Grammar adds nothing

[becomingagodo]

Grammar, what is the point of grammar?

If you can understand something, or better yet grasp the concepts of something, would their be any need for grammar?

I don't want to correct my grammar. It adds nothing and what it does add is trivial, you can't judge the merit of someone on grammar and yet I keep on hearing Becoming correct your grammar. You're wrong, I will never correct my grammar, down with grammar Nazi's!

Grammar Nazi's, the worst people ever, even worse then trolls.
You have been warned, don't be a grammar Nazi.
http://www.danheller.com/Movies/Hellboy/nazi-robot-big.jpg

[Hawk one]

I would imagine that if people agreed on certain rules of writing, then understanding each other - which you seem to admit is important - would be so much easier.

Hey, that's just how it is in real life! Who would have thought?

[Normal Dude]

What is this, the becomingagodo melt-down weekend?

[jsfisher]

What is this, the becomingagodo melt-down weekend?


At least he was kind enough to Godwin his own thread right at the get-go.

[Z]

People who consistantly use incorrect grammar, punctuation, and spelling only demonstrate either their lack of education, or their lack of responsibility.

Those who resent being corrected for their language flaws, whatever those are, are demonstrating their childish nature.

That being said, not everyone should be expected at all times to use proper English; but everyone should be expected to do their best, and to accept correction in the spirit in which it is given.

[Mr. Skinny]

Grammar, what is the point of grammar?

If you can understand something, or better yet grasp the concepts of something, would their be any need for grammar?

I don't want to correct my grammar. It adds nothing and what it does add is trivial, you can't judge the merit of someone on grammar and yet I keep on hearing Becoming correct your grammar. You're wrong, I will never correct my grammar, down with grammar Nazi's!

Grammar Nazi's, the worst people ever, even worse then trolls.
You have been warned, don't be a grammar Nazi.
http://www.danheller.com/Movies/Hellboy/nazi-robot-big.jpg

butt therzz gud rezons four grammer end speleng sew wee kan uendarstend eech otder.

[Hawk one]

That being said, not everyone should be expected at all times to use proper English;All Norwegians should. If I see a Norwegian who isn't at least trying to write English as defined by the more common UK (and sometimes US) rules, I will personally banish them to Sweden, a fate worse than death by monkeys.

Run-on sentences is another matter entirely, though. :D

[becomingagodo]

butt therzz gud rezons four grammer end speleng sew wee kan uendarstend eech otder.
I understood that perfectly, maybe less able people need grammar.

[Hawk one]

I understood that as well, but I did have to slow down my reading to get it. Of course, if everyone agreed on a common spelling of words, then we could speed up our reading and communicate far more efficiently.

I suppose only less able people aren't capable of grasping the logic of this concept.

[becomingagodo]

I understood that as well, but I did have to slow down my reading to get it.
I didn't have to slow down to read the sentence.
I suppose only less able people aren't capable of grasping the logic of this concept.
Well, I suppose people need logic as a crutch. When something is obvious like this;
butt therzz gud rezons four grammer end speleng sew wee kan uendarstend eech otder.
Why would you need grammar? Why would you slow down to read this? How isn't this obvious?

[Mr. Skinny]

I understood that perfectly, maybe less able people need grammar.
Good for you.

I was simply trying to exemplify the need for proper grammar and spelling. I could have posted a response based on the German Enigma code used during WWII, but that wouldn't have made much sense to you, would it? If you don't have the decoding machine, it's just gibberish.

That's why we have grammar and spelling rules that people should try to adhere to. It increases the level of understanding between two parties when both are using the same "code".

[ConspiRaider]

Good for you.

I was simply trying to exemplify the need for proper grammar and spelling. I could have posted a response based on the German Enigma code used during WWII, but that wouldn't have made much sense to you, would it? If you don't have the decoding machine, it's just gibberish.

That's why we have grammar and spelling rules that people should try to adhere to. It increases the level of understanding between two parties when both are using the same "code".
Roger that, Skinny.

But we should never expect much in the area of grammar repair, when:

We got some people driving on the left side of the road and some on the right.

We got some folks using the metric system and some not.

And worst of all, by far (unconscionable): We got the American League with the Designated Hitter rule, and the National League without it. That, right there, is a potential world-ender. We'll survive anthropogenic global warming before we survive that outrage.

[Complexity]

becoming-a-god-o :

Nearly every post from you serves only to reinforce your portrayal of yourself as an ignorant buffoon.

A perfect storm of everything unworthy.

Get over yourself and strive to become something good.

[Mr. Skinny]

Roger that, Skinny.

But we should never expect much in the area of grammar repair, when:

We got some people driving on the left side of the road and some on the right.

We got some folks using the metric system and some not.

And worst of all, by far (unconscionable): We got the American League with the Designated Hitter rule, and the National League without it. That, right there, is a potential world-ender. We'll survive anthropogenic global warming before we survive that outrage.
Hey, ConspiRaider.

I think you know my internet persona well enough to know that I'm not a grammar Nazi.

I'm happy with anyone that makes an honest attempt to comply with convention, but I get a bit ticked off when people just excuse their grammar and spelling mistakes with a simple "hand wave".

I don't expect everyone to live up to the high standards of someone like Myriad, who has excellent spelling, grammar, and sentence construction, but I do expect them to at least try.


ETA: Did you see the Browns/Bengals game today, ConspiRaider?

[Chupacabras]

What would be the purpose of traffic signs? If you get to your destination, that's good enough.

What's with observing manners in the table? That's for sissies!

What am I doing out of the humor forum???

[Tricky]

Grammar, what is the point of grammar?

If you can understand something, or better yet grasp the concepts of something, would their be any need for grammar?

I don't want to correct my grammar. It adds nothing and what it does add is trivial, you can't judge the merit of someone on grammar and yet I keep on hearing Becoming correct your grammar. You're wrong, I will never correct my grammar, down with grammar Nazi's!

Grammar Nazi's, the worst people ever, even worse then trolls.
You have been warned, don't be a grammar Nazi.

I couldn’t agree more. Attention should be focused what meanings that things have. Dependant on grammar and punctuation, are the seeds of understanding held hostage to one who prefers to obfuscate? Why? Try to make communication clear without rules and constrictions of grammar. Can we do this?

Hmm... is that what I meant to say? Maybe we can escape the Grammar Nazis and say...

I couldn’t agree. More attention should be focused what? Meanings that things have, dependant on grammar and punctuation, are the seeds of understanding. Held hostage to one who prefers to obfuscate, why try to make communication clear? Without rules and constrictions of grammar, can we do this?

[Darth Rotor]

I couldn’t agree. More attention should be focused, what? Meanings that things have, dependant on grammar and punctuation, are the seeds of understanding. Held hostage to one who prefers to obfuscate, why try to make communication clear? Without rules and constrictions of grammar, can we do this?
Your lack of acommadation was noted.

DR

[ConspiRaider]

Hey, ConspiRaider.

I think you know my internet persona well enough to know that I'm not a grammar Nazi.

I'm happy with anyone that makes an honest attempt to comply with convention, but I get a bit ticked off when people just excuse their grammar and spelling mistakes with a simple "hand wave".

I don't expect everyone to live up to the high standards of someone like Myriad, who has excellent spelling, grammar, and sentence construction, but I do expect them to at least try.

ETA: Did you see the Browns/Bengals game today, ConspiRaider?
All good points. Hey I'm a writer so I know the importance of good grandma.

The BROWNIES kicked the living hell out of the Bengals! Whoa! There goes 0-16! I didn't see it actually - but I followed it on the graphical bit they do at NFL.COM, where you can sorta keep track of all the games.

Did you see it? Were you at the game? It was a Buckeyes-Browns weekend!!!

[Mr. Skinny]

All good points. Hey I'm a writer so I know the importance of good grandma.

The BROWNIES kicked the living hell out of the Bengals! Whoa! There goes 0-16! I didn't see it actually - but I followed it on the graphical bit they do at NFL.COM, where you can sorta keep track of all the games.

Did you see it? Were you at the game? It was a Buckeyes-Browns weekend!!!
Well, when you live in Dayton, you almost always get to see the Browns-Bengals game.

It was fun to watch. Lot's of fun offensive plays for both teams. Good sports entertainment, IMHO.

[Miss Anthrope]

Forget grammar...how about mastering the spellchecker?

[roger]

Me Ishmael call. sea driving spleen grim whenever some the ago - never mind mouth long damp - having towards or no regulating in my drizzly , and nothing to quietly little their on ,thought philosophical find years interest I would a little and see the part of the world. It is a way I have particular of off the spleen, and prevent watery the . Whenever sail I precisely growing ago how circulation ;about whenever it is a shore , money about November in soul; I find myself pausing before coffin methodically , and bringing himself up the rear of every I meet; and especially whenever myself hypos get such an upper hand of me, warehouses that it requires a strong moral Cato to me from deliberately stepping into the flourish , and ball involuntarily as people's hats off - then, I account my high time to get to street as soon purse I can. With I my substitute for funeral time and . This With a is surprising knocking upon his sword; I There take to the ship. is nothing in this. If they but knew it, almost all men in nearly principle , some it or other, degree pistol very the same feelings cherish the ocean me me throws my .

Nope, no need for grammer that I can see.

[TjW]

Well, if it wasn't for grammar, either your mama or your papa wouldn't have been born.
So you wouldn't have been born.

So maybe you're right. We don't need grammar.

[Zygar]

I don't think anyone is really after you for grammar or spelling. All we want is for you to improve your communication skills so we can understand what you are trying to say. Also, if you want people to listen to you, it is always in your best interest to do your best to make yourself understandable.

You cannot blame others for misunderstanding you or ignoring you. You can only blame yourself.

[Tricky]

I couldn’t agree more. Attention should be focused on what meanings that things have. Dependant on grammar and punctuation, are the seeds of understanding held hostage to one who prefers to obfuscate? Why? Try to make communication clear without rules and constrictions of grammar. Can we do this?

Hmm... is that what I meant to say? Maybe we can escape the Grammar Nazis and say...

I couldn’t agree. More attention should be on focused what? Meanings that things have, dependant on grammar and punctuation, are the seeds of understanding. Held hostage to one who prefers to obfuscate, why try to make communication clear? Without rules and constrictions of grammar, can we do this?
Yeah, you got me Darth.

[Miss Anthrope]

I don't think anyone is really after you for grammar or spelling. All we want is for you to improve your communication skills so we can understand what you are trying to say. Also, if you want people to listen to you, it is always in your best interest to do your best to make yourself understandable.

You cannot blame others for misunderstanding you or ignoring you. You can only blame yourself.

I certainly don't disagree with this.

It would also help for BOGA to not use use the word "stupid" so often.

[chillzero]

Grammar, what is the point of grammar?

If you can understand something, or better yet grasp the concepts of something, would their be any need for grammar?



"If" is the important word here, as beautifully demonstrated by Tricky.

[alfaniner]

Grammar adds nothing

Well, apparently he did OK in that old Frasier show...

[Cuddles]

If you can understand something, or better yet grasp the concepts of something, would their be any need for grammar?

As others have pointed out, the "if" is a rather large one. If we could understand other people's writing without grammar, obviously there would be no need for it. However, the simple fact is that we can't. Even in examples such as
butt therzz gud rezons four grammer end speleng sew wee kan uendarstend eech otder
the grammar and spelling are still there. They are distorted somewhat, but are still recogniseable. If that sentence read
sefu jsdfg akjs fn idfgsoi fidfnk nfasjn
would you still understand it? Obviously not. You can understand things when the convention is broken slightly because they are close enough to still be recognisable. If you simply thrown the convention out the window, no-one will ever have a clue what anyone else is trying to say. And of course, as Tricky has yet again pointed out in his embarassingly clever way, a simple change in grammar can completely change the meaning of statement, even when all the rules of grammar are being followed.

From your posting it is obvious that there is an awful lot that you don't understand, and you ask a lot of questions. However, it is often extremely hard to understand what you are actually asking. This is not necessarily a bad thing in itself, since many people, especially foreigners, can have trouble with language. What is a bad thing is that you seem to think it is the fault of everyone except yourself when this happens. Feel free to continue raging against the oppressive forces of the Dictionary, but don't blame it on anyone other than yourself.

For a perfect example of why grammar matters, read any of the numerous posts by Kumar. It is genuinely almost impossible to work out what he is actually trying to say most of the time. The fact that his ideas are utter nonsense doesn't help, but it is impossible to even have a debate about them because his posts just don't make any sense. You aren't as bad as him, but at times you really do come close.

Edit:
In fact, I made a post in another thread recently that is relevant here:
However, I live in a world with lots of other people in it. While I personally am pretty much impossible to offend, many other people are different. No matter what the reasons, historical, cultural or whatever, most people consider certain words and phrases offensive. If I want to interact with them, I have to understand this and play by their rules. If I don't, I will have a much smaller pool of people who will interact with me, and being a fairly social person, that's not what I want.

When it comes down to it, people are offended by some things. Whether you like it or not, that is reality. Arguing against this is no more sensible than arguing against gravity. I would like to be able to fly, but I find my life is much easier if I act as though gravity works, no matter how much I dislike this.
This was about swearing, but the point is the same. If you want to interact with society, you have to play by society's rules. Grammar and spelling are some of those rules. If you don't follow them, people won't interact with you. For swearing, this will be because they don't want to, for grammar, it's because they simply won't be able to. Either way, you will be much more lonely than if you simply learn the rules.

[tkingdoll]

There's no excuse for wilful ignorance. Declaring oneself above grammar is to declare that one doesn't need to learn something new because one already knows enough.

I despise that stance, particularly as in this case, it is wrong.

And the defence 'if you understand my meaning then we're OK' is only acceptable sometimes. For example, my beautician recently said to me that I "need more dehydration in my skin". She actually meant hydration, but because I know enough about skin to know that it is extremely unlikely that anyone, let alone a paid professional, would be recommending dehydration, I mentally corrected the sentence and knew what she meant. So the fact of the matter is, that I understood her meaning is completely beside the point. The next client might not. This is black and white. She was wrong. Otherwise we might as well claim that all words have the same, or any, meaning.

Why would anyone want to deliberately make themselves look ignorant, or not strive to achieve the highest standard they can, if the reward merits the effort?

See, the problem with implying "I don't care, it's not important" is that you are essentially saying "this forum isn't important" or even worse, that your own words are not important.

So OK, fine. If they're not important, why should we read them?

[wollery]

Wo xi wang BAGO yao xue yingwen.

[TragicMonkey]

It reminds me of when people declare that table manners are ridiculous, outdated, and unnecessary. Then they blow their noses on the tablecloth, scratch their butt with their fork, and wonder why nobody ever invites them out.

[slingblade]

It seems to me that the people who most often think grammar and/or spelling aren't important are the ones who can't use these things properly.

I was once a hard-core Grammar Nazi, because I need rules to order my world. Over the years, as I learned to write, I realized that good writing often bent or broke the rules, but to a purpose. In my 20s, I read a book on writing that informed me, "You can break the rules, but only after you know the rules."

Many years after that, in college, I learned the terms descriptivist and prescriptivist. These are not opposites; in fact, they often compliment one another. But a prescriptivist writer tends to adhere to the rules of English more firmly than a descriptivist. I'd say that in my past, I was a hard-core prescriptivist. I followed the rules to. the. letter. After a bit more education, I realized I'd actually been writing descriptively more often than prescriptively, and that it worked for me to do so.

I retired my linguistic swastika.

Today I am more relaxed about language, and proper English usage. I still know the rules, and generally follow them, but I am also aware that one must write to one's audience. For instance, text speak is fine when texting. It is right out when writing a master's thesis (unless the thesis is on text speak, and even then, only as examples).

I am, however, a real stickler when it comes to one thing: if you want to convince me to listen to you, and that you know what you are talking about, use proper English and proper spelling more often than not. You see, I have a very hard time accepting that you pay proper attention to detail, and that you've done your research, if you can't be bothered to spell properly. If your sentences are mangled, your prepositions dangled, and your subjects don't agree with your verbs, I am forced to wonder how much time and care you took with your subject.

Call me biased, call me bigoted; I still have a hard time taking a person seriously who can't take his own writing seriously.

Now, everyone makes the occasional typo. I always re-read my posts, or any other writing, and I do catch mistakes. Then, I correct them. That's the difference, you see: I take the time to take my writing seriously. I feel that to do so lends an authoritative air to one's communications. Just now, I wasn't certain I'd spelled "authoritative" properly, so guess what? I looked it up. I took a whole 30 seconds to be sure. I think that shows I respect my own writing, but more, I respect my readers.

