Hackers, Spelling, and Grammar?

Strom Carlson asks: "Over the last few years, I've noticed that a surprisingly large number of native English speakers, who are otherwise very technically competent, seem to lack strong English skills. Mostly, this seems to manifest itself as varying degrees of poor spelling and grammar: 'definately' instead of 'definitely'; 'should of' instead of 'should have'; and I even see the names of products and companies misspelled from time to time. It baffles me that a culture so obsessed with technical knowledge and accuracy can demonstrate such little attention to detail when it comes to communicating that knowledge with others, and it baffles me even more that many people become enraged when you attempt to help them correct and learn from their mistakes. Do hackers and geeks just not care about communicating effectively? Do they not realize that a mediocre command of written English makes them appear less intelligent? Am I missing something here?"

Comments

Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[TripMaster Monkey]

Can...open...worms... everywhere.

I for one cannot agree with you enough here, Strom. Sadly, the epidemic of poor spelling/grammar is not confined to the tech world, but is pervasive throughout just about every aspect of American culture. I was raised and educated to believe that spelling and grammar counted...that the coherent presentation of your information was at least as important as the information itself. I don't know exactly when we as a society decided that coherence was no longer important...sometime in the mid-eighties, I'd guess.

I will agree with you, however, that this problem is especially apparent in the tech world. I've known many techs that not only didn't care about the rules of the English language, they actually regarded their ignorance of such rules as a perverse badge of honor, as if mastering the intricacies of the language was somehow beneath them. I've always found it intriguing that a programmer who could master several arcane computer languages (especially since computers are notably intolerant of errors), could fail so utterly to master his own native human language.

yes

[bigwavejas]

"...Am I missing something here?"

Definately.

Re:yes

[Anonymous Coward]

|@|\|6|_|@63 1$ |=||_|1[) [)3@| \X/1+|-| 1+ @|\|[) $+|=|_|

Re:yes

[Anonymous Coward]

"Definately."

You should of spelled that as 'definitely'.

Re:yes

[Anonymous Coward]

And the winners are...

should of: 214

grammer: 374 (heh)

rediculous: 785

definately: 6390

Re:yes

[Anonymous Coward]

You should compare it with the correct spellings.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=definitel y+site%3Aslashdot.org&btnG=Search

definitely is correctly spelled over 30,600 times.
should've 621
should have 30,000

So far that indicates that approximately 1/5 of the people can't spell definitely. No wonder "definately" is the most glaring spelling error on this site.

Most people correctly use "should have" or else the people who would use in incorrectly just avoid it altogether.

But ridiculous only seems to appear correctly only 23 times.

Different brain function.

[jellomizer]

Well part of the problem for some people such as myself, have a learning disability in spelling and grammar. Many times words have the same sounds to me and have a difficulty in hearing the differences between Vowel sounds especially for me the E and I sounds and the O and U sounds especially when they are mixed with other vowels and softer sounding letters.
The reason for my grammar is that my bad spelling gets in the way. My vocabulary is much broader then what I can spell and using some of my more advanced words I find that cannot spell them so I do a quick path to my sentence and replace it with a word combination that I do know to get the point across. Being human I will often overlook the grammatical mistakes because I am focusing so much on my point, and will often forget at the end to double check my work.
I admit to getting angry when people correct my spelling and grammar it is not that they care correcting me that gets me angry it is that they will disregard my points where they are well thought out because of technical writing errors, and yes we do realize that bad spelling and grammar may make us seem less intelligent, although I wish more time would be putting more effort in making these bigots see else wise.
As for bad spellers being good hackers, it is probably do to the fact that our minds do not work the same way as a good writers mind might. For me writing is very one dimensional, while coding is multi-dimensional. I find if I do not put any attention to my writing it will look like LISP code. Because I will often give my Main points then the details in parentheses (to allow for reading if the person this point is relevant or not (Because some people would rather quickly skim messages)). Writing doesn't work well with concepts like recursion, loops, skips and jumps and functions, and for a good technical programmer these things are often built into their psyche. Also because humans are so good at reading past our many errors we do tend to put much effort as in programming, because in programming we know that we are right when the program works. Spelling and grammar is much more difficult to find errors in.

