View Full Version : Grammar Nazi thread. Because we need one.
snakesandmonkeys
08-13-2012, 07:01 PM
Ok I read your link. It seems to me snarky people being snarky about grammar.
All Good Things
08-13-2012, 07:34 PM
Yes that's right. The author isn't a linguist, he's a professor of literature, which means he's qualified to do...well I'm not really sure. Read a lot? He's written a book about his own preferences and conned some publisher into putting covers on it to make money for both of them. It perpetuates myths and trades on the anxieties people have about language for no good reason.
Speaking of which: Please don't apologize for beginning a sentence with "but." I think it's awesome because sometimes only a "but" will do. Many hundreds of authors writing in English going back to the 18th century have begun sentences with "but," and even if that weren't true, you can do it anyway.
This hypercorrection philosophy has much in common with Sarah Palin's view of the world. It's all her experience and she's right, durnit!
My favorite part about this thread is the way people are so dismissive about linguistics. "Treatise on linguistics," "academic discussions," etc.
Linguistics is the scientific study of language. It's science. Science.
I suppose if I write that enough times, people will actually see it.
Google it, people! See for yourself! :)
Almost Jaded
08-13-2012, 07:51 PM
There s absolutely nothing with opening sentence with "but". Anyone taking issue with that is being everything that AGT talks about, and that's a perfect example of what he's been on about.
I still haven't seen any responses to my assertion that there is a difference between that kind of "mistake" which leads to hyper-correction (a great term), and patently wrong use of the language. There is a balance, there is a line, and the failure to address this is going to start looking intentional soon. I find that that kind of intentional disregard supports AGT's point about linguistics being a hard science - the only places where you see people intentionally turning a blind eye to information that is perfectly clear to just about everyone else are religion and hard sciences.
All Good Things
08-13-2012, 08:51 PM
What you are calling “wrong” are things that make you uncomfortable and really have nothing to do with understanding meaning in language.
That makes them entirely subjective.
The reason this annoys you is that you have a major cognitive and emotional investment in getting things grammatically “right,” even though there is no such animal. A good linguist could plot out your idolect and determine where this anxiety is coming from, why it’s so important to you, why you are paying an emotional price for it and why you still persist in mixing “its” and “it’s” even in the grammar Nazi thread! :)
I’m just teasing you, but it’s an important point. This particular usage in the standard dialect has escaped you and until you see it at some point in the future, you won’t yet get outraged by it. Once you see it, you’ll start getting outraged by “misuses” of it, even though you were not even observing the standard usage yourself before then.
Do you see how this is more about you than it is about the language, and it’s almost entirely emotional?
The real problem is that hypercorrective people put stakes in the ground all over the many hundreds of uses of language in everyday life for the slimmest reeds of usage, and that’s taking a text and homogenizing it to an arbitrary standard for purposes of dissemination in books or reference works. The same argument could be made for explicit and narrow uses in law, business or medicine, but honestly not as broadly as you think as it changes very quickly, and the standards are not even consistent among themselves. Anyway, this sort of standardization has a specific purpose and that’s to minimize misunderstanding across different dialects and usages on a broad geographical scale. That’s its only purpose. And perhaps here’s the crux of the problem. How many people do you know personally who have published a written work in the form of a book or reference or write for narrow critical audiences? How much do you write only for publication? If you don’t write explicitly for wide-scale publication, then why are you enforcing a standard used ONLY for such widespread dissemination like a bludgeon all over the language, on the Internet, in music, screenplays, news, media, TV, movies, chat, talk, and posts on a site like this, where it’s not even observed, respected, expected or remotely reasonable?
And this point is crucial: The very life of the language is intimately tied to these “non-standard” innovations that pop up like sunflowers all over the landscape. That’s how it grows and evolves. The arbitrary “standards” are retarding factors and will soon disappear. They are like parking brakes on a car. Enforcing them in almost all cases of daily language use is like yanking on the parking brake over and over while you are trying to drive down the street.
And that is my emotional reaction. Quit yanking on the parking brake while I'm trying to drive! :)
Example: If I write “ppl” in this thread to refer to “people,” is it “wrong?” It turns out to depend on context, the audience, expectations, environment….hmmm, not so much about right and wrong. In fact, right and wrong does absolutely nothing for you.
The post you wrote on a previous page where you deliberately misspelled every word but still conveyed your meaning (nice post, BTW) – was that post full of “errors?” I know you were being facetious in writing that post, but if you really believe in the “right” and “wrong” usages of language, then that sentence was full of errors.
What “overruled” the spelling “errors” was your deep wiring in language use. The reason every person understood what you wrote despite the strict “standard grammar” nonsensical nature of the post was that the deep intrinsic grammar which relies heavily on context delivered the meaning for you.
And you intuitively knew this.
That cognitive process you observed in writing that post is what linguists study. That’s the real grammar. These silly standardization rules people think of as grammar are really the “50 Shades of Grey” grammar.
Almost Jaded
08-13-2012, 09:05 PM
I understand that the underlying process is what linguists study. I've actually been bouncing this convo off a couple of linguists for a few days now, in fact. I've been leaving them out of my posts because I don't want to get into a split within the community about who thinks what about who on what topics - but suffice it to say that they don't all agree with you on this. In fact, so far none of them do. Bleh - that's misleading. They agree with you on the part that matters to linguistics - the study of the cognitive process as you point out. About the evolution of uses and colloquialisms and idolects and all the fun stuff - but after reading through this thread, all three of them also said you were overlooking some important real world issues and taking the discussion to an academic extreme. Which, funny enough, is what I kinda thought, too.
Interesting that you use that particular post as an example (BTW - I misspelled nothing; I used the wrong words entirely), because immediately following it was a post saying it took a couple of re-reads to understand it!