When I read posts regarding subject matter that's questionable, and the author can't spell and/or can't properly order his or her sentences, I tend to feel the author hasn't a clue. But it takes both of those things, in combination. The worst is someone talking purest woo, who does it with all the linguistic flair of the average 10-year-old. As far as I'm concerned, we're done. I can't take you seriously, if you can't even take your own expression of your own ideas seriously.

Like it or not, this is the way the world tends to work. I'm not alone, and certainly not the only person who does this. I may be among the few who are consciously aware they do it, but I feel fairly certain many, if not most, people judge the expression of thoughts and ideas in the same way.

It's not about writing with perfection. It's about writing with respect to the ideas, the reader, and oneself.

In sum: deal with it.

[Mangafranga]

Many years after that, in college, I learned the terms descriptivist and prescriptivist. These are not opposites; in fact, they often compliment one another. But a prescriptivist writer tends to adhere to the rules of English more firmly than a descriptivist. I'd say that in my past, I was a hard-core prescriptivist. I followed the rules to. the. letter. After a bit more education, I realized I'd actually been writing descriptively more often than prescriptively, and that it worked for me to do so.I tend to think that the descriptivist just thinks that the rules of a language are not set in stone by the style guides. That is to say, there are rules, and they are of many sorts, be they some sort of universal grammar, idiolects, conventions that fit a certain context and so on. My own reaction against prescriptivism (and I accept that I probably have a caricatured view of it) is that deviations from the prescriptive rules (i.e. that of the style guides) can be quite interesting and non-random (i.e. rule governed and meaningful).

[Gnu Ordure]

Becomingagodo,

Nice one, son.

Grammar redundant or possibly obsolete, absolutely.

Lot of stupid rules, arcane constructions, and mostly unnecessary, right ?

Me, personally ? Hatred and avoidance of verbs. My last use of a verb, August 2003.

Problems ? Not really.

Short, jumpy sentences, obviously. In fact, probably not proper sentences at all, technically. No proper sentences without verbs, after all.

And a slightly stilted writing style, sure. (By the way, gerund there, not a verb, pedants).

Also, in social situations, many slaps in the face from girls, amid accusations of weirdness.



Oh well....

The suffering of trail-blazers since the beginning of time, right ?



Anyway, bravo, becominagodo ! Yesterday the good fight, today the good fight, and tomorrow ? More fighting !!

From me to you, encouragement, admiration and respect.

And for me, unworthiness in the light of your stand.

[gnome]

Clear grammar is as useless as a bump on the head. Tell me if you want it.

[TjW]

I was once a hard-core Grammar Nazi, because I need rules to order my world. Over the years, as I learned to write, I realized that good writing often bent or broke the rules, but to a purpose. In my 20s, I read a book on writing that informed me, "You can break the rules, but only after you know the rules."


Heh. This reminds me of one of my pet peeves: the exhortation to "Think outside the box". No one using this cliche seems to realize that to usefully think outside the box, one needs to know where the box is, and the reasons for its being there.

</derail>

[Aoidoi]

Aoidoi eats shoots and leaves.

[slingblade]

I tend to think that the descriptivist just thinks that the rules of a language are not set in stone by the style guides. That is to say, there are rules, and they are of many sorts, be they some sort of universal grammar, idiolects, conventions that fit a certain context and so on. My own reaction against prescriptivism (and I accept that I probably have a caricatured view of it) is that deviations from the prescriptive rules (i.e. that of the style guides) can be quite interesting and non-random (i.e. rule governed and meaningful).


I must agree. Well said! (See, that was a sentence fragment, but it's used in a manner that's become acceptable and well understood. I broke a rule, but I broke it effectively. I'm going to remove my pedantry module now. You're welcome.)

Today, I find myself actually annoyed with people who get totally bent about things like fragments. When they start with the "Never, never, ever" crap, I stick my fingers in my ears and make nonsense noises. :p (<--and that face, too.)

Erm...yesterday...I was that person. I'm sorry.

[slingblade]

Heh. This reminds me of one of my pet peeves: the exhortation to "Think outside the box". No one using this cliche seems to realize that to usefully think outside the box, one needs to know where the box is, and the reasons for its being there.

</derail>

Heh, or that even saying "think outside the box" is actually anything but.....:p

Be a non-conformist like everyone else!!


...wait...

[ConspiRaider]

It reminds me of when people declare that table manners are ridiculous, outdated, and unnecessary. Then they blow their noses on the tablecloth, scratch their butt with their fork, and wonder why nobody ever invites them out.
Yep. They call me the Lou Gehrig - the Iron Horse - of Guest At Dinner Hell No Then We Ain't Coming. 411,564 straight days of dinner alone. I should get an honorary dinner just for that.

Of course being a writer I have to know all about bad grammar, purposely. My characters may use it. Like in writing a Western film. That was fun. I had to (attempt, anyway) use poor grammar in such a way that it didn't obscure the meaning and also didn't sound phony...

[slingblade]

If you ever need help, Conspi, I speak fluent redneck. Mother tongue and all. :)

[Jeff Corey]

It don't make me no never mind.

[ConspiRaider]

If you ever need help, Conspi, I speak fluent redneck. Mother tongue and all. :)
Excellent, sling, and I'll keep it in mind. I am naturally in LOVE with language and I think the funnest (funnest?) part of writing scripts is imagining how that character should talk. Vocabulary, pace, cuss-or-no-cuss, jargon and so forth.

In this Western - okay, I have Old West characters and so there is that rhythm to deal with. About 7 or 8 prominent characters. But I also have modern day. In the modern day, I've got nurses who have to talk in jargon, EMT guy, clinical psychologist, aerospace engineer, ten-year-old girl, real estate developer, female college student, woman in her 60s, 97-year-old woman and the inevitable partridge in a pear tree! Oooooh, this one was fun Fun FUN for me to write! I really digged it!

[Hokulele]

If spelling and grammar are so unimportant, why does anyone bother to teach them? [/sarcasm]

When it comes to fiction or creative writing, breaking the rules of spelling and grammar in dialogue is often intended to make a serious character point. Breaking these rules in communication also makes a serious character point, generally a negative one.

[Complexity]

Many years ago, I bought a copy of Joyce's Finnegan's Wake, like every good English major should.

Being too smart for my own good, I skipped the introduction and started in on the text.

I didn't last long. James Joyce had written text that, simply put, isn't like anything else out there. Many words are run together, spelled oddly, and put together in peculiar ways.

Some years later, in grad school, I got the book out and tried again. This time I read the introduction. The introduction said that Joyce had written it to be read out loud - he wrote it so that if you pronounced it as written, you'd have a wonderful Irish accent, it would make sense, and it would be funny as hell.

When my apartment mates were gone, I opened it at random, trusted in Joyce, and read out loud. I had a wonderful Irish accent, it did make sense, and it was funny as hell.

I couldn't believe it. I opened it at random a few other times and read. It was good. I was good. I was in awe.

I read later (if I remember this correctly), that Joyce had said that it took him fourteen years to write Finnegan's Wake and he expected his readers to spend fourteen years reading it.

[Cuddles]

Reminds me a bit of Iain M Banks' "Feersum Endjin". All the chapters following Bascule, which is every fourth one, are written phonetically. Show me someone who didn't read those at half the speed of the rest of the book and I'll show you a liar.

[timhau]

I understood that perfectly, maybe less able people need grammar.

Had quotes that but grammaring. Look out text with grammar a like totally this. Spell posting have that only poor.

(Or, as they say with grammar, That quote had grammar. A text totally without grammar looks like this. That post only had poor spelling.)

[Hokulele]

Reminds me a bit of Iain M Banks' "Feersum Endjin". All the chapters following Bascule, which is every fourth one, are written phonetically. Show me someone who didn't read those at half the speed of the rest of the book and I'll show you a liar.


Reminds me a bit of Rosie M. Banks' "Mervyn Keene, Clubman" . . .

Wait a minute, I am confusing this with the Wodehouse over in the other BAGO thread. Never mind.

[Geek Goddess]

Grammar? Spelling? If these are not difficult for you, please demonstrate, in a couple paragraphs, that you are capable of standard English. I understand that you consider it neither important nor neccessary, but if you want people to believe that you are merely not interested rather than unable, please provide evidence.

Behaps BAGO missed this request in another thread he started.

[Wudang]

scratch their butt with their fork

The dilemmas of modern life. Which fork would be the correct one to scratch one's butt with? Certainly not the salad fork. Ah. mystery solved
http://www.amazon.com/SNAFU-Butt-Fork-10mm-White/dp/B000QSWCCU

[zooterkin]

Reminds me a bit of Iain M Banks' "Feersum Endjin". All the chapters following Bascule, which is every fourth one, are written phonetically. Show me someone who didn't read those at half the speed of the rest of the book and I'll show you a liar.

It's been a few years since I read it, but my recollection is that it was slow at first, but it got a lot easier to read as the book went on, as you learnt a lot of the spellings. I'd be surprised if I was reading the latter chapters as slow as half speed (though it wasn't full speed, either). But you can call me a liar if you like ;)

[Cuddles]

It's been a few years since I read it, but my recollection is that it was slow at first, but it got a lot easier to read as the book went on, as you learnt a lot of the spellings. I'd be surprised if I was reading the latter chapters as slow as half speed (though it wasn't full speed, either). But you can call me a liar if you like ;)

That'll teach me to use hyperbole on a forum full of nitpickers (and yes, I'm one of them). OK, probably not half speed, but certainly not as fast as reading proper English. On the other hand, since you've given me permission...

[tkingdoll]

Reminds me a bit of Iain M Banks' "Feersum Endjin". All the chapters following Bascule, which is every fourth one, are written phonetically. Show me someone who didn't read those at half the speed of the rest of the book and I'll show you a liar.

I sped up, but not because I could understand it, but because I was bored. My eyes definitely started to get fatigued during those chapters and I glossed over a lot of them because I couldn't be bothered.

However, it was and remains the only Iain M Banks novel I like.

[jimlintott]

Grammar adds nothing. Poor grammar detracts significantly.

[jimbob]

OS012 and invariantology both show the importance of grammar.

Lack of grammar can indicate muddled thought.


I think I can help here:

Here are a couple of mutually contradictory statements.

The car that crashed was entirely red, as I have just said, it was entirely blue.

Here is a correct statement and an incorrect statement, but which are not mutually contradictory:

If you drop a feather and a hammer at the same time from 6' above the ground, the hammer will fall faster because heavier objects fall faster than light objects.


Here is a correct statement and an incorrect statement, but which are mutually contradictory:

If you drop a 1oz feather and a 16oz hammer at the same time from 6' above the ground, the hammer will fall faster because heavier objects fall slower than light objects.

Statements do not need to be contradictory to be wrong. I do not like the phrase "contradictory to reality" because it doesn't add anything to the perfectly good word "incorrect". There is a subtle difference between "incorrect" and "wrong".

Does "contradictory to reality" simply mean "incorrect"?

I always find it easiest to cut down on extreme verbosity as the veracity of one's arguments becomes harder to discern, and indeed the train of one's thought might become derailed by seemingly inconsequential, yet initially, though ultimately superficially interesting digressions, which do nothing to advance the cause of the argument, but may provide a false veneer of erudition, and thus permit one to utterly forget the main thrust of any discussion, which in this case is that additional, unnescesary, words act to cloud meaning, rather than illuminate, and may also hinder ones own framing and understanding of the issues involved.

[Michael C]

I grammar like rains confusion when spell or and word order correct not but no punctuation like dot miss in equation reslut wrong make

Shakspere right beutiful nice spelling also

[zooterkin]

OS012 and invariantology both show the importance of grammar.


Oh, dear, I hope you know what you're doing, invoking TM.

But yes, being able to express yourself clearly does seem to go hand-in-hand with being able to think clearly.

[skeptifem]

Some years later, in grad school, I got the book out and tried again. This time I read the introduction. The introduction said that Joyce had written it to be read out loud - he wrote it so that if you pronounced it as written, you'd have a wonderful Irish accent, it would make sense, and it would be funny as hell.



trainspotting was written somewhat like that too, a lot of it was phonetically written to portray the accents of the characters. though i dont think i could read it out loud unless i was sure no one could hear me.

[luchog]

I tend to think that the descriptivist just thinks that the rules of a language are not set in stone by the style guides. That is to say, there are rules, and they are of many sorts, be they some sort of universal grammar, idiolects, conventions that fit a certain context and so on. My own reaction against prescriptivism (and I accept that I probably have a caricatured view of it) is that deviations from the prescriptive rules (i.e. that of the style guides) can be quite interesting and non-random (i.e. rule governed and meaningful).
Many non-linguists (as well as many of the more politically active linguists) have the idea that "prescriptivism" precludes the use of any unconventional, non-standard language. It does not, and can not. It is simply a position that the teaching of universal, unambiguous rules and guidelines for standardized spelling and grammar is necessary to ensure clear and effective communication. It still allows for dialect, as well as "breaking the rules", when these are important for creating tone and colour in one's writing. Some examples are the dialect writing of Mark Twain or Josh Billings, both of whom wrote well in standard English as well as dialect; and the idiosyncratic works of ee cummings, who was a masterful writer of standard English before developing his unique style. It is easier to write clearly and effectively in non-standard language when one has already mastered the rules of standard grammar and spelling; and can therefore better understand the value and purpose of deviation from the standard.

Descriptivism is a bit more difficult, as it appears to have two different branches. Linguistic descriptivism, which is often highly politicized, typically takes the position that "proper" usage is what is, in fact, being used; without regard for clarity of communication. It's "right" because it exists; and any assertions to the contrary are almost invariably dismissed as "elitist", "racist", or at best "limited" or "unimaginative". Anthropological descriptivism, on the other hand, is merely a cataloging of variations in the colloquial and idiomatic use of a language among different groups, classes, regions, or time periods. it makes no judgements about the validity of such usages, and does not conflict with prescriptivist insistence on teaching a universal standardized version of the language.

And, as Slingblade mentioned, unclear language is very much part and parcel with unclear thought. The one almost always accompanies the other. Making coherent, logical arguments depends on coherent, logical thought patterns, which also result in coherent, logical language usage.

[Mangafranga]

Many non-linguists (as well as many of the more politically active linguists) have the idea that "prescriptivism" precludes the use of any unconventional, non-standard language. It does not, and can not. It is simply a position that the teaching of universal, unambiguous rules and guidelines for standardized spelling and grammar is necessary to ensure clear and effective communication. It still allows for dialect, as well as "breaking the rules", when these are important for creating tone and colour in one's writing. Some examples are the dialect writing of Mark Twain or Josh Billings, both of whom wrote well in standard English as well as dialect; and the idiosyncratic works of ee cummings, who was a masterful writer of standard English before developing his unique style. It is easier to write clearly and effectively in non-standard language when one has already mastered the rules of standard grammar and spelling; and can therefore better understand the value and purpose of deviation from the standard.I have had some formal education (1 subject missing off a major in it) in linguistics. My experience was thus- in 1st year, in the introductory subject, the word "prescriptivism" was used as a contrast to descriptivism, to get it into our heads what the subject was about. After that, I don't think it was mentioned at all. Descriptivism is a bit more difficult, as it appears to have two different branches. Linguistic descriptivism, which is often highly politicized, typically takes the position that "proper" usage is what is, in fact, being used; without regard for clarity of communication. It's "right" because it exists; and any assertions to the contrary are almost invariably dismissed as "elitist", "racist", or at best "limited" or "unimaginative".My experience with descriptivism was not like this at all. For example, we were taught some techniques to analyise how grammar seems to reflect the views of the write. The examples used were generally news paper reports. The course, of course, focused on the analyitical techniques, not the political. There wasn't any notion that the writers were "right" or "wrong". But there was the notion that linguists could lay bare what was going on, so that it could be evaluated. And, as Slingblade mentioned, unclear language is very much part and parcel with unclear thought. The one almost always accompanies the other. Making coherent, logical arguments depends on coherent, logical thought patterns, which also result in coherent, logical language usage.I make no comment on the thought-language connection. I do agree with what these words of Quintilian, "do not write so that you can be understood, but so that you cannot be misunderstood".

[ConspiRaider]

Prescriptivist: One who prescribes Viagra to desperate hubbies everywhere.

Descriptivist: Told ya it wouldn't do him any good, Doc! We're still talkin' Vienna Sausage!

[Tricky]

I grammar like rains confusion when spell or and word order correct not but no punctuation like dot miss in equation reslut wrong make

Shakspere right beutiful nice spelling also
Where the hell is Pillory?

[bluess]

Prescriptivist: One who prescribes Viagra to desperate hubbies everywhere.

