NationStates Jolt Archive

Firstly, I must admit I do not always use the English language perfectly. I occasionally make a slip up. I sometimes forget to capitalise, and on occasion I forget to put in the necessary commas. However, it pains me when people use apostrophes incorrectly.

Recently I have noticed numerous business signs with incorrect grammar and poor spelling. For example:

The Coffee Club: "Pasta's, Pizzas, Baguette's, Ommlette's...]

Computer Repairs Place: Ed's Pc's

I've also noticed menus, websites and advertisements in the Yellow Pages with incorrect grammar and spelling as well, and it simply drives me mad!

If you had any sense at all, you would check that your signage is correct, wouldn't you?

Personally, I refuse to use a company (in Australia, an English speaking country) that can't even use the English language correctly (obviously with the exception of businesses run by those who are native to a different country, for example a Chinese restaurant).

I think that if they can't even bother to spell check their advertising, they probably aren't going to bother to do a good job either.

When someone writes, a document and put's punctuation in the, wrong places that get's very annoying and I just cant read it. And lots off speling errers are just as bad.

lol :)

I consider caring about the image of your company to be a pretty important part of delivering good service. If a company can't even be thorough enough to make sure its signs and labels are correct, I don't know for sure whether or not the rest of their business is up to par. Even if it seems trivial, image is a very important part of consumer decision making.

This is especially true at the higher end where wealthier, more educated people are likely to insist upon the best services they can afford and would not patronize a store that does not convey that kind of image.

You know you're just inviting someone to rip into your post's grammar, right? :p

On topic though, yeah, that happens. Ignorance of how to pluralize words is basically unforgivable. Confusing was/were can be very obnoxious, and I won't even touch "txt." That whole topic can get ugly in a hurry.

Absolutely. Though I myself might not boycott altogehter, it is definately something that would bother me, business's need a professional image, I don't use perfect grammar myself, and this is my native anguage, then again, I am not writing ads for companies, and passing my poor grammar skills along, which many people are apparently doing. The sad thing is that I think that grammar skills have become so unimportant to everyone that most people don't even seem to know the rules very well, to know when a billboard misuses said rules.

I agree with everyone else here so far.

Amor, any way for you to put in the missing "use" in your OP?

I consider caring about the image of your company to be a pretty important part of delivering good service. If a company can't even be thorough enough to make sure its signs and labels are correct, I don't know for sure whether or not the rest of their business is up to par. Even if it seems trivial, image is a very important part of consumer decision making.

This is especially true at the higher end where wealthier, more educated people are likely to insist upon the best services they can afford and would not patronize a store that does not convey that kind of image.

Amen.

I once walked into a place whose menu board had spelled the plural of "sandwich" like this: "sandwiche's". I was hungry, but also worried. I walked up to the person in charge and told them that their sign was spelled incorrectly. She looked like I'd just told her she was fat and ugly. Her face composed itself and she retorted "well, it got your attention, didn't it?" To which I immediately replied, "lady, if you can't take the time and effort SPELL 'sandwiches', why would I trust you to MAKE one with any accpetable level of time and care? You DID get my attention. What you DIDN'T get was my business."

This apostrophe horseshit is EVERYwhere. It's the height of intellectual laziness to not get it right on something you mean to attract customers. And the damned Yellow Pages should have editors, ffs, who KNOW better.

you leave my grammer alone. she's perfectly happy with where she is and wherever her leftovers got burried.

=^^=
.../\...

Tell me about it... In German, you don't use the apostrophe for that, but too many places and brands can't seem to help it.

This is one of the things which drives me up the wall, too. To the point I itch to correct someone if I heard them say something wrong, which is kind of stupid.

I'm also a bastard for spelling.

Now I dislike the grocer's apostrophe as much as the next man, but I don't think apostrophes on abbreviations like PC's should be lumped in with that.

Language is 100% about conveying a message with clarity and given that people don't tend to use full stops anymore, the only clue you have whether you're dealing with a plural of P.C. or something called P.C.S. is a small size difference of the letter S.

I consider caring about the image of your company to be a pretty important part of delivering good service. If a company can't even be thorough enough to make sure its signs and labels are correct, I don't know for sure whether or not the rest of their business is up to par.

I quite agree. And yes, the constant misuse of apostrophes I see whenever I go to the UK is driving me insane! It seems to get worse every year. Did these people sleep through basic grammar classes, or don't they teach you grammar in British schools?

More to the point: Don't they read? How can someone who reads regularly (be it only the press) continue to get it wrong?

I read. I loved Literature and English. I could care less about grammar.

Unless someone is just writing hackney that sounds like Old English then why criticize them?

I am lazy, and do not care for the Grammar Gestapo. The most common words are made up by the general public, and used by the general public how they want to use them. I've often been told I have a large vocabulary when I speak, and it got to the point where I finally just learned to use more simple words because people were always saying "Why are you using big words." In a society where people do not really care or respect you for that skill, then why care?

I really do not believe excellency in grammar or vocabulary signifies higher intelligence.

My friend who is an English professor just the other day told me a girl in Physics classes who was highly advanced in math could not even form a complete sentence. She said that is how it is for many people. She still grades them wrong to keep the college standard, but she admits that she does not believe someone is unintelligent simply because they do not have a good grasp of grammar.

I read. I loved Literature and English. I could care less about grammar.

I'm glad to hear that. How much less, exactly, could you care?


I've often been told I have a large vocabulary when I speak, and it got to the point where I finally just learned to use more simple words because people were always saying "Why are you using big words." In a society where people do not really care or respect you for that skill, then why care?


You allow society to dumb you down? Well, that's your loss.

A rich vocabulary is one of the bases of the ability for more complex and nuanced thought.

I'm glad to hear that. How much less, exactly, could you care?

You allow society to dumb you down? Well, that's your loss.

A rich vocabulary is one of the bases of the ability for more complex and nuanced thought.

Well my friend who has an Doctorate from Brown University and is an college English professor does not even use perfect grammar or high vocabulary in everyday speech nor email when she communicates casually with anyone.

Some people who feel like they have to use less commonly used words or criticize people for their grammar simply have an inferiority complex. Someone could have won the national spelling bee and still not totally grasp "complex and nuanced thought."

I measure my ability by being able to comprehend philosophy or complex theories, and discuss them lucidly. Not by putting an period or comma in the right place. I always disliked that in poetry. Very dry.

There's poetic licence and then there's ignorance and carelessness. On an Internet forum people can only judge what they can read. Your posts represent you so you should take the time and effort to present yourself well. You wouldn't leave the house with food all over your face. We have language rules for the same reasons we have rules of the road, consideration for others. If you can't be bothered to frame your comments in a manner that makes them accessible to the people you want to read them then what does that say about your attitude towards them?

...I could care less about grammar....
That's possibly my all time least favourite phrase. What does it even mean? "Couldn't care less" I get... it makes sense, but "could care less"? Bah. I've noticed over the years that it's predominantly used by American English speakers and so I assume that it's just another one of those little quirks that have developed over the years but, so help me, it bugs the shit out of me.

With that out of the way I'd like to state that, where Internet message boards are concerned, I tend not to pay too much attention to the grammar that people use. There are so many people who participate in them who do not have English as their native tongue that it would be churlish to be picky about minor grammatical errors. I just keep reminding myself that I am utterly incapable of communicating properly in any language other than English, which sort of puts me in my place if I feel my hackles rising. ;)

I do care about grammar because I would not want to read hackney or all l00t speak. I never appreciated that. So I cannot say that I do not care at all.

Though I would say I could care less about grammar snobbery. As I said I know educated people, an English professor of all people, who do not use perfect grammar nor large vocabulary in casual setting.

As I said I think people who are constantly critical of grammar have an inferiority complex. The general public really does not care that much for every small grammar rule.

That being said my grammar may be bad on here, but when I have written college essays I received really good grades. Though I have not had to deal with grammar perfectionists.


With that some light comedy.

http://warehouse.carlh.com/comic/theWAREHOUSE_comic_062.jpg

http://img115.exs.cx/img115/1141/grammar-nazi.jpg

Tell me about it... In German, you don't use the apostrophe for that, but too many places and brands can't seem to help it.

Tell ME about it.. I'm still very much in love with our uni's bookseller's sign that tells us we can buy "Krimi's" over in the far corner.

Honestly, we don't even use the apastrophe for the possessive, so why on earth would you suddenly slip it into the pluralization?!

I could care less about grammar.

I know I'm the third person to pick on this (but three's a charm, no?), but I'd like to point out that you've just said the equivalent of "I care about grammar" instead of "I don't care about grammar", which I presume you'd have wanted to say (which, incidentally, you could have done by saying "I couldn't care less").

On a side note, I'm glad to see nobody used "grammer" so far.

I know I'm the third person to pick on this (but three's a charm, no?), but I'd like to point out that you've just said the equivalent of "I care about grammar" instead of "I don't care about grammar", which I presume you'd have wanted to say (which, incidentally, you could have done by saying "I couldn't care less").

On a side note, I'm glad to see nobody used "grammer" so far.

Well as I said, I care to the extent that I do not want to see all hackney or l00t speak. However, I "couldn't" care less for grammar snobbery. On that note on my own grammar when writing college essays I have had really high grades. Though not many grammar nazi professors read them I suppose.

Here on a lighter note..lol

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c193/athell/GrammarNazi.jpg

Recently I have noticed numerous business signs with incorrect grammar and poor spelling. For example:

The Coffee Club: "Pasta's, Pizzas, Baguette's, Ommlette's...]

Computer Repairs Place: Ed's Pc's

I've also noticed menus, websites and advertisements in the Yellow Pages with incorrect grammar and spelling as well, and it simply drives me mad!

If you had any sense at all, you would check that your signage is correct, wouldn't you?

Couldn't agree more. As Laerod said, in German it's even more surreal because German doesn't even use an apostrophe to connotate possession, i.e. we don't even have "Ed's Pub", here it would be simply "Eds Pub"*.
But because so many company names and stores and ads and whatnot have been in English for the last few years (decades) that crappy idiot apostrophe has taken hold all over the place, basically for every word that just happens to have an "s" at the end, like your examples.