Re:Different brain function.

[Spleenl3oy]

Wow that is one of the worst written posts I have ever read! Try using some punctuation next time.

Re:Different brain function.

[LWATCDR]

I also have a learning disability but I have to wonder how is the parent judging this decline, by posts on Slashdot and emails? Okay I admit it. I don't care enough to check my Slashdot postings for grammar and spelling errors.
I also think it is part of the hacker ethic that content is more important than form. It is more important what you say than how you say it.
If you are using Mozilla I suggest getting the Spellbound extension. I find it to be a lifesaver. I may pick the wrong word but at least they are correctly spelled.

Re:Different brain function.

[Xarius]

I never heard of these learning "disabilities" years ago, but they seem to be very fashionable lately. I am not a doctor, or anything like that, but nine times out of ten it seems like a bit of a scapegoat for people. ADHD seems to be the biggest fake condition, Dyslexia I am not so sure about, but my best friend had it, once she was diagnosed she fought it hard, and can now spell and produce accurate grammar with the best of them. So it's not a massive impediment at all.

If it requires a change of thinking, change your thinking.

flamebait much, :/

Re:Different brain function.

[phkhd]

Also because humans are so good at reading past our many errors we do tend to put much effort as in programming, because in programming we know that we are right when the program works. Spelling and grammar is much more difficult to find errors in.

Or as I tend to think of it - programmers get corrected every single time the programming language syntax is not correct, but that rarely happens in email.

There are tools in place to help you - spelling and gramatical checkers. Most of them even work as you type. However, fixing little red and green underlines are not required before you press send.

Also the these tools are not perfect, nor by any means ubiquitous (I don't see any red squiggly underlines in the slashdot comment form). Spell checkers are pretty good, but I still find errors in them, mostly due to words missing from the dictionary. Grammer checkers still suck. They often recommend reorgnizing phrases in ways that don't make sense, or more typically, in ways that ruin the thought process/flow of a paragraph.

Re:Different brain function.

[jellomizer]

Well for spelling on slashdot and email timing is usually the reason for the decline. In order to get a high rank in slashdot you need to be first posts. You can have an excellent point but if you are the 4th post you may not even get modded for your point you may even get modded redundant. As for emails it is similar as well because you want to get your message out as quickly as possible. Back before email and slashdot with messaging modding. when we wrote we often had to mail out messages so we had all day to write the letter before we can send it, or if it was more time sensitive we would just use the phone. But now we need to speed write to get out point across. So making people with disabilities have much worse grammar and spelling because they cannot take the time and care to make it good.

Re:Different brain function.

[kzarling]

I admit to getting angry when people correct my spelling and grammar [right here] it is not that they care correcting me that gets me angry it is that they will...

You may have trouble spelling, but, in general, you just appear to be lazy. This is such a blatant run on sentence; do you not care?

Writing is not entirely linear, though you do view it that way, and it's evident in your sentences that run on and on, concatenated with series of and's. Well constructed, detailed thoughts can be put on paper in an almost nested fashion, with all sorts of subordinate clauses (such as your parentheses) adding layers to the writing.

Sure, programming and writing may be fairly different skills, but the fact reamins that proficiency in both requires attention to detail. If one takes pride in writing good code, one should also take pride in writing proper English. And since when could people only be good at one thing? Coding skill does not preclude writing skill.

Re:Different brain function.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just too tempting to resist. "My vocabulary is much broader then what I can spell and using some of my more advanced words I find that cannot spell them so I do a quick path to my sentence and replace it with a word combination that I do know to get the point across." This, kiddies, is a classic example of a run-on sentence. "Many times words have the same sounds to me..." Those words are called homonyms. The only way to learn them is to learn the correct word for the correct object. In other words: it takes some attention, effort, and rote memorization. Example: "it is probably do to the fact" is wrong. You mean: "it is probably due to the fact." "although I wish more time would be putting more effort in making these bigots see else wise." I see nothing bigoted about expecting someone to use language in a coherent manner. If your point is important enough to explain, it is important enough to explain clearly. "Spelling and grammar is much more difficult to find errors in." No, it is not. Proofread before you hit enter. In time, as your skills are developed, you won't have to proofread as much. My pet peeve word that is misused? "Loose" It seems that everyone wants to use that word in place of the word "lose." If I *lose* something, I have lost it. If I untie my shoelaces, my shoes will be *loose*. The words ARE important, because they are what convey your message. If you are sloppy with your grammar and spelling, how can you be assured that the receiver will understand your message? It's like dropping packets in a bitstream--the integrity of the data is destroyed. I spend *way* too much time having to "decode" what someone "probably" wanted to say, but was too lazy to write correctly. Yes, I consider it laziness. In the case of non-native speakers, I can understand confusion. This topic, however, is all about native English speakers who are, in effect, at least half-illiterate.