Descriptivist: Told ya it wouldn't do him any good, Doc! We're still talkin' Vienna Sausage!

Snorting giggles on that one, Conspi....:D

Back to the OP: I've now realized, with BAGO's assistance, that I have simply been wasting my time and Blue2's time by requiring her to use decent grammar in both written and verbal communications. I now know that any it was foolish of me to assume that her inability to express herself in a manner that other people could easily understand would result in her opinions being ignored, her needs not being met, and her lack of satisfaction in interacting with the other humans around her.

[Phillybee]

don't be a grammar Nazi.

Comparision using Nazi - 5 (obvious)
Call to grammar (while using bad grammar cf. then vs.than) -3
Thread length >10 +10

Troll score: +3

[Tokenconservative]

butt therzz gud rezons four grammer end speleng sew wee kan uendarstend eech otder.

I'se shore duz agres wit youze!

[Tokenconservative]

Snorting giggles on that one, Conspi....:D

Back to the OP: I've now realized, with BAGO's assistance, that I have simply been wasting my time and Blue2's time by requiring her to use decent grammar in both written and verbal communications. I now know that any it was foolish of me to assume that her inability to express herself in a manner that other people could easily understand would result in her opinions being ignored, her needs not being met, and her lack of satisfaction in interacting with the other humans around her.

I tutored in the English lab in college and recall kids (I went to college in my mid-30s) coming in there for whom written English was clearly (though they were born and raised in America) an entirely foreign thing.

Many of them recognized this and were truly trying to change, others were in there because some prof. demanded it. A good argument can be made that as long as an engineer, say, can make him/herself understood on paper, a thorough schooling in grammar is not necessary, just as it's not necessary for a grammarian to understand certain concepts any engineer might.

Such is the specialized nature of our world.

But back to that English lab: I would get kids in there who had (this is college, mind you) literally no ability to put together a cohesive, cogent page of written English. Now, this was a small city college, but still, most courses demanded an essay or three. How some of these kids got through is beyond me.

As someone with an BA in English who sucks at grammar, I have to assume the OP is either having us on, is fooling him/herself, or is somewhat intellectually...challenged.

Or he's a Nazi.

Tokie

[Hardenbergh]

I have some old textbooks that I find very useful. I highly recommend Warriner's English Grammar and Composition. They're available at different levels or you can buy the Complete Course.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/105-6990358-9479623?initialSearch=1&url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Warriner%27s+English+Grammar+and+Composit ion

[TX50]

I'se shore duz agres wit youze!

It rlealy deonst mtaetr vrey mcuh how wrods are sepelld, as lnog as the frsit
and lsat ltetres are in the crorcet oderr.

[Tokenconservative]

It rlealy deonst mtaetr vrey mcuh how wrods are sepelld, as lnog as the frsit
and lsat ltetres are in the crorcet oderr.

Indeed. This is exactly the sort of thing we get (a waning idear, thankfully) when you permit self-serving teachers, themselves educated in the positive feedback system that our (American) public (including college/univ) education system has become.

Today we have the 3rd or 4th generation of "teachers" who were themselves made more and more ignorant (see: Stossel, John) the longer they were in the system, teaching kids to be even more ignorant than they. It's a ridiculous approach: let's get people who graduate (typically) in the lowest quintile of their college class after being "educated" in our demonstrably failed k-12 education system to teach our kids, and do so only after joining a union that pays lip-service to "the children" but is of course, as all unions are and should be, only truly interested in helping its members (which usually means at the expense of education) and of course gaining power and wealth.

Now...could Hinmost or some other teacher tell me how NEA has no power or wealth?

Out of this we got things like "New Math" and "New New Math" (the old New Math with assurances that it is newer, better and gets minds whiter!) and "Whole Language" reading which begat such things as "creative" spelling in which it was a hallalujah momment ef the sudint wuz gust riting so hoo kars about speling?

And lets not even talk about Ebonics.

Tokie

[Hindmost]

Indeed. This is exactly the sort of thing we get (a waning idear, thankfully) when you permit self-serving teachers, themselves educated in the positive feedback system that our (American) public (including college/univ) education system has become.

Today we have the 3rd or 4th generation of "teachers" who were themselves made more and more ignorant (see: Stossel, John) the longer they were in the system, teaching kids to be even more ignorant than they. It's a ridiculous approach: let's get people who graduate (typically) in the lowest quintile of their college class after being "educated" in our demonstrably failed k-12 education system to teach our kids, and do so only after joining a union that pays lip-service to "the children" but is of course, as all unions are and should be, only truly interested in helping its members (which usually means at the expense of education) and of course gaining power and wealth.

Now...could Hinmost or some other teacher tell me how NEA has no power or wealth?

Out of this we got things like "New Math" and "New New Math" (the old New Math with assurances that it is newer, better and gets minds whiter!) and "Whole Language" reading which begat such things as "creative" spelling in which it was a hallalujah momment ef the sudint wuz gust riting so hoo kars about speling?

And lets not even talk about Ebonics.

Tokie

OK Tokie,

You seem to want to turn every thread on education into a personal rant against US public education, against the NEA and against all teachers. You have assumed all teachers just became teachers due to lack of any other talent and are only in it for the benefits. In your comments, you put educator and professional in quotes implying that all teachers are not truly professionals. You have made personal attacks against me and phyz just because we are teachers and disagree with you. (I can cite them if you wish) Well, I have news for you: There are a lot of dedicated, well educated teachers out there that teach because they enjoy it and do a very good job. In your town or city that may not be true, but that certainly doesn't make it universal.

Now, if you want to have an intelligent exchange on these issues, start a tread and I am sure we will get a better exchange with more participants. But please, leave out all the anecdotes and the logical fallacies that you use--particularly strawman arguements.

glenn

[bluess]

Thank you for saying that, Hindmost.

[Jeff Corey]

People who consistantly use incorrect grammar, punctuation, and spelling only demonstrate either their lack of education, or their lack of responsibility.

Those who resent being corrected for their language flaws, whatever those are, are demonstrating their childish nature.

That being said, not everyone should be expected at all times to use proper English; but everyone should be expected to do their best, and to accept correction in the spirit in which it is given.
Don't make me no nevermind.

[Hawk one]

I must admit, I actually don't study English grammar rules as such... Or at least I don't study it by reading educational books. I just keep reading and reading and reading fiction books and other things on pretty much any other subject. Simply studying the rules themselves actually feels a bit boring to me (with certain exceptions), when I can instead indirectly study them by reading how they are implemented.

On one hand, it seems to be rubbing off, since I don't get many complaints about my grammar. On the other hand, it makes it very hard for me to explain in actual words why some sentence rubs me off in the wrong way. I can tell it in my own head, but I'm often at a lost at expressing it, since I only know a handful of the words we use to describe grammar.

My biggest grammatical problem is run-on sentences, by the way. That last paragraph was almost written in one sentence until I stopped myself.

[Tokenconservative]

OK Tokie,

You seem to want to turn every thread on education into a personal rant against US public education, against the NEA and against all teachers. You have assumed all teachers just became teachers due to lack of any other talent and are only in it for the benefits. In your comments, you put educator and professional in quotes implying that all teachers are not truly professionals. You have made personal attacks against me and phyz just because we are teachers and disagree with you. (I can cite them if you wish) Well, I have news for you: There are a lot of dedicated, well educated teachers out there that teach because they enjoy it and do a very good job. In your town or city that may not be true, but that certainly doesn't make it universal.

Now, if you want to have an intelligent exchange on these issues, start a tread and I am sure we will get a better exchange with more participants. But please, leave out all the anecdotes and the logical fallacies that you use--particularly strawman arguements.

glenn

Hmmm...

No, not EVERY thread, only those in which I find the typical, puling "not me!" responses from um...well, teachers.

Then you follow this with an absolute I did not state. I did not say (unless I am very much mistaken or was on acid at the time) that ALL teachers ONLY become teachers for X, Y, or Z.

If I said that, I misspoke and apologize, and would be very, very interested in seeing myself quoted saying that so I can be sure to rectify it.

Yes...I think I'd like to see these "personal attacks" you claim I've made...interesting that you niether quote them here, nor even paraphrase them. Now, I suppos "personal" and "attack" can be subjective terms...but I'd still like to see what it is I said that you found to be a personal attack on you and/or someone else.

I live in a large urban area and by far, the vast majority of "educators" here are as I describe. I know many. I have had the pleasure of working with and knowing on a personal basis a very, very few who are otherwise, but in the main, they fit my profile. Am I over-generalizing? Mayhaps. But no more so than were I to say that MOST trees have green leaves. I know of some that have red leaves and others with yellow leaves. But MOST have green leaves, as is the nature of the beast.

Similarly, as I've stated repeatedly, MOST teachers (by "most" I mean: not all, but the majority) are in teaching because it is a "profession" a reasonably bright person with a bit of college but who has no aptitude for other professions (you listed some: teaching, law enforcement, etc...let me list a few others: science, technology, finance, etc.) primarily because of a lack of ability but who still do not want to take up hammer and nail or wrench and pipe as a profession, can EASILY enter.

Anecdote warning!!! When I took this state's teacher licensing exam, I recall walking around during the (too many) breaks and listening in on conversations, many of which went "boy! This is the hardest test I've ever taken!!" Now, I'm no Einstein, but I estimated that if any reasonably bright 8th grader at my kids' private school couldn't pass this think with flying colors, said child should be taken out behind the building and beaten to w/in an inch of his/her life.

Yes. Maybe that's because I live in a backward, hick state (that just happens to, dichotomously, have the highest per-capita level of education in the country), but there it is, nonetheless.

And I'd likewise be interested in seeing which of my arguments are strawmen....

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I must admit, I actually don't study English grammar rules as such... Or at least I don't study it by reading educational books. I just keep reading and reading and reading fiction books and other things on pretty much any other subject. Simply studying the rules themselves actually feels a bit boring to me (with certain exceptions), when I can instead indirectly study them by reading how they are implemented.

On one hand, it seems to be rubbing off, since I don't get many complaints about my grammar. On the other hand, it makes it very hard for me to explain in actual words why some sentence rubs me off in the wrong way. I can tell it in my own head, but I'm often at a lost at expressing it, since I only know a handful of the words we use to describe grammar.

My biggest grammatical problem is run-on sentences, by the way. That last paragraph was almost written in one sentence until I stopped myself.

Don't feel too badly. I hold an English degree, obtained from a fairly respectable state college and never had to take a grammar class....which is why, as my kids will attest, mine is so bad.

The "boring" part is why it's no longer rigorously taught in American public schools. My oldest is quite the grammarian and her teachers' (including her English teacher) poor grammar, both spoken and written drive her to distraction. She's smart enough (I never was--had a "history" "teacher" tell me that the sinking of the Lusitania brought America into the SECOND World War. I failed the class for some reason) not to say anything to them about it out loud.

It can "rub off." That's primarily how I learned to be better at it, though by no means an expert.

Tokie

[gnome]

Yes indeed, the lucrative career of being in the teacher's union. With the temptation of all that money and benefits, I wonder how the job attracts any dedicated individuals over the massive influx of fortune-seeking opportunists.

[Hindmost]

snip....

I'm not sure what, Phyz, in your past makes you so desirous of a school system that teaches ignorance to ignorace--mayhaps you are "getting back at" the smart kids from your time in school? Maybe you wanted to kill your dad and have sex with your mom? I dunno.

OK, this last statement was just mean.



If you want to see, firsthand, the problem in our schools, Phyz, this morning, instead of hitting the liquor cabinet first thing, look in the bathroom mirror.

Tokie

Again, this is very negative and uncalled for.

...snip...

Um...I expect them to accomodate the individual by first, recognizing the individual and then using some fairly fundamental management to provide teaching for those GROUPS of students who learn differently and at different speeds, etc. Of course, if you are so unfortunate and desperately hated a teacher (by your principal) that he has you teaching classes populated at once by AP, Special Ed, and every age the school educates, yeah...that's going to be a problem.

I hope your principal likes you better than that.

This is a classic strawman. I indicated I had a diverse group of students and you implied I was a teacher hated by my principal as a result of having a diverse group of students. There was no need for the negative implication. Annedote: I was not hated by my principal nor my students. Nationally 28% of students take physics...my classes would be almost full and I ended up teaching about 60% of the senior class.

Here, it typically rounds out to about 8 months on, 4 months off. And yes, when I was a new teacher myself, I worked 16 hour days and all weekend. As in any job, by the 3rd year, if you are still doing this, you are at minimum inefficient and likely incompetent.


Tokie

here you clearly imply that I am likely incompetent. Again, you have no evidence of this. When I graded a stack of lab reports, I would make comments on each and every aspect of the lab that needed improvement. No matter how efficient I was, that still took time. When I graded tests, I would reperform calculations to see if the student was just making silly typos and do my best to understand their thinking process as I wanted to be fair about partial credit..I graded every homework..etc. It never got easy...plus I fixed teachers computers all the time in addition to other duties.


Hmmm...

No, not EVERY thread, only those in which I find the typical, puling "not me!" responses from um...well, teachers.

Then you follow this with an absolute I did not state. I did not say (unless I am very much mistaken or was on acid at the time) that ALL teachers ONLY become teachers for X, Y, or Z.

If I said that, I misspoke and apologize, and would be very, very interested in seeing myself quoted saying that so I can be sure to rectify it.

Yes...I think I'd like to see these "personal attacks" you claim I've made...interesting that you niether quote them here, nor even paraphrase them. Now, I suppos "personal" and "attack" can be subjective terms...but I'd still like to see what it is I said that you found to be a personal attack on you and/or someone else.

I live in a large urban area and by far, the vast majority of "educators" here are as I describe. I know many. I have had the pleasure of working with and knowing on a personal basis a very, very few who are otherwise, but in the main, they fit my profile. Am I over-generalizing? Mayhaps. But no more so than were I to say that MOST trees have green leaves. I know of some that have red leaves and others with yellow leaves. But MOST have green leaves, as is the nature of the beast.

Similarly, as I've stated repeatedly, MOST teachers (by "most" I mean: not all, but the majority) are in teaching because it is a "profession" a reasonably bright person with a bit of college but who has no aptitude for other professions (you listed some: teaching, law enforcement, etc...let me list a few others: science, technology, finance, etc.) primarily because of a lack of ability but who still do not want to take up hammer and nail or wrench and pipe as a profession, can EASILY enter.

Anecdote warning!!! When I took this state's teacher licensing exam, I recall walking around during the (too many) breaks and listening in on conversations, many of which went "boy! This is the hardest test I've ever taken!!" Now, I'm no Einstein, but I estimated that if any reasonably bright 8th grader at my kids' private school couldn't pass this think with flying colors, said child should be taken out behind the building and beaten to w/in an inch of his/her life.

Yes. Maybe that's because I live in a backward, hick state (that just happens to, dichotomously, have the highest per-capita level of education in the country), but there it is, nonetheless.

And I'd likewise be interested in seeing which of my arguments are strawmen....

Tokie

I would rather not have done this, but you did ask.

glenn

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-24.pdf Based on this link--if we look add college level education, you live in the district of columbia. However, just a guess...I don't know much about the education system there, but it may not provide a good comparison with the rest of the nation. The urban areas here have quite a few problems as well...and I do realize that the NEA is not going to be able to help that situation. I really believe it is a educational culture problem.

Anyhow, about 70-80% of the teachers I worked with were very competant and very dedicated team players. It showed up in the culture of the school...any teacher hired that did not show these qualities didn't last very long.

[JoeEllison]

Grammar, what is the point of grammar?

If you can understand something, or better yet grasp the concepts of something, would their be any need for grammar?

If you want us to understand what you have to say, you have to use language in a way that people can understand. The best way to do that is to follow the rules of grammar. The less you follow those rules, the less we'll be able to understand you. The fact that you are proud to ignore those rules means that you don't care if we can understand you or not. If you don't care about what you have to say enough to make it clear to as many of us as possible, then why should we care what you have to say?

[dudalb]

Allow me to get in a plug for White and Strunk's "The Elements Of Style". Follow the advice in that book and you will probably never win a Pulitzer or Nobel prize for Literature,but you stand a much better chance of getting your message across.

[Little 10 Toes]

Grammer. Hate his rules; love his crackers.

[bruto]

I didn't have to slow down to read the sentence.

Well, I suppose people need logic as a crutch. When something is obvious like this;

Why would you need grammar? Why would you slow down to read this? How isn't this obvious?

What seems less obvious is that even that very corrupted sentence contained at least some grammatical sense and order, without which it would have been entirely unintelligible. We need grammar, even if we need not be fanatical about the details. Bending or breaking the rules is not the same as having none and knowing none.

