NationStates Jolt Archive

How many times does someone make a valuable comment, but forgets the double t or misses an apostrophe, and someone else thinks they'll be clever by pointing it out in a snide and sarcastic manner? It's disrespectful and completely pointless! People do it to show that they have a keener grasp of grammar and spelling than the next person - congratulations, I was taught well at school too but find it unnecessary to correct every little detail of people's English. It also indicates an over-developed superego, you obsessive high-anxiety slaves to authority.

It raises a more important point, that is that the purpose of language is communication in the here and now, not to live up to a preconceived ideal of spelling and grammar written decades or centuries ago. Thus if someone is able to make themselves understood, what is the point of correcting them based on an arbitrary standard? Like the previous sentence, I'm pretty sure technically it's not correct to pair a 3rd person singular pronoun with a 3rd person plural, but I wanted to indicate both genders and see no reason to use two words. Similarly, slang that is easily understood and abbreviative will save time and facilitate communication, so why not use it? And lastly, to the grammar traditionalists, I don't see you spelling today as to-day or using other archaic conventions that were wiped out long ago, and if those conventions aren't right for today then what makes the ones you defend so sacred?

It's "pedantic."

Judging by your post I can only assume you misspelled pedantic on purpose :D

It's "pedantic."
*slap*

He raises a good point. I'll admit: I'm somewhat of a grammar nazi myself, but only to the extent of a few things. I can't stand seeing this, for instance: ????

It just irks me. But, despite my grammarnaziish tendencies, I'll not ignore the point someone made in favor of correcting their grammar.

Have another one of those edgy oregano joints, I'm sure it'll do your brain a lot of good.

It's "pedantic."
Well, duh, I can spell.

Well, duh, I can spell.

But not commatise, it seems. Come now, if you're going to bitch about pedants, let's get into the wankery completely, shall we?

You're right. If someone is able to correct what you said, then that means they understood it in the first place. It's totally uneccessary.

But not commatise, it seems. Come now, if you're going to bitch about pedants, let's get into the wankery completely, shall we?
Well, we do know that you know alot about wanking, no?

Well, we do know that you know alot about wanking, no?

Handjobs are a staple of a healthy sex life.

Handjobs are a staple of a healthy sex life.

Indeed.

How many times does someone make a valuable comment, but forgets the double t or misses an apostrophe, and someone else thinks they'll be clever by pointing it out in a snide and sarcastic manner? It's disrespectful and completely pointless! People do it to show that they have a keener grasp of grammar and spelling than the next person - congratulations, I was taught well at school too but find it unnecessary to correct every little detail of people's English. It also indicates an over-developed superego, you obsessive high-anxiety slaves to authority.

It raises a more important point, that is that the purpose of language is communication in the here and now, not to live up to a preconceived ideal of spelling and grammar written decades or centuries ago. Thus if someone is able to make themselves understood, what is the point of correcting them based on an arbitrary standard? Like the previous sentence, I'm pretty sure technically it's not correct to pair a 3rd person singular pronoun with a 3rd person plural, but I wanted to indicate both genders and see no reason to use two words. Similarly, slang that is easily understood and abbreviative will save time and facilitate communication, so why not use it? And lastly, to the grammar traditionalists, I don't see you spelling today as to-day or using other archaic conventions that were wiped out long ago, and if those conventions aren't right for today then what makes the ones you defend so sacred?

Not true. If you make a spelling or grammatical error, it makes you look like an idiot. Many of those archaic conventions you speak of predate dictionaries. Now that we actually have standards, we're not about to replace 'the' with 'teh' just because a lot of people make the typo (at least, not while I live). Slang does not facilitate communication; slang obscures communication. Would you like to see internet chatroom slang in your news articles?

True, language changes over time. But your topic raises the question of why you would willingly open yourself up to the derision and mockery of the public by misusing language when you obviously know it well enough not to do so (with the exception of the word 'pedantic' is seems).

We aren't exactly writing term papers on here. Misspelling and punctuation errors happen but unless it becomes truly atrocious it should not matter in the least.

Fass you seem obsessed with sex and the male genital area. Are you alright?

Handjobs are a staple of a healthy sex life.
My sex life is so depressingly healthy. *sigh*

It's "pedantic."
ROFLMAO!!! You beat me to it, you ... you ... pedant you! :D

Fass you seem obsessed with sex and the male genital area. Are you alright?
He's always like that. Didn't you know?

We aren't exactly writing term papers on here. Misspelling and punctuation errors happen but unless it becomes truly atrocious it should not matter in the least.

Maybe to mortals. Is it so hard to take a few seconds to proofread your posts?