And, as to sound the death knell to logic, the stupidass and much hated spelling reform (no shit) a few years back now actually allows just about any kind of apostrophe people might conceivably put somewhere. Gah.

*there's one (1) single exception: when the name of the owner ends with an "s" sound

Honestly I hope I would not use something like the above example on a sign. Though I do not notice grammar errors unless their major. Perhaps it is an form of OCD when someone notices every grammar error, or your an editor.

For the public right now the ability, and desire to read is a lot more important than the usage of their grammar. Understanding of complex concepts expressed in words. A lot of college students I know BS their way through courses, and do not really even bother understanding what their reading. I think I read some ridiculously low statistic of how much of the population actually reads books regularly after high school or college. I do not see bookshelves in people's homes anymore. Now THAT is sad.

I do think knowing the meaning of words and having an large vocabulary is more important than following every small grammar or sentence structure rule. Surprisingly on standardized tests in High School I did in the top 1 or 2% for grammar, and literature. I am just lazy, and do not care to go by every rule. It has been forever since I read over the grammar rules.

~~~

BTW, I just came across the following: www.apostroph.de ; do take a look if you have the time; it is most humorous - Kapostropheum, lol.

P.S.: OMG! They even mess with verbs, now (http://apostroph.de/display.php?k=verbformen&p=1)? "Hab't"? "Feier'n" ? "Has't"? "Schein'st"? And, my favorite: "Is't"?!?! My head explodes.

I detest "särskrivning", which is the separation of compound words. It is a perversion that has sneaked into Swedish because of English influences, since the latter almost always separates its compounds into their constituents because it lacks or doesn't heed the type of nuances Swedish can express by combining them.

For instance, "skumtomte" ("foam gnome", a type of candy) would erroneously be written as "skum tomte" ("shady gnome"). "Brunhårig kvinna" ("brown-haired woman") would be erroneously written as "brun hårig kvinna" ("brown, hairy woman"). "Kassaapparater" ("cash registers") becomes "kassa apparater" ("crappy machines"). "Brunstensbatterier" (a type of battery) becomes "brunstens batterier" ("batteries of sexual heat"). "Skygglapp" ("blinder") becomes "skygg lapp" ("timid Laplander").

A menu item can go from being "skivad kalvlever med kulpotatis" ("sliced veal liver with round potatoes") to "skivad kalv lever med kul potatis" ("sliced calf lives with fun potato").

It is very vexing because it erodes a very vital part of Swedish - its Germanic propensity for effortless invention of new words as they are needed by combining two or more already existing ones.

Absolutely. Though I myself might not boycott altogehter, it is definately something that would bother me, business's need a professional image, I don't use perfect grammar myself, and this is my native anguage, then again, I am not writing ads for companies, and passing my poor grammar skills along, which many people are apparently doing. The sad thing is that I think that grammar skills have become so unimportant to everyone that most people don't even seem to know the rules very well, to know when a billboard misuses said rules.

Businesses. Not business's.

BTW, I just came across the following: www.apostroph.de ; do take a look if you have the time; it is most humorous - Kapostropheum, lol.Hehe. The plurals kill brain cells every time I look at them. And there are even verbs, oh my God! However, I totally maintain that an apostrophe is correct when leaving off the "e" at the end of an imperative. Duden be damned. So there. <<

http://img115.exs.cx/img115/1141/grammar-nazi.jpg

See, and I've always considered that the cry of "Those who cover up their lack of ability with "It doesn't matter"."

I detest "särskrivning", which is the separation of compound words. It is a perversion that has sneaked into Swedish because of English influences, since the latter almost always separates its compounds into their constituents because it lacks or doesn't heed the type of nuances Swedish can express by combining them.

For instance, "skumtomte" ("foam gnome", a type of candy) would erroneously be written as "skum tomte" ("shady gnome"). "Brunhårig kvinna" ("brown-haired woman") would be erroneously written as "brun hårig kvinna" ("brown, hairy woman"). "Kassaapparater" ("cash registers") becomes "kassa apparater" ("crappy machines"). "Brunstensbatterier" (a type of battery) becomes "brunstens batterier" ("batteries of sexual heat"). "Skygglapp" ("blinder") becomes "skygg lapp" ("timid Laplander").

A menu item can go from being "skivad kalvlever med kulpotatis" ("sliced veal liver with round potatoes") to "skivad kalv lever med kul potatis" ("sliced calf lives with fun potato").

It is very vexing because it erodes a very vital part of Swedish - its Germanic propensity for effortless invention of new words as they are needed by combining two or more already existing ones.
Hmm. I've seen that here, too, but I don't remember the separate parts ending up meaning something else. That's weird. Doesn't it throw people?
Then again, who am I to talk, seeing how the reform here officially decreed to split up words that throw everybody now ((former) compound verbs). :rolleyes:

See, and I've always considered that the cry of "Those who cover up their lack of ability with "It doesn't matter"."

It is about right though. No one does care as much anymore. I personally hate the Grammar Gestapo. I think it is pretentious, and displays an inferiority complex to correct on grammar. I don't think lack of grammar ability shows that our society is somehow dumbed down. I think the fact most people would rather watch reality shows than read a book is a sign but my point was missed by the European grammar discussion.

I am more concerned with people's reading comprehension than their grammatical ability.

My pet peeve is the misuse of adverbs.

Hmm. I've seen that here, too, but I don't remember the separate parts ending up meaning something else. That's weird. Doesn't it throw people?

It should throw people and does throw most properly educated people, but then you get people like Aerion who "could care less" [sic!] that their written language is at the level of a preschooler. Fortunately it comes back to bite them in the ass when they submit curricula vitae and their prospective employers drop them in favour of people who have managed to master their own native language.

Then again, who am I to talk, seeing how the reform here officially decreed to split up words that throw everybody now ((former) compound verbs). :rolleyes:

Examples, please. I'd like to know if my German teacher was old-fashioned or hip to the jive.

It is about right though. No one does care as much anymore. I personally hate the Grammar Gestapo. I think it is pretentious, and displays an inferiority complex to correct on grammar. I don't think lack of grammar ability shows that our society is somehow dumbed down. I think the fact most people would rather watch reality shows than read a book is a sign but my point was missed by the European grammar discussion.

I am more concerned with people's reading comprehension than their grammatical ability.

You will, I hope, concur that poor grammatical skills sometimes lead to making reading comprehension for those trying to follow a poorly constructed post difficult, and it has nothing to do with the ability of the reader?

It should throw people and does throw most properly educated people, but then you get people like Aerion who "could care less" [sic!] that their written language is at the level of a preschooler. Fortunately it comes back to bite them in the ass when they submit curricula vitae and their prospective employers drop them in favour of people who have managed to master their own native language..

Excuse me? I said I care less about grammar, yes, because I could care less about grammar snobs.

My "written language" is not at the level of a preschooler. Far from it. Yea I skip on grammar rules, but at least I understand what I am reading. The majority of my friends in college come to me to help them with their essays, and because I grasp the material in their coursebooks so have to explain it to them.

You would be shocked at how many people in college do not even bother understanding what their reading, even Psychology and Sociology students. They somehow get by through BSing and cheating. At least I try to get them to try to care about what their reading. One friend of mine I thought was fairly intelligent did not understand half the sociology theories being explained in their book...

It is actually ignorant to think just because someone does not have perfect grammar or place apostrophes in the right place that they have somehow lower intelligence. Reading comprehension is more important in my opinion. When I was in High School grammar rules were absolutely boring to me, though everyone came to me to explain to them the literature. I hardly think the memorization of grammar rules constitutes intelligence.

Excuse me? I said I care less about grammar, yes, because I could care less about grammar snobs.

Which means that you do care. If you can care less, that means that you care. You don't have to be a grammar "snob" to understand the difference in meaning between "can" and "can't".

My "written language" is not at the level of a preschooler.

Start writing as if it weren't, then that might become plausible.

You would be shocked at how many people in college do not even bother understanding what their reading, even Psychology and Sociology students. They somehow get by through BSing and cheating. At least I try to get them to try to care about what their reading. One friend of mine I thought was fairly intelligent did not understand half the sociology theories being explained in their book...

Their = third person possessive adjective. "They're" = "they are". I do believe that's one of the first things one learns in primary school when one starts to construct sentences. So, you see why I don't have much confidence in your claims of others seeking out your help - pity for them if they do.

It is actually ignorant to think just because someone does not have perfect grammar or place apostrophes in the right place that they have somehow lower intelligence. Reading comprehension is more important in my opinion. When I was in High School grammar rules were absolutely boring to me, though everyone came to me to explain to them the literature. I hardly think the memorization of grammar rules constitutes intelligence.

It doesn't constitute intelligence. It constitutes literacy, which is much, much more than just being able to read "the literature".

And what does willful ignorance and admitted laziness say about a person's intelligence?

If one can't be bothered with making oneself clear, I don't understand why one needs to get their knickers in a twist about being criticized for it. Why should someone else have to slog through all of the mistakes to sift out the thoughts that are frankly hidden under them?

I find the whole, "You're just a grammar snob/nazi," attitude to be the arrogant one. It cries, "Look at what I say -- it's so brilliant I don't HAVE to be clear!"

Yes, I find people who do NOTHING but pick apart others' grammar obnoxious -- but those who rattle on about how it's useless and we should all be glad to read their pearls of wisdom are just as obnoxious.

And, as to sound the death knell to logic, the stupidass and much hated spelling reform (no shit) a few years back now actually allows just about any kind of apostrophe people might conceivably put somewhere. Gah.


I think the biggest fault of the Rechtschreibreform is that its proponents failed to publicize it throughly enough, so that most people have a very skewed picture of what it really entails, apart from the demagogic frothing at the mouth both sides produce so heartily.

The apostrophization of the plurals s is still very much wrong, and the Deppenapostroph in front of the possessive s is still wrong in most cases, too; they new rule only added the exception in cases where leaving out the s could conceivably lead to misunderstandings. Basically, you can only legitimately add a possessive apaostrophe to a word/name not ending in an s sound already when there is a word that is formed [original word + s] in the nominative case. In official wording, you may only use the possessive apostrophe in order to "clarify the base form".

To illustrate:

Say you have the two names "Carlo" and "Carlos", and you want to talk about the utter stupidity of Carlo without denouncing Carlos by unwanted association resulting from the appearance of the same sequence of letters as his name in the sentence.