And about the its's - that's one of those words that I do tend to mess up a lot when I type fast. Openly admit it. When I'm paying attention I get it right, I promise.
I have said before and I'll say it again - the thread title was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. Hyper-correction, I think everyone contributing to this conversation would agree, doesn't do anyone any good. Maybe the admins would be so kind as to rename it "Grammatical pet peeves" or something along that line?
All Good Things
08-13-2012, 09:10 PM
^ With respect to the other linguists' comments, please refer to the central paragraph in my post above. The one that begins, "The real problem is..." That's where I've tried to address your "real world" concerns.
In my experience, it's crucial to get people on the same page on the arbitrary nature of standards before going to the next step in the discussion. So there was logic to my madness. :)
Of course, we could always have a Guest Linguist of the Day. We linguists can often get into these More Descriptivist than Thou places, but I'm sure I've staked out enough of an unreasonable position over here in my corner.
I suppose what I'd like to see people on the site get out of this thread is to be more courageous about their use of language, to trust their internal ear and creativity a whole lot more and above all not be frightened off by the Language Police. We've seen several earnest posters start out their posts by saying, "I know it's terribly wrong, but...." and it turns out that they are not wrong at all. Not by any standard. It's just noise kicked up by people who really ought to know better.
And that's no way to run a language.
zivlet
08-14-2012, 02:34 PM
Can I just mention how much 'Ten items or less' signs at the supermarket checkouts, really wind me up.
:)
The Six
08-14-2012, 03:28 PM
The less/fewer thing is really pretty dumb. There's no equivalent for the opposite "more," so the distinction is lost when you're talking about a bigger quantity of something.
ArmySGT.
08-14-2012, 04:10 PM
The less/fewer thing is really pretty dumb. There's no equivalent for the opposite "more," so the distinction is lost when you're talking about a bigger quantity of something.
Makeup, Cocaine, and body spray; less is more.
BlackSheEp3
08-14-2012, 06:35 PM
Too= also. As well, it is used as a modifier to say something like "very", such as "too scary".
Thanks, I will try to remember that.
papillonluvr
08-14-2012, 06:45 PM
So, this is a poster I found the other day walking around the Meiji Shrine area.
Granted, it was made by Japanese people, so English is most likely NOT their first language. So is it language "evolution" or is it a "mistake"? I personally would go with mistake.
Disclaimer: The Kanji on the poster actually say "tail" as in an animals tail; it happens to be the name of the main character. haha But, not knowing that, the average English speaker is likely to giggle a little and be all "what a silly mistake".
papillonluvr
08-14-2012, 06:51 PM
and that brings up a whole new subject: are mistakes made by people who don't speak English natively a mistake or evolution of language? Espcially considering that pretty much all ESL/EFL students want to learn "correct" English, not some backwoods or "ghetto" dialect of English. They always want grammatically correct English, with slang taught later. And also primarily English taught by native English speakers who are Canadian, British, or American, and to a much lesser extent, Australian. The British is interesting because when I speak to non-native speakers of English who speak mostly British english, they say they wanted to learn that way of speaking because it sounds more "high-class". haha
It's been on my mind lately as I teach ESL here at a communicative language school (GABA). Their philosophy of teaching reflects a lot of what AGT professes: That grammar isn't as important as the ability to speak and communicate. Grammar lesson should come close to last, and primarily at the client's request. However (lol), we are to CORRECT the client when they make mistakes, but NOT get into the grammar of why the mistake is wrong. Does that make sense?
The Six
08-14-2012, 07:56 PM
I don't think there's a mistake in that poster. It's intentionally spelled "tail," and would probably seem to be a pun.
papillonluvr
08-14-2012, 08:52 PM
Well yes I made that point already in my post under my "disclaimer". If I wasn't clear in that I'm sure you're post will clear up any misunderstanding since people don't always read the whole way through.
But there are many other examples. Such as the store "also known as conceit". The name of that store is not quite "correct"
Or another store's name which sells second hand clothes is "worthless", not "worth less". Completely changes the meaning. And no, those two names were not intentional plays in words. I asked my Japanese friends.
Djoser
08-14-2012, 09:08 PM
The evolution of language is a very interesting subject, from a historical perspective.
And speaking of corruption--the Romance languages evolved largely due to the corruption of Latin by the Goths, Franks, etc.; as well as a gradual devolution of the language as spoken by the common citizens of the Empire.
There were two distinct forms of Latin by the 7th century, Classical Latin--basically the same as what is taught with ever-decreasing frequency today, and Lingua Romana Rustica--that spoken by the common people, who could no longer comprehend Classical Latin. One could argue that a similar process is taking place today. But there are two important differences. There was no universal system of education back then, and there was also no mass media.
Then there's English--a bizarre compendium of Latin, German and other influences--a bastard language if there ever was one.
However, I am not a proponent of the argument that all written forms of expression are equally valid. Why bother getting an education, if this is to be believed? Furthermore, there is a perverse pride in butchering written and spoken English amongst the ignorant. Having spent rather more time than I care to contemplate amongst people who willfully eschew education, or any sophistication whatsoever in written or spoken language, I can tell you that there is nothing whatsoever charming or enlightening about this attitude.
All Good Things
08-14-2012, 11:45 PM
Are mistakes made by people who don't speak English natively a mistake or evolution of language?
What do you mean by “English?”
I’m not being facetious at all. The “English” spoken by most non-native English speakers to each other bears no resemblance to anything you would recognize as English. And well over a hundred million (some say as many as 200 million) non-native English speakers use this dialect, known as International English, to speak to each other. It’s a heavily inflected language (unlike English) used as a relay or vehicular language, without any of the more complex semantic structures, nesting, or vocabulary of the major standard Englishes. International English is only useful for the most basic interaction, and speakers of other languages routinely code-switch out of it back and forth into other dielects or languages because of it.