Fass you seem obsessed with sex and the male genital area. Are you alright?

Nothing wrong with that.

Fass you seem obsessed with sex and the male genital area.

You say that like it were a bad thing.

Are you alright?

I'm super, thanks for asking.

Maybe to mortals. Is it so hard to take a few seconds to proofread your posts?

Next thing you know some English hardass will be looking for passive voice or some other annoying "proper" English violation. We debate on here but it is a casual forum correct? It is a nice dodge however to go after someones spelling instead of the content of their post.

Not true. If you make a spelling or grammatical error, it makes you look like an idiot. Many of those archaic conventions you speak of predate dictionaries. Now that we actually have standards, we're not about to replace 'the' with 'teh' just because a lot of people make the typo (at least, not while I live). Slang does not facilitate communication; slang obscures communication. Would you like to see internet chatroom slang in your news articles?

True, language changes over time. But your topic raises the question of why you would willingly open yourself up to the derision and mockery of the public by misusing language when you obviously know it well enough not to do so (with the exception of the word 'pedantic' is seems).
That's the point! I do know how to spell and I do know reasonable, though not anally retentive, standards of grammar. Others may not, but may have valuable things to say, and judging them as stupid as a result is ridiculous and missing the point of language. What about dyslexics and others who may be highly intelligent but make simple mistakes in grammar because of disruption in their language process? Why should they be prejudged by grammar authoritarians as idiots? Standards are flexible over time (e.g. the to-day convention as I pointed out before that only disappeared around 50 years ago), and as soon as they hold back the reasonable evolution of a language they become archaic and pointless.

Why in English are the standardised spellings so counterintuitive? It is these ridiculous spellings that give English speaking countries such high dyslexia rates. If evrything was ritten foneticaly then hyer reeding standards wud be attained. It's pointless traditionalism that keeps it otherwise.

And in case anyone didn't figure, I did purposely misspell pedantic :headbang:

Fass you seem obsessed with sex and the male genital area. Are you alright?
And you seem like someone who loves to hijack a thread for the purpose of attacking Fass. What's your point?

Not true. If you make a spelling or grammatical error, it makes you look like an idiot. Many of those archaic conventions you speak of predate dictionaries. Now that we actually have standards, we're not about to replace 'the' with 'teh' just because a lot of people make the typo (at least, not while I live). Slang does not facilitate communication; slang obscures communication. Would you like to see internet chatroom slang in your news articles?

True, language changes over time. But your topic raises the question of why you would willingly open yourself up to the derision and mockery of the public by misusing language when you obviously know it well enough not to do so (with the exception of the word 'pedantic' is seems).
There's a difference between purposely mispelling and using slang all over the place and making a couple errors by ACCIDENT. It is the latter that he speaks of, not the former.

If evrything was ritten foneticaly then hyer reeding standards wud be attained.


Who are you, Andrew Carnegie?

Who are you, Andrew Carnegie?
??

That's the point! I do know how to spell and I do know reasonable, though not anally retentive, standards of grammar. Others may not, but may have valuable things to say, and judging them as stupid as a result is ridiculous and missing the point of language. What about dyslexics and others who may be highly intelligent but make simple mistakes in grammar because of disruption in their language process? Why should they be prejudged by grammar authoritarians as idiots? Standards are flexible over time (e.g. the to-day convention as I pointed out before that only disappeared around 50 years ago), and as soon as they hold back the reasonable evolution of a language they become archaic and pointless.

Why in English are the standardised spellings so counterintuitive? It is these ridiculous spellings that give English speaking countries such high dyslexia rates. If evrything was ritten foneticaly then hyer reeding standards wud be attained. It's pointless traditionalism that keeps it otherwise.

I hate to say it, but dyslexic people are probably going to be corrected or mocked on a forum just the same as people who make careless errors (although I imagine it's not impossible to distinguish between the two; it's also relatively easy to recognize if someone has not learned english as their first language, and it's generally pointless to correct someone like that).

Why in English are the standardised spellings so counterintuitive? It is these ridiculous spellings that give English speaking countries such high dyslexia rates. If evrything was ritten foneticaly then hyer reeding standards wud be attained. It's pointless traditionalism that keeps it otherwise.

Here is what a recent news story would look like under your higher reading standards:

"Rusha has propozed that noo taks on Iran's nookleyar program tayk plays on March 20 - most lykli in Vee-ena - diplomats sed Satirday.

A Western diplomat, hoo demanded anonimitee in xchanj for the konfidenshul informashun, sed Mozkow wuz seeking hi-level taks with the United Stayts, China, Frans and Britin - the uthir 4 permanent members of the Securitee Cownsul."

...