In "old" German, you'd have to talk about "Carlos Blödheit" (as opposed to "Carlos' Blödheit"), which would still be a definite reference and in no way grammatical if one were trying to talk about Carlos, but with people being idiots as they usually are when encountered in masses (and spelling reforms are made for the masses), they thought one should give the writer an orthographically correct way of making it clear to the intellectually impaired that it's in no way poor Carlos who is talked about.

Hence, they made it correct for one to write "Carlo's Blödheit" in order to make absolutely certain nobody thought badly of Carlos.



It is still very, very much wrong to say "WYTYG's Blödheit", unless you can call it conceivable that there is the chance that there is some WYTYGS around who might take offense at "WYTYGs Blödheit". Same goes for "Heinrich's", "Ludwig's" and "Julia's" because of the striking lack of Heinrichs, Ludwigs and Julias as singular names in our language.

And what does willful ignorance and admitted laziness say about a person's intelligence?

If one can't be bothered with making oneself clear, I don't understand why one needs to get their knickers in a twist about being criticized for it. Why should someone else have to slog through all of the mistakes to sift out the thoughts that are frankly hidden under them?

I find the whole, "You're just a grammar snob/nazi," attitude to be the arrogant one. It cries, "Look at what I say -- it's so brilliant I don't HAVE to be clear!"

Yes, I find people who do NOTHING but pick apart others' grammar obnoxious -- but those who rattle on about how it's useless and we should all be glad to read their pearls of wisdom are just as obnoxious.

Grammar mistakes usually don't annoy me until they start to stumble into the "clarity compromised" category. Spelling mistakes annoy me to no end. Especially when the wrong word is used.

"WE DON'T EXCEPT CHECKS"
You don't what except checks?

It's written in 30 inch letters on the wall of my grandfather's store. I have told them for about 10 years now, it's "accept". It annoys me, and they won't do anything about it, in fact they spent the last 10 years trying to tell me I was wrong. I don't speak to them anymore so, it's less bothersome now.

There is a restaurant near me that sells "ore durves" and it's been closed for 3 months "do to a family trajedy"

It makes me sick, seriously.

I quite agree. Wilful use of, or acceptance of, colloquialisms and poor grammar are indicative of a wider sloppiness that is professionally undesirable and socially demeaning.

Then again, who am I to talk, seeing how the reform here officially decreed to split up words that throw everybody now ((former) compound verbs). :rolleyes:

Again with the non-thorough information, yes? Quite apart from that I'm not sure whether I understand your sentence completely, it is not liek suddenly we need to split up every former compound verb - quite to the contrary, there are many verbs fornerly written apart that now are a compound, too, in addition to teh de-compounded verbs. If you actually do care about a more detailed judgement, feel free to visit the Duden's abstract on this (http://www.duden.de/deutsche_sprache/neue_rechtschreibung/neuregelung/getrennt_zusammen.php#getrennt), or maybe just download the complete rule thingy one day.

Examples, please. I'd like to know if my German teacher was old-fashioned or hip to the jive.

Examples for what now? Compound verbs now, newly de-compounded verbs, verbs that have always been a non-compound..?

"WE DON'T EXCEPT CHECKS"

You do realize what that actually means, correct?
To except means to exclude. (Everyone except me went to the movies. = Everyone excluding me went to the movies.)

Therefore, if they don't except checks, they mean that they do ACCEPT them.

I think the biggest fault of the Rechtschreibreform is that its proponents failed to publicize it throughly enough, so that most people have a very skewed picture of what it really entails, apart from the demagogic frothing at the mouth both sides produce so heartily.

The apostrophization of the plurals s is still very much wrong, and the Deppenapostroph in front of the possessive s is still wrong in most cases, too; they new rule only added the exception in cases where leaving out the s couldconceivably lead to misunderstandings. Basically, you can only legitimately add a possessive apaostrophe to a word/name not ending in an s sound already when there is a word that is formed [original word + s] in the nominative case. In official wording, you may only use the possessive apostrophe in order to "clarify the base form".
- snip example -
Um, no?
http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/zwiebelfisch/0,1518,283781,00.html
There's probably a more "scientific" site somewhere but I'm in a bad hurry so this must suffice, sorry.

You're right of course that it doesn't comprise plurals (or even verbs - hell, I didn't even know people were doing that to verbs before I saw your link earlier) - I'm indeed guilty of hyperbole when it comes to most aspects of the reform. <<

It is still very, very much wrong to say "WYTYG's Blödheit",
Now THAT is ALWAYS wrong. :p

Again with the non-thorough information, yes? Quite apart from that I'm not sure whether I understand your sentence completely, it is not liek suddenly we need to split up every former compound verb - quite to the contrary, there are many verbs fornerly written apart that now are a compound, too, in addition to teh de-compounded verbs. If you actually do care about a more detailed judgement, feel free to visit the Duden's abstract on this (http://www.duden.de/deutsche_sprache/neue_rechtschreibung/neuregelung/getrennt_zusammen.php#getrennt), or maybe just download the complete rule thingy one day.
I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing. I was talking about words like "zusammenkommen" vs. the new "zusammen kommen" or "weiterleiten" vs. "weiter leiten" etc. Knowing my memory I probably just quoted two examples that are exceptions and are still written together *rolleyes* but you get the idea. And now don't tell me these don't exist - I've read one too many editorials with hilarious/infuriating examples in them (none of which, typically, I remember). And there was a nice chapter on that in the "Der Dativ ist dem Genitiv sein Tod" and even when explained the new rules about which ones are now split and which ones are still together I didn't even get them.

Anyway, gotta run now!

You do realize what that actually means, correct?
To except means to exclude. (Everyone except me went to the movies. = Everyone excluding me went to the movies.)

Therefore, if they don't except checks, they mean that they do ACCEPT them.

You're not saying that that is what they're trying to say, though, are you?

You do realize what that actually means, correct?
To except means to exclude. (Everyone except me went to the movies. = Everyone excluding me went to the movies.)

Therefore, if they don't except checks, they mean that they do ACCEPT them.

Yes, but what they mean to say is that they "don't accept checks" which is why it annoys me, and why I ask "you don't what except checks?" meaning "what is it that you don't do, except for checks?"

I would say "I don't go to the library, except Saturday" meaning I only go to the library on Saturday.

I find it amusing when everyone tries to make it seem that language is an exact science.

There have only been rules for grammar and spelling for about 200 years, tops. Before that, you just spelled phonetically and wrote with the grammar you spoke with. There were no rule for apostrophes or commas or the like before then.

I do believe that's one of the first things one learns in primary school when one starts to construct sentences. So, you see why I don't have much confidence in your claims of others seeking out your help - pity for them if they do.It doesn't constitute intelligence. It constitutes literacy, which is much, much more than just being able to read "the literature".


I am sure I am literate. And yes they do come to me for help. One friend went from Cs and Ds to As and Bs with my help. I have always been considered intelligent, and was told I read at a college level in 7th grade. I was always chosen to read for class (Regular grade school and high school) because I was the only person who could quickly pronounce words and read smoothly. Even in High School people could not pronounce what I considered mid-level words. So even if they knew the rules of grammar, what did it help if they do not have the knowledge of words to comprehend what their reading and discuss it?

I find it amusing when everyone tries to make it seem that language is an exact science.

There have only been rules for grammar and spelling for about 200 years, tops. Before that, you just spelled phonetically and wrote with the grammar you spoke with. There were no rule for apostrophes or commas or the like before then.

True. Though to the new grammarians if you are not perfect in grammar you are somehow "illiterate."

Um, no?
http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/zwiebelfisch/0,1518,283781,00.html
There's probably a more "scientific" site somewhere but I'm in a bad hurry so this must suffice, sorry.

Sweety, please do make the effort to choose a different site than Spiegel for such things, especially when I already cautioned against demagogish opinion-making for the sake of roughing people up in that very post.

I recommend reading the section on apostrophes in the officila Regelwerk; it's only one and a quarter pages long and as to our subject, it says:

Von dem Apostroph als Auslassungszeichen ist zu unterscheiden der gelegentliche Gebrauch dieses Zeichens zur Verdeutlichung der Grundform eines Personennamens vor der Genitivendung -s oder vor dem Adjektivsuffix -sch., and then they give the Carlo's example I used earlier, too.

You're right of course that it doesn't comprise plurals (or even verbs - hell, I didn't even know people were doing that to verbs before I saw your link earlier) - I'm indeed guilty of hyperbole when it comes to most aspects of the reform. <<
Einsicht ist der erste Weg zur Besserung.


I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing. I was talking about words like "zusammenkommen" vs. the new "zusammen kommen" or "weiterleiten" vs. "weiter leiten" etc. Knowing my memory I probably just quoted two examples that are exceptions and are still written together *rolleyes* but you get the idea. And now don't tell me these don't exist - I've read one too many editorials with hilarious/infuriating examples in them (none of which, typically, I remember).
I hate to disappoint you in your obvious desire to dislike the reform no matter what the facts, but unfortunately, these things do not exist in this form anymore. There have been many half-baked examples like these in the orginal 1996 edition, but it underwent two updates already (the latest last year), and such mistakes have been corrected and amended exhaustively.

It is mentioned explicitly that any expressions that have an idiomatic meaning when occuring in a compound (such as wiedersehen vs. wieder sehen, krank schreiben vs. krankschreiben etc.) must be left as a compound.

There are, in fact, only three instances where a split spelling is mandatory:

1) Constructions with "sein", such as beisammen sein, fertig sein, vorbei sein etc.

2) Verb constructions with two verbs, such as laufen lernen, baden gehen etc. , except for instances with idiomatic meaning such as most constructions ending in bleiben and lassen, e.g. sitzenbleiben, laufenlassen etc, where such a split is optional.

3) Constructions with "morphologically complex or extended adjectives", such as ultramarineblau streichen, ganz nahe kommen.

And there was a nice chapter on that in the "Der Dativ ist dem Genitiv sein Tod" and even when explained the new rules about which ones are now split and which ones are still together I didn't even get them.
That godforsaken book is to be seen as entertainment, oh well, granted, edutainment, but not an authority per se. God, I wish I could meet the person who wrote that in a dark alley one day.. (P.S. Have you ever played the board game that coms with the books?)



By all means, if you don't care about such things in detail then be welcome to ignore them, but if you choose to bring up that topic, at leats pretend to know that you've given the actual rules at least a cursory glance. I highly recommend downloading the Regelwerk; it comes as a nice PDF with a nicely structured table of content so you always know exactly which page you need to skip to if you just want to know a specific thing, and it's written very Ottonormalverbraucherfreundlich.