Re:Different brain function.

[Anonymous Coward]

[Well part of the problem for some people such as myself, have a learning disability in spelling and grammar.]

That should be "such as me", since "me" is the object of the preposition "as". If you have a learning disability, why not work to correct it? As a form of politeness, you could choose to not inflict it on the rest of us.

[...it is probably do to the fact that our minds do not work the same way as a good writers mind might.]

Use "due to" please, not "do to". This sentence is terrible. Just reading it, causes brain decay. Replace "do to the fact that" with "because". Or just start over: "it is probably because our minds do not work as the minds of good writers do."

Lastly: perhaps being illiterate is a "badge of honor" for "hackers". I've found that illiteracy and good programming seldom come from the same individual.

Re:Different brain function.

[jellomizer]

Well earlier on it was easier just to call a kid stupid and put him in the stupid class where they will just be out of the way. Learning Disabilities, are real. Yes there are some people who use it as a scapegoat, having a learning disability is not an excuse for lower quality and most of us work hard to overcome our shortcomings, but it would be nice not to be called stupid lazy idiots when we screw up.

Re:Different brain function.

[Otter]

I also think it is part of the hacker ethic that content is more important than form. It is more important what you say than how you say it.

I don't want to display Raymondian pretentions about what "hackers" are or are not. But, to my sensibilities, things like presenting your ideas clearly and taking pride in the face you show to the world are part of something!

Content may be more important than form, but it's not a zero-sum game. It's not my impression that people here are doing magnificent things with all the time they save by not using apostrophes correctly.

Re:Different brain function.

[ashridah]

Also the these tools are not perfect, nor by any means ubiquitous (I don't see any red squiggly underlines in the slashdot comment form).

You're using the wrong browser then.

Konqueror's had the ability to spellcheck form content for a while. I'm only surprised it hasn't caught on with firefox/mozilla (perhaps it already has as a plugin).

Of course, it's annoying, because my friends are all born and bred in the damned SMS generation, so if I quote them in a forum post, it has a good cry about their spelling, as if it's mine.
I really should start using '[sic]' on them. :)

ash

Re:Different brain function.

[jellomizer]

Well it is not always laziness per-say. If it took a person 1/2 an hour to get a point across because they have trouble writing, that is at least somewhat understandable. While it could take an other person with normal skills 5 minutes. So it is really laziness if a person who put a lot of time into something that is hard for them to do vs. something else some one can do easily? It is like saying you take a non-programmer with maybe a CS 101 class, with a programmer with 10 years of experience. And you have them write a program parse a text file. It takes the non-programmer 2 hours to make the program and get it to work. While the programmer can get in done in 5 minutes. Then the non-programmer program has errors in it. Does it prove that the non-programmer is just more lazy then the programmer?

Re:Different brain function.

[BewireNomali]

i've volunteered with adhd kids, and i don't think it's fake. these kids have fast... everything. fast minds, fast metabolisms, an inability to do things that require extended concentration, so contemporary methods of teaching are wasted on them, which is why they tend to underperform.

It isn't a massive impediment, but there are less inroads made into teaching adhd kids as there are for dyslexic kids. Also, the difference with dyslexia and adhd, is that schools developed methods so they could effectively teach dyslexics. Adhd kids just get medicated and stuck in classes with regular kids.