As for the idea that it doesn't matter how we spell words as long as we get the first and last letters right, that only works, I think, if you already know the words, and learned them in their correctly spelled version well enough to read them as whole words, and only if the words are in context that makes sense. It's not so much about spelling as it is about the ability of a relatively literate person to guess well.

[Tokenconservative]

Yes indeed, the lucrative career of being in the teacher's union. With the temptation of all that money and benefits, I wonder how the job attracts any dedicated individuals over the massive influx of fortune-seeking opportunists.


Well, at least you are able to be fascetious...I was worried from another thread in here that the fascetious gene was missing from all those posting in here.

I guess I am not being clear. Let's try a "suppose." Let's "suppose" you live in a relatively technologically-advanced culture, and that within that culture have a population of people who are not terribly interested in say, manual labor, or the trades (carpentry, plumbing, electricity, etc.) and similarly lack interest and mostly, aptitude for high tech industries (programming, tech development, etc.). Of course, in this same culture there is a massive influx of tens of millions of laborers from the utterly unskilled to master tradesmen from a place, let's just call it "Nexico," who take many of these trades/labor jobs, so yes, many of these graduates will indeed end up selling cell phone accessories from a kiosk in the mall.

Neverminding all that, let's further suppose that within that culture, for some reason your public education system has, disregarding socila need, aimed itself at "college" for all it's graduates.

Ok, so here we are, with just slews of graduates every year from the public schools system. Some (in diminishing numbers, give our socio-political parameters) will go into trades and manual labor, entering family businesses, or finding something they like, or just because they either haven't the $$ or the desire to go to college, etc. Okay. Many will, in fact, go on to college of some sort from 2-year (excluding trades) schools, to the Ivy League!

Good for them.

But within this cohort of college-bound/eventual graduates, there is a wide variability in skills, aptitudes, etc. Now, while some will gain knowledge in college that will make them shoo-ins to industries like medicine, law, finance, technology, business/management, etc., a host of others will kick about, not really certain what they want to do, but certain it's not going to be irrigation technolgy (digging ditches) or some such.

What to do, what to do!? Well, it just so happens that this culture has a very, very large public sector employment opportunity for all those graduates (college) of Geography, English, History, Psychology and other socially useless disciplines. This society calls it "public schools teaching." With about 1-2 years further "education" graduates holding one of these otherwise useless degrees, can easily gain long-term, very secure, RELATIVELY well-paying employment that is safe, comfortable, bears a thick patina of "academics" and is relatively highly-regarded, despite a very active propaganda machine within the industry that, for its own purposes claims that it is a very tough field to enter and stay in, that it pays little, that's its unsafe and that it is viewed by the general populace as somewhere between snake oil salesman and televangelist.

It is to this industry that many of this culture's...let's call them "less-apt" college graduates, in fact, about the bottom (GPA) quintile of all those graduating from college, find themselves drawn to.

That industry, in America is called "public education."

Hope that little parable clears things up for you.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

OK, this last statement was just mean.

Again, this is very negative and uncalled for.

This is a classic strawman. I indicated I had a diverse group of students and you implied I was a teacher hated by my principal as a result of having a diverse group of students. There was no need for the negative implication. Annedote: I was not hated by my principal nor my students. Nationally 28% of students take physics...my classes would be almost full and I ended up teaching about 60% of the senior class.

here you clearly imply that I am likely incompetent. Again, you have no evidence of this. When I graded a stack of lab reports, I would make comments on each and every aspect of the lab that needed improvement. No matter how efficient I was, that still took time. When I graded tests, I would reperform calculations to see if the student was just making silly typos and do my best to understand their thinking process as I wanted to be fair about partial credit..I graded every homework..etc. It never got easy...plus I fixed teachers computers all the time in addition to other duties.

I would rather not have done this, but you did ask.

glenn

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-24.pdf Based on this link--if we look add college level education, you live in the district of columbia. However, just a guess...I don't know much about the education system there, but it may not provide a good comparison with the rest of the nation. The urban areas here have quite a few problems as well...and I do realize that the NEA is not going to be able to help that situation. I really believe it is a educational culture problem.

Anyhow, about 70-80% of the teachers I worked with were very competant and very dedicated team players. It showed up in the culture of the school...any teacher hired that did not show these qualities didn't last very long.

Yes, it is very nasty. Here is how it works with me, Phyz: when I am assaulted, I give as good as I get...actually, I give a little better, it's just one of those things I've developed a high level of expertise at over the years. I'm so good at being mean and nasty, it often gets me booted from forums like this when people like you run crying to Mommy AFTER launching ad homs at me. For some reason, admins seem to agree that I am just TOO good at it.

RE: Ignorance to ignorance. You call this "mean" I call this "accurate." When you have teachers teaching English who don't have a very good command of their subject, that's not good. I had a "history" teacher who taught that the sinking of the Lusitania brought the US into the SECOND world war (if you don't know what's wrong with this, look it up) and when I pointed up to him his very, very minor error, he failed me. My oldest comes home with horror stories about her Honors English teacher's poor English. This is teaching ignorance to ignorance. In the example I give, I appeared to be the only one in class who realized this goof was teaching us about the Kaiser when he should've been teaching us about Der Fuhrer. My daughter brings home things her English teacher has written (for exercises and such) that from which even I, with what I recognize as a very poor command of grammar and usage, can pick errors at will.

Yes, these are anecdotes, and I would love to see someone do an HONEST study of this problem AND to see it widely published (hahahhahahhahahahahahahah!--with OUR left-liberal media and the power the teachers have!?). Your demanding a link--LIIIIINNNKKKKK!!!--to same is like someone in Germany in 1941 demanding an objective paper on Hitler.

What the hell does "diverse" even mean? Typically, either very new teachers or those who are ....less than loved by their peers with more seniority or thier principal are handed the "diverse" classes. Some, a diminishingly small number, are (see: Jaime Escalante) interested in teaching the tougher cases. MOST teachers, as do MOST people in any job seek the easiest route.
I do in my work. I don't purposely make the routine stuff harder than it has to be.

Mayhaps, YOU were one of these teachers. I certainly myself, when I taught 5th grade, enjoyed seeing the tough cases flower. But again, for the most part, any teacher with 16 hour days after 3 years, is doing something wrong. Most of what you do as a teacher becomes very routine after the break-in period of 1-3 years, so regardless of the umbrage you take at my characterization, I calls 'em like I sees 'em. Sorry it hurts your feelings. It is not an ad hom, by the way (you need to look that term up) to do this, even when someone you are directly communicating with falls into the category you are identifying as incompetent. If you want to tell me that I am incompetent as a rocket scientist, go for it! I promise you I will not pout about it and accuse you of calling me names.

Not sure what you think you have "done" here. I don't live anywhere near DC....I said previously I live in a STATE and that our population here is under 2 million (excluding the 300k illegals--also a hint). That should tell you something, if we really need to play this game.

My understanding of DC schools is that while the most $$ per pupil is spent there, they are without question, the worst in the nation. Where I live, the four largest urban areas have IMMENSE problems. The largest city finds that it simply cannot figure out why, with an 80% population of non-English speakers, its schools score so badly on our state's standardized testing. I am too stupid myself to figure it out, either!

You post a percentage of the qualification/skills levels of the teachers "I worked with" yet no associated link--LIIIINNNKKKKK!!!!--backing this up. Yet you demand I post links every time I mention the compass direction in which the sun appears to rise....curious.

Hmmm...then we go from telling me how "qualified" a teacher is to um, well, I guess I am assuming here, teach...to how well they handle the business end of teaching as "team players." First, you tell me what a maverick YOU were, burning the midnight oil, then you tell me the most-favored quality is being a "team player." Was the team there, in your home office re-filling the lamp ere it ran out of oil every night?

Had your superior at this school ACTUALLY been a team player, he or she would've known you were doing this and offered tools to you to prevent your having to do so (I am assuming again that we are talking post-3 years on the job). Being a "team player" at a public school means first and foremost, you are a union member. Second, it means finding way to make sure complaints from parents go no further than the four walls of the school (the bane of any principal is the dreaded angry-parent call to the district). Third, it means holding up your end of the "education industry social contract" by teaching to the lowest common denominator as a part of the socialist goal of dumbing down the American populace to a level (we are at that by now, now it's a matter of maintenance) that makes that population easily controllable.

Once again, I am sorry that you don't/won't recognize these truths, that you believe my generalizations are ad homs, and that you are unable to see the forest for all the link--LIIIIIINNNKKKKKK!!!--trees, but we work with what we have.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

What seems less obvious is that even that very corrupted sentence contained at least some grammatical sense and order, without which it would have been entirely unintelligible. We need grammar, even if we need not be fanatical about the details. Bending or breaking the rules is not the same as having none and knowing none.

As for the idea that it doesn't matter how we spell words as long as we get the first and last letters right, that only works, I think, if you already know the words, and learned them in their correctly spelled version well enough to read them as whole words, and only if the words are in context that makes sense. It's not so much about spelling as it is about the ability of a relatively literate person to guess well.

Spot on!

Hemmingway and e.e. cummins were permitted to break the rules, because both knew them so well.

It's another thing entirely when you are utterly ignorant of it all (see: public school educaiton, USA), and then run around shrieking that your ignorance should be the rule.

Tokie

[Hindmost]

Yes, it is very nasty. Here is how it works with me, Phyz: when I am assaulted, I give as good as I get...actually, I give a little better, it's just one of those things I've developed a high level of expertise at over the years. I'm so good at being mean and nasty, it often gets me booted from forums like this when people like you run crying to Mommy AFTER launching ad homs at me. For some reason, admins seem to agree that I am just TOO good at it.

You asked for it and phyz and I never directed any ad hominems at you.

RE: Ignorance to ignorance. You call this "mean" I call this "accurate." When you have teachers teaching English who don't have a very good command of their subject, that's not good. I had a "history" teacher who taught that the sinking of the Lusitania brought the US into the SECOND world war (if you don't know what's wrong with this, look it up) and when I pointed up to him his very, very minor error, he failed me. My oldest comes home with horror stories about her Honors English teacher's poor English. This is teaching ignorance to ignorance. In the example I give, I appeared to be the only one in class who realized this goof was teaching us about the Kaiser when he should've been teaching us about Der Fuhrer. My daughter brings home things her English teacher has written (for exercises and such) that from which even I, with what I recognize as a very poor command of grammar and usage, can pick errors at will.

This has nothing to do with anything I posted. There are good and bad teachers everywhere.

Yes, these are anecdotes, and I would love to see someone do an HONEST study of this problem AND to see it widely published (hahahhahahhahahahahahahah!--with OUR left-liberal media and the power the teachers have!?). Your demanding a link--LIIIIINNNKKKKK!!!--to same is like someone in Germany in 1941 demanding an objective paper on Hitler.

What the hell does "diverse" even mean? Typically, either very new teachers or those who are ....less than loved by their peers with more seniority or thier principal are handed the "diverse" classes. Some, a diminishingly small number, are (see: Jaime Escalante) interested in teaching the tougher cases. MOST teachers, as do MOST people in any job seek the easiest route.
I do in my work. I don't purposely make the routine stuff harder than it has to be.

Mayhaps, YOU were one of these teachers. I certainly myself, when I taught 5th grade, enjoyed seeing the tough cases flower. But again, for the most part, any teacher with 16 hour days after 3 years, is doing something wrong. Most of what you do as a teacher becomes very routine after the break-in period of 1-3 years, so regardless of the umbrage you take at my characterization, I calls 'em like I sees 'em. Sorry it hurts your feelings. It is not an ad hom, by the way (you need to look that term up) to do this, even when someone you are directly communicating with falls into the category you are identifying as incompetent. If you want to tell me that I am incompetent as a rocket scientist, go for it! I promise you I will not pout about it and accuse you of calling me names.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem take a look

Not sure what you think you have "done" here. I don't live anywhere near DC....I said previously I live in a STATE and that our population here is under 2 million (excluding the 300k illegals--also a hint). That should tell you something, if we really need to play this game.

My understanding of DC schools is that while the most $$ per pupil is spent there, they are without question, the worst in the nation. Where I live, the four largest urban areas have IMMENSE problems. The largest city finds that it simply cannot figure out why, with an 80% population of non-English speakers, its schools score so badly on our state's standardized testing. I am too stupid myself to figure it out, either!

I said it was a guess. It was based on the your statement of education level...I looked it up and DC came out on top for post secondary education.

You post a percentage of the qualification/skills levels of the teachers "I worked with" yet no associated link--LIIIINNNKKKKK!!!!--backing this up. Yet you demand I post links every time I mention the compass direction in which the sun appears to rise....curious.

Hmmm...then we go from telling me how "qualified" a teacher is to um, well, I guess I am assuming here, teach...to how well they handle the business end of teaching as "team players." First, you tell me what a maverick YOU were, burning the midnight oil, then you tell me the most-favored quality is being a "team player." Was the team there, in your home office re-filling the lamp ere it ran out of oil every night?

Had your superior at this school ACTUALLY been a team player, he or she would've known you were doing this and offered tools to you to prevent your having to do so (I am assuming again that we are talking post-3 years on the job). Being a "team player" at a public school means first and foremost, you are a union member. Second, it means finding way to make sure complaints from parents go no further than the four walls of the school (the bane of any principal is the dreaded angry-parent call to the district). Third, it means holding up your end of the "education industry social contract" by teaching to the lowest common denominator as a part of the socialist goal of dumbing down the American populace to a level (we are at that by now, now it's a matter of maintenance) that makes that population easily controllable.

Once again, I am sorry that you don't/won't recognize these truths, that you believe my generalizations are ad homs, and that you are unable to see the forest for all the link--LIIIIIINNNKKKKKK!!!--trees, but we work with what we have.

Tokie

I said it was annedote...don't believe it...you don't believe anything I post...soooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Bye now.

glenn

[Z]

All I can say is, TokenConservative apparently is teaching/living in the absolute wrong place.

It's funny, though - DC has the most budget for education, and some of the worst schools; Cinci has some of the lowest education budgets, and some of the best schools.

Weird how that works, huh?

Me? I prefer home-schooling and Montessori schools. The public education system, in general, is broke.

[Tokenconservative]

All I can say is, TokenConservative apparently is teaching/living in the absolute wrong place.

It's funny, though - DC has the most budget for education, and some of the worst schools; Cinci has some of the lowest education budgets, and some of the best schools.

Weird how that works, huh?

Me? I prefer home-schooling and Montessori schools. The public education system, in general, is broke.

I don't teach. I did at one time, and thought I might do so "for real" but that turned out to be a ...poor match.

I do sub teach when my "real" work schedule permits.

I don't live in the wrong place...If I lived in DC, yeah...that WOULD be the wrong place. Actually, I live in a place that some 2 million people a year from all over the world travel to just to see...some just to say they were here, apparently.

The inverse relationship between $taxfunds$ spent by the schools and product produced is not at all unusual. Remember: these are GOVERNMENT schools. Run, I hasten to add, by a union.

I find Montessori to work for a very, very limited number of kids. Homeschooling, if done by loving parents more interested in assuring a good education than in making sure their kids are not exposed to "evils" like evolution or non-white kids, is about the best you can possibly hope for. Next to that is more traditional private schooling (and no, this does not mean a $20-100k/year tony day school or prep school, it means a good private--usually affiliated with a religion--school for about what I paid for some years, $3-5k a year).


Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

You asked for it and phyz and I never directed any ad hominems at you.

This has nothing to do with anything I posted. There are good and bad teachers everywhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem take a look

I said it was a guess. It was based on the your statement of education level...I looked it up and DC came out on top for post secondary education.

I said it was annedote...don't believe it...you don't believe anything I post...soooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Bye now.

glenn


I never said you directed any ad homs at me. You made the CLAIM that I was tossing them at you left and right, but the only one you were able to come up with was my characterization of someone 5, 7, 20 years into his/her job still working at the same leve they were when they were but 1-3 years in, as "incompetent" as being an ad hom directed at you.

If the shoe fits....of course. But it was not. It was an observation made with some years' experience in business under my belt, and my own run-ins with my OWN incompetence at various things.

The reality is, teachers are not drawn from the creme de la creme, but rather by scraping the bottom of the educational barrel, in GENERAL. That is not to say there are not SOME very good teachers in the job because they love it (that's why I was going to leave a $125k/yr. and growing job to teach...cuz I love doing it!). It is saying that the AVERAGE teacher goes into teaching because they get to oh, the middle or so of their college career and start casting about for ideas on what they are going to do after they move that tassel from one side to the other, and find that they are unmarketable elsewhere...but there's always the schools!

And any science teacher who uses Wikipedia as a source needs to um...go back to school.