~~~
these things do not exist in this form anymore. There have been many half-baked examples like these in the orginal 1996 edition, but it underwent two updates already (the latest last year), and such mistakes have been corrected and amended exhaustively.
Bitch, please! I claim this ^ as excuse. After all, I'm like a billion years older than you which means when the first one came along I was older than you are now, highly irritated by the whole affair and apparently disinclined to listen to any of the subsequent shenanigans. You, on the other hand, were all of about 11 at the time of the first one so you basically you grew up with that stuff. That's easy. So give granny a break.

So give granny a break.

Like, "help, I've fallen and I can't get up" or ".. of that kitkat bar!"?

Grammar mistakes usually don't annoy me until they start to stumble into the "clarity compromised" category. Spelling mistakes annoy me to no end. Especially when the wrong word is used.

"WE DON'T EXCEPT CHECKS"
You don't what except checks?

It's written in 30 inch letters on the wall of my grandfather's store. I have told them for about 10 years now, it's "accept". It annoys me, and they won't do anything about it, in fact they spent the last 10 years trying to tell me I was wrong. I don't speak to them anymore so, it's less bothersome now.

There is a restaurant near me that sells "ore durves" and it's been closed for 3 months "do to a family trajedy"

It makes me sick, seriously.
Meh, that's nothing compared to the "Enjoy Cock" sign in the soda fridge at a Newark, CA convenience store. One of the few times I wish I had a camera phone.

On topic (I guess, I was just poking around)-

The effort I put into grammar and proof reading is proportional to the importance of what I'm doing. If it's a proposal or article or essay or similar piece of material, then I'll make the effort.

If it's for you fucks, if I happen to catch a mistake here or there and it's not too much of a hassle to fix, then maybe. But if in my haste I make a there, their, they're error or something like it when it's clear what I meant, then fuck it. It's an internet forum and I don't need your class to graduate. Considering that my post will likely be surrounded by people who type in 'LOLcat' I'm just not going to waste much energy worrying about it.

If someone spasms about it, well, who am I to pick on someone's hobbies no matter how piddling they are.

Saluton,
Ummm, have you entertained the idea that the english language has too many outdated rules, that are kept only because of "tradition"?

That there are exceptions to the exceptions, with exceptions. :headbang:
That, that is what makes using the language difficult for even people living in an english speaking country their entire lives?

Never mind most people dont give a damn about being "proper", how many of us ACTUALLY work for nobility? Most work for a paycheck.

-Rafe
OOC

P.S. - Try Esperanto, just seven rules, no exceptions. :cool:

Firstly, I must admit I do not always the English language perfectly. I occasionally make a slip up. I sometimes forget to capitalise, and on occasion I forget to put in the necessary commas. However, it pains me when people use apostrophes incorrectly.

Recently I have noticed numerous business signs with incorrect grammar and poor spelling. For example:

The Coffee Club: "Pasta's, Pizzas, Baguette's, Ommlette's...]

Computer Repairs Place: Ed's Pc's

I've also noticed menus, websites and advertisements in the Yellow Pages with incorrect grammar and spelling as well, and it simply drives me mad!

If you had any sense at all, you would check that your signage is correct, wouldn't you?

Personally, I refuse to use a company (in Australia, an English speaking country) that can't even use the English language correctly (obviously with the exception of businesses run by those who are native to a different country, for example a Chinese restaurant).

I think that if they can't even bother to spell check their advertising, they probably aren't going to bother to do a good job either.

Like, "help, I've fallen and I can't get up" or ".. of that kitkat bar!"?

Break her off a piece of that kit kat bar, she fell and can't get her own.

Bitch, please! I claim this ^ as excuse. After all, I'm like a billion years older than you which means when the first one came along I was older than you are now, highly irritated by the whole affair and apparently disinclined to listen to any of the subsequent shenanigans. You, on the other hand, were all of about 11 at the time of the first one so you basically you grew up with that stuff. That's easy. So give granny a break.

That's an excuse for you to not know about it and maybe even to just ignore it and go on writing as you've learned it, but it's no excuse to vehemently argue for (or in this case, against) something you are not at all informed about. If you don't have a clue, don't sound off, no matter what your excuses for your ignorance.

And now, fluffles all around :]

You're not saying that that is what they're trying to say, though, are you?

Nah, just that if someone really had the time and inclination to be a thorn in their side, they could.

Scenario: you try to pay by check, they refuse it, you snap a pic and go to court. ;)

Yes, but what they mean to say is that they "don't accept checks" which is why it annoys me, and why I ask "you don't what except checks?" meaning "what is it that you don't do, except for checks?"

I would say "I don't go to the library, except Saturday" meaning I only go to the library on Saturday.

Ah, see, for me to have gotten THAT sense of it, it would have had to have been printed, "We don't, except checks."

Ah, see, for me to have gotten THAT sense of it, it would have had to have been printed, "We don't, except checks."

grammar is so bad in this area I can put commas where they go in my mind and not really realize whether they were there or not.

Kinda like that thing where it says PARIS IN THE THE SPRING but you only read PARIS IN THE SPRING.

Firstly, I must admit I do not always the English language perfectly. I occasionally make a slip up. I sometimes forget to capitalise, and on occasion I forget to put in the necessary commas. However, it pains me when people use apostrophes incorrectly.

Recently I have noticed numerous business signs with incorrect grammar and poor spelling. For example:

The Coffee Club: "Pasta's, Pizzas, Baguette's, Ommlette's...]

Computer Repairs Place: Ed's Pc's

I've also noticed menus, websites and advertisements in the Yellow Pages with incorrect grammar and spelling as well, and it simply drives me mad!

If you had any sense at all, you would check that your signage is correct, wouldn't you?

Personally, I refuse to use a company (in Australia, an English speaking country) that can't even use the English language correctly (obviously with the exception of businesses run by those who are native to a different country, for example a Chinese restaurant).

I think that if they can't even bother to spell check their advertising, they probably aren't going to bother to do a good job either.

Its important to use apostrophe's in the right place's. LMAO :p

I got that from a book titled Adventures Of a Verbivore by Richard Lederer.

I accidentally used It's as a possessive.

Ugh... The number of people that jump on me for that, I CAN NOT BELIEVE.

Excuse me? I said I care less about grammar, yes, because I could care less about grammar snobs.

In other words, you do care to some degree about grammar snobs? If you DON'T, then you should say you COULDN'T care less.

My "written language" is not at the level of a preschooler. Far from it. Yea I skip on grammar rules, but at least I understand what I am reading. The majority of my friends in college come to me to help them with their essays, and because I grasp the material in their coursebooks so have to explain it to them.

You left out a word: "so I have to explain it to them."

You would be shocked at how many people in college do not even bother understanding what their reading, even Psychology and Sociology students. They somehow get by through BSing and cheating. At least I try to get them to try to care about what their reading. One friend of mine I thought was fairly intelligent did not understand half the sociology theories being explained in their book...

You mean "they're".

It is actually ignorant to think just because someone does not have perfect grammar or place apostrophes in the right place that they have somehow lower intelligence. Reading comprehension is more important in my opinion. When I was in High School grammar rules were absolutely boring to me, though everyone came to me to explain to them the literature. I hardly think the memorization of grammar rules constitutes intelligence.

Granted, but it affects people's perception of your intelligence or lack thereof. In other words, if you don't strive to optimize your grammar, such as putting apostrophes in the right places, people will THINK you're an uneducated illiterate, whether or not you actually are.

I find it amusing when everyone tries to make it seem that language is an exact science.

There have only been rules for grammar and spelling for about 200 years, tops. Before that, you just spelled phonetically and wrote with the grammar you spoke with. There were no rule for apostrophes or commas or the like before then.

You're right. I think much of grammar comes not so much from attempting to clarify the language but attempting to separate the classes that speak it. For example, the "rule" that one should not split an infinitive. This is not based on logic at all, but is simply a carry-over from Latin. It's snobbery, more than anything else.
However, if it is difficult to understand what a person is trying to communicate, than they have no excuse for not following grammar. A company, especially, should attempt some degree of professionalism by following the rules.

I'm a grammar fanatic, though there are some rules I don't mind breaking--the split infinitive nonsense, and "that/which."

Perhaps hypocritically, I am nevertheless a firm advocate of using the subjunctive mood... at least in counterfactual conditionals.

The biggest problem with grammar as I see it is there are TOO MANY RULES. The the use of the ' (am too tired to remember its name) is one of the really important ones though that people should always try to use right.

I consider caring about the image of your company to be a pretty important part of delivering good service. If a company can't even be thorough enough to make sure its signs and labels are correct, I don't know for sure whether or not the rest of their business is up to par. Even if it seems trivial, image is a very important part of consumer decision making. ...

I agree.

I agree with everyone else here so far.

Amor, any way for you to put in the missing "use" in your OP?

Oh, the irony!

Amen.

I once walked into a place whose menu board had spelled the plural of "sandwich" like this: "sandwiche's". I was hungry, but also worried. I walked up to the person in charge and told them that their sign was spelled incorrectly. She looked like I'd just told her she was fat and ugly. Her face composed itself and she retorted "well, it got your attention, didn't it?" To which I immediately replied, "lady, if you can't take the time and effort SPELL 'sandwiches', why would I trust you to MAKE one with any accpetable level of time and care? You DID get my attention. What you DIDN'T get was my business."...