So International English is not what you or I speak at all, and you must be multilingual to use it, because you need the side-channel option of your other languages to communicate even the most basic ideas.
Sorry, now I’m getting too technical.
To answer your question: Most grammatical “mistakes” in a controlled learning environment like a classroom are flushed out of usage in short order, and never catch on, so they have no real impact on the language. Those that appear in any other context will be voted up or down by other speakers and either adopted or rejected, much like an instantaneous global reddit domain
It's been on my mind lately as I teach ESL here at a communicative language school (GABA). Their philosophy of teaching reflects a lot of what AGT professes: That grammar isn't as important as the ability to speak and communicate. Grammar lesson should come close to last, and primarily at the client's request. However (lol), we are to CORRECT the client when they make mistakes, but NOT get into the grammar of why the mistake is wrong. Does that make sense?
My guess – it would be interesting to find out if this is true – is that they are instructing you to correct grammar because your clients have a history of requesting that correction, not to foster learning.
Correcting that way is unnecessary, though, as you likely have found out yourself, because even in adult study, formal teacher correction has dramatically less impact compared to self-adjustments made through your own study or environmental acquisition (listening or mimicking other people using the language).
And as anybody with kids will readily recognize, correcting native-speaking children in that language is totally pointless – they will continue to speak as they will, in a way that almost seems to be spite of you (it’s not).
Anyway, you will find that the preferred version that ESL/EFL learners request actually differs by culture. The Japanese have always wanted to learn the most formal, high-class, “correct” dialect, but in Latin America, Southeast Asia, the Baltic, large swaths of southern Europe, most of Scandinavia and in Russia as well as all across the former Soviet Republics, all they want to learn is young-adult slang. That’s the gold standard for most youngish learners worldwide.
Admittedly, there is often a struggle between the student’s preferred dialect and the preference of the bill-paying adult.
But, not knowing that, the average English speaker is likely to giggle a little and be all "what a silly mistake".
Don’t underestimate your English speakers. After all, there is a demonic tail drawn right onto the “L” in word “Tail” in that poster (if you look closely, you’ll see it) so it’s pretty clear that it was a deliberate creative choice. Let’s hear it for all those clever manga folks!
While Djoser is absolutely right that English is truly a bastard language, I’m afraid it’s not true that education has anything to do with language acquisition, mastery or use today or historically. After all, languages exploded in variety, complexity and geographic range for many hundreds of thousands of years, and possibly millions, in all societies everywhere without universal education, which is an extremely recent invention of our culture. In historical terms, universal education appeared about 10 minutes ago. Language has thrived successfully for eons.
And the best masters of language in any society are its children, of course, before they undergo any formal education at all. Nabokov once said on the subject of children’s natural mastery of language, “It’s a useful lesson in humility to stumble daily over challenges that a six-year-old native speaker can handle with ease.”
Most of these ideas don’t become obvious until you become an adult and try mastering a foreign language by study, e.g. the excruciatingly and exhaustively hard way, instead of by acquisition in childhood, which is the easy-as-breathing way.
Also, mass media has nothing to do with homogenizing dialect usage in the U.S. or the world. This is a common misperception (the other is that globalization is causing homogenization – not true.) Dielectologists have found that regional dielects in the U.S. are gaining ground not losing it – it turns out that they actually defend territory, much like an animate entity – and that Northern and Southern spoken dielects in the U.S. are actually diverging, not homogenizing.
And the working class dielects are the strongest. If you want to see how dielects are alive in the U.S. today, just listen to the working-class fans of the Pittsburg Steelers or the Buffalo Bills argue with the working-class fans of the Chicago Bears or the Green Bay Packers. That’s a dielectologist’s paradise.
The reason media has no impact is that while we all watch similar movies, T.V. programs and news broadcasts we don’t model our speech on the patterns of actors or newscasters. Our language use is locked directly into how people in our lives – not necessarily “educated” people, but those people emotionally closest to us – use language. It’s an imprinting mechanism that ties back to what I discussed earlier about imprinting “our tribe” and distinguishing it from “outsiders.” It’s why you carry your dialect with you when you travel, like an overnight bag.
This is a crucial aspect of human identity and we have always used language historically as a key marker to distinguish identity.
papillonluvr
08-15-2012, 01:26 AM
AGT, as I pointed out, I know that it was a clever play on words. I was just using it as an example. I have hundreds of others, all with what we English speakers call "Engrish" haha, or the Japanese version of English. And everyone I've shown it to, to ask what they think, all think it's a funny mistake. :) Until I point out it was intentional. Then they smile and say "clever". So now that makes several times I've had to say "yes, it was intentional, but what if it WASN'T? Would that be a mistake or as you call it, "evolution and creativity?"
And actually, correction does help, over time. I have one student who consistently dropped articles. But, over a few classes, with me pointing out "article" and having them gap-fill or self-correct (after I point it out), he no longer drops articles with nearly the same amount of frequency. So I would say with adult learners, making them AWARE of their mistakes does help.
And yes, I meant English as in american or british or australian or canadian. English as standard English, not International English. ESL students, students trying to learn Standard English, for commincation with native speakers, for passing the TOEIC or TOEFL, for watching English T.V., or what have you.
And on this topic, what do you think of the TOEIC or TOEFL as a test of English? Especially the spoken portions of the TOEFL and written portions? I'm sure a person who cannot speak standard, "correct" English will not score highly at all. I bet some native English speakers who speak a "dialect" or whatever you want to call it won't score highly either. So should we just NOT have those tests at all as a measurment of their level of English, or do you just call their usage "evolution" when in all actuality they are TRYING to speak "correctly"?