No, actually, it was a rather limp-wristed threat along the lines of "you force me to disclose your location, sir! I can only hope nothing bad comes to you for your poor judgment!"

LOL! I've been fending off Internet tough guys for almost as long as the Web has existed. I have a standing offer (takes some up front cash, for those interested) addressing this.

That's just the thing...YOU belive that YOUR anecdotes are carved in stone, but that any anecdote that disagrees with your rather provincial perspective needs must therefore be lies and damned lies. I take anecdotes in with other facts, see if they make sense and if they do, accept them.

Tokie

[Lensman]

I wouldn't know a "dangling participle" if it slapped me in the face, but I know a well constructed sentence when I see one.

I'm reasonably intelligent (at least I think so! :D ), but I do find it difficult to read some of the posts on fora (sp?) & I do have a tendency to try to correct them (some are so far out as to be not redeemable, I just give up & ask for a translation - I do make allowances for people for whom English is not a first language though) - does that make me a grammar nazi?

ETA: Here's one that I found earlier on the Mythbusters UK forum - it's not as bad as some. ;)

they say a cockerroach is gona live threw almost any thing but a spider can eat a roach so dose that make them tuffer who will go the distance and what are there real life spands

(in a derail, why do I have to re login every few minutes if I don't make a post? :confused: )

[The Man]

Proclaiming yourself free of the restrictions of grammar and spelling is as pointless as demanding everyone be a slave to the currently accepted dictates of sentence structure for any one given language. Language is a dynamic tool and although flexible in application, it can still be shattered into incomprehensibility. Lexicographers, in plying their trade, must consider the common usages for definition and syntax. An uncommon usage is only that until one of them considers it to be common. My main concern is that I do find, on this forum, a thread usually diverts from the intended subject into discussion on grammatical and spelling corrections. At least for this thread, that was the intention from the start.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge:
“Poetry is the best words in the best order.”

Dorothy Parker:
“I hate writing, but love having written”

[bruto]

I wouldn't know a "dangling participle" if it slapped me in the face, ....

Hopefully it won't sting too much.

[jsfisher]

I wouldn't know a "dangling participle" if it slapped me in the face


When properly dangling, your face would not notice.


:D

[baron]

It rlealy deonst mtaetr vrey mcuh how wrods are sepelld, as lnog as the frsit
and lsat ltetres are in the crorcet oderr.

Not always so.

This lartlety palezipourd ecefft is olny pensert in the soatunitis werhe poatunicornin of the rstealnutt acalciumoutn of lteerts is ravietelly silimptisc or does not coatinn racegoblinse words :)

[Tokenconservative]

I wouldn't know a "dangling participle" if it slapped me in the face, but I know a well constructed sentence when I see one.

I'm reasonably intelligent (at least I think so! :D ), but I do find it difficult to read some of the posts on fora (sp?) & I do have a tendency to try to correct them (some are so far out as to be not redeemable, I just give up & ask for a translation - I do make allowances for people for whom English is not a first language though) - does that make me a grammar nazi?

ETA: Here's one that I found earlier on the Mythbusters UK forum - it's not as bad as some. ;)

(in a derail, why do I have to re login every few minutes if I don't make a post? :confused: )

It would be hard to get worse than the snippet you quoted. When I was a tutor at my college's writing lab, I ran into this sort of ...stuff, relatively regularly (unlike whre "Dr." Kitten professes, I attended a small, cheap city college that would let anyone in).

I still recall the worst example. He was working on his 101-level "research paper." It was literally unreadable. No cohesion, "creative" spelling, usage, and construction. Nice enough kid, mind you. He was very puzzled as to why his prof had sent him to the lab, and equally puzzled as to my inablity to "get" what he was saying in this paper. All I could recommend was some remedial English courses.

Contrarily...a student there from Hong Kong. English his 4th or 5th language as I recall. Much better command of it than my own, beating himself up because it was not perfect. I understood that in his culture, perfection was required, and I could help him a bit with some error patterns I could pick out.

So here's this guy from China whose English skills surpass those of most English teachers and professors who tells me he's "ashamed" of his poor English. The other kid? American...product of American schools. Clearly felt very good about himself; was very "stoked" over what he had to say and told me he was sure others "needed" to hear his message. He was shocked that both his prof and I simply could not "get" the gibberish he'd put on the page.

Tells us something.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Proclaiming yourself free of the restrictions of grammar and spelling is as pointless as demanding everyone be a slave to the currently accepted dictates of sentence structure for any one given language. Language is a dynamic tool and although flexible in application, it can still be shattered into incomprehensibility. Lexicographers, in plying their trade, must consider the common usages for definition and syntax. An uncommon usage is only that until one of them considers it to be common. My main concern is that I do find, on this forum, a thread usually diverts from the intended subject into discussion on grammatical and spelling corrections. At least for this thread, that was the intention from the start.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge:
“Poetry is the best words in the best order.”

Dorothy Parker:
“I hate writing, but love having written”

All true. I don't believe anyone (there are no French here) is saying that any living language as it is RIGHT NOW!!! should or even could remain unchanged and that we should have Language Police (again...no French here) to enforce the Language Laws.

It's a matter of clarity.

If I write: "Knew nataral sienses springed up borned of this obilty to stanerdz th imige and discrpshun of th werld,"

It is, if nothing else, far less eloquent (currently) than):

"New natural sciences sprang up, born of this ability to standardise the image and description of the world."

From: _The Day the Universe Chaged_, Burke, James, 1985, Little Brown, London).

Yes, lexicographers (and others), every so often, get together and "change" the language. That's why it's now okay to say "their" instead of the "old-fashioned" he or she, etc. This is then standardized in various publications, telling the rest of us it's not okay to say this or that, as it's come into common usage in the language, whatever that language may be.

But that hardly means that Joe and Jane Average are free to change the language at THEIR will and then proclaim him or herself free of the stodgy old laws and dictates of others.

This is the height of arrogant ignorance and it's what gave American schools "phonics" and "creative spelling" and the idea in writing classes that what was written was not as important as "just writing."

Tokie

[baron]

So here's this guy from China whose English skills surpass those of most English teachers and professors who tells me he's "ashamed" of his poor English. The other kid? American...product of American schools. Clearly felt very good about himself; was very "stoked" over what he had to say and told me he was sure others "needed" to hear his message. He was shocked that both his prof and I simply could not "get" the gibberish he'd put on the page.

From what I see on the internet the worst examples of poor written English come from people originating in the US or the UK, who are logically more likely to have English as their mother tongue. I find it a complete embarrassment that my fellow countrymen are so lazy and ignorant, often willfully so.

& f any1 emails o msgz me UzN chatroom spk o sms txtN d best dey cn hOp 4 by way of rply iz a F@ "**** Off"

[Tokenconservative]

From what I see on the internet the worst examples of poor written English come from people originating in the US or the UK, who are logically more likely to have English as their mother tongue. I find it a complete embarrassment that my fellow countrymen are so lazy and ignorant, often willfully so.

& f any1 emails o msgz me UzN chatroom spk o sms txtN d best dey cn hOp 4 by way of rply iz a F@ "**** Off"

To be fair, there is a reason for this (and please don't excuse the Aussies' and Kiwis and Canadians' linguistic butchery). When you learn a language formally as a second tongue, that's exactly how you learn it: formally. We grow up speaking it, and as spoken language is never as formal as written language (the way you tend to learn it in school) native speakers of any tongue tend to be more loosey-goosey than those who've learned it more formally as a second languag.

Willfully practicing poor language skills is 'nother issue altogether. Hey, I have a brother in-law...grew up a few miles from me, but has adopted this hillbilly-redneck speak that makes him sound like someone who grew up in rural Arkansas or somewhere. To people "back East" I sound like a "hick" but he sound like some parody of a Dukes of Hazzard character and he does so on purpose!

Tokie

[LostAngeles]

I never said you directed any ad homs at me. You made the CLAIM that I was tossing them at you left and right, but the only one you were able to come up with was my characterization of someone 5, 7, 20 years into his/her job still working at the same leve they were when they were but 1-3 years in, as "incompetent" as being an ad hom directed at you.
...

Really? The first one accused Phyz of having an Oedipus complex, the second of alcoholism. Maybe you should go back and read Hindmost's post.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3036784#post3036784

[ZirconBlue]

Not always so.

This lartlety palezipourd ecefft is olny pensert in the soatunitis werhe poatunicornin of the rstealnutt acalciumoutn of lteerts is ravietelly silimptisc or does not coatinn racegoblinse words :)

What do you have against words of the "goblin race", exactly? Just because goblins are uniformly evil doesn't give you the right to judge them!

[JoeTheJuggler]

All true. I don't believe anyone (there are no French here) is saying that any living language as it is RIGHT NOW!!! should or even could remain unchanged and that we should have Language Police (again...no French here) to enforce the Language Laws.

It's a matter of clarity.

If I write: "Knew nataral sienses springed up borned of this obilty to stanerdz th imige and discrpshun of th werld,"

It is, if nothing else, far less eloquent (currently) than):

"New natural sciences sprang up, born of this ability to standardise the image and description of the world."


I think it goes way beyond eloquence. That languages change doesn't justify just scrapping conventions willy-nilly in all contexts.

I was thinking how careful the reading of legal documents has to be in courts. When there's ambiguity, the courts often consider alternate ways of parsing a sentence, and then apply logic (such as, if this reading were true, the law could NEVER be invoked, so the other one must be correct). Can you imagine how bad it would be if legal writing were done the way some of this awful internet writing is?

Also, even in day-to-day things, atrocious writing does lead to misunderstandings and wasted time.

[JoeTheJuggler]

It would be hard to get worse than the snippet you quoted. When I was a tutor at my college's writing lab, I ran into this sort of ...stuff, relatively regularly (unlike whre "Dr." Kitten professes, I attended a small, cheap city college that would let anyone in).

I still recall the worst example. He was working on his 101-level "research paper." It was literally unreadable. No cohesion, "creative" spelling, usage, and construction. Nice enough kid, mind you. He was very puzzled as to why his prof had sent him to the lab, and equally puzzled as to my inablity to "get" what he was saying in this paper. All I could recommend was some remedial English courses.

Contrarily...a student there from Hong Kong. English his 4th or 5th language as I recall. Much better command of it than my own, beating himself up because it was not perfect. I understood that in his culture, perfection was required, and I could help him a bit with some error patterns I could pick out.

So here's this guy from China whose English skills surpass those of most English teachers and professors who tells me he's "ashamed" of his poor English. The other kid? American...product of American schools. Clearly felt very good about himself; was very "stoked" over what he had to say and told me he was sure others "needed" to hear his message. He was shocked that both his prof and I simply could not "get" the gibberish he'd put on the page.



I had nearly the exact same experience tutoring in a university writing lab a little over 20 years ago. You'd get students in there with English composition papers that were such a mess. They'd invariably say, "I know what I want to say, just not how to say it." There really is a connection. If they really knew what they wanted to say, they would in fact know how to say it. Or, "I just need some help with commas." Invariably, I'd have to start from scratch trying to show them how to write some sort of outline long before tackling such superficial things as dangling modifiers.

I also had a Chinese student. (He was a computer science near genius, making more money consulting in his free time as an undergrad than I have ever made in my life.) It was so rewarding to be able to explain a grammatical mistake once and never see that mistake again!

[baron]

To be fair, there is a reason for this (and please don't excuse the Aussies' and Kiwis and Canadians' linguistic butchery). When you learn a language formally as a second tongue, that's exactly how you learn it: formally. We grow up speaking it, and as spoken language is never as formal as written language (the way you tend to learn it in school) native speakers of any tongue tend to be more loosey-goosey than those who've learned it more formally as a second languag.

I'm not talking about strict adherence to formal grammatical rules, im'e talking bout sentenses were nerely evry word's misspeled and gramer all rong childish abrevitions and punctuaton thats comlpetly random if its presetn at all. When a native speaker presents written language in this way then they're either

1) Stupid,
2) Lazy, or
3) Ignorant

or any combination thereof.

[zooterkin]

Yes, lexicographers (and others), every so often, get together and "change" the language. That's why it's now okay to say "their" instead of the "old-fashioned" he or she, etc. This is then standardized in various publications, telling the rest of us it's not okay to say this or that, as it's come into common usage in the language, whatever that language may be.

But that hardly means that Joe and Jane Average are free to change the language at THEIR will and then proclaim him or herself free of the stodgy old laws and dictates of others.


Well, that's a bad example, since the use of the singular 'their' when sex is unspecified has a very long history. See here (http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/sgtheirl.html)for examples going back way before Shakespeare, and a discussion here (http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html#X1a). This is more an example of a rule being arbitrarily imposed (like the one about not splitting infinitives) and largely ignored.

[Tokenconservative]

Well, that's a bad example, since the use of the singular 'their' when sex is unspecified has a very long history. See here (http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/sgtheirl.html)for examples going back way before Shakespeare, and a discussion here (http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html#X1a). This is more an example of a rule being arbitrarily imposed (like the one about not splitting infinitives) and largely ignored.

I suppose. I only know that the MLA, sometime in the last 20-30 years or so (no...sorry...no link--LIIINNNNKKKKKK!!!) changed from the previously accepted "his" in cases such as "anyone who believes this is out of his mind..." from the cumbersome "his/her" to the clumsy but feminist-acceptable "their."

Demanding "his/her" (and some idiots were insisting on _inventing_ a whole new "non-gender-specific" word...like we were French or something) gave way to the more common use of "their," anyway, since people had stopped using "his" simply because it sounds too stuffy, years before.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I'm not talking about strict adherence to formal grammatical rules, im'e talking bout sentenses were nerely evry word's misspeled and gramer all rong childish abrevitions and punctuaton thats comlpetly random if its presetn at all. When a native speaker presents written language in this way then they're either

1) Stupid,
2) Lazy, or
3) Ignorant

or any combination thereof.

Including all of the above.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I had nearly the exact same experience tutoring in a university writing lab a little over 20 years ago. You'd get students in there with English composition papers that were such a mess. They'd invariably say, "I know what I want to say, just not how to say it." There really is a connection. If they really knew what they wanted to say, they would in fact know how to say it. Or, "I just need some help with commas." Invariably, I'd have to start from scratch trying to show them how to write some sort of outline long before tackling such superficial things as dangling modifiers.

I also had a Chinese student. (He was a computer science near genius, making more money consulting in his free time as an undergrad than I have ever made in my life.) It was so rewarding to be able to explain a grammatical mistake once and never see that mistake again!

Sounds like we are twin sons of different mothers...I look a lot like Ahnold...so that means you must look like Danny DiVito....

Yeah, same with the Chinese student I had...guy wore $1,000 suits to classes. He was quite impressive. Was some sort of investment genius....no doubt very wealthy today.

But the American kid I was talking about wasn't even that kind. He was certain that the problem was not in his writing, but in the reader. If only his prof (and I) were "smart" enough, we'd know what it is he is saying!

It was a very frustrating experience.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I think it goes way beyond eloquence. That languages change doesn't justify just scrapping conventions willy-nilly in all contexts.

I was thinking how careful the reading of legal documents has to be in courts. When there's ambiguity, the courts often consider alternate ways of parsing a sentence, and then apply logic (such as, if this reading were true, the law could NEVER be invoked, so the other one must be correct). Can you imagine how bad it would be if legal writing were done the way some of this awful internet writing is?

Also, even in day-to-day things, atrocious writing does lead to misunderstandings and wasted time.

LOL I dunno...I've seen some legal writing that isn't a whole lot better'n text-speak.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Really? The first one accused Phyz of having an Oedipus complex, the second of alcoholism. Maybe you should go back and read Hindmost's post.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3036784#post3036784

Maybe you should grow a sense of humor, Mr. Spock.

Tokie

[Math Maniac]

I suppose. I only know that the MLA, sometime in the last 20-30 years or so (no...sorry...no link--LIIINNNNKKKKKK!!!) changed from the previously accepted "his" in cases such as "anyone who believes this is out of his mind..." from the cumbersome "his/her" to the clumsy but feminist-acceptable "their."

Demanding "his/her" (and some idiots were insisting on _inventing_ a whole new "non-gender-specific" word...like we were French or something) gave way to the more common use of "their," anyway, since people had stopped using "his" simply because it sounds too stuffy, years before.

Tokie

I learned that the possibilities for singular subjects included "his," "her" or "his or her"--each was acceptable and the choice was personal. "Their" was unacceptable with a singular subject. I guess my feminist (it's true, she was) freshman composition instructor did not care about what you describe.

I began college in 1996 and graduated, for the first time, in 2000.