Ridiculousness aside, how do you intend to implement this new standard? How do you know that language will change to what you think it will? Do you think that it will remain static at a perfectly phoenetic standard? Language is far too complex for that.

Further, how do you know that english causes dyslexia?

And in case anyone didn't figure, I did purposely misspell pedantic :headbang:

Shame on you, infidel. Grammar and spelling are no laughing matters.

??

Carnegie formed a board once to try to implement "E-Z Spelling." He was a big advocate of spelling everything phonetically. He tried to get this implemented in schools nationwide. Needless to say, he failed quite miserably.

And you seem like someone who loves to hijack a thread for the purpose of attacking Fass. What's your point?


There's a difference between purposely mispelling and using slang all over the place and making a couple errors by ACCIDENT. It is the latter that he speaks of, not the former.

I'm speaking of both. I don't believe he made the distinction explicitly; it seems to me that he's advocating the integration of such slang directly into the language.

And if someone pointed out a spelling error that I made by accident, I would be grateful that I was told it was incorrect. I don't know how to spell every word there is.

And if someone pointed out a spelling error that I made by accident, I would be grateful that I was told it was incorrect. I don't know how to spell every word there is.

Do you think I should be upset that I didn't know what "pedantic" meant before today? :confused:

Do you think I should be upset that I didn't know what "pedantic" meant before today? :confused:

There are millions of words. There are words for just about everything. I endeavor to learn new words. I don't do this by seeking them out, or by reading the dictionary and committing pages of it to memory. I do it by reading the same things that most people do (books, the news, etc.). Suppose you encounter the word pedantic in another context; shouldn't you be grateful that you knew it so you would know what was being said in that context? The more words you know, the better you can understand people, and the better you can communicate.

Not true, as there are multiple ways of writing the same word if we are to use invented spellings. Invented spellings, in my opinion, is the greatest disservice the US has introduced to its grade school students. In essence, you teach students non-standard English first, then once they have mastered their misspellings, reteach the language. It's unfair and confusing to the students and the proof ought to be readily visible in the kinds of programs that are being created to "ramp up" students to what ought to be their proper reading levels.

As the resident English teacher around here, I avoid correcting people, except when they are arrogant and superior about how brilliant they are whilst misspelling half a dozen words in their flamebaiting.

Furthermore, to refute another point oft repeated here, in addition to content, one's correct and fluent use of the language is also usually judged in formal debate. In a world where prominent speakers cannot grasp the difference between nuclear and nukular, sadly, standards are on the decline.

Should we make allowances for others whose first language is not English? Positively. Many, though not all, second language learners I have worked with preferred their errors to be pointed out gently, for how are they to improve if they do not know where they have gone astray? However, when one rails against those who point out improper grammar, one does create an amusingly ironic situation when one does it clumsily.

Ridiculousness aside, how do you intend to implement this new standard? How do you know that language will change to what you think it will? Do you think that it will remain static at a perfectly phoenetic standard? Language is far too complex for that.
Implement? I'm talking about relaxing standards and acknowledging that the way we spell and use grammar now is not the only 'correct' way. Take away the 'rules' and let language adapt and evolve as it should. So making it static at a new standard is the opposite of what I'm endorsing.

Further, how do you know that english causes dyslexia?

I study psychology, and have seen cross-cultural studies of dyslexia that show a very high prevalence in English-speaking countries compared to other languages. Even languages with much harder grammar, such as Finnish, or harder writing systems like Chinese, show lower dyslexia rates. Those with the lowest of all include Korean which uses phonetically perfect symbols, each representing a syllable. Letting a language evolve more phonetically suitable spelling will improve reading standards in the long term and reduce dyslexia.

I'm speaking of both. I don't believe he made the distinction explicitly; it seems to me that he's advocating the integration of such slang directly into the language.

That's true, slang words if widely understood should be integrated and considered as words like any other. The key is whether the audience understands what you are trying to communicate. If so, the language is valid.

Some information on dyslexia, which is not, as seemingly suggested earlier in the thread, CAUSED by English language learning:

http://www.interdys.org/fact%20sheets/Definition%20N.pdf

Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurological in
origin. It is characterized by difficulties with accurate and/or
fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities.
These difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological
component of language that is often unexpected in relation to other
cognitive abilities and the provision of effective classroom
instruction. Secondary consequences may include problems in
reading comprehension and reduced reading experience that can
impede the growth of vocabulary and background knowledge.


http://www.interdys.org/fact%20sheets/Basics%20FS%20N.PDF

What causes dyslexia?
The exact causes of dyslexia are still not
completely clear, but anatomical and brain
imagery studies show differences in the way the
brain of a dyslexic person develops and functions.
Moreover, people with dyslexia have been found
to have problems with discriminating sounds
within a word, a key factor in their reading
difficulties. Dyslexia is not due to either lack of
intelligence or a desire to learn; with appropriate
teaching methods dyslexics can learn
successfully.