In this volunteer program, the adhd kids get physical activity at least two times a day. They get early morning recess, usually a semi-coordinated activity to burn off all that extra energy and another session after lunch. They usually drag out of school, fatigued. Parents rave at how their kids get home and need a nap from school. The upside is that the adhd bunch is a way leaner bunch than the fat kids that populate the rest of the school. The other upside is that they are more receptive in class, more cooperative with one another (adhd kids fight all the time), and better students in general.

Re:Different brain function.

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Are you as big a moron in real life as you appear on Slashdot? He just said he has a mild learning disability, and you're calling him lazy, because of the way he writes?

You deserve to get beaten with a clue stick, around the head, until you get a learning disability. Then everyone can call you lazy, and ask 'do you not care'?

"Writing is not entirely linear, though you do view it that way, and it's evident in your sentences that run on and on, concatenated with series of and's."

Um. You're not entirely blessed in this department yourself. Do you not care?

Consider: "You seem to view writing as entirely linear. Certainly, your sentences tend to run on, with too many clauses."

That's shorter, and clearer, and the sentence length is minimal.

Re:Different brain function.

[Anonymous Coward]

Writing doesn't work well with concepts like recursion, loops, skips and jumps and functions, and for a good technical programmer these things are often built into their psyche.

I strongly recommend that you read some of Douglas Hofstadter's work (Godel, Escher, Bach... being an excellent place to start). Aside from being educational, I think you would find them fascinating.

Now down to the nitty gritty...
If you don't understand how English supports recursion, just ask the nearest person.
If you still don't think language does not work for loops, you should read this sentence again.
For an example of jumping/skipping, I refer you to the above sentence.
You did not mention conditionals. If you meant to but forgot, this sentence should address that.
If, after reading all of the above, you still don't think natural language addresses functions well, you might want to consider the steps implicit in the first sentence of my post.
You also neglected to mention self-reference and self-modification which is unfortunate as that would have been exquisitely ironic.

The bottom line: the language is such a sophisticated tool that you don't even realize that you are doing all these fancy algorithmic tasks every time you open your mouth.

I am all for less than perfect communication where it gets the job done but never, ever forget that most programming languages are merely very poor analogues for written language. An idea which cannot be communicated effectively to the tremendously powerful signal processor of a human brain has no hope of being communicated correctly to a limited and literal computer.

It goes without saying that some of the best programmers I know are also excellent writers. IMO, The learned ability to express an idea in the clearest and most accurate way trancends the particular choice of language. A tendency to express ideas quickly and sloppily and the attendant consequences also seem to be independent of any particular language (except that natural languages have a tremendous amount of error detection and correction built in).

Re:Different brain function.

[BewireNomali]

Our educational system will benefit from designing programs tailored to the many different ways children learn. For this reason, I resist the notion that these conditions are "mental conditions" in the sense that I don't necessarily think them deviant. I tend to think that more such "conditions" will arise and science will conclude that the developing brain optimizes in different ways, and teach accordingly.

Re:Different brain function.

[SSSSSmokey]

Your post is the perfect example of why people need to learn to write. I agree, it is acceptable when I can understand the point and read it at close to normal speed. However, your post is horrible. Several sentences simply don't make sense at all, due to the bad grammar and spelling (because humans are so good at reading past our many errors we do tend to put much effort as in programming). PS: Disregard this if you aren't a native English speaker, which it seems you may not be.

Re:Different brain function.

[nickos]

"I've found that illiteracy and good programming seldom come from the same individual."

Only if you think script kiddies are good programmers.

Re:Different brain function.

[kzarling]

He said his learning disability applied primarily to spelling. He said that this sometimes gets in the way of grammar. However, someone around the age of 20 (since he said he was in school in the mid 80's) should know how to use punctuation and conjunctions to prevent run-on sentences - that is not complicated grammar for someone with a spelling disability.

The rewrite that you did of my sentence is certainly more coherent. I thank you, but there is a difference between my sentence and those of his that I was commenting on. Mine was a complex sentence, whereas his were merely strung out compund sentences.

Re:Different brain function.

[kzarling]

I unfortunately did not entirely get my point across. That was my fault. I did mostly mean that he was lazy for not writing a better sentence. But to address your analogy, picture a world in which everyone writes code in some way. In that world, there is no excuse for being a novice programmer - if you haven't learned yet, then you're lazy. Someone who primarily speaks English is not the equivalent of "a non-programmer with maybe a CS 101 class", so they should not write paragraphs with so many errors. Unless they're lazy.