I admire you.

Now I dislike the grocer's apostrophe as much as the next man, but I don't think apostrophes on abbreviations like PC's should be lumped in with that.

Language is 100% about conveying a message with clarity and given that people don't tend to use full stops anymore, the only clue you have whether you're dealing with a plural of P.C. or something called P.C.S. is a small size difference of the letter S.

There is no difference between "milkshake's" and "PC's". They are both examples of incorrect use of apostrophes.


I read.
I loved Literature and English.
I could care less about grammar.
Unless someone is just writing hackney that sounds like Old English then why criticize them?
I am lazy...
I've often been told I have a large vocabulary when I speak...
I finally just learned to use more simple words because people were always saying "Why are you using big words."
I really do not believe excellency in grammar or vocabulary signifies higher intelligence...

You, sir, are rather contradictory.

Well my friend who has an Doctorate from Brown University and is an college English professor does not even use perfect grammar or high vocabulary in everyday speech nor email when she communicates casually with anyone.

Some people who feel like they have to use less commonly used words or criticize people for their grammar simply have an inferiority complex. Someone could have won the national spelling bee and still not totally grasp "complex and nuanced thought."

I measure my ability by being able to comprehend philosophy or complex theories, and discuss them lucidly. Not by putting an period or comma in the right place. I always disliked that in poetry. Very dry.

Right...

Honestly I hope I would not use something like the above example on a sign. Though I do not notice grammar errors unless their major. Perhaps it is an form of OCD when someone notices every grammar error, or your an editor.

For the public right now the ability, and desire to read is a lot more important than the usage of their grammar. Understanding of complex concepts expressed in words. A lot of college students I know BS their way through courses, and do not really even bother understanding what their reading. I think I read some ridiculously low statistic of how much of the population actually reads books regularly after high school or college. I do not see bookshelves in people's homes anymore. Now THAT is sad.

I do think knowing the meaning of words and having an large vocabulary is more important than following every small grammar or sentence structure rule. Surprisingly on standardized tests in High School I did in the top 1 or 2% for grammar, and literature. I am just lazy, and do not care to go by every rule. It has been forever since I read over the grammar rules.

So far you have claimed that people who choose to write with correct grammar have obsessive compulsive disorder and inferiority complexes.

You have no idea what obsessive compulsive disorder is!

I am a college student, and I don't "BS" my work. I recieve fantastic marks for my essays, and one important component is, of course, the ability to write correctly.

It is about right though. No one does care as much anymore. I personally hate the Grammar Gestapo. I think it is pretentious, and displays an inferiority complex to correct on grammar. I don't think lack of grammar ability shows that our society is somehow dumbed down. I think the fact most people would rather watch reality shows than read a book is a sign but my point was missed by the European grammar discussion.

I am more concerned with people's reading comprehension than their grammatical ability.

I don't even think I should bother with you any more.

Excuse me? I said I care less about grammar, yes, because I could care less about grammar snobs.

My "written language" is not at the level of a preschooler. Far from it. Yea I skip on grammar rules, but at least I understand what I am reading. The majority of my friends in college come to me to help them with their essays, and because I grasp the material in their coursebooks so have to explain it to them.

You would be shocked at how many people in college do not even bother understanding what their reading, even Psychology and Sociology students. They somehow get by through BSing and cheating. At least I try to get them to try to care about what their reading. One friend of mine I thought was fairly intelligent did not understand half the sociology theories being explained in their book...

It is actually ignorant to think just because someone does not have perfect grammar or place apostrophes in the right place that they have somehow lower intelligence. Reading comprehension is more important in my opinion. When I was in High School grammar rules were absolutely boring to me, though everyone came to me to explain to them the literature. I hardly think the memorization of grammar rules constitutes intelligence.

Are you serious?

Which means that you do care. If you can care less, that means that you care. You don't have to be a grammar "snob" to understand the difference in meaning between "can" and "can't"...


I agree.

And what does willful ignorance and admitted laziness say about a person's intelligence? ...

It certainly doesn't help their case.

I find it amusing when everyone tries to make it seem that language is an exact science.

There have only been rules for grammar and spelling for about 200 years, tops. Before that, you just spelled phonetically and wrote with the grammar you spoke with. There were no rule for apostrophes or commas or the like before then.

Human beings have only been able to engage in higher reasoning for 200 000 years. Do you suggest we should move out of our homes and into caves?

You, sir, are rather contradictory.



Right...


If I may I'd like to offer an example using Art Blakey's advice to his young and enthusiastic band members. Art Blakey was a phenomenal jazz drummer whose 'Jazz Messengers' were made up of the best young talent that could be found. Terrance Blanchard tells the story of those young geniuses who would bring new pieces for the band to play that would be intricate, complex, technically demanding the likes of which only the talent in the room could hope to play.

Two bars in Blakey would stop the band. "Wait, wait, wait. What is this? Look, anyone can write a piece of music no one can play. It takes real talent to write something people want to hear."

And such is language. In all honesty, a hefty vocabulary isn't that hard to come by, if it's a word a day calender, obsessive dictionary reading, or studying texts with a lot of 'high' language. Similarly, grammar is nothing more than a set of rules. My friend teaches mastery of it in ten weeks to faceless (to me, anyway) business students quarter after quarter.

If rote and rules are really the signs of intelligence then Rain Man is a genius.

The fact of the matter is that anyone can have a big vocabulary and retain anally about a set of rules, but I'd say that intelligence would lean heavily on the persons ability to convey ideas and be understood, regardless of what an MLA booklet says.

There is no difference between "milkshake's" and "PC's". They are both examples of incorrect use of apostrophes.

To misphrase a film quote,language is as language does. In fact this has only become an issue because the rules have changed over time. In the past you had to put full stops when you were abbreviating like that. But, as abbreviations have become widespread, that requirement has been dropped. I don't see why if you can change one rule you can't change another, providing it's in the interest of the overriding goal of clarity.

I just do not see how using perfect grammar rules denotes intelligence and bad grammar denotes ignorance or less intelligence

As I said my friend who is an English professor has stated that she has had several people who she knows to be excellent in math, such as Physics majors, not even be able to form good sentences or pass essays easily. Which is interesting as I would think of grammar rules as more of a left brain activity which it has been thought of as.

Why would newspapers, publishing houses, and all need editors (And mostly editor's assistants) for writers who should know better? Why would several of the journalism colleges in the country have to re-institute an 'basic grammar course" to help students who they say are coming in with grammar below journalistic standards. Does this mean that all of these writers, journalists, and others have low intelligence?

Saying that people who can recite grammar rules off the back of their hand are more intelligent is incorrect. The majority of people I know that memorize rulebooks, and recite them tend to have lesser intelligence or at least understanding. Or surely an big inferiority complex. Thus they have to compensate by constantly beating the rules over everyone's head.

Amen.

I once walked into a place whose menu board had spelled the plural of "sandwich" like this: "sandwiche's". I was hungry, but also worried. I walked up to the person in charge and told them that their sign was spelled incorrectly. She looked like I'd just told her she was fat and ugly. Her face composed itself and she retorted "well, it got your attention, didn't it?" To which I immediately replied, "lady, if you can't take the time and effort SPELL 'sandwiches', why would I trust you to MAKE one with any accpetable level of time and care? You DID get my attention. What you DIDN'T get was my business."There's an American Diner called Frankies in the town I study in. One day, another American friend and I ate their, pulled out pens, and started correcting spelling errors in the menues :D

There's an American Diner called Frankies in the town I study in. One day, another American friend and I ate their, pulled out pens, and started correcting spelling errors in the menues :D

Lol. ;P

And what does willful ignorance and admitted laziness say about a person's intelligence?

If one can't be bothered with making oneself clear, I don't understand why one needs to get their knickers in a twist about being criticized for it. Why should someone else have to slog through all of the mistakes to sift out the thoughts that are frankly hidden under them?


That more or less sums up my views on the issue. The "could care less" thing is a good example. If people can't be bothered to think about the meaning of their own words, how can they expect not to be criticised for lack of clarity? If you lack a basic grasp of grammar, and you've never stopped to think about what the words you use actually mean, you're prone to saying the opposite of what you intended ("Yes, I do care" instead of "No, I don't care").


There is a restaurant near me that sells "ore durves"

Oh, God... I don't know how someone can even do that.

there might be a solution! (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/11/12/100954554/index.htm)

there might be a solution! (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/11/12/100954554/index.htm)
Sweet. What would they call it though? The "De1337er?"

there might be a solution! (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/11/12/100954554/index.htm)

LOL

<<

there might be a solution! (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/11/12/100954554/index.htm)


How does it work? Say a user wants to post a really, really dumb comment on, for example, cnnmoney.com, where some of you might be reading this now.

If cnnmoney had the filter installed on its servers, it would intercept the comment just before it was published and flash a little alert at the author that reads: "This comment is more or less unintelligible. Please try to restate it."

The writer would get another crack at it, and another, until at last he was able to muster a few words of intelligence, or in frustration wandered off to inflict those LOL!!!!!s and OMG!!!!s on some more tolerant site.

[...] Perhaps the most interesting -- and ironic -- aspect of the project is the way Ortiz's team is tapping into the wisdom of crowds to debug its filter. They are encouraging readers to visit their site, http://stupidfilter.org/main/, where you can help them rate on a scale of one to five a selection of potentially dumb posts culled from -- where else? -- YouTube.


This is absolutely brilliant! It makes me very happy.

Now I dislike the grocer's apostrophe as much as the next man, but I don't think apostrophes on abbreviations like PC's should be lumped in with that.

Language is 100% about conveying a message with clarity and given that people don't tend to use full stops anymore, the only clue you have whether you're dealing with a plural of P.C. or something called P.C.S. is a small size difference of the letter S.

That's why most signmakers go out of their way to make the plural S half or less the size of the surrounding font. If you can't see that, please don't drive to the store.