How widespread is dyslexia?
Current studies suggest that 15-20% of the
population has a reading disability. Of those, 85%
has dyslexia. Dyslexia occurs in people of all
backgrounds and intellectual levels. In addition,
dyslexia runs in families; dyslexic parents are
very likely to have children who are dyslexic.
Some people are identified as dyslexic early in
their lives, but for others their dyslexia goes
unidentified until they get older. People who are
very bright can be dyslexic. They are often gifted
in areas that do not require strong language skills,
such as art, computer science, design, drama,
electronics, math, mechanics, music, physics,
sales, and sports.

What are the effects of dyslexia?
The impact that dyslexia has is different for each
person and depends on the severity of the
condition and the approaches of the remediation.
The most common effects are problems with
reading, spelling, and writing. Some dyslexics do
not have much difficulty with early reading and
spelling tasks but do experience great problems
when more complex language skills are required,
such as grammar, understanding textbook
material, and writing essays.
People with dyslexia can also have problems with
spoken language. They may find it difficult to
express themselves clearly, or to fully
comprehend what others mean when they speak.
Such language problems are often difficult to
recognize, but they can lead to major problems in
school, in the workplace, and in relating to other
people. The effects of dyslexia reach well beyond
the classroom.
Dyslexia can also affect a person’s self-image.
Students with dyslexia often end up feeling
“dumb” and less capable than they actually are.
After experiencing a great deal of stress due to
academic problems, a student may become
discouraged about continuing in school.
How is dyslexia diagnosed?
A formal evaluation is needed to discover if a
person is dyslexic. The evaluation assesses
intellectual ability, information processing,
psycho-linguistic processing, and academic skills.


Prevalence of dyslexia in different countries: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/wdnf/languages.html
Statistics of prevalence of dyslexia quoted in The International Book of Dyslexia

* Belgium 5%
* Britain 4%
* Czech Republic 2-3%
* Finland 10%
* Greece 5%
* Italy 1.3-5.0%
* Japan 6%
* Nigeria 11%
* Norway 3%
* Poland 4%
* Russia 10%
* Singapore 3.3%
* Slovakia 1 to 2 %
* USA 8.5%

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2001/dyslexia.shtml
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3809/is_200301/ai_n9226177/pg_5


Clearly, there is a larger percentage of the population in Russia, Nigeria and Finland who are dyslexic than in the US or the UK. Additionally, the articles above point out that very different parts of the brain are used in coding and encoding the character based languages such as Chinese; therefore a person dyslexic in Chinese may not be dyslexic in French.

A paragraph can mean the opposite if you do not use correct punctuation.

I don't have the example, but it was rather amusing and surprising.

Prevalence of dyslexia in different languages:

And Belgium is not a language in itself, but has both Dutch and French.

Woman without her man is nothing

An English professor wrote the words, “Woman without her man is nothing” on the blackboard and directed his students to punctuate it correctly.

The men wrote: “Woman, without her man, is nothing.”

The women wrote: “Woman: Without her, man is nothing.”

http://www.thrivingnow.com/for/Rick/woman-without-her-man-is-nothing/

;) Good enough example?

A paragraph can mean the opposite if you do not use correct punctuation.

I don't have the example, but it was rather amusing and surprising.



And Belgium is not a language in itself, but has both Dutch and French.

See above; and my line introducing the chart is edited, though the chart in itself is not my creation.

Yeah, that's very good.

But I would imagine men would be the ones to realize that they are nothing without women? or maybe they suck at making :'s?

Some information on dyslexia, which is not, as seemingly suggested earlier in the thread, CAUSED by English language learning:
...
Clearly, there is a larger percentage of the population in Russia, Nigeria and Finland who are dyslexic than in the US or the UK.
I certainly wasn't suggesting that English learning caused dyslexia, merely that a language with such irregular spelling exacerbated the problem. Remember, like with all psychological phenomena, it's not the presence of neurological defects that is generally used to assess the existence of a problem, but the functioning level within society. So most likely there are similar percentages of people in every country born with a certain level of dyslexia as a fundamental attribute of their brains, but with the problems caused by the irregular and highly non-phonetic spelling of English, the dyslexia is more strongly manifested.

