tahw tub, seY

:p ....ni gnittes ehcadaeh a leef I

.sleppa fo paeh a dah rscsO

The actual locution is, if I recall correctly, "suffice it to say." It is a subjunctive + it, not a past/perfect participle.
shut it, grammer freak

if the intended meaning of the phrase is "it is enough to say that...", then why is 'sufficed' not ok to use when it means

v. tr.
To satisfy the needs or requirements of; be enough for.

:confused:

and no fancy grammar-speak, cos all that subjunctive/past/perfect participle nonsense just makes me cry
(thats a genuine question 'cos i don't understand :( )

And no fancy grammar-speak, cos all that subjunctive/past/perfect participle nonsense just makes me cry
(thats a genuine question 'cos i don't understand)
My English teacher, back in the days when they tied to teach us grammar, just started right off of the bat with those "big words" (well back then, they were). Never really figured out what they mean, nor have I ever had the lust to look up them. Which is bad for my foreign language learning, as everyone expects us to know what those mean.

*!hsilgnE setaH*

....hsinapS ton sti epoh I. ?"si qstnueino" si tahw tub, seY

:p ....ni gnittes ehcadaeh a leef I

.sleppa fo paeh a dah rscsO

); :kee: !!gnitirw lamron daer ot ytiliba ym pu gniwercs eb ot sraeppa daerht siht taht denrecnoc erom m'I .dnim reveN .em doostrednusim evah yam uoy kniht I

); :kee: !!gnitirw lamron daer ot ytiliba ym pu gniwercs eb ot sraeppa daerht siht taht denrecnoc erom m'I .dnim reveN .em doostrednusim evah yam uoy kniht I
!uoy raeh I

I found myslef, rather easily, beginning to read from right to left. Quite surprising. A nice little experiment there. Whether I understood or not...well...what was that you said?

*cheers*

My English teacher, back in the days when they tied to teach us grammar, just started right off of the bat with those "big words" (well back then, they were). Never really figured out what they mean, nor have I ever had the lust to look up them. Which is bad for my foreign language learning, as everyone expects us to know what those mean.

quite, same here. well, we never seemed to cover that depth of grammar in my english lessons as far as i recall... besides, i was always more interested in literature/creative writing to care about boring semantics or 'proper' grammar :P

though yeah, it made learning german hard :(

and i still don't get what half of the crap means. bah!

!uoy raeh I

I found myslef, rather easily, beginning to read from right to left. Quite surprising. A nice little experiment there.

Pretty weird how easily that happened. I wonder if the reverse would be true for people who normally read their language from right to left, or if this proves something about which way the human brain reads most easily? Or if we're just super geniuses?;)

Whether I understood or not...well...what was that you said?

I think this is the bit you're talking about

Qstnueio si, cna you stlli ndrstnduea me?

It says "Question is, can you still understand me?" and I did it just by moving all the vowels to the end of the word, leaving them in the order they occur in standard spelling.

Spelling and grammar are important if one expects to be taken seriously. It's useful if one happens to be debating an issue. There's a balance to be maintained between trying to sound informed and becoming too bizarre. It's reasonable to say that one should avoid confusion, but it gets a bit rediculous when someone insists that it behooves one to eschew obfuscation.

rediculous

That error is so common (almost as common as "grammer" in place of "grammar".) It's ridiculous how many people spell that word wrong.

It says "Question is, can you still understand me?" and I did it just by moving all the vowels to the end of the word, leaving them in the order they occur in standard spelling.
Yeah, that's the bit.

Ahh...you see I'm working in four "languages" over here right now, Spanish, English, Swedish, and backwards-English. Anything that starts with the letter "q" corresponds to my Spanish region of the brain...and then having "is" backwards didn't help all that much either, because it looks like "si"...anyhow, just weird how that worked as well.

However, I didn't notice that. It just didn't work that way, it was like the letters were rearranged to their proper places to create a words that made sense as I know it, which is why I asked if they were Spanish (which is somewhat lacking these days), and my translating (writing the "word" backwords) didn't work. That was a good curve ball!

Or if we're just super geniuses?
Well...um...no...to be fair, I'd say that'd my conclusions have to back up the idea that brains read easier right to left. *winks* ;)

I was always more interested in literature/creative writing to care about boring semantics or 'proper' grammar.
I had one teacher that actually like 'proper' grammar, but the diagraming of sentences, well, that just sucked.

Other than that, I've always found the teachers are more interested in literature/creative writing along with the students. Which really doesn't help.