Djoser
08-15-2012, 03:20 AM
...it’s not true that education has anything to do with language acquisition, mastery or use today or historically.
I believe it has everything to do with it, especially if you are speaking of the mastery of the written language. I owe a great deal to my undergraduate education in particular.
Mass media has a tremendous effect on the way people use language. That trend began with the prototype mass media, literature produced by printing press--though it certainly had a different effect on the language than music videos do today.
But no need to belabor the point here. And you are entitled to your opinion, of course.
All Good Things
08-15-2012, 12:49 PM
OK, a couple of important points.
The “real” form of language is the spoken form. It’s existed as long as homo sapiens has.
The written form is something humans invented relatively recently to “preserve” speech and give it some permanency for things like trade and later for education. That’s why we have to go school or study on our own to learn the human invention, but not the “real” language, which is encoded in our DNA.
The vast majority of languages throughout history have never had a written form. Most languages today don’t. There are between 6,000 and 7,000 active languages in use across the globe today, depending on how you define “language.”
The spoken form changes fastest, and drives most – but not all – changes to the written form.
Changes to both forms have nothing to do with education. It’s the changing needs of the language user that drives the language forward. As I mentioned in my previous post, every speaker of a language has a “vote” on the changes that will occur to the language. Every single one. It’s not dictionaries that define language, it’s the users. Lexicographers like me just look at how everyday people are using language and then attempt to capture that usage in a dictionary.
So, for example, about 200 years ago, there was an enormous vocabulary for various stages of sunsets in American dielects – well over 90 words – and those existed in both speech and print. Today they have virtually all disappeared – most people aren’t outside for sunsets these days – but have been replaced by “texting,” “graphical user interface,” “cyberspace” and many hundreds of other new words, as well as a hugely rich and diverse scientific and technical vocabulary for activities and disciplines that exist today, but did not exist then.
Also, just to head this off, there are not 80 or 90 or 100 words for snow in the “Eskimo language.” If you want to see how media really influences language, that’s a good example – by uninformed exaggeration and lack of research skills.
Anyway, my point about the irrelevancy of media or education to spoken language use is not “my” opinion. I’m not a dialectologist. It’s the opinion of a whole field of scientific inquiry.
So, while I may have an opinion on gravity, it’s nothing compared to Sir Isaac Newton’s opinion on gravity.
There’s been a recent awesome publication on the vastly complex and widely varied nature of English usage in the U.S. produced over a period of fifty years by hundreds of linguistic scholars. It’s called the Dictionary of American Regional English, published by Harvard University. It’s mostly a specialist publication, but you can find it here:
If you want to know how people in the U.S. really speak and how language really works, that's the place to find both.
Djoser
08-15-2012, 04:33 PM
Whatever.
You can trot out your theory that mass media and education have no bearing whatsoever on the acquisition or mastery of language, and tell me I am wrong to believe otherwise. I can tell you you are wrong to dismiss the extremely powerful effect of both. Academia will provide plentiful support for both positions.
Since we are writing here, and nowhere in the OP does it indicate that written language has no relevance to the proposed topic of conversation (actually the converse is indicated), dismissing written language entirely would be very much in error. But feel free to continue asserting the contrary.
Isaac Newton's theory of Gravity has as much relevance to the subject of the effect of media and education on language as Einstein or Hawking's rather different perspectives. Which is very little, of course.
No one who is willfully butchering the language really cares what we think, anyway.
Djoser
08-15-2012, 04:53 PM
On a side note, I thought I knew how to write--until I went to the University of Chicago, where I really learned to write--along with most of my fellow students, who derived great benefit from such instruction in the mastery of written language. Though I knew a few brilliant exceptions who apparently had no need of it.
Then I spent most of the ensuing years trying to tone it down, so people would actually want to read it. :D
All Good Things
08-15-2012, 05:57 PM
I’ve been thinking about a good way to broach that exact subject. You last post brings up an excellent point.
We all communicate through written language in a huge variety of registers . I usually write in three or four registers in English – I’ve only been using a single formal discourse register in English throughout this thread – although I can use about a dozen, while in most of my other languages I’m good for a maximum of perhaps six per language.
Eight if I’m drunk.
But that’s sort of pathetic in the world of creative writing. A good fiction writer in any language can do far better than that, and some are just plain amazing. They can create entire new worlds and not only distinguish characters’ voices through language, but also convey changes in mood, advance the plot, signal deeply held motivations and shake the reader to the core.
Your argument about the importance of education does apply to written language, of course, but that written language is only a small fraction of what constitutes “language.” But let’s focus on that, anyway. It most closely aligns with the use of language to paint a picture or to emotionally move the reader (fiction, poetry and sometimes lyrics), in rhetorical discourse (to convince, persuade or influence an audience) or in reporting facts, evidence or stories (law, medicine, technology) or in some combination of those areas (journalism, film and others).
What seems to happen in discussions of language use like we are having here – and especially discussions about “correct” or “incorrect” uses of language – is that we tend to intellectually shift from the huge range of registers we actually master in day-to-day life – slang, regional dialect, lol-speak, humor, impishness, sarcasm, irony, pillow-talk, verbalizations and much more – to exclusively one of those above (usually rhetorical formal discourse) and then hunker down, sit there and not move. We get very stubborn about the formal register. We make our case about how language must serve the mission of that specific register out of all possible registers, even those registers that we use far more often in our daily lives. It takes precedence over all spoken language, which is very odd. No matter. We tell ourselves that language must conform to the spelling, grammatical and stylistic conventions of that specific formal register over all other registers or it’s “wrong.”