Re:Different brain function.

[WolfWithoutAClause]

He said his learning disability applied primarily to spelling. He said that this sometimes gets in the way of grammar. However, someone around the age of 20 (since he said he was in school in the mid 80's) should know how to use punctuation and conjunctions to prevent run-on sentences - that is not complicated grammar for someone with a spelling disability.

It should not be; but he said he has a learning disability. People with learning disabilities learn more slowly, if at all, certain tasks. So, what you could do at 10, he might not manage till 15, or ever. And so on.

It doesn't mean he is lazy! He might be anyway of course, but the two are being horribly conflated by you.

You know, I'm wondering if you don't have a learning disability too. You're certainly slow on the uptake.

Re:Different brain function.

[WolfWithoutAClause]

if you haven't learned yet, then you're lazy

'Laziness' relates to how much effort they put in, not how good their results are. If they have a learning impairment they may have to put ten times as much overall effort in to achieve the same results. And yet, if they've only applied five times the effort that you needed to do something- according to you they are lazy????

How is it you can't understand simple words like lazy? Are you too lazy to use the right words?

Re:Different brain function.

[kzarling]

Ok, maybe I'm making over-generalized statements, so let me clarify.

An overwhelming number of people these days do not use correct spelling, grammar, or punctuation. They have either stopped doing so or they don't know how. Some of these people may have valid learning disabilities or other such excuses. However, most people do not. They have at least an average capacity for learning do speak and write correctly, and if they chose not to learn, then I get to call them lazy. Or maybe immature or irresponsible. And if being called lazy bothersthem enough, maybe that will make them learn to speak correctly.

Re:Different brain function.

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Perhaps you should have a particularly strong word with this peculiarly lazy asshole and they might spend the time to change their ways (although it seems unlikely in this case):

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=123976&cid=104 11747

The fucker couldn't even be bothered to capitalize any of it and had enormous run-on single-sentence paragraphs. What a lazy shit.

Re:Different brain function.

[Malc]

I sympathise with you for having a learning disability, but do not use it as an excuse. Too many people seem willing to do that these days, and it's pathetic. I too have always struggled with writing. Part of my solution (besides trying harder) is to keep a dictionary close to hand. I have several so I don't have to look far, although the most frequently used one is right by my keyboard. Another thing to do is to take time to proof read and revise bits that seem clumsy or make no sense or are just plain long-winded.

Re:Different brain function.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you write perl.......
The difference you might be thinking of is you are thinking in a visual fashion which often does not translate too well to words.

I can completly understand your post, mistakes and all.
I typically don't dwell on grammar and spelling, those who do are missing the point, failure to seperate syntax from meaning will leave you wondering why you lost out, the message between the lines is often more important than the one in black and white.
I think quite differently and putting thoughts into words is often difficult, I really don't care if others don't understand me, or try to, they are usually irrelevant. (pissing the grammar nazis off now)

The important part is I DO understand their point of view, if they don't understand what I'm getting at it's their loss.

I have used this element of failure of others to understand my intentions to my advantage many times before.

My job is not to help you, but to help myself first and many times telling you explicitly does not benefit me at all, your misunderstanding of the situation may frustrate you, but I don't care and I am not in a setting where others can freely dictate my life.

The funny part is that the people who seem to matter can understanding me in a transparent fashion, those who don't rarely catch on to the bigger picture I'm painting.

Does it matter that no one reads this post, not at all, I'm surprised I went through the effort to state the obvious here.

456987123

Re:Different brain function.

[alphaFlight]

I completely understand and agree with your assessment about not being able to distinguish between vowel sounds. I think though, this is where phonetics comes into play. Once phonetics are committed to memory, recognizing the sound triggers the memory of the proper spelling of that sound. I recently read an online article about the decision not to teach phonetics in elementary schools from the late '70s to the late '80s. The article explained that there was a notion that it was no longer necessary and the time was better spent on other topics. Interestingly, that theory was rejected in the late '80s just as may of the 20-30 year olds here on slashdot finished elementary school. Without an actual detailed study, it would be difficult to prove a link between not teaching phonetics and an inability to sound-out words, but it is nevertheless an interesting possibility that non-spellers in the 20-30 age range are the outcome of a great experiment gone wrong in elementary education.