Oh well, I'll just keep charging blindly into things. Gone OK so far, except for the whole suspected backwards Spanish.

shut it, grammer freak

if the intended meaning of the phrase is "it is enough to say that...", then why is 'sufficed' not ok to use when it means

:confused:

and no fancy grammar-speak, cos all that subjunctive/past/perfect participle nonsense just makes me cry
(thats a genuine question 'cos i don't understand :( )

It does mean that, yes, but the meaning has no bearing on the incorrect grammar of "sufficed to say." The thing is, "sufficed" is a so called past participle - i.e. the form of the verb you use to denote that something happened in the past, while the perfect participle is the form of the verb you use with "have" to form a compound tense, and sometimes they coincide as they do with "suffice, sufficed, (had) sufficed."

Now, they just happen to be of a so called "indicative" mood. That mood is used for stating things that are facts or that have happened or are going to happen with certainty.

The "subjunctive" mood on the other hand is used with uncertainties, to express something impersonal, to convey an emotional response, something contrary to fact and so on. It is not very common in modern English, but it does continue to live on in certain set phrases such as "be that as it may, "if I were," "come what may," "God save the queen" &c. and is in such cases called a "formulaic subjunctive." "Suffice it to say" is one such set phrase where the formulaic subjunctive is used.

The subjunctive is also common in indirect speech following certain verbs that convey a mandative statement (examples are "I demand that she give me my papers," "I insist that it be left aside"), after expressions such as "it is best/crucial/desirable/essential/imperative/important/recommended/urgent/vital (that)," and also with certain locutions such as "lest" ("We had better hide, lest we be caught by the Nazis"). There are other uses, but these are the primary ones.

Anyway, your use of "sufficed" in the expression makes no sense grammatically because the indicative demands a subject (a person or thing doing the action, i.e. with the indicative something in the phrase has to suffice, "it sufficed" or "she sufficed" or "The cars sufficed for our purposes.") and also because it is in the past tense - what you are saying sufficed some time ago - with the tense you express temporality which is incongruent with the meaning, which is more of a wishing or mandative one. You mandate that it suffice, you are saying "let it suffice to say" not that it had sufficed to say something sometime ago.

I hope this makes at least a little more sense.

Yeah, that's the bit.

Ahh...you see I'm working in four "languages" over here right now, Spanish, English, Swedish, and backwards-English. Anything that starts with the letter "q" corresponds to my Spanish region of the brain...and then having "is" backwards didn't help all that much either, because it looks like "si"...anyhow, just weird how that worked as well.

I guess this displays the inherent advantages of only speaking one language. Or not, I guess.

That was a good curve ball!

Thanks:)

Well...um...no...to be fair, I'd say that'd my conclusions have to back up the idea that brains read easier right to left. *winks* ;)

It was worth a shot :p

Given that we're all typing on a forum and most people skip out on grammar, does anyone else believe they should continue to uphold the ideals of good spelling, defending the honour of the Queen's English? (Or the President's English)


Yes, but I agree with Yukonuthead, the current president is not to be included.

That error is so common (almost as common as "grammer" in place of "grammar".) It's ridiculous how many people spell that word wrong.
I stand corrected. Thank you.

well, we never seemed to cover that depth of grammar in my english lessons as far as i recall... besides, i was always more interested in literature/creative writing to care about boring semantics or 'proper' grammar :P

though yeah, it made learning german hard :(

and i still don't get what half of the crap means. bah!

Well, I've never gotten what half of that crap means, either (not even in my native language) but I've still always been pretty good at languages. Sure, there's no way around learning the basic rules of a language, but from that, I mostly go by what "feels" right, i.e. you get a feel for how the language is supposed to sound, to be structured, etc... Always worked fine for me.

I guess this displays the inherent advantages of only speaking one language.
No, its just me. I didn't see the curve ball for what it was. I prepared for a Latino-Curve, when it really was just a Vowel-Movement. I should have been able to notice that it was a mere variation of the Backwards-Curve, but instead I was hung up on the dreaded Latino-Curve.

Wow...take this twisted metaphor for what it is. I amaze myself how I can write things and not comprehend them, and that makes me think about poets and such, and if they even have a meaning behind their own work. I'll just stop here, instead of writing my thought process.

:p

It's scientifically proven that most educated adults can distinguish a word as long as there's on letter in the right spot. At least words that they know.

Two leretts to be crocret Emaxple -

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!

i dunt min ppl hoo dnt speel proparli coz its only da itnerfet, hoo shud car wever i cn spel?!21 u cn stil reed it rite?! i cn! u all stoopid lol!!!1

:p

Can you believe I almost ran that through a spell checker just then? Suffice to say, I'm not a grammar Nazi, and I'm sure I make my fair share of typos and mistakes (which I'm sure someone will point out :p). But there is a limit of what I can tolerate, and the above example is that limit. People who write like that, and they are unfortunately common, need to be thwacked over the head with their keyboards. There's no excuse for it, it's just lazy.