My question is this. Why do we do this? People are already fantastically, intrinsically and natively skilled in deploying a galaxy of language uses. The vast majority of these they learn before any education at all, and continue to learn without any formal instruction at all. How do we so easily get bogged down in one single register – the formal register – in one form of the language – the written form – to the detriment of everything else, and then defend it so rabidly?
My view is that for better or worse we have a huge emotional investment in that register. It’s an intellectual touchstone, a place carved out of hard rock over a lifetime of formal education – some positive, some not-so-positive – with the not-so-positive responsible for self-doubt, hesitation, status-marking, fear, success orientation and many other terrifying middle-of-the-night fears about where we are in life and especially how people see and judge us.
It pisses me off when people take advantage of this situation to insult, put-down, control, harass, and otherwise manipulate people who are simply different from them. It’s a form of prejudice, and an especially insidious one, because it’s very hard to spot and extremely difficult to eradicate.
What I’ve tried to do in this thread is suggest that the real language as everybody already uses it is a monster of a beast. It doesn’t belong to anybody, and especially the Language Police, who are often wrong more than they are right, even in their randomly chosen formal register rules. Language is organic, willful and even stubborn, obeys its own laws, is incredibly complex and in many ways miraculous and has many hundreds of arms and legs, most of which we master at a young age.
There are some we need to learn through study, but those appendages are just like the other appendages. There is no special status afforded them because you learned them in a classroom.
God, the damage we have to undo because of grammar Nazis. I wish we were half as close to the finish line as we appear to be in overcoming similar prejudices against things like sexual repression or gay rights.
snakesandmonkeys
08-15-2012, 06:24 PM
Wow, i just typed out a whole long post (very carefully spell checked) and it got lost in the ether. I'm kinda glad it did because AGT's post just took exactly what I was trying to say (basically that there are different contexts in which language is used and maybe some of what we are arguing has to do with context) and expanded on it and put it in a way that I could never even come close to putting it.
I think it's interesting that the person who is arguing so stridently against being a "grammar nazi" obviously has a really amazing grasp of written language. I could be wrong but I would guess that AGT has spent a lot of time refining and re-refining his language skills.
In some ways this argument seems to me to be similar to an argument about what is "good" art and what is "bad" art, with the exception being that language, unlike art (although you could argue the opposite case) has a function that is much, much more vital and universal, and that is to communicate.
Just for the record as one of the grammatically challenged myself I was not at all offended by the OP's post, and actually SW has far less "grammar naziism' than a lot of forums. And also, I totally get it, if it's something close to your heart, sometimes you just want to bitch (you would not want to watch a medical drama with me, I would deafen you with all of my yelling at the screen)
Djoser
08-15-2012, 07:12 PM
In some ways this argument seems to me to be similar to an argument about what is "good" art and what is "bad" art, with the exception being that language, unlike art (although you could argue the opposite case) has a function that is much, much more vital and universal, and that is to communicate.
Oh man there was a hellacious thread a few years ago dealing with the difference between 'good art' and 'bad art'. But if you happen to find it, please don't bump it--that thread needs to RIP for sure. ;D
Just for the record as one of the grammatically challenged myself I was not at all offended by the OP's post, and actually SW has far less "grammar naziism' than a lot of forums. And also, I totally get it, if it's something close to your heart, sometimes you just want to bitch (you would not want to watch a medical drama with me, I would deafen you with all of my yelling at the screen)
Grammar naziism is against the rules here on SW, with good reason. But discussing the practice of grammar naziism is not. It's been a pretty good thread, I think.
Now I want to know why you yell at medical dramas on the screen? I am presuming it's because you have a medical background? I yell at the television a lot on those rare occasions I am watching it (at friends' houses who have those infernal devices, and allow me to do so), for a variety of reasons. Usually because it is insulting to my intelligence, and for that matter the intelligence of anyone who made it past the 4th grade.
Djoser
08-15-2012, 07:19 PM
Now I want to make a video of myself introducing the next dancer to stage in a formal academic style.
:rotfl:
I'd probably get fired if I tried it in my club though!
ETA-just fixed a minor grammatical error in this one haha!
papillonluvr
08-15-2012, 07:29 PM
Here is an article from the NY Times with opinion pieces. Even if your just reading through the thread and not engaging in the discussion, take a look. It's very interesting and thought provoking.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/08/13/is-our-children-learning-enough-grammar-to-get-hired
snakesandmonkeys
08-15-2012, 07:35 PM
I yell at tv medical dramas because I have a nursing background, and my family has a medical background, so yelling at the tv over medical stuff is like a family passion. My mom was/ is the worst. She was a midwife so any movie/show with a labor scene was like " two minutes of pushing and then the baby pops out? Bullshit!!" You would be surprised how many labor scenes there are...
Another pet peeve: when they pull that baby out all covered in carefully constructed amniotic fluid and the baby is clearly about 6 months old.
Suspending disbelief is all well and good, except when it encroaches into your area of expertise. :)
In all seriousness, I think this thread is a great one. I LOVE to talk/argue about just this kinda stuff and it's rare to meet people in your day to day life that love it just as much as you do.
Djoser
08-15-2012, 07:42 PM
Checking that out now, thanks for posting it!
The first sentence of the first debater kind of got my attention:
"In a culture characterized less by the printed word than by YouTube videos..."
I like the different viewpoints in the article, from what I've seen so far.
I don't think there's much question that in the business world, the ability to communicate well--in accordance with the rules of grammar--will be of great benefit.
papillonluvr
08-15-2012, 08:21 PM
It got me thinking about how people talk. For instance, I'd say I'm very well educated, went to college for 8 years, plus additional education to keep current in my field. I also read abiut twi novels a week. However, I have problems expressing myself clearly and accurately, especially in a formal register. :( but that doesn't mean I'm not intelligent.