I really do not believe excellency in grammar or vocabulary signifies higher intelligence.


Probably not, but what it does signify is intellectual diligence.

Well my friend who has an Doctorate from Brown University and is an college English professor does not even use perfect grammar or high vocabulary in everyday speech nor email when she communicates casually with anyone.

Some people who feel like they have to use less commonly used words or criticize people for their grammar simply have an inferiority complex. Someone could have won the national spelling bee and still not totally grasp "complex and nuanced thought."

I measure my ability by being able to comprehend philosophy or complex theories, and discuss them lucidly. Not by putting an period or comma in the right place. I always disliked that in poetry. Very dry.

That's why there's a difference between poetry and prose. Someone claiming to be as smart as you claim to be should know that.

Many "less commonly used words" have few or no avenues of expression with smaller-worded phrases. Please try to explain a word like borrowed German schadenfreude without making your sentence reach absurd lengths. How about a word like "meretricious"? "Cloying"?

I fully agree with you that those who go out of their way to get all polysyllabic in a conversation without any need for it tend to be either intellectually arrogant or looking to cover up some other deficiency. But if I use the precise word in a given situation, I shouldn't be made to feel like it's some kind of character flaw.

That's possibly my all time least favourite phrase. What does it even mean? "Couldn't care less" I get... it makes sense, but "could care less"? Bah. I've noticed over the years that it's predominantly used by American English speakers and so I assume that it's just another one of those little quirks that have developed over the years but, so help me, it bugs the shit out of me.

With that out of the way I'd like to state that, where Internet message boards are concerned, I tend not to pay too much attention to the grammar that people use. There are so many people who participate in them who do not have English as their native tongue that it would be churlish to be picky about minor grammatical errors. I just keep reminding myself that I am utterly incapable of communicating properly in any language other than English, which sort of puts me in my place if I feel my hackles rising. ;)

When reading online posts, it's easy to tell who has grammar problems and who is merely a poor typist. If I look at a misspelling and the letter is one key away from the correct letter, or if it's a reversal (like the ubiquitous "teh" that haunts me -- when I used a manual typewriter, I never recalled making that error), I look past it, recognizing my own absence of fluid typing skill. However, "except" for "accept" sets my teeth on edge.

Honestly I hope I would not use something like the above example on a sign. Though I do not notice grammar errors unless their major. Perhaps it is an form of OCD when someone notices every grammar error, or your an editor.

I am neither an editor nor am I saddled with obsessive-compulsive disorder. However, grammatical errors look to me as if they were written in all caps with red ink. I read a lot as a kid, when our minds are said to me more receptive to absorbing language structures (I wish I'd had to foresight to learn Spanish, Chinese or Arabic, too) -- that might have something to do with it. I think that the farther away we get from being a reading society, the bigger a problem this will become. And you would seem to agree with me:

For the public right now the ability, and desire to read is a lot more important than the usage of their grammar. Understanding of complex concepts expressed in words. A lot of college students I know BS their way through courses, and do not really even bother understanding what their reading. I think I read some ridiculously low statistic of how much of the population actually reads books regularly after high school or college. I do not see bookshelves in people's homes anymore. Now THAT is sad.

The thing is, the rules of the language, no matter how convoluted, are a major prerequisite to the comprehension you keep trumpeting.

I do think knowing the meaning of words and having an large vocabulary is more important than following every small grammar or sentence structure rule. Surprisingly on standardized tests in High School I did in the top 1 or 2% for grammar, and literature. I am just lazy, and do not care to go by every rule. It has been forever since I read over the grammar rules.

We're not talking about "every small grammar rule". The difference between a plural and possessive is no small difference. I don't recall seeing a grammar section on standardized tests in school, or the SAT/ACT for that matter. The SAT only recently included a writing test (I had a part-time job with Pearson Educational Measurement, one company that scores those tests...THAT was an eye opener). I don't recall being tested on anything but vocabulary (thorough analogies) and reading comprehension (through prose excerpts with questions).

BTW, I just came across the following: www.apostroph.de ; do take a look if you have the time; it is most humorous - Kapostropheum, lol.

P.S.: OMG! They even mess with verbs, now (http://apostroph.de/display.php?k=verbformen&p=1)? "Hab't"? "Feier'n" ? "Has't"? "Schein'st"? And, my favorite: "Is't"?!?! My head explodes.

Perhaps it's because I've sung a lot of German, but I've seen apostrophes used to shorten German verbs for quite a while (such as hab' for haben or habe -- as a colloquial shortening).

I find it amusing when everyone tries to make it seem that language is an exact science.

There have only been rules for grammar and spelling for about 200 years, tops. Before that, you just spelled phonetically and wrote with the grammar you spoke with. There were no rule for apostrophes or commas or the like before then.

200 years? Nope. Not unless the Middle Ages were only 200 years ago.

Of course English if fluid. For any language to be able to keep up with human thought, invention, technology, and anything else we come up with, language must evolve. That doesn't preclude those learning a language from knowing how it works.

Quite simply, grammar is one of those things that is indicative of the level of intellectual effort someone has been willing to expend as they've acquired the language. Being unwilling to learn your own language's most basic concepts when you're perfectly capable of doing so bespeaks an intellectual laziness.

THIS IS NOT A CHARACTER FLAW, however, and I don't give a shit whether or not the person fixing my car, arresting the guy who robbed me or who is in any way saving my ass can conjugate verbs properly. However, if I'm reading that person's writing and it's too jumbled to get through without massive concentration, re-wording and guesswork, then I have the right to say so.

It's disturbing to me that people who wish to change my view on contentious subjects are too lazy to figure out apostrophes or other grammatical basics -- especially when those people are, well, my President.

Over-intellectualism is just as bad as anti-intellectualism, and I will decry either when I see them. Grammar just helps me figure out who's who -- not who's worth hearing. I have read and heard FAR more people whose bad grammar expressed similarly sloppy ideas than I have heard people with excellent grammar express sloppy ideas.

I just do not see how using perfect grammar rules denotes intelligence and bad grammar denotes ignorance or less intelligence

It doesn't -- what it does signify is the level of effort people are willing to put into learning the basic rules of any other field, given that language is so critical to understanding. If you can't be bothered to figure out when to use an apostrophe (or, like another poster here, what it's called...), how well will you learn the tedious, but important, basic rules of any other subject? Someone who graduates from a music school, for example, better know his intervals if he's going to be teaching anyone else anythign about music. I can tell which students are going to be assiduous about basic theory when I read their papers. Invariably, the ones who do well in theory have good grammar skills. Does that mean the ones with lesser grammatical prowess will automatically be bad theory students? No, but invariably, again, those who are bad theory students have had issues with grammar. Grammar speaks to the level of attention to detail. Now if the kid is going on to be a performer, his talent as a musician will land him gigs, not his grammar, but if he's going to be a teacher, he'd better have the details down.

As I said my friend who is an English professor has stated that she has had several people who she knows to be excellent in math, such as Physics majors, not even be able to form good sentences or pass essays easily. Which is interesting as I would think of grammar rules as more of a left brain activity which it has been thought of as.

This is the third time you've mentioned this professor. So what? Math skills and language skills are in a different part of the brain overall, not exclusively left or right. I know state senators who have horrible grammar skills (one's a friend who had me proofread all of his campaign materials), but are excellent politician, negotiators, and know how to connect with peopel on a personal level through oral communication. Grammar doesn't have nearly the impact on speaking as it does on writing. I wouldn't EXPECT someone who's pursuing a degree in physics to be a grammar whiz, but if she's writing anything, she better have access to an editor -- I don't want to see something misinterpreted at the next Manhattan Project.

Why would newspapers, publishing houses, and all need editors (And mostly editor's assistants) for writers who should know better? Why would several of the journalism colleges in the country have to re-institute an 'basic grammar course" to help students who they say are coming in with grammar below journalistic standards. Does this mean that all of these writers, journalists, and others have low intelligence?

Writers usually do know better. The editors (properly called copy editors in journalistic parlance) are there to ensure the rules of the publication's in-house style are followed. And since I've been reading newpapers and watching TV/cable news, my answer, frankly, would be YES, they DO have lower intelligence than those engaged in those fields in the past. Or do FOX, ABC and CNN now care about grammar?

Adding remedial grammar courses is a sign of the times with regard to education in this country (NCLB, for example). Why would they add it? Everything from test fixation to grade inflation, that's why.

Saying that people who can recite grammar rules off the back of their hand are more intelligent is incorrect. The majority of people I know that memorize rulebooks, and recite them tend to have lesser intelligence or at least understanding. Or surely an big inferiority complex. Thus they have to compensate by constantly beating the rules over everyone's head.[/QUOTE]

You keep claiming this supposed "inferiority complex." It seems to me that demanding the rest of us abandon our knowledge to accomodate you speaks more to your own inferiority complex than actually taking the time to learn the rules.

Once more -- people with high grammar ability aren't more intelligent, they are more STUDIED. They took the tome to do that work, and it shows a willingness to continue to pay attention to such details which make their communication more articulate. A high-end idea does nobody any good if it can't be comprehended.

Perhaps it's because I've sung a lot of German, but I've seen apostrophes used to shorten German verbs for quite a while (such as hab' for haben or habe -- as a colloquial shortening).

Sorry, what with both WYTYG and me being native German speakers, I've left several assumptions implicit/unmentioned - such as that an apostrophe is, and always has been, legitimately used in the German language to signal the leaving out of one or more letters (mostly vowels), and this rule has been very liberally applied to both the first person singular and the imperative singular because we often do not say that final 'e' there. (Funnily enough, the reform that we talked about now acknowledges that rarely anyone uses the 'e' anymore; many don't even know it's technically supposed to be there by now, so they now made the apostrophe with those verb endings optional).


What is so terribly wrong, and what my examples depict, is when people just sorta throw in an apostrophe in rabdom places of the verb, where nothing is left out and nothing added, just for the .. fun of it?