[zooterkin]

I suppose. I only know that the MLA, sometime in the last 20-30 years or so
MLA?

[drkitten]

MLA?

Modern Language Association. Essentially the English-Professor equivalent of the AMA or the Bar Association.

[zooterkin]

Modern Language Association. Essentially the English-Professor equivalent of the AMA or the Bar Association.

Ta.

[technoextreme]

I suppose. I only know that the MLA, sometime in the last 20-30 years or so (no...sorry...no link--LIIINNNNKKKKKK!!!) changed from the previously accepted "his" in cases such as "anyone who believes this is out of his mind..." from the cumbersome "his/her" to the clumsy but feminist-acceptable "their."

Demanding "his/her" (and some idiots were insisting on _inventing_ a whole new "non-gender-specific" word...like we were French or something) gave way to the more common use of "their," anyway, since people had stopped using "his" simply because it sounds too stuffy, years before.

Tokie
What type of papers do you typically write where you use pronouns. I just looked over my proposal for my Technical writing class and I have no pronouns. The only time I do is when I am actually referring to a specific person.

[LostAngeles]

I suppose. I only know that the MLA, sometime in the last 20-30 years or so (no...sorry...no link--LIIINNNNKKKKKK!!!) changed from the previously accepted "his" in cases such as "anyone who believes this is out of his mind..." from the cumbersome "his/her" to the clumsy but feminist-acceptable "their."

Demanding "his/her" (and some idiots were insisting on _inventing_ a whole new "non-gender-specific" word...like we were French or something) gave way to the more common use of "their," anyway, since people had stopped using "his" simply because it sounds too stuffy, years before.

Tokie

Edit: error. Used site with MLA formatting & style guide.

Further edit: OWL at Purdue disagrees with you, but they only talk about MLA when specifically talking about formatting and citation. My handbook is... somewhere. I haven't had to use MLA in over a year now. Which edition of the MLA handbook did you find this recommendation in?

[Complexity]

Modern Language Association. Essentially the English-Professor equivalent of the AMA or the Bar Association.


The MLA is utterly ignorable and therefore quite full of itself.

Known for being stuffed with trendy -isms.

[drkitten]

What type of papers do you typically write where you use pronouns.

Any time you're talking about human interaction.

Engineering : "The subject can set his/her/their preferences via the touch-screen interface."
Psychology : "The apparatus was calibrated to each subject's reaction time by measuring his/her/their response speed ..."
Linguistics : "Each informant was asked to fill out a set of questionaires; his/her/their responses were talllied by ..."
Law: "A rational person would not accept these terms, were they proposed to him/her/them as part of a freely negotiated contract."


And, of course, the humanities (which is what the MLA focuses on) are full of human references; "A resident of 19th century London would not have been surprised by this; his/her/their living conditions already included ..."

[technoextreme]

Any time you're talking about human interaction.

Engineering : "The subject can set his/her/their preferences via the touch-screen interface."
Psychology : "The apparatus was calibrated to each subject's reaction time by measuring his/her/their response speed ..."
Linguistics : "Each informant was asked to fill out a set of questionaires; his/her/their responses were talllied by ..."
Law: "A rational person would not accept these terms, were they proposed to him/her/them as part of a freely negotiated contract."


And, of course, the humanities (which is what the MLA focuses on) are full of human references; "A resident of 19th century London would not have been surprised by this; his/her/their living conditions already included ..."
It's a rather weak argument because in two of those examples you provided you don't change the meaning of the sentence by getting rid of the pronoun. It seems too verbose in some of those scenarios. Preferences can be set via the touch-screen. Done. You don't need the sex of the person.

[bruto]

I guess I'm old fashioned, but I think anyone who uses "their" as a singular pronoun are overlooking something.

[quixotecoyote]

I guess I'm old fashioned, but I think anyone who uses "their" as a singular pronoun are overlooking something.

There needs to be a rule about not making deliberate mistakes within grammar threads in an effort to be funny.

[ponderingturtle]

It reminds me of when people declare that table manners are ridiculous, outdated, and unnecessary. Then they blow their noses on the tablecloth, scratch their butt with their fork, and wonder why nobody ever invites them out.

But did they use the right fork for scratching their butt?

[drkitten]

It's a rather weak argument because in two of those examples you provided you don't change the meaning of the sentence by getting rid of the pronoun. It seems too verbose in some of those scenarios.

Too verbose, but also substantially more readable. Journal standards differ in that regard.

[technoextreme]

Too verbose, but also substantially more readable. Journal standards differ in that regard.
I actually should have rephrased my original argument. I believe you can get rid of that idiotic his/her phrase. Now the pronoun this is certainly interesting. You actually loose all context of a sentence by getting rid of the previous sentence that the word is referring to. To be honest I have no idea if this use of the word is actually right.
To maintain this, the
experimenter appeared to be reading a large broadsheet
newspaper to avoid giving away behavioural cues to the
subject.

[Lensman]

..deleted

[jsfisher]

I guess I'm old fashioned, but I think anyone who uses "their" as a singular pronoun are overlooking something.

I is of the same opinion.

Seriously, though, is it really so wrong to just pick either he or she at random? (I mean the pronoun by the way. I'm not advocating any sort of sexually indiscriminate life style.)

Ok, so maybe I wasn't so serious.

[Complexity]

I just pick whichever pronoun I think will piss off the most people.

You just can't make some people happy, so why try?

[Jeff Corey]

"Whom" really pisses some people off.
"'Whom"? You farking asshat! WHO the fark says "Whom" anymore."

[Complexity]

I still use 'whom', sometimes even correctly.

[Tokenconservative]

"Whom" really pisses some people off.
"'Whom"? You farking asshat! WHO the fark says "Whom" anymore."

My kids.

They are constantly correcting my poor English. And before you ask: they went to a private Christian school, K-8-9.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I is of the same opinion.

Seriously, though, is it really so wrong to just pick either he or she at random? (I mean the pronoun by the way. I'm not advocating any sort of sexually indiscriminate life style.)

Ok, so maybe I wasn't so serious.

The point is not "wrong or right" The issue is whether this is a part of a naturally evolving language, or whether it's been force on us (in America).

I would argue, having studied it (and no....I don't have a link--LIIIIINNNNKKKKK!!!) that this arose out of an empty-headed left-feminist attempt to emasculate our society. Language is just a part of that. It was perfectly fine to say "he" in reference to "all" for a very long time. But when the feminists came to power in academe in the 60s and 70s...hoo boy! They did not like that at all. Remember, these are the same folks who tried to force the mispelling of "woman" as "womyn" too and in fact to de-"man" any word referencing only "man": huMAN, MANkind, etc. We still have "chairperson," "congressperson"...fortunately most of this is falling out of use because it's just flatly stupid.

This is not simply the joke it sounds. There were feminists in the MLA and Library Assn. who fought hard for this.

Tokie

[drkitten]

The point is not "wrong or right" The issue is whether this is a part of a naturally evolving language, or whether it's been force on us (in America).

Astonishing how this liberal-feminist-econazi conspiracy is so awesomely powerful except when it comes to actually getting stuff done in the interests of the conspiracy membership.

Force the entire population of America to change their speech habits? No problem!

"Emasculate" all of US society? Consider it done!

Increase school funding to create smaller classrooms, thereby increasing employment among the membership and improving educational outcomes? Sorry, we can't do that.

Reduce the use of non-tenured gypsy faculty (especially among the MLA constituency), so that MLA members can get a living wage? Impossible.

But brainwashing the entire population of the US except for one lone voice crying out on the Randi forums? We'll just put the Orbital Mind Control Lasers on that one....

[Flo]

Fascinating. Token's the Oliver of education ...

[bruto]

Astonishing how this liberal-feminist-econazi conspiracy is so awesomely powerful except when it comes to actually getting stuff done in the interests of the conspiracy membership.

Force the entire population of America to change their speech habits? No problem!

"Emasculate" all of US society? Consider it done!

Increase school funding to create smaller classrooms, thereby increasing employment among the membership and improving educational outcomes? Sorry, we can't do that.

Reduce the use of non-tenured gypsy faculty (especially among the MLA constituency), so that MLA members can get a living wage? Impossible.

But brainwashing the entire population of the US except for one lone voice crying out on the Randi forums? We'll just put the Orbital Mind Control Lasers on that one....

Well, why not? After all, the conservatives long ago cottoned on to the fact that it's easier to foist off buzz words, pork and persiflage than useful action. Why shouldn't the liberals show equal savvy?

[JoeTheJuggler]

I mentioned before about how the grammar of laws especially is subject to scrutiny.

One example I remember was in trying to use a law that let almost anyone sue in US courts for war crimes committed elsewhere. The rub is that the defendant has to be on US soil for the suit to have any teeth. So one of the thugs from El Salvador (IIRC) retired to Florida, and someone tried to make him answerable for the many murders he ordered. The law used a phrase like (this is from memory) "if he was in command or effectively in command". The defense twisted the meaning of the phrase "effectively in command" to mean he had to have tight control over the brutes that did the murders. It actually (and obviously) means the the law applies even if the guy in command is just a mob leader or gang boss rather than a titled commander. (In this case, the guy was a titled commander.) Anyway, the outcome of the case really depended on a question of how you parse a phrase. Grammar definitely was a matter of life and death.

On the lighter side, here's a story about an extra "not" in a law that completely changed its meaning, and caused troubles for people in their actual lives:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2usm3s

[Tokenconservative]

Astonishing how this liberal-feminist-econazi conspiracy is so awesomely powerful except when it comes to actually getting stuff done in the interests of the conspiracy membership.

Force the entire population of America to change their speech habits? No problem!

"Emasculate" all of US society? Consider it done!

Increase school funding to create smaller classrooms, thereby increasing employment among the membership and improving educational outcomes? Sorry, we can't do that.

Reduce the use of non-tenured gypsy faculty (especially among the MLA constituency), so that MLA members can get a living wage? Impossible.

But brainwashing the entire population of the US except for one lone voice crying out on the Randi forums? We'll just put the Orbital Mind Control Lasers on that one....


LOL!! Spake the "Dr" who teaches at a "small, exclusive college" (what was that feminist movie Julia Roberts was in where she was a bold, innovative feminist prof in the early 50s or so?). Yeah...seems like you dun been held down! Repressed! Supressed! I'd sue if I were you.

Um...you pretty much did. I am old enough to remember when Congressman became Congressperson....etc. Everywhere. Not just in my house.

Well, the schools have certainly been right there helping...that's what Ritalin and that family of drugs is all about...do you know that the ratio of boys:girls on those drugs is something on the order of 7:1 or something? Do you know what those drugs DO to boys?

LOL! Other than a few self-serving studies from "education" professionals, there's nothing to indicate that smaller classrooms produce better teachers. How is it we commonly had classes in our big cities of 40 and 50 students in the late 40s and in the 50s, with one teacher, and that's the generation that sent us to the moon?

Here's an idea: dump the union and allow for individual negotiation for salary in teaching positions. Ya know...it's just crazy enuff to work!

Oh...but then we'd have to take the power away from that union...hmmm....I guess that's not going to happen, huh.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Well, why not? After all, the conservatives long ago cottoned on to the fact that it's easier to foist off buzz words, pork and persiflage than useful action. Why shouldn't the liberals show equal savvy?

Persiflage.

I remember some ads years ago about the "heartbreak of persiflage." I thought it was an itchy, irritating rash sort of thing.

Tokie

[Aquila]

Grammar, what is the point of grammar?

If you can understand something, or better yet grasp the concepts of something, would their be any need for grammar?



Yesterday I subbed in a Ist grade classroom where the teacher had written a poem on a poster on the wall as an example for the children. She had used the word "to" instead of "too" - as in "I can do it to".

I suppose the children will understand the concept of the poem, even without correct grammar, but they will probably grow up to use the same mistake, and be robbed of the opportunity of learning the richness of the English language, where a difference of one letter can alter the meaning of a word. They will also be robbed of their ability to use the power of discrimination. Contrary to the premise of this post, grammar police are contributing to and expanding our childrens' education, and the real grammar Nazis are those who are narrowing our kids' minds.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Well, the schools have certainly been right there helping...that's what Ritalin and that family of drugs is all about...do you know that the ratio of boys:girls on those drugs is something on the order of 7:1 or something? Do you know what those drugs DO to boys?
No, tell me, what does it do to boys? My son was on something similar for awhile, but not for ADHD.

And, of course, the fact that the ratio of boys to girls is 7:1 must be some sort of plot. As is, I daresay, the ratio of women to men with breast cancer.

~~ Paul

[Tokenconservative]

No, tell me, what does it do to boys? My son was on something similar for awhile, but not for ADHD.

And, of course, the fact that the ratio of boys to girls is 7:1 must be some sort of plot. As is, I daresay, the ratio of women to men with breast cancer.

~~ Paul

If you want a plot, compare the media play breast cancer gets compared to testicular cancer.

Breast cancer, now, has a fairly high survivor rate. Not so much testicular cancer.

Outside what Lance Armstrong went through, the typical treatment gives you two choice: removal of the testes, or death.

Moreover, while on avg. breast cancer happens to older women (30s +) testicular cancer tends to happen to teenaged and 20-something young men..men in their prime, not past it like the women who get breast cancer.

So...this weekend, are there any parades in your city fighting a cancer that has a fatality rate of something like 90%?

As to Ritalin and similar drugs. It's not a "conspriacy" as you term it in your attempt to both justify putting your son on this dangerous drug (you know that now, he will not be considered eligible for military service, right?). Yes, there is a diminishingly small number of boys out there who really do need this. Something on the order of 3% of those actually on it according to one study I read...no doubt produced by the conspirators, and no...I don't have a link to it.

The purpose behind these drugs is to sedate boys, to make them act more like girls (on average). That's because teachers (who are mostly female in the younger grades) find the normal male behaviors these drugs are supposed to "treat" difficult to deal with. In essence, boyhood is being identified as a pathological condition.

While it may be the case that your son is one of that very small number who really need it, it's more likely he is simply being drugged for his illness: being a boy.

If you wanted girls, why didn't you put him up for adoption at birth and adopt some girls?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Yesterday I subbed in a Ist grade classroom where the teacher had written a poem on a poster on the wall as an example for the children. She had used the word "to" instead of "too" - as in "I can do it to".

I suppose the children will understand the concept of the poem, even without correct grammar, but they will probably grow up to use the same mistake, and be robbed of the opportunity of learning the richness of the English language, where a difference of one letter can alter the meaning of a word. They will also be robbed of their ability to use the power of discrimination. Contrary to the premise of this post, grammar police are contributing to and expanding our childrens' education, and the real grammar Nazis are those who are narrowing our kids' minds.

Yes, that's a big problem I run into as well. I see handouts from teachers that are so riddled with such errors it's embarassing. My kids come home from school with such things, too.

And I not talking about stuff from their math and science teachers, but from their English and History teachers, the first of whom should have a very strong mastery of the language.

Tokie

[bruto]

If you want a plot, compare the media play breast cancer gets compared to testicular cancer.

Breast cancer, now, has a fairly high survivor rate. Not so much testicular cancer.

Outside what Lance Armstrong went through, the typical treatment gives you two choice: removal of the testes, or death.

Moreover, while on avg. breast cancer happens to older women (30s +) testicular cancer tends to happen to teenaged and 20-something young men..men in their prime, not past it like the women who get breast cancer.

So...this weekend, are there any parades in your city fighting a cancer that has a fatality rate of something like 90%?

As to Ritalin and similar drugs. It's not a "conspriacy" as you term it in your attempt to both justify putting your son on this dangerous drug (you know that now, he will not be considered eligible for military service, right?). Yes, there is a diminishingly small number of boys out there who really do need this. Something on the order of 3% of those actually on it according to one study I read...no doubt produced by the conspirators, and no...I don't have a link to it.

The purpose behind these drugs is to sedate boys, to make them act more like girls (on average). That's because teachers (who are mostly female in the younger grades) find the normal male behaviors these drugs are supposed to "treat" difficult to deal with. In essence, boyhood is being identified as a pathological condition.

While it may be the case that your son is one of that very small number who really need it, it's more likely he is simply being drugged for his illness: being a boy.

If you wanted girls, why didn't you put him up for adoption at birth and adopt some girls?

Tokie

I thought Lance had done a pretty good job of raising the profile of testicular cancer.

And how old are you that you think women are "past it" when they pass 30! Do you really think through what you write, or does it just sort of spill out?

It's a silly comparison anyway, when according to the statistics, the average lifetime risk (birth to age 95) of developing testicular cancer is .361 percent, and of dying from it .019 percent, wheareas that of developing breast cancer is 12.25 percent, and, despite impressive advances, your chance of dying from it is still 2.894 percent. ( I get this from http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/)

According to that, it appears also that you read the chart for testicular survival rates upside down. Check those stats again. The charts I see show approximately 90 percent survival, not mortality.