But, even knowing that, when I hear somebody talk and most if what they say is in slang with excessively poor grammar, I can't help but think they are not smart or they are not educated. It's biased and it's wrong, and I have to consciously catch myself when I think that way.
Djoser
08-15-2012, 08:31 PM
^^^My dad writes like a 3rd grade kid that is flunking English class. Atrocious stuff.
But he reads voraciously, including pretty advanced history and philosophy. A classic case of a kid that was given the worst feedback in a bad public school system (yet another way that Detroit sucks lol), and rose above it for the most part.
snakesandmonkeys
08-15-2012, 10:06 PM
I hate to be a bitch, but aren't you just supporting the other side with that post. Your dad doesn't express himself well in writing but that doesn't mean he isn't smart... Maybe people who don't express themselves in writing the way that "smart" or "educated" people express themselves can still be smart and educated too...
papillonluvr
08-15-2012, 10:36 PM
I took djosers post to mean that although his father writes "like a third grader" he is still intelligent.
snakesandmonkeys
08-15-2012, 10:51 PM
I took his post to mean exactly the same thing. I'm just saying, you can write like a 3rd grader and still be be really fucking clever. And if you don't have a perfect grasp of the grammar, and the spelling and all of that, yea it will be harder for you to get by, but it doesn't automatically mean that you are stupid. Thats all I'm saying. Having a perfect grasp of all of the grammatical rules doesn't make you smarter than someone who doesn't
Mr Hyde
08-15-2012, 11:30 PM
Yes that's right. The author isn't a linguist, he's a professor of literature, which means he's qualified to do...well I'm not really sure. Read a lot? He's written a book about his own preferences and conned some publisher into putting covers on it to make money for both of them. It perpetuates myths and trades on the anxieties people have about language for no good reason.
Speaking of which: Please don't apologize for beginning a sentence with "but." I think it's awesome because sometimes only a "but" will do. Many hundreds of authors writing in English going back to the 18th century have begun sentences with "but," and even if that weren't true, you can do it anyway.
This hypercorrection philosophy has much in common with Sarah Palin's view of the world. It's all her experience and she's right, durnit!
My favorite part about this thread is the way people are so dismissive about linguistics. "Treatise on linguistics," "academic discussions," etc.
Linguistics is the scientific study of language. It's science. Science.
I suppose if I write that enough times, people will actually see it.
Google it, people! See for yourself! :)
He's a professor of literature who gets tons of papers with crappy usage of words. He put together a website to address them. No offense, but your dismissal of the site is stupid. Read a few of the links. It's a very useful site for people who have to refer students to their improper use of words.
You don't have to be a fucking linguist to know the difference between to, too, and two.
And this thread wasn't meant to be a discussion on linguistics. It was meant to be a discussion on how people don't fucking know that "of" is not a verb, and "could of" makes about as much sense as "wantonly stomachful" except for its pronunciation.
And yes, I began both of my last two paragraphs with a conjunction, because despite your protestations over being hyper-corrective, you did the same thing over "but" above.
All Good Things
08-16-2012, 12:09 AM
The "but" reference was to a previous poster's concern that it was not "permitted" to begin a sentence with "but." I was assuring her that it has been very commonly used as the first word in sentences in English for several hundred years.
I also told her that even if that weren't true, she could do it anyway. It was an anti-hyper-corrective comment on my part.
So let's see, you get really angry – infuriated – about all those people who "don't fucking know."
That's really interesting.
I really don't know why I bother to write long posts when the opposing posters make my case for me.
MyButter
08-16-2012, 06:00 AM
I took his post to mean exactly the same thing. I'm just saying, you can write like a 3rd grader and still be be really fucking clever. And if you don't have a perfect grasp of the grammar, and the spelling and all of that, yea it will be harder for you to get by, but it doesn't automatically mean that you are stupid. Thats all I'm saying. Having a perfect grasp of all of the grammatical rules doesn't make you smarter than someone who doesn't
I agree. In one example, there have been numerous times that I'll overhear the surgeons, doctors, or nurses using really poor English (in their conversations on breaks, or in passing) down at the Naval Medical Center... and this particular hospital only hires the very best of the best^^
In another example, one of my co-workers in Guam is an immigrant from China who can speak and write 5 different languages-fluently! This total actually excludes English as she doesn't feel that she is "fluent" in it. Nor does this total include any other Chinese dialects. All of this is overlooked and she is considered 'stupid' by our peers, customers, and a great deal of general society because she doesn't speak or write with grammatical correctness, sometimes mispronounces words, and has a thick accent. Personally, I believe she is brilliant.
Djoser
08-16-2012, 08:01 AM
The "but" reference was to a previous poster's concern that it was not "permitted" to begin a sentence with "but." I was assuring her that it has been very commonly used as the first word in sentences in English for several hundred years.
I also told her that even if that weren't true, she could do it anyway. It was an anti-hyper-corrective comment on my part.
So let's see, you get really angry – infuriated – about all those people who "don't fucking know."
That's really interesting.
I really don't know why I bother to write long posts when the opposing posters make my case for me.
While Mr. Hyde perhaps went overboard in saying your dismissal of the site he posted earlier was "stupid", nowhere does he or anyone else here (in opposition to your point of view) come close to 'making a case' for you. Nor is it obvious to me that he is 'infuriated'.
Furthermore, he is entirely correct in pointing out that this thread was created to discuss the abuse of grammar, primarily in written form--not the science of linguistics.
ETA--Mr. Hyde, please refrain from telling people they are 'stupid'.