The thing is, there comes a point where I can't be bothered. If the writer doesn't care about communicating with me enough to use a common language properly, why should I care enough to decipher it? There are reasons for the various conventions that have grown up in most if not all languages, not the least of which are the avoidance of unnecessary ambiguity or other confusion, and ease of recognition.

To paraphrase from an entirely unrelated context about a different problem of communication, "If the person writing non-standard English doesn't wish to be understood by the rest of us, he could better accomplish this by not typing at all."

I hope this makes at least a little more sense.
the first paragraph and (most of) the last, yes. you sort of lost me in the middle :p
but thanks, i guess :)
at least i can now say that one correctly :D


Well, I've never gotten what half of that crap means, either (not even in my native language) but I've still always been pretty good at languages. Sure, there's no way around learning the basic rules of a language, but from that, I mostly go by what "feels" right, i.e. you get a feel for how the language is supposed to sound, to be structured, etc... Always worked fine for me.
haha yeah, that worked for me too :P
managed to get an A at gcse german (got B's in english though... but that was because we had an american teacher :p) but when i went to meet family in germany over the summer i couldn't even converse with a two-year-old :headbang:

(though that's probably because its about 5 years since i stopped learning german...)


oh god this is bringing back memories of learning latin grammar! :eek: noooooo!! *feels sick*

Given that we're all typing on a forum and most people skip out on grammar, does anyone else believe they should continue to uphold the ideals of good spelling, defending the honour of the Queen's English? (Or the President's English)

Spelling is a totally arbitrary system of putting sounds on paper, of course, but it often conveys a first impression about a person. Sloppy at spelling, sloppy at work. That kind of thing.


(Btw: if the French hadn't helped the Americans to gain their independence the Americans would be spreaking English.)

... the Americans would be spreaking English.
um... they do. :confused:

but when i went to meet family in germany over the summer i couldn't even converse with a two-year-old :headbang:
Honey, nobody can converse with a two-year-old. They pitch fits over building bricks and walk under coffee tables. You don't want to compare yourself on that level.

um... they do. :confused:

I think he means English English as opposed to American English

Honey, nobody can converse with a two-year-old. They pitch fits over building bricks and walk under coffee tables. You don't want to compare yourself on that level.
nor could i converse with the 7 year old... or any of the adults :p

but point taken ;)

I think he means English English as opposed to American English
aha yeah...

...



I had one teacher that actually like 'proper' grammar, but the diagraming of sentences, well, that just sucked.



...


Sentence-diagramming -- yumm!

I have to say I really enjoyed diagramming, almost as much as learning the rest of it (I go back to the days of Warriner's English Grammar and Composition series, so we got a lot of it. All good!)

If you think of it as being similar to writing equations in algebra, it's much more fun.

And for anyone who still hasn't read it, a decent and sometimes amusing introduction to the passion for English may be found in Eats, Shoots & Leaves by Lynne Truss. Granted, its main concern is punctuation, but that serves as a window into other aspects of grammar. And it gives some great examples of how it can go wrong if you leave out necessary punctuation. My favourites include:

"Leonora walked on her head a little higher than usual."
and of course
"Dicks in tray"

This doesn't seem to be so much about grammar as it is about orthography. My basic stance is this: I learnt your bloody language, so, please, have the courtesy to do so yourself.

Seconded!

Oh, the irony...

The extent of how much spelling is underrated on these fora seems to be directly proportional to how much the correction of it is overrated.

Forsooth, one's capacity in the use of correct grammar and vocabulary is verily a testament to the quality of the originator of such literature.

I always try to write in correct English, I think it's quite stupid to write 'your' when it should be 'you're' or 'its' instead of 'it's' because those words have totally different meanings. I don't care about using 133+ , that's totally cool with me.
I myself am Dutch, btw.

I always try to write in correct English, I think it's quite stupid to write 'your' when it should be 'you're' or 'its' instead of 'it's' because those words have totally different meanings. I don't care about using 133+ , that's totally cool with me.
I myself am Dutch, btw.

Commendable English for a foreigner I must confess.

Commendable English for a foreigner I must confess.

Especially since the English are so bad at it:p

Forsooth, one's capacity in the use of correct grammar and vocabulary is verily a testament to the quality of the originator of such literature.

Oh, irony. (http://www.oup.com/oald-bin/web_getald7index1a.pl) Also (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10266406&postcount=34), follow through with your archaic notion. (Yes, I learn, and do allow the reference, Fass.)