Re:Different brain function.

[kzarling]

I had a keyboard with a broken shift key for a little while, but at least I fixed it. And capitalization lends the least to our comprehension of what is written - well after grammar, spelling, and punctuation.

I did not write run-on sentences, either. They were perfectly constructed complex sentences. You sure are putting a lot of effort into telling me how wrong and stupid I am. Do you have a personal vendetta against people who insist that English should be written correctly?

Re:Different brain function.

[FurryFeet]

Maybe being lazy is his learning disability?

*ducks*

Re:Different brain function.

[Major Lame Brain]

English is tough.

You can spell "fish" phonetically the following way:

ghyti

The "gh" makes the "f" sound as it does in the word "laugh".
The "y" makes the "i" sound as it does in the word "physics".
The "ti" makes the "sh" sound as it does in the word "station".

The idea of the above comes from the play "Pygmalion" (which was later adapted to the musical "My FairLady").

Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[rednip]

I even see the names of products and companies misspelled from time to time.

The Horror!

Do they not realize that a mediocre command of written English makes them appear less intelligent?

The Horror!

it baffles me even more that many people become enraged when you attempt to help them correct and learn from their mistakes.

You mean the people don't like to be criticized.

As someone who is constantly picked on by these people, I can say that more than often, they are rude, have very little to add to any discussion, other than showing off their impressive command of the English language. I'd be more receptive if some of them made their response to the thread at hand, and did a BTW, but that's not what happens. Usually they are just have one line response that is rude, and often picking on one or two 'mistakes', and always critical of one's intelligence. I've said it before, but it's not the diction that matters, but the message. Good grammer is only helpful to get a message across. I'm not writing a fucking paper, it's an response in a damn forum.

Am I missing something here?

Yes, good humor, understanding, and basic people skills.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[duncanIdaho.clone()]

Yes, good humor, understanding, and basic people skills.

Oh snap! I'ma hafta remember dat, yo.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG pwnT by this hax0r5. Go back to skool nub.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Danta]

Usually they are just have one line response

Talk English, dude!

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

You misspelled grammar!!! HAHAOMGWTFBBQ!!!!11one

Oh, right, bold. I get it.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[ZephyrXero]

"...I can say that more than often, they are rude, have very little to add to any discussion, other than showing off their impressive command of the English language. I'd be more receptive if some of them made their response to the thread at hand, and did a BTW, but that's not what happens. Usually they are just have one line response that is rude, and often picking on one or two 'mistakes', and always critical of one's intelligence."

So they're just like computer geeks, but of the english language?

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading a message with poor grammar is like trying to watch someone speak who is naked or has blood dripping from their arm. It's difficult to focus on the message when there's something drawing your attention away. Poor grammar and/or spelling sticks out like a sore thumb.

It's not difficult to learn and use correct grammar, or at least mostly-correct grammar, and then to spend 30 seconds proofreading your post.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the OP intended this to be an attack just on forum writing style.

It's true that in forums (fora?) such as Slasdot, people try to argue points by pointing out grammar and spelling mistakes, and you just need to acknowledge the fact that these people have just lost that argument. Ignore these (basically ad hominem) responses if you must, and respond only to those that stick to the topic at hand.

I think responses in venues such as Slashdot should be excused from excessive scrutiny, but I'd say that grammar and spelling mistakes are becoming more prevalent in technical manuals, design documents, and other places where, quite frankly, you'd expect some level of competency. Outside of Slashdot, diction might matter as much as the message. If you're communicating to the world what your product does, or what you want to build, then you must do so professionally, and that means at the very least running a spelling and grammar check on your text.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[__aaaaxm1522]

You don't like to be criticized? Makes you grumpy does it?

That's how I feel when I'm forced to try and make sense of a "document" written by somebody that can't make the effort to use something close to proper grammar and spelling.