This was suggested by a study I read, which came up with quite different percentages than those you quoted. Of course, you get two psychologists to do studies on one phenomenon and they'll come up with totally different and yet both statistically accurate answers... Nonetheless it seems intuitively correct that the symptoms of a language disorder are made worse by a written language that doesn't follow phonetics. Other examples of this can be found in improvements in language learning through teaching of the phonetic alphabet, and the greater ease dyslexics have over non-dyslexics in learning languages with phonetic alphabets like Japanese katakana.

It's "pedantic."
And yet, even when pokingfun, you asked me for examples of your being a pedant.

Here you go. :p

pedontic

Write it out again, correctly.

The use of generally correct punctuation, spelling and grammatical structure in correspondence is a form of courtesy to the reader.

If you're not doing it, either you don't know how to or you're being deliberately impolite.

The correct response in either case is to point it out.

Write it out again, correctly.
:upyours:

The use of generally correct punctuation, spelling and grammatical structure in correspondence is a form of courtesy to the reader.

Why?? Because it's convention? If it's understandable what's the problem?

I hate to say it, but dyslexic people are probably going to be corrected or mocked on a forum just the same as people who make careless errors

I'm dyslexic and I don't give a fuck. Mock me to my face and I will have you shot.

I'm dyslexic and I don't give a fuck. Mock me to my face and I will have you shot.
:confused: You don't care, yet you want to shoot the people who mock you?

:confused: You don't care, yet you want to shoot the people who mock you?No, in real life I wouldn't shoot people. In real life I'll just laugh and think of something better to do.

Still confused?:D

Ahem, pedantic.

*sniffs* Pedantic really has little to do with grammar itself. The term you're looking for is Grammar Nazi. A pedant can concern himself with any area of knowledge. It is not in fact the content that is important, but how and in what specific cadence the information is presented.

Me, Grammar Nazi ... never! :D

If evrything was ritten foneticaly then hyer reeding standards wud be attained.

If evrything were. ;)

One little misspelling or incorrect punctuation or capitalization can completely change your entire meaning.

There's a huge difference between:

"I'm going to go help my uncle Jack off a horse."

and

"I'm going to go help my uncle jack off a horse."

Why?? Because it's convention? If it's understandable what's the problem?
If telling someone to "Go fuck yourself with a stick" lets them know you're not very happy with what they've done, what's wrong with it? Why should anyone ever bother saying "I found that very disrespectful and offensive"?

A set of rules has been established to make communication less strenuous and interpretation more precise. Not sticking to those rules makes it that little bit more difficult for a reader to see what you're getting at and it is therefore reasonable to presume that the only reason other than ignorance for not doing it is that it's less hassle for you to make them do the work of decoding your message than for you to properly set it out yourself.

We call that incivility.

Belgium does have it's own language- Flemish.

I'm surprised no one has pointed out that different spellings of words which sound identical have different meanings:

Weather- climatic conditions in a specific area at a specific time
Whether- as in, "whether or not"
Wether- a castrated ram

I'm surprised no one has pointed out that different spellings of words which sound identical have different meanings:

Weather- climatic conditions in a specific area at a specific time
Whether- as in, "whether or not"
Wether- a castrated ram
Many people do pronounce the 'h' in 'wh' sounds.

When someone is too lazy to use proper grammar and spelling, to grasp the differences between words which sound alike, and to understand the simple basics of the English language's underlying logic, I tend not to see that as particularly indicative of an active intellect.

In other words, if you don't understand the very language you use, don't expect your opinions to be taken seriously.

I'm super, thanks for asking.
hahahaha :p

best Fass-post ever :D
*gives box of cookies and whipped cream*


as for the OP: i agree, we're communicating. thats the important thing - as long as the other people round here understand what you're saying, then thats what matters (ie. no l337, no txt/IM spk u wnker, no typing ridiculously long sentences and whole paragraphs without so much as a hint of punctuation...)

Your linguistical performance is seen as a primary indicator of intelligence and wit. So, sue someone.

When someone is too lazy to use proper grammar and spelling, to grasp the differences between words which sound alike, and to understand the simple basics of the English language's underlying logic, I tend not to see that as particularly indicative of an active intellect.
This is the problem. Active intellect? There are several forms of intelligence which are to some extent independent from each other. Someone's spatial or musical abilities may be very different from their mathematic or linguistic skills. And quite often, the most eloquent orator actually has the least to say, they get away with it by using flowery language to avoid having to make a point. Always judge someone by what they say. How they say it may be a product of many different factors, including the kind and quality of education they received, which say nothing about their underlying intellect.

As a self-professed communist, you should understand this. I have got a reasonable grasp of grammar and spelling, and am standing up for those who don't.

Belgium does have it's own language- Flemish.


No, it doesn't. Flemish is just dutch.