Sorry, what with both WYTYG and me being native German speakers, I've left several assumptions implicit/unmentioned - such as that an apostrophe is, and always has been, legitimately used in the German language to signal the leaving out of one or more letters (mostly vowels), and this rule has been very liberally applied to both the first person singular and the imperative singular because we often do not say that final 'e' there. (Funnily enough, the reform that we talked about now acknowledges that rarely anyone uses the 'e' anymore; many don't even know it's technically supposed to be there by now, so they now made the apostrophe with those verb endings optional).


What is so terribly wrong, and what my examples depict, is when people just sorta throw in an apostrophe in rabdom places of the verb, where nothing is left out and nothing added, just for the .. fun of it?

Thanks for the Deutschegezeignung.

I'm agreed on the rampant misuse of the apostrophe. It's as if people know it has a purpose, but don't know what it is, so they put it in wherever it looks like it should be in order to look like they know what's happening...or something.

To misphrase a film quote,language is as language does. In fact this has only become an issue because the rules have changed over time. In the past you had to put full stops when you were abbreviating like that. But, as abbreviations have become widespread, that requirement has been dropped. I don't see why if you can change one rule you can't change another, providing it's in the interest of the overriding goal of clarity.

We aren't talking about lingual innovation here. If someone wished to create a change, or rework the English language in an innovative and useful manner, I would not find it annoying. The English language has morphed over time, and it will continue to change as society changes, and hopefully it will be for the better. But the blatant misuse of apostrophes in signage is not innovative, and it certainly isn't for the betterment of the English language!

I just do not see how using perfect grammar rules denotes intelligence and bad grammar denotes ignorance or less intelligence

As I said my friend who is an English professor has stated that she has had several people who she knows to be excellent in math, such as Physics majors, not even be able to form good sentences or pass essays easily. Which is interesting as I would think of grammar rules as more of a left brain activity which it has been thought of as.

Why would newspapers, publishing houses, and all need editors (And mostly editor's assistants) for writers who should know better? Why would several of the journalism colleges in the country have to re-institute an 'basic grammar course" to help students who they say are coming in with grammar below journalistic standards. Does this mean that all of these writers, journalists, and others have low intelligence?

Saying that people who can recite grammar rules off the back of their hand are more intelligent is incorrect. The majority of people I know that memorize rulebooks, and recite them tend to have lesser intelligence or at least understanding. Or surely an big inferiority complex. Thus they have to compensate by constantly beating the rules over everyone's head.

I am sensing that someone with a love of grammar has perhaps hurt you at some point in your life, is that correct? I can't see any other reasoning behind your argument.

I certainly did not state in the original post that those with poor grammar were of low intelligence, and I don't believe anyone else has directly said that either.

There truly is a flaw in your logic. If a "basic grammar" course has been instituted that proves the importance of grammar. Editors aren't the only individuals who require basic knowledge of language. Everyone from writers to doctors to business owners (since many people have stated in this thread that they think correct use of language is important on signs, menus and so on) requires a basic understanding of how to write.

It doesn't -- what it does signify is the level of effort people are willing to put into learning the basic rules of any other field, given that language is so critical to understanding. If you can't be bothered to figure out when to use an apostrophe (or, like another poster here, what it's called...), how well will you learn the tedious, but important, basic rules of any other subject? Someone who graduates from a music school, for example, better know his intervals if he's going to be teaching anyone else anythign about music. I can tell which students are going to be assiduous about basic theory when I read their papers. Invariably, the ones who do well in theory have good grammar skills. Does that mean the ones with lesser grammatical prowess will automatically be bad theory students? No, but invariably, again, those who are bad theory students have had issues with grammar. Grammar speaks to the level of attention to detail. Now if the kid is going on to be a performer, his talent as a musician will land him gigs, not his grammar, but if he's going to be a teacher, he'd better have the details down.*snip*

You keep claiming this supposed "inferiority complex." It seems to me that demanding the rest of us abandon our knowledge to accomodate you speaks more to your own inferiority complex than actually taking the time to learn the rules. *snip*

I agree with a lot of your comments.

If a muscian is a student, he or she could be musically talented, but without writing skills, he or she would certainly not recieve good grades. In my experience, I've found that those who are truly amazing in artistic fields are also academically intelligent. I am an artist, and while I don't consider myself an amazing writer (or singer, or painter...), I pride myself on being able to comprehend and analyise artwork, songs, plays, films and so on. Without basic understanding of language (for example, the difference between "your" and "you're"), I think my abilities would be impaired.

It's interesting that this debate has become an argument about intelligence rather than the issue at hand. I don't wish for my local (English-speaking) butcher to be able to churn a 3000 word essay on the ideas of Freud, but I would expect him to make the effort to write "sausages" rather than "susage's" on this sign! Academic intelligence isn't the most important thing in life, but making the effort to present yourself the best you can is important.

We aren't talking about lingual innovation here. If someone wished to create a change, or rework the English language in an innovative and useful manner, I would not find it annoying. The English language has morphed over time, and it will continue to change as society changes, and hopefully it will be for the better. But the blatant misuse of apostrophes in signage is not innovative, and it certainly isn't for the betterment of the English language!



I am sensing that someone with a love of grammar has perhaps hurt you at some point in your life, is that correct? I can't see any other reasoning behind your argument.

I certainly did not state in the original post that those with poor grammar were of low intelligence, and I don't believe anyone else has directly said that either.

There truly is a flaw in your logic. If a "basic grammar" course has been instituted that proves the importance of grammar. Editors aren't the only individuals who require basic knowledge of language. Everyone from writers to doctors to business owners (since many people have stated in this thread that they think correct use of language is important on signs, menus and so on) requires a basic understanding of how to write.



I agree with a lot of your comments.

If a muscian is a student, he or she could be musically talented, but without writing skills, he or she would certainly not recieve good grades. In my experience, I've found that those who are truly amazing in artistic fields are also academically intelligent. I am an artist, and while I don't consider myself an amazing writer (or singer, or painter...), I pride myself on being able to comprehend and analyise artwork, songs, plays, films and so on. Without basic understanding of language (for example, the difference between "your" and "you're"), I think my abilities would be impaired.

It's interesting that this debate has become an argument about intelligence rather than the issue at hand. I don't wish for my local (English-speaking) butcher to be able to churn a 3000 word essay on the ideas of Freud, but I would expect him to make the effort to write "sausages" rather than "susage's" on this sign! Academic intelligence isn't the most important thing in life, but making the effort to present yourself the best you can is important.

I comprehend and can analyze all of the above mentioned and generally take it to a deeper level than most of the people around me. Yet you say because someone makes mistakes between "you" and "you're" such as myself that they would not understand all of this. I still do not believe grammar denotes academic intelligence, at least in my case. Though I extend that to others whom I observe intelligence in who are not perfect in grammar. I was reading mostly religious works in young age around 11 or 12 like the Bhagavad Gita, and philosophers like Plato. I also read Freud, and books on psychology. I ALWAYS scored in the top 1% or 2% on standardized testing in the Literature sections and scored about upper 20% in grammar in HS as well as the academic testing I received for specialized tutoring (I had to be tutored in Algebra) Everyone copied off of my answers in History, and English. As I said, I help my friends understand their college sociology and psychology texts. Many college students do not seem to grasp "theory", but they do go to a general state college. Apparently I can comprehend theories like this while making mistakes between "you" and "you're" so why can others not do so?

I comprehend and can analyze all of the above mentioned and generally take it to a deeper level than most of the people around me. Yet you say because someone makes mistakes between "you" and "you're" such as myself that they would not understand all of this. I still do not believe grammar denotes academic intelligence, at least in my case. Though I extend that to others whom I observe intelligence in who are not perfect in grammar. I was reading mostly religious works in young age around 11 or 12 like the Bhagavad Gita, and philosophers like Plato. I also read Freud, and books on psychology. I ALWAYS scored in the top 1% or 2% on standardized testing in the Literature sections and scored about upper 20% in grammar in HS as well as the academic testing I received for specialized tutoring (I had to be tutored in Algebra) Everyone copied off of my answers in History, and English. As I said, I help my friends understand their college sociology and psychology texts. Many college students do not seem to grasp "theory", but they do go to a general state college. Apparently I can comprehend theories like this while making mistakes between "you" and "you're" so why can others not do so?

I am not interested in your pretentious autobiography, and I am certainly not interested in your egotistical, conceited bragging. I am sure many people on this forum have higher than average intelligence. The majority of them, however, do not feel the need to boast. Your argument is defensive, and you're taking it to a personal level.

I am not suggesting that you can't comprehend theory, and I have not implied that you are of lesser intelligence, but I am now making the suggestion that if you're as smart as you think you are, perhaps you should learn grammar.

Then you could boast about how you're in the top .0000001 percent of the population for grammar as well!

:rolleyes:

I am not interested in your pretentious autobiography, and I am certainly not interested in your egotistical, conceited bragging. I am sure many people on this forum have higher than average intelligence. The majority of them, however, do not feel the need to boast. Your argument is defensive, and you're taking it to a personal level.

I am not suggesting that you can't comprehend theory, and I have not implied that you are of lesser intelligence, but I am now making the suggestion that if you're as smart as you think you are, perhaps you should learn grammar.

Then you could boast about how you're in the top .0000001 percent of the population for grammar as well!

:rolleyes:

I am not bragging, I am assuming that many others on these forums read at an young age as well. I am just stating personal experience, and views that grammar in no way implies or denotes intelligence. It is almost like saying those who have difficulty doing an Algebra formula are not intelligent.

I don't know why I never bothered really focusing on grammar. I just focus on the message of what is being said when I read. I notice periods, but as far as your or you're I recognize the difference when I am reading but if used in the wrong way it would not be something to draw my attention. Neither would the misuse of apostrophes or semicolons unless they were used repeatedly.

Just to give a background of my personal "basic grammar education" which took place mostly in Middle School I was subjected to the Shirley Method which uses jingles to teach grammar. I do not remember any of these jingles, nor the rules that were taught through the jingles.

Now using except in the place of accept would catch my attention, and I would be really surprised.

I do believe reading comprehension and comprehension of theories is an marker of intelligence.