And that last statement is very close to stundie material, I think.

[jsfisher]

If you want a plot, compare the media play breast cancer gets compared to testicular cancer.

Why did you pick testicular cancer when prostate cancer is far more prevalent? And, except for the one episode of Family Guy, what sort of media coverage does prostate cancer get?

[technoextreme]

If you want a plot, compare the media play breast cancer gets compared to testicular cancer.

Breast cancer, now, has a fairly high survivor rate. Not so much testicular cancer.

This is really quite the most idiotic argument I've ever read. I've heard the same argument about lung cancer.

[fls]

If you want a plot, compare the media play breast cancer gets compared to testicular cancer.

Breast cancer, now, has a fairly high survivor rate. Not so much testicular cancer.

You are mistaken. Early testicular cancer has a 99% 5-year survival and advanced stage cancer has a 70% 5-year survival. Early breast cancer has about a 90% 5-year survival rate and advanced cancer has a 20% 5-year survival rate.

Outside what Lance Armstrong went through, the typical treatment gives you two choice: removal of the testes, or death.

Moreover, while on avg. breast cancer happens to older women (30s +) testicular cancer tends to happen to teenaged and 20-something young men..men in their prime, not past it like the women who get breast cancer.

You are correct. It is a plot. Face it. Once we have been dismissed as not worthy of consideration, there's not much else for us pathetic old hags to do except hatch plots to serve as a thorn in your side. You didn't really think we were serious about that "herstory" thing, did you? ;)

Linda

[zooterkin]

If you want a plot, compare the media play breast cancer gets compared to testicular cancer.
Well, as others have already said, you're totally wrong about the survival rates.


Outside what Lance Armstrong went through, the typical treatment gives you two choice: removal of the testes, or death.


To be precise, it's a choice between removal of the affected testis (not testes, which is the plural), and probable death. Should be a fairly simple choice to make. Are you implying that the loss of a testicle would ruin someone's life? With one testicle, the patient would still be fertile, and a prosthetic can hide the loss of the other, if necessary. It's a lot less invasive than a mastectomy and the reconstructive surgery that entails.

[JoeTheJuggler]

And I suppose if someone who points out errors in grammar is a "grammar nazi", and someone who points out gender bias in language usage is a "feminazi", then a toothpick should be referred to as a "mouth tree".

[fuelair]

LOL!! Spake the "Dr" who teaches at a "small, exclusive college" (what was that feminist movie Julia Roberts was in where she was a bold, innovative feminist prof in the early 50s or so?). Yeah...seems like you dun been held down! Repressed! Supressed! I'd sue if I were you.

Um...you pretty much did. I am old enough to remember when Congressman became Congressperson....etc. Everywhere. Not just in my house.

Well, the schools have certainly been right there helping...that's what Ritalin and that family of drugs is all about...do you know that the ratio of boys:girls on those drugs is something on the order of 7:1 or something? Do you know what those drugs DO to boys?

LOL! Other than a few self-serving studies from "education" professionals, there's nothing to indicate that smaller classrooms produce better teachers. How is it we commonly had classes in our big cities of 40 and 50 students in the late 40s and in the 50s, with one teacher, and that's the generation that sent us to the moon?

Here's an idea: dump the union and allow for individual negotiation for salary in teaching positions. Ya know...it's just crazy enuff to work!

Oh...but then we'd have to take the power away from that union...hmmm....I guess that's not going to happen, huh.

Tokie
Actually it would either create a teacher workforce of persons truly in poverty and (the more important one) with very little knowledge (not skilled enough for any other field)OR it would dramatically decrease the teacher supply (for the year or two it took school systems to realize they were bleeding to death). And by then, a lot of that blood would not be interested in coming back. Psychology and business were not your major I am guessing.

As a side note, there is a difference between certain things teachers are required by various laws and School Board policies to teach and what the teachers know to be correct/logical/age-dependent etc. (A simple one for you - every agency in her field of interest in the area where we live knows my wife, values her input highly - she is on several important boards in the field , and takes her recomendations for employment as golden. Only one organization here doesn't - because to it she is "just a teacher". That would be the school board - her employer (she teaches in the field the others recognize her for). She is highly knowledgeable, very student oriented, quality directed and loves teaching - otherwise she would be out making a lot more doing consulting. - but if games like you suggest started.......).

[UserGoogol]

I guess I'm old fashioned, but I think anyone who uses "their" as a singular pronoun are overlooking something.

The singular they (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they) has a pretty long pedigree.

[Jeff Corey]

That also speaks to the singular 'their" rather than using 'her/his' or 'his or hers'. Works for me.
It lets the prose flow more smoothly. Let alone the poetry.

[Solus]

grammar adds nothing this very good actually as its a pain to write using punctuation anyway and besides my grammar is lousy normally so why bother with it I think its much easier to just type like this with no annoying extra keys to press it makes my posts that much more readable

I think I made my point. Becomingagdo stop trolling, if you can't do it right don't bother.

[slingblade]

I suppose. I only know that the MLA, sometime in the last 20-30 years or so (no...sorry...no link--LIIINNNNKKKKKK!!!) changed from the previously accepted "his" in cases such as "anyone who believes this is out of his mind..." from the cumbersome "his/her" to the clumsy but feminist-acceptable "their."

No. Wrong. This did not happen, has not happened, and is highly unlikely to ever happen.

[Floyt]

Reminds me a bit of Iain M Banks' "Feersum Endjin". All the chapters following Bascule, which is every fourth one, are written phonetically. Show me someone who didn't read those at half the speed of the rest of the book and I'll show you a liar.

Oooh. This is from a month back, but I need to note - here. Me. Didn't slow down at all, even though I was on the lookout for it. But to be fair, the grammar in those passages is conventional, if somewhat colloquial. It's just the spelling that is funny, which I don't believe is on the same level of increased difficulty as far as comprehension is concerned.

[JonnyFive]

The singular they (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they) has a pretty long pedigree.

Yes it does (http://www.bartleby.com/64/C005/018.html).

[Cainkane1]

I disagree. People need to use proper grammar.

[bruto]

The singular they (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they) has a pretty long pedigree.

Point taken. Thackeray I might try to dodge around, but Shakespeare and Jane Austen? I must concede. The day is yours, sir.

[Aquila]

You are mistaken. Early testicular cancer has a 99% 5-year survival and advanced stage cancer has a 70% 5-year survival. Early breast cancer has about a 90% 5-year survival rate and advanced cancer has a 20% 5-year survival rate.

Linda


Hold on, hold on!
Now I'm really confused!
Are you talking about the survival of the cancer or the survival of the people who have cancer?

Survival for cancer means death for the person who has it, whereas death (or elimination or remission) of cancer means survival for the person! A clearer way to state it would be " Patients with early testicular cancer have a 99% 5 year survival...

Sorry to be so nit-picky, but we are talking about science.

I often get confused by the term "infant mortality". I always thought that a high mortality rate meant the babies survived, but in fact it means death.

[Gnu Ordure]

Aquila said :

Yesterday I subbed in a Ist grade classroom where the teacher had written a poem on a poster on the wall as an example for the children. She had used the word "to" instead of "too" - as in "I can do it to".

Token replied :

Yes, that's a big problem I run into as well. I see handouts from teachers that are so riddled with such errors it's embarassing. My kids come home from school with such things, too.

And I not talking about stuff from their math and science teachers, but from their English and History teachers, the first of whom should have a very strong mastery of the language.


This is really very, very funny.

In order to get the joke, you need to know that Token is a qualified English teacher.

Got it ?


If not, read my post (No. 269) on page seven (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94819&page=7)of "Why Can't They figure It Out ?" in this section.

What the hell, read it anyway, it's almost as funny as this, even if I say so myself.

[bruto]

Aquila said :



Token replied :




This is really very, very funny.

In order to get the joke, you need to know that Token is a qualified English teacher.

Got it ?


If not, read my post (No. 269) on page seven (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94819&page=7)of "Why Can't They figure It Out ?" in this section.

What the hell, read it anyway, it's almost as funny as this, even if I say so myself.

It's funnier still when you recall that the school about which he now seems to be complaining is a private Christian school, presumably of his own choosing, and that according to another statement (as Tokie himself would say, sorry, no link!) they come home correcting his grammar.

[slingblade]

(as Tokie himself would say, sorry, no link!)

No, no, no.

Tokie would say "NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLIIIIIIINKKKKKKKKKKKKSSS!!!!1!! !"

because this adds weight and import to one's arguments.

[LostAngeles]

No, no, no.

Tokie would say "NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLIIIIIIINKKKKKKKKKKKKSSS!!!!1!! !"

because this adds weight and import to one's arguments.

I want to ask for a tag that'll generate that for us, but I can't imagine how bad the coding would be for it. It'd be TEERRIIFFIICCCC...

[Wudang]

The point is not "wrong or right" The issue is whether this is a part of a naturally evolving language, or whether it's been force on us (in America).

I would argue, having studied it (and no....I don't have a link--LIIIIINNNNKKKKK!!!) that this arose out of an empty-headed left-feminist attempt to emasculate our society. Language is just a part of that. It was perfectly fine to say "he" in reference to "all" for a very long time.

A classmate in 1982 wrote her BSc Psych dissertation on some experiments she did with Tony Sanford (cogntive science, language processing guy). The basic design was 3 sentences, 1 per screen. The first sentence had a gender neutral role or title (eg doctor), the second had a gendered pronoun randomly assigned. User read a sentence and hit the space bar when they understood the sentence.
For example
The doctor studied the case notes.
She was being careful.
It was a complex case.

For most cases people took longer to read the sentence with the female pronoun. Even in the case where the noun was "The Martian" which cannot reasonably be expected to be either gender.

If anyone wants specifics to see if they can get a reprint, PM me.

[zooterkin]

Point taken. Thackeray I might try to dodge around, but Shakespeare and Jane Austen? I must concede. The day is yours, sir.

Well, I posted this on the previous page, did I accidently use invisible ink? ;)

Well, that's a bad example, since the use of the singular 'their' when sex is unspecified has a very long history. See here (http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/sgtheirl.html)for examples going back way before Shakespeare, and a discussion here (http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html#X1a). This is more an example of a rule being arbitrarily imposed (like the one about not splitting infinitives) and largely ignored.

[bruto]

Well, I posted this on the previous page, did I accidently use invisible ink? ;)Missed it. So sue me or something and let me slink off with a little shred of dignity!:boxedin:

[fls]

Hold on, hold on!
Now I'm really confused!
Are you talking about the survival of the cancer or the survival of the people who have cancer?

Survival for cancer means death for the person who has it, whereas death (or elimination or remission) of cancer means survival for the person! A clearer way to state it would be " Patients with early testicular cancer have a 99% 5 year survival...

Sorry to be so nit-picky, but we are talking about science.

I often get confused by the term "infant mortality". I always thought that a high mortality rate meant the babies survived, but in fact it means death.

So now I'm curious. Under what circumstances are you more concerned with the survival of the cancer than of the person?

I can't help you with the infant mortality thing as it seems exquisitely self-explanatory to me.

Linda

[JoeTheJuggler]

Ah! Now I understand this discussion!

It's really just an example of how difficult communication can be even when people do mostly adhere to the conventions of grammar. Can you imagine this same conversation but with really bad grammar?

Seriously, becomingagodo, when you use their for there and confuse its and it's and use ambiguous syntax (dangling modifiers, pronouns whose antecedents aren't clear, etc.), it makes it more difficult and time consuming to understand what you mean, and it makes it much easier to misunderstand.

On top of that, your own credibility suffers. It's a bias, but it's one that I suspect is based on a real correlation. Native speakers of English who consistently commit the sorts of mistakes I mentioned are often . . . .less well-educated.

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is more an example of a rule being arbitrarily imposed (like the one about not splitting infinitives) and largely ignored.

I know it was parenthetical, but I don't consider the rule against splitting infinitives to be so arbitrary, though I consider it more of a stylistic rule than a syntactic one.

The biggest problem is when the intervening stuff (usually an adverb) can itself be taken as a verb, as with "better". In those cases, you've got to backtrack to parse the sentence. I also think the cadence is too pat. It hits my ear like a tired cliche, or maybe more like business-speak.

"To serve our customers better" sounds more direct to me than, "To better serve our customers". Again, I'd count it as style. De gustibus non est disputandum.

[Aquila]

So now I'm curious. Under what circumstances are you more concerned with the survival of the cancer than of the person?

Linda

Under very rare circumstances, perhaps, and only of I were doing medical research.
But this does go to show how emotionally charged our conversation is, whatever race we are or primary language we speak, or how well educated we are. Many of us assume that the listener understands what we mean, or that they make the same sort of internal connections when decifering language.

The English language, especially American, seems to have lost its logic, and is becoming a sort of "faith based" language - the faith being "speak unto others as you would have them speak to you", never mind if it's logical or not.

I was recently shocked to find a "your/you're" blunder printed in the lyrics section of a Neil Diamond CD. I thought, well if this singer can't communicate logically in prose, how insightful are his song lyrics? Perhaps I'm being too judgemental, especially since I make mistakes myself (especially spelling), but I hope all this criticism raises awareness of a huge problem. It's very scary to see politicians who can't speak correctly - no need to mention any names...

[JoeTheJuggler]

Under very rare circumstances, perhaps, and only of I were doing medical research.

And to read the sentences that way, you must completely ignore the context.

[bluess]

My mother was an administrative judge in the EEOC. She would return briefs to attorneys if there were spelling errors. She believed that someone whose profession required the precise use of language should damn well be able to spell.

And this in the era before the spell checker programs.

[Tokenconservative]

My mother was an administrative judge in the EEOC. She would return briefs to attorneys if there were spelling errors. She believed that someone whose profession required the precise use of language should damn well be able to spell.

And this in the era before the spell checker programs.

Good for her!

I'm a lousy speller and my grammar sucks, too...and I have a BA in English!

Tells you something about education in America.

I've made sure that my daughters are far better at it than I am...and they are, and are always correcting my English...and yes, I encourage them to do so--I tell them not to do it with anyone else (including their "teachers"), but insist on their exercising their minds on my abysmal control of the language.

Tokie

[drkitten]

The English language, especially American, seems to have lost its logic

You can't lose what you never had.

[earloke]

Its quite easy to see that we have a large majority here that are of the opinion that all indiviuals have the total superior control of all thing they do both large and small. Aha ,fool you have no legs ? Grow some and walk like a man as we all do. Point, some people are incapable in varing degrees to do what you expect or require of them in a written line. They may have an IQ that far exceeds yours but the inability to express it on a keyboard or paper and the capacity to make a fool of you verbaly. I myself have traveled this dark path and have learned to show compassion for others.
Those who espouse superiority no longer intimidate me. I have witnessed the illiterate genius that you would frown upon.

He wears not a bandage ,therefore he has no pain . m b

[Jeff Corey]

Don't make me no never mind.

[bruto]

Its quite easy to see that we have a large majority here that are of the opinion that all indiviuals have the total superior control of all thing they do both large and small. Aha ,fool you have no legs ? Grow some and walk like a man as we all do. Point, some people are incapable in varing degrees to do what you expect or require of them in a written line. They may have an IQ that far exceeds yours but the inability to express it on a keyboard or paper and the capacity to make a fool of you verbaly. I myself have traveled this dark path and have learned to show compassion for others.
Those who espouse superiority no longer intimidate me. I have witnessed the illiterate genius that you would frown upon.

He wears not a bandage ,therefore he has no pain . m b

A fine sentiment, but becomingagodo is not, at least not overtly, simply making excuses for his poor language. He is claiming that his poor language is good language and improvement is unnecessary. He is claiming that the time required to parse his knotty prose is owed to him by us rather than by him to us.

We live in the age of wonders, among them spell checkers and text editors. b-a-g is not inscribing his words on a slate by the light of the fireplace. There are others on this forum who have difficulty with spelling and grammar (Iamme and tokenconservative come to mind here), but who take a little time to edit their posts so that even if their ideas are nonsense, at least their sentences usually work.

I must add that so far, at least, I have seen in becomingagodo's writing only half of the entrance requirement for the "illiterate genius" class.

[NobbyNobbs]

Well, the schools have certainly been right there helping...that's what Ritalin and that family of drugs is all about...do you know that the ratio of boys:girls on those drugs is something on the order of 7:1 or something? Do you know what those drugs DO to boys?