Djoser
08-16-2012, 08:20 AM
I hate to be a bitch, but aren't you just supporting the other side with that post. Your dad doesn't express himself well in writing but that doesn't mean he isn't smart... Maybe people who don't express themselves in writing the way that "smart" or "educated" people express themselves can still be smart and educated too...
What 'other side'? There's many different viewpoints being expressed in this thread, about many different facets of the use and abuse of language.
Furthermore, I never said anything at all about people butchering the language being 'stupid'. Nor did I ever say that people with a good grasp of correct grammar and spelling were inherently any more intelligent than those without--or those who deliberately discard the importance of such. They are better educated, of course. And they generally have an appreciation for the benefits of education in the use of language, especially in the written form--such as we are using in this thread and on this forum.
My own pet peeve being the willfull abuse of grammar and spelling by people who feel it isn't important at all to worry about it. For instance, young people who are still fully capable of either benefiting from education, or enlightening themselves, yet couldn't be bothered.
My father is 80 years old. He's not going to learn to write all over again.
I took djosers post to mean that although his father writes "like a third grader" he is still intelligent.
Yes, that is precisely what I meant.
He has told me many times he knows he cannot write well at all, and regrets it. And we have also discussed at great length the abysmally poor treatment he received in one of the worst public education systems in the nation...that in good ol' Detroit.
A very far cry indeed from deliberately dismissing the ability to write correctly as being meaningless.
caitlin1214
08-16-2012, 08:26 AM
^ maybe they meant "profound" as in doesn't require a lot of thinking to enjoy it.
Maybe, but the way they were speaking made me think they meant to say their lyrics didn't have curse words in it.
So they should have said 'profane' rather than 'profound.'
MommieLongLegs
08-16-2012, 08:55 AM
Ok, I need to add a sentence from a friend via Skype that annoyed me:
"I don't have the patients to deal with it".
I told him the correct word was "patience", not "patients". He then copy/pasted the definition of patient, which is correct in adjective form, but "patience" is the noun form.
He actually debated with me about it, insisting he used the right word. I try not to correct him because I don't want to be a bitch about it, but he does it all the time.
I don't see how someone could misuse there, they're, their, to, too and two. They have completely different spellings and meanings.
They're going there to get their things.
I, too, need to buy two books for school.
Don't get me wrong, I use slang and intentionally abbreviate words when texting or whatever. I'll put "ur" instead or "your" or "cuz" instead of "because". My problem is people spelling that way, thinking it's correct.
Ok, I'm done.
Carry on.
Djoser
08-16-2012, 09:46 AM
Ok, I need to add a sentence from a friend via Skype that annoyed me:
"I don't have the patients to deal with it".
I told him the correct word was "patience", not "patients". He then copy/pasted the definition of patient, which is correct in adjective form, but "patience" is the noun form.
He actually debated with me about it, insisting he used the right word. I try not to correct him because I don't want to be a bitch about it, but he does it all the time.
I ran into this all the time in Daytona Beach. My favorite story--while not the worst concerning this phenomenon by a long shot--concerns an ex-manager and a manager of a club I used to work for up there. The three of us were standing outside the club looking at the limo for a bachelor party, and they started trying to figure out how to spell the word 'bachelor' because they were going to send a note about it. I immediately told them the correct spelling, but since I was a DJ and they were managers they dismissed my spelling instantly, and continued to go back and forth trying to figure it out. I let them--not that I really cared about pissing them off by insisting, since I was making ten times the money down here and was just up there for a visit. And they weren't being rude about it, like so many people will often get even though they are entirely wrong.
After a few minutes, they congratulated each other on figuring out the correct spelling, 'bachaler' or something like that.
:rotfl:
MommieLongLegs
08-16-2012, 10:27 AM
I ran into this all the time in Daytona Beach. My favorite story--while not the worst concerning this phenomenon by a long shot--concerns an ex-manager and a manager of a club I used to work for up there. The three of us were standing outside the club looking at the limo for a bachelor party, and they started trying to figure out how to spell the word 'bachelor' because they were going to send a note about it. I immediately told them the correct spelling, but since I was a DJ and they were managers they dismissed my spelling instantly, and continued to go back and forth trying to figure it out. I let them--not that I really cared about pissing them off by insisting, since I was making ten times the money down here and was just up there for a visit. And they weren't being rude about it, like so many people will often get even though they are entirely wrong.
After a few minutes, they congratulated each other on figuring out the correct spelling, 'bachaler' or something like that.
:rotfl:
Yes, this is the same attitude my friend has. He, for whatever reason, thinks he's smarter than me. He'll say that he researched the topic, or just says "I know the right meaning/spelling/whatever. Don't correct me." even though he's wrong. I just have to end the conversation because no matter how much "proof" I have, he still insists he's right.
Haha I wonder why we're friends sometimes.
All Good Things
08-16-2012, 11:56 AM
While Mr. Hyde perhaps went overboard in saying your dismissal of the site he posted earlier was "stupid", nowhere does he or anyone else here (in opposition to your point of view) come close to 'making a case' for you. Nor is it obvious to me that he is 'infuriated'.
How many “fuckings” = “infuriated” to you? I figure two “fuckings” (“fucking linguist” and “people don’t fucking know”) plus one “crappy” and one “stupid” in a 300-word post = pretty damned pissed.
The principal point of my most recent post was how people’s outsized emotional investment in the formal register causes them to explode in rage over the silliest things. This was exploding in rage over the silliest things. It speaks volumes about the person and very little about the language.
And this is not a personal critique about Mr. Hyde at all, just a linguistic observation from a person who has spent a lifetime studying language and linguistics, teaching both at the university level and producing books for publication in several languages all over the world. My opinion is important enough for the editors of several dictionaries to regularly consult me on style and usage.