In a society where reality shows, and personalities like Paris Hilton dominate the media truly any one who is on this forum debating various issues has to be using their intelligence a bit more than the general population. At least using it for good cause.

Most people I have found do not think beyond their career, the money in their bank account, their favorite television show, and their personal drama.

It is unfortunate we live in a society where what you wear, and what you drive is more important than the depth of your knowledge or personal values. The lack of appreciation toward academia shows this.

I am not bragging, I am assuming that many others on these forums read at an young age as well. I am just stating personal experience, and views that grammar in no way implies or denotes intelligence. It is almost like saying those who have difficulty doing an Algebra formula are not intelligent.

I don't know why I never bothered really focusing on grammar. I just focus on the message of what is being said when I read. I notice periods, but as far as your or you're I recognize the difference when I am reading but if used in the wrong way it would not be something to draw my attention. Neither would the misuse of apostrophes or semicolons unless they were used repeatedly.

Just to give a background of my personal "basic grammar education" which took place mostly in Middle School I was subjected to the Shirley Method which uses jingles to teach grammar. I do not remember any of these jingles, nor the rules that were taught through the jingles.

Now using except in the place of accept would catch my attention, and I would be really surprised.

I do believe reading comprehension and comprehension of theories is an marker of intelligence.

In a society where reality shows, and personalities like Paris Hilton dominate the media truly any one who is on this forum debating various issues has to be using their intelligence a bit more than the general population. At least using it for good cause.

Most people I have found do not think beyond their career, the money in their bank account, their favorite television show, and their personal drama.

It is unfortunate we live in a society where what you wear, and what you drive is more important than the depth of your knowledge or personal values. The lack of appreciation toward academia shows this.

Yet you, yourself, do not appreciate one aspect of academia, which is the correct use of language!

It's rather ironic, don't you think?

We're not talking about "every small grammar rule". The difference between a plural and possessive is no small difference. I don't recall seeing a grammar section on standardized tests in school, or the SAT/ACT for that matter. The SAT only recently included a writing test (I had a part-time job with Pearson Educational Measurement, one company that scores those tests...THAT was an eye opener). I don't recall being tested on anything but vocabulary (thorough analogies) and reading comprehension (through prose excerpts with questions).


They don't have the analogies anymore but they still test vocabulary, except they give you a sentence with two blanks and you just pick the choice where both words fit. I love the writing multiple choice part (that part is on grammar). It's so easy. Kind of like you said, the errors pop out at me and so I know what questions they will probably ask and what the answers are going to be before I look at the questions.

We aren't talking about lingual innovation here. If someone wished to create a change, or rework the English language in an innovative and useful manner, I would not find it annoying. The English language has morphed over time, and it will continue to change as society changes, and hopefully it will be for the better. But the blatant misuse of apostrophes in signage is not innovative, and it certainly isn't for the betterment of the English language!

I'm sorry, but I can't believe that it's anything but a backwards step for the English language to have grammatical clarity directly correllating to font style, and then only by computer. For hand writing it's worse; you're saying that, for all its attention to punctuation, a hastily written note becomes less grammatically clear than one written with a slow, regular hand. That's just bonkers in my mind.

I detest "särskrivning", which is the separation of compound words. It is a perversion that has sneaked into Swedish because of English influences, since the latter almost always separates its compounds into their constituents because it lacks or doesn't heed the type of nuances Swedish can express by combining them.

For instance, "skumtomte" ("foam gnome", a type of candy) would erroneously be written as "skum tomte" ("shady gnome"). "Brunhårig kvinna" ("brown-haired woman") would be erroneously written as "brun hårig kvinna" ("brown, hairy woman"). "Kassaapparater" ("cash registers") becomes "kassa apparater" ("crappy machines"). "Brunstensbatterier" (a type of battery) becomes "brunstens batterier" ("batteries of sexual heat"). "Skygglapp" ("blinder") becomes "skygg lapp" ("timid Laplander").

A menu item can go from being "skivad kalvlever med kulpotatis" ("sliced veal liver with round potatoes") to "skivad kalv lever med kul potatis" ("sliced calf lives with fun potato").

It is very vexing because it erodes a very vital part of Swedish - its Germanic propensity for effortless invention of new words as they are needed by combining two or more already existing ones.

Yeah, that's pretty neat about the German language, the combination of two or more words to form a really long (and, to an English-speaker, at least somewhat comical) words, such as "Reinigungsfluessigkeit", which found in the instructions for an automotive product of some kind, I think it was a cleaning kit for a reusable K&N air filter.

Yeah, that's pretty neat about the German language, the combination of two or more words to form a really long (and, to an English-speaker, at least somewhat comical) words, such as "Reinigungsfluessigkeit", which found in the instructions for an automotive product of some kind, I think it was a cleaning kit for a reusable K&N air filter.

Reinigungsflüssigkeit is a compound of only two words and means "fluid to clean with". If you like our compound-craziness, settle for something higher, like the ten-word compound Eisenbahnschienenreinigungsflüssigkeitsbehälterentsorgungssammelstellenwärtergehalt? (I just sorta made that up on the spot and quit here lest it become ridiculous; if you really wanted to, you could surely add more words to it) It means "salary of the guy guarding the place where one collects the containers of cleaning fluids used for railroad tracks in order to recycle them later". Neat, eh?

I'm sorry, but I can't believe that it's anything but a backwards step for the English language to have grammatical clarity directly correllating to font style, and then only by computer. For hand writing it's worse; you're saying that, for all its attention to punctuation, a hastily written note becomes less grammatically clear than one written with a slow, regular hand. That's just bonkers in my mind.

Your mind must be bonkers! I haven't mentioned fonts or handwriting at all. What on Earth are you talking about?

In reply to your previous post, which read:

To misphrase a film quote,language is as language does. In fact this has only become an issue because the rules have changed over time. In the past you had to put full stops when you were abbreviating like that. But, as abbreviations have become widespread, that requirement has been dropped. I don't see why if you can change one rule you can't change another, providing it's in the interest of the overriding goal of clarity.

I said:

We aren't talking about lingual innovation here. If someone wished to create a change, or rework the English language in an innovative and useful manner, I would not find it annoying. The English language has morphed over time, and it will continue to change as society changes, and hopefully it will be for the better. But the blatant misuse of apostrophes in signage is not innovative, and it certainly isn't for the betterment of the English language!

I think you're a little confused.

Your mind must be bonkers! I haven't mentioned fonts or handwriting at all. What on Earth are you talking about?

I think you're a little confused.

The problem is one of context. If I read a hasty note where the heights of letters are perhaps not perfectly regular then how am I supposed to tell whether an abbreviation is a plural or whether it naturally ends in S?

If there were an apostrophe then the context of the sentence would usually provide the context to tell me whether it's a plural or a possessive. If it's a case of an abbreviation then there's going to be no way to tell which I'm dealing with unless I already know. (Admittedly this is worse in British English due to the prevalence of treating group nouns as plurals). You're effectively mixing grammar with handwriting, which in my mind goes dead against what English is about.

Admittedly with font size it's less of an issue due to the regularity, but my point was that in some fonts the lower case is a half of the size of the upper case, others three quarters and so on. So if you're flicking through something or seeing it at a bad angle, in some fonts more than others you'll have to stop to check. Hence grammatical clarity vs font style.

I didn't think it was that hard to grasp. Any way it's not as though the issue is that clear cut anyway, with some newspapers still using it. I was reading that it actually the apostrophe on plurals of abbreviation used to be perfectly acceptible. It's only recently it's gone out of fashion.

I think that if they can't even bother to spell check their advertising, they probably aren't going to bother to do a good job either.

QFT, old chap.

The problem is one of context. If I read a hasty note where the heights of letters are perhaps not perfectly regular then how am I supposed to tell whether an abbreviation is a plural or whether it naturally ends in S?

If there were an apostrophe then the context of the sentence would usually provide the context to tell me whether it's a plural or a possessive. If it's a case of an abbreviation then there's going to be no way to tell which I'm dealing with unless I already know. (Admittedly this is worse in British English due to the prevalence of treating group nouns as plurals). You're effectively mixing grammar with handwriting, which in my mind goes dead against what English is about.

Admittedly with font size it's less of an issue due to the regularity, but my point was that in some fonts the lower case is a half of the size of the upper case, others three quarters and so on. So if you're flicking through something or seeing it at a bad angle, in some fonts more than others you'll have to stop to check. Hence grammatical clarity vs font style.

I didn't think it was that hard to grasp. Any way it's not as though the issue is that clear cut anyway, with some newspapers still using it. I was reading that it actually the apostrophe on plurals of abbreviation used to be perfectly acceptible. It's only recently it's gone out of fashion.

I still can't understand how you got the impression that handwriting was being discussed.

The biggest problem with grammar as I see it is there are TOO MANY RULES. The the use of the ' (am too tired to remember its name) is one of the really important ones though that people should always try to use right.

' is an apostrophe.

Reinigungsflüssigkeit is a compound of only two words and means "fluid to clean with". If you like our compound-craziness, settle for something higher, like the ten-word compound Eisenbahnschienenreinigungsflüssigkeitsbehälterentsorgungssammelstellenwärtergehalt? (I just sorta made that up on the spot and quit here lest it become ridiculous; if you really wanted to, you could surely add more words to it) It means "salary of the guy guarding the place where one collects the containers of cleaning fluids used for railroad tracks in order to recycle them later". Neat, eh?

"Eisenbahnschienenreinigungsflüssigkeitsbehälterentsorgungssammelstellenwärtergehalt"? LOL :D

That word looks like it would take, say, maybe five minutes to pronounce.

The journalist Dave Barry (not to be confused with, nor any relation AFAIK to, Max Barry) wrote, "It can take up to two days to order lunch in German."

I quite agree. Wilful use of, or acceptance of, colloquialisms and poor grammar are indicative of a wider sloppiness that is professionally undesirable and socially demeaning.

How do you lump colloquialisms with poor grammar? Informality doesn't necessarily equal misuse.

There are many expressions or styles held proper today that were colloquialisms in the past.