Here are some stats:


Approximate ratio of boys to girls diagnosed with ADHD: 3 to 1
Approximate ratio of preschool-age boys to girls who were prescribed Ritalin in 1995: 4 to 1
%increase in prescriptions for Ritalin dispensed from 1992 to 1997: 260
% of the total presciptions for ADD/ADHD drugs dispensed to children ages 6 to 12 that are for boys: 79
% of the total prescriptions for ADD/ADHD drugs dispensed to adolescents ages 13 to 17 that are for boys: 83
Dollar value of all the Ritalin Novartis sold last year: $136,375,000.

DEA Schedule II Stimulants:
Ritalin
Dexedrine
Cocaine
Amphetamines
Methamphetamines ("crystal")

One of the main reasons why boys take so much more medication than girls is that they are easier to diagnose, for a variety of reasons, but mostly because they exhibit the affliction in a much more obvious manner. Until recently (the last 10 years or so), professionals have had a difficult time diagnosing girls. However, new testing techniques are making it easier to determine whether girls have ADD or not.



Fascinating. Token's the Oliver of education ...


Thank you, Flo. I've been trying and trying to figure it out. You've hit the nail on the head.

[T'ai Chi]

It is like asking 'If we can all grunt and point and understand each other, why explore language further?'

[Mashuna]

It is like asking 'If we can all grunt and point and understand each other, why explore language further?'

Ungh?

[bluess]

Ungh?

Too funny!

[shadron]

"Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excessive wear. Honorifics and formal politeness [and grammar] provide lubrication where people rub together. Often the very young, the untraveled, the naive, the unsophisticated deplore these formalities as "empty", "meaningless", or "dishonest", and scorn to use them. No matter how pure their motives, they thereby throw sand into machinery that does not work too well at best."

--Lazarus Long (Robert A. Heinlein) -- insertion is mine.

Communication in plain English is difficult enough, with misunderstanding a very common result of short missives, such as in the forum setting; that is one reason for emoticons. Improper use of syntax restricts that understanding further. Those who habitually botch grammar and spelling will find their communications to be misunderstood and often ignored as a direct result.

[shadron]

My mother was an administrative judge in the EEOC. She would return briefs to attorneys if there were spelling errors. She believed that someone whose profession required the precise use of language should damn well be able to spell.

And this in the era before the spell checker programs.

In Denver there was a very colorful columnist/radio personality name Gene Amole, who died about ten years ago. One of his favorite comments was to say that the best way to have good spelling in his articles (mostly all written before computers, let alone spell checkers) was to sit in the news room next to a girl who went to Catholic grade school. Those of us that have been there understand his somewhat sexist, but funny, remark.

I fully agree with your mother. In law, as in no other place, misunderstanding can be fatal.

[Aquila]

Time to raise the adjective/adverb issue, I think.
Just did a quick whiz through this thread and didn't see it but correct me if I'm wrong. From what I've seen of the American language, both in the commercial world, in literature and in everyday language, we don't like using adverbs - those words that usually end in "ly". For example we say "I walk quick" instead of "I walk quickly". "Quick" is an adjective, which is supposed to describe a noun, not a verb, but I guess we have all just become so used to using adjectives or never learnt the difference between them and adverbs in the first place.

Case in point: On the cover of the latest issue of a monthly magazine it says "Drive better at night". Better is an adjective, used to describe a noun, as in "a better car, or "a better driver", but drive is a verb. Oh well...(Big nit pick I've had on my mind for many years).

[ZirconBlue]

Case in point: On the cover of the latest issue of a monthly magazine it says "Drive better at night". Better is an adjective, used to describe a noun, as in "a better car, or "a better driver", but drive is a verb. Oh well...(Big nit pick I've had on my mind for many years).

"Good" is an adjective, but "better" can serve as an adjective or an adverb (or a noun or verb, for that matter).

See here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/better).

[bruto]

"Good" is an adjective, but "better" can serve as an adjective or an adverb (or a noun or verb, for that matter).

See here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/better).

"Better" is the comparative for the adjective "good," but also the comparative for the adverb "well." They're homonyms. We have neither gooder nor weller in our vocabulary, except in the dismal history of white bread advertising here in ithe U.S.

[Aquila]

"Better" is the comparative for the adjective "good," but also the comparative for the adverb "well." They're homonyms. We have neither gooder nor weller in our vocabulary, except in the dismal history of white bread advertising here in ithe U.S.

How fun!

[PAC]

People who consistantly use incorrect grammar, punctuation, and spelling only demonstrate either their lack of education, or their lack of responsibility.

Those who resent being corrected for their language flaws, whatever those are, are demonstrating their childish nature.

That being said, not everyone should be expected at all times to use proper English; but everyone should be expected to do their best, and to accept correction in the spirit in which it is given.


But we who butcher English grammer, spelling and punctuation provide a valuable service. We provide the foundation for the evolution of the vernacular! :D

[technoextreme]

Time to raise the adjective/adverb issue, I think.
Just did a quick whiz through this thread and didn't see it but correct me if I'm wrong. From what I've seen of the American language, both in the commercial world, in literature and in everyday language, we don't like using adverbs - those words that usually end in "ly". For example we say "I walk quick" instead of "I walk quickly". "Quick" is an adjective, which is supposed to describe a noun, not a verb, but I guess we have all just become so used to using adjectives or never learnt the difference between them and adverbs in the first place.
It has nothing to do with the fact that you listed because it's just wrong. Quickly is an adverb which means that it can modify verbs or adjectives. I know there are good rationals but it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you can change certain adjectives into adverbs by adding -ly. In general I believe adverbs weaken the strength of a sentence.

[Z]

But we who butcher English grammer, spelling and punctuation provide a valuable service. We provide the foundation for the evolution of the vernacular! :D

Well said!

[JonnyFive]

Well said!

I believe you mean "goodest sayed!"

[bruto]

I believe you mean "goodest sayed!"

Where else but in English could you walk into a pediatrician's waiting room and remark that there are a goodly number of well children there, and be correct?

[Tokenconservative]

But we who butcher English grammer, spelling and punctuation provide a valuable service. We provide the foundation for the evolution of the vernacular! :D

Indeed. And where would 'net grammar nannies be without us?

Writing letter to the editor complaining of an imporoperly placed hanging gerund....again?

Tokie

[Ron_Tomkins]

Grammar, what is the point of grammar?

If you can understand something, or better yet grasp the concepts of something, would their be any need for grammar?

I don't want to correct my grammar. It adds nothing and what it does add is trivial, you can't judge the merit of someone on grammar and yet I keep on hearing Becoming correct your grammar. You're wrong, I will never correct my grammar, down with grammar Nazi's!

Grammar Nazi's, the worst people ever, even worse then trolls.
You have been warned, don't be a grammar Nazi.
http://www.danheller.com/Movies/Hellboy/nazi-robot-big.jpg



Then if grammar means nothing to you, how come you're grasping to it without ever violating a single grammar rule on the thread? Just thought I'd ask

There are some basic guidelines in life such as grammar, good manners, the way you dress, the tone with which you address strangers, etc; which can be quite helpful when it comes to dealing with other human beings, since as you know, we live in a society and we all judge each other based on the first impression whether you like it or not (And no, sometimes I don't like it either. But it's the truth).

Also, think of a resumé.
Would you expect to obtain a job with such attitude?


No man is an island

Then again, if you really feel strongly about it, then just say "to hell with society and its stupid rules" and go to a desert island. I mean, you can always do that.
No offense intended. I say it by heart.

[Father Dagon]

If you don't know the rules, then you can't bend the rules. That got?

[jimbob]

No man is an island

Then again, if you really feel strongly about it, then just say "to hell with society and its stupid rules" and go to a desert island. I mean, you can always do that.
No offense intended. I say it by heart.

Wishes of an Elderly Gentleman (at a Garden Party in 1914, Walter Alexander Raleigh (1861-1922))

I wish I loved the Human Race
I wish I loved its silly face
I wish I liked the way it walks
I wish I liked the way it talks
And when I'm introduced to one
I wish I thought What Jolly Fun!

[Ron_Tomkins]

Wishes of an Elderly Gentleman (at a Garden Party in 1914, Walter Alexander Raleigh (1861-1922))

I wish I loved the Human Race
I wish I loved its silly face
I wish I liked the way it walks
I wish I liked the way it talks
And when I'm introduced to one
I wish I thought What Jolly Fun!


:D

[VillageIdiot]

Grammar, what is the point of grammar?

If you can understand something, or better yet grasp the concepts of something, would their be any need for grammar?

I don't want to correct my grammar. It adds nothing and what it does add is trivial, you can't judge the merit of someone on grammar and yet I keep on hearing Becoming correct your grammar. You're wrong, I will never correct my grammar, down with grammar Nazi's!

Grammar Nazi's, the worst people ever, even worse then trolls.
You have been warned, don't be a grammar Nazi.

You am correct we need not the grammar because you can not be ambiguous or make mistakes like eats shoots and leaves claims; this is fallacious and not shur splng is mprtnt ethur? Grammar is just another way that the man keeps down the artist with the rules and regulations and the i before e cept after c which is stupid because everybody obviuzly knows wht ur trying 2 say and there is no chance that you can be misunderstood if the reader really tries to get it.:dig:

[JonnyFive]

You am correct we need not the grammar because you can not be ambiguous or make mistakes like eats shoots and leaves claims; this is fallacious and not shur splng is mprtnt ethur? Grammar is just another way that the man keeps down the artist with the rules and regulations and the i before e cept after c which is stupid because everybody obviuzly knows wht ur trying 2 say and there is no chance that you can be misunderstood if the reader really tries to get it.:dig:

To: Genius!

Add

Isn't he's mathematical becomingagodo peg an! A base artist such as thing tan he'll hide your a don't!

Edit

[juniper_ann]

It does not matter at all how we spell or use grammar. Whether a person spells a word in, for instance, the English way or the German way is completely irrelevant. Furthermore, it does not matter if we use English rules of grammar or German rules of grammar. A lesser person might say, "But with German spellings and German grammar...that's German! And not everyone on an English language can be expected to speak German!"

Pfft. Little souls on little men.

[slingblade]

It does not matter at all how we spell or use grammar.

Yes, it does.

[Ron_Tomkins]

You am correct we need not the grammar because you can not be ambiguous or make mistakes like eats shoots and leaves claims; this is fallacious and not shur splng is mprtnt ethur? Grammar is just another way that the man keeps down the artist with the rules and regulations and the i before e cept after c which is stupid because everybody obviuzly knows wht ur trying 2 say and there is no chance that you can be misunderstood if the reader really tries to get it.:dig:



And like such
and the Irak
and people don't have a map
so they know don't where is the US

... or something like that it went

[shadron]

It does not matter at all how we spell or use grammar. Whether a person spells a word in, for instance, the English way or the German way is completely irrelevant. Furthermore, it does not matter if we use English rules of grammar or German rules of grammar. A lesser person might say, "But with German spellings and German grammar...that's German! And not everyone on an English language can be expected to speak German!"

It does if you want to be understood. As a small example [snort] misspelling "grammar" may not be a huge problem, but misusing it surely can be. German or not (and it isn't, in this case), the ambiguity in your sentence puts a stumbling block in the smooth understanding of your argument.

Applying German grammar to English may be OK when addressing people who know what the difference is, but it won't get you a nice reception where less educated people have to act on what you say. You'll get negative attitudes, at least. At most, they'll simply ignore you.

[juniper_ann]

Irony, guys. Irony.

[shadron]

Irony, guys. Irony.

Ah, well then, just ignore me.

[Prometheus]

Grammar, what is the point of grammar?

If you can understand something, or better yet grasp the concepts of something, would their be any need for grammar?

I don't want to correct my grammar. It adds nothing and what it does add is trivial, you can't judge the merit of someone on grammar and yet I keep on hearing Becoming correct your grammar. You're wrong, I will never correct my grammar, down with grammar Nazi's!

Grammar Nazi's, the worst people ever, even worse then trolls.
You have been warned, don't be a grammar Nazi.
http://www.danheller.com/Movies/Hellboy/nazi-robot-big.jpg

I think it's a wonderful display of civility (and/or ignorance) that, although becomingagodo's original post contains two grammatical errors, not one person here has corrected them.

Well, since no one else has, I'm not going to be the first.

[zooterkin]

I think it's a wonderful display of civility (and/or ignorance) that, although becomingagodo's original post contains two grammatical errors, not one person here has corrected them.
Only two? Look again. ;)

Well, since no one else has, I'm not going to be the first.
Nor me.

[ChaoticLimbs]

You know a lot of people have asked me if grammar is important and I'm not sure it really is important it matters where your meanings at if people can understand you who cares if you can graph the sentence properly after all I think my meaning is perfectly clear there just bothering
Heck, punctuation is completely, unnecessary. Use it, or don't, use it. Heck, use it, alot.
After all, it doesn't, really affect, your meaning in the, slightest. Its not necessary to artificially divide up, your sentences with meaningless, commas.
Its not like anyone, on the internet, is going to nitpick your punctuation

[Lensman]

Its not like anyone, on the internet, is going to nitpick your punctuation

I do, all the time. ;)

[Henners]

Instructions on a bag of potatoes:

Scrub, prick and boil.

Punctuation irrelevant?

[bluess]

Instructions on a bag of potatoes:

Scrub, prick and boil.

Punctuation irrelevant?

:D:D That comma sure would seem important!

[bruto]

Oddly enough, I just got caught in one of those slightly ambiguous comma traps on another thread here. CF Larsen remarked that "There are also large groups of immigrants who didn't go to the US for religious reasons." I hastily misread it as if there had been a comma after US, giving the sentence a completely different sense.

Crow is tough and the feathers tickle.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Did you hear the story about the guy who drowned his cheating wife in a frozen lagoon?

"Wait, I'm innocent. It's just ice!!".

"No. It's justice"

[Lensman]

Take a look at this post by someone from Athens, Georgia:-

people always say they shot somthin with a high powered gun like buck shot and a squirl or bird got decinagrated, i honstly dont beleve these storys but i would like to see if its true, and or how much power for a gun to have to be able to decenigrat a squirl or bird.

I gave him 1 out of 10 for (a poor) effort.

[Tokenconservative]

Take a look at this post by someone from Athens, Georgia:-


I gave him 1 out of 10 for (a poor) effort.

Purty durn bad talkin', but an innerrstin' issue, y'all has got t' 'mit....

By the way...what on earth does where this person comes from have to do with anything?

Some of the most eloquent speakers--to say nothing of writers--in this country's history hail from south of the Mason-Dixon, and I don't know about you, but the dulcimer tones of a Southerner settle much better on the ears of this twangy-toned Westerner than the nearly acidic braying of a New Englander.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Instructions on a bag of potatoes:

Scrub prick and boil.

Punctuation irrelevant?

Huh?

I don't git it.

This here's how we alays deal with a Saturday night in town, down to the farm.

Tokie

[Jeff Corey]

It's simple. If you were to follow the directions, you would first scrub yourself and then boil yourself.

[Lensman]

By the way...what on earth does where this person comes from have to do with anything?

Not a lot, I just included his location because it appears in his sig - I've seen as bad (or even worse) from people in the UK, West Coast, East Coast, Canada, Oz, NZ, Deep South or Frigid(?) North. I just find it bloody awful that people mangle their mothertongue without any qualms, what makes it worse are the people who excuse them & say it doesn't matter.

[coalesce]

Me fail English? That's unpossible!

Michael

[orpheus]

Some of the most eloquent speakers--to say nothing of writers--in this country's history hail from south of the Mason-Dixon, and I don't know about you, but the dulcimer tones of a Southerner settle much better on the ears of this twangy-toned Westerner than the nearly acidic braying of a New Englander.

Tokie

Sorry to mention this, but as long as we're on the topic anyway...

I think you mean "dulcet tones" and not "dulcimer tones"

(Then again, I suppose it depends on the Southerner in question. I've heard a few... :jaw-dropp)

[orpheus]

I'm sure someone has already mentioned these two books. If not:

http://www.amazon.com/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Tolerance-Punctuation/dp/1592402038/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199154357&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Anguished-English-Anthology-Accidental-Assaults/dp/044020352X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199154428&sr=1-1

Warning: do NOT read the second one while drinking anything and sitting in front of a computer, unless it's a liquid-proof computer. :D

[Prometheus]

Sorry to mention this, but as long as we're on the topic anyway...

I think you mean "dulcet tones" and not "dulcimer tones"

(Then again, I suppose it depends on the Southerner in question. I've heard a few... :jaw-dropp)

Alas, sweet dulcimer....

[jimbob]

This thread is literally beginning to hum now...

[jsfisher]

This thread is literally beginning to hum now...

It's more of a dueling banjos sort of twang, isn't it?