Not that my opinion is informed, or anything silly like that.
Furthermore, he is entirely correct in pointing out that this thread was created to discuss the abuse of grammar, primarily in written form--not the science of linguistics.
Wow.
The fact that I even have to write this out is a bit troubling.
See if this makes sense to you:
“He is entirely correct in pointing out that this thread was created to discuss the abuse of studies of gravitational acceleration, not the science of physics.”
So time for a reality check.
There is an entire discipline of linguistics that is devoted to the study of how people respond to the use of language within society. Grammar Nazi practices have been smack at the center of scientific inquiry within linguistics for decades. The field is known as “sociolinguistics.”
I would encourage you to google that term if it’s unfamiliar to you.
Perhaps you are saying that this thread was created to bitch and moan about how everybody around us is stupid and our own education is just awesome in every way. We are so special and smart. And let’s just ignore people who actually have credentials on the subject we are discussing. Who gives a shit about them? Or all that stupid linguistics stuff that we don’t understand, or even what the meaning of the word “linguistics” is.
Forgive me if I don’t want to jump on the bandwagon of patting myself on the back for how smart I am and how everybody else is stupid. Especially since all the scientific research out there on this very subject suggests that for people who do this, it’s the other way around.
And that’s the science talking, not me.
Djoser
08-16-2012, 12:13 PM
How many “fuckings” = “infuriated” to you? I figure two “fuckings” (“fucking linguist” and “people don’t fucking know”) plus one “crappy” and one “stupid” in a 300-word post = pretty damned pissed.
The principal point of my most recent post was how people’s outsized emotional investment in the formal register causes them to explode in rage over the silliest things. This was exploding in rage over the silliest things. It speaks volumes about the person and very little about the language.
Nah, I don't buy it. I cuss all the time, and frequently find myself using the word 'fuck' and/or 'fucking' numerous times in a paragraph. Sometimes I am being emphatic. Sometimes I am being humorous. Sometimes I am just giving in to very bad habits. Too many years in stripclubs, perhaps.
So let me make this clear to you. I don't care what your fucking academic credentials are, they don't make you a fucking psychic. You don't have a fucking clue as to what Mr. Hyde's true emotional state was when he wrote that post. I would guess that he might have been somewhat annoyed, and maybe he had a good fucking reason to be so. But neither you, I, nor anyone else has the ability to know beyond question that Mr. Hyde was 'infuriated', or 'exploding in rage'.
All Good Things
08-16-2012, 12:22 PM
^ Nope, don't buy it.
Nice job with the "fuckings," though. I thought they gave your post the real validating heft it needed to refute a worldwide expert on the subject of language use.
ArmySGT.
08-16-2012, 12:58 PM
Statistically speaking........ Holding your cock up to the monitor garners no measurable result.
Imma let you finish
But, "My Fair Lady" was the best and most entertaining discourse on language.
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/Smileys%20and%20toons/woot.gif
Djoser
08-16-2012, 01:13 PM
Forgive me if I don’t want to jump on the bandwagon of patting myself on the back for how smart I am...
...a person who has spent a lifetime studying language and linguistics, teaching both at the university level and producing books for publication in several languages all over the world. My opinion is important enough for the editors of several dictionaries to regularly consult me on style and usage.
...a worldwide expert on the subject of language use.
Sure thing, pal. I can clearly see that you never have tried to pat yourself on the back about how smart you are.
:rotfl:
I would encourage you to google that term if it’s unfamiliar to you.
Perhaps you are saying that this thread was created to bitch and moan about how everybody around us is stupid and our own education is just awesome in every way. We are so special and smart. And let’s just ignore people who actually have credentials on the subject we are discussing. Who gives a shit about them? Or all that stupid linguistics stuff that we don’t understand, or even what the meaning of the word “linguistics” is.
I am quite familiar with the meaning of 'linguistics', thanks. I am also well aware that you do have impressive academic credentials in the field. But having spent many years of my life in intensive study amongst people with equal or higher levels of academic credentials than either of us, I know very well that the mere possession of academic credentials does not guarantee that the possessor of those credentials is invariably correct. So you know what you can do with the sarcasm.
This thread was for all of us to discuss the practice of Nazi Grammar enforcement. It was not for you to claim the ultimate authority on the subject due to the fact that you have impressive credentials in the field of linguistics. You can dismiss entirely the opinion of a professor of English Literature who has been in a position for years to dispense Nazi Grammar, due to the fact that he has read hundreds or thousands of papers written by his students with very faulty grasp of proper grammar. Others of us are not willing to toss his opinion out the window merely because you say we should.
As usual, you want you cake and to eat it too. You want to claim that the use of slang or bad grammar does nothing to reduce the value of a given piece of writing. But a guy cussing a lot totally invalidates what he is saying because he is 'enraged'. And your knowledge of linguistics means that you know exactly what his emotional state is, of course.
Bullshit...
So time for a reality check.
Yeah, I'd say the time is long past due for a reality check. So listen up.
Since most of the dancers on the site know who I am IRL, I always assumed that info found its way to you. I'll PM you a link to my Google and LinkedIn profiles.
Correcting this blatantly self-serving bit of outrageously exaggerated personal propaganda was not me 'sniping' at you. It was me telling you to knock it off with the self-aggrandizement, yet again. If I were to remind you to knock this shit off every time you did it, I'd have told you a few hundred times by now.
I'm sure as hell not doing it because I am jealous, as you claimed in your pathetic, whining screed about how mean I am not to let you run amok here on SW again. Truthfully, I'd rather live on the street and take my chances with face-eating zombies than spend even five minutes in your shoes.