Unlike some of the grammar-Nazis out there, I'm happy enough to pass over minor mistakes. However, if I have to spend extra time trying to decode your message to me, of course I'm going to correct you. That way, in the future I won't have to waste my time trying to decipher your cruddy excuse for a document again.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[js3]

Nobody likes a grammar nazi because half of the time, the person who made the mistake realized it after it was typed and in walks captain obvious trying show how smart he is. just my 2c

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[imac.usr]

I've said it before, but it's not the diction that matters, but the message. Good grammer is only helpful to get a message across. I'm not writing a fucking paper, it's an response in a damn forum.

Eh, I don't know. I tend to consider the diction an integral part of the message, myself; if there are glaringly obvious errors in basic structure, spelling, or diction, and I don't know the person well enough in any other way, it's going to impact the message for me. It's just the way I roll.

My father, a successful engineer with DEC for 15+ years, is a notoriously bad speller, to the point where I sometimes have to phonetically read his letters. (Make of that what you will in regards to my comments above. :P) The fact that I know he's intelligent and a good communicator of ideas mitigates his lack of polish grammatically in my eyes. If one of his co-workers wrote to me in such a style, though, I'd wonder how he made it out of college.

I try very hard not to be a jerk about grammar or spelling, learning to roll with the punches. I've almost gotten to the point where I consider a phrase like "makes its own gravy" to be written wrong because of the missing apostrophe, because it's so common -- even in advertising copy, for pete's sake.

I sometimes wonder if I'm one of the last generations (I'm 34) who will have any solid grounding in grammar, spelling, and basic English constructs for the future.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[MrTester]

>I'm not writing a fucking paper, it's an >response in a damn forum.

ahem...

"an" is used when the next word begins with a vowel. Otherwise you use "a".

Quick, somebody hide me.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[servognome]

I've said it before, but it's not the diction that matters, but the message.

You would think so, logically. However, people tend to pass judgement on the messenger and weigh the argument accordingly.

I'm not writing a fucking paper, it's an response in a damn forum

You're involving yourself in a public conversation. As such you invite others to criticize any weakness. Whether it's a flaw in your logic, information, or spelling. You have the option of ignoring those responses, or using them constructively to improve your skills.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[throx]

I've said it before, but it's not the diction that matters, but the message.

The diction matters because it distorts the message. That's the whole point of diction - it defines the parameters for getting the message through.

Reading a post, a report or an email from someone who you know is technically adept but suffers from poor English skills is like watching a flickering television set. You know the message is there but you have to view it several times before you get through the static to what it actually means.

In addition, poor diction from someone that you are sure actually knows better is simply a matter of their being inconsiderate. It takes very little time and effort to get spelling and grammar correct and to not make at least an effort is just being contemptuous of the reader.

If anyone is "missing something", it's those that defend bad English usage. It's not acceptable, it's lazy and frankly if you can't even try communicate properly then you probably don't deserve to be heard. THAT is basic people skills, and I rarely have good humor for those that express contempt towards their readers.

Throx

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[SLi]

I for one am happy that this topic was raised here on Slashdot, where I see perhaps most of the examples of poor English.

I've said it before, but it's not the diction that matters, but the message.

I speak Finnish as my native language. Still I have noticed the poor spelling of English by a large number of geeks. The same seems to hold, perhaps to a smaller degree, in Finnish.

What you said in the sentence that I quoted is really wisdom, and I hope I could have such an attitude myself (but I wouldn't sacrifice my diction for it). Still I have noticed that whenever I read poorly written (grammar/spelling) text, I always have a negative presupposition against it. I just can't help it, it's something so deep in me. And I am sure I'm not the only one among those to whom grammar and spelling has never been a problem who thinks that way. What I seem to think subconsciously is something along the lines, "the writer doesn't even want to put the effort into making their text easily readable, so they cannot be very serious". Really reading poorly written text can be a slight annoyance, which you might not know (or maybe you do) if you aren't so fluent yourself.

While I'm trying to get rid of this, I'm sure a very large number of people aren't. So really I believe you would do well to yourself if you put some effort in trying to learn proper grammar and spelling if you want to be taken seriously.

Of course if you have some real, diagnosed disabilities, this might not be a possibility. That's one of the reasons why I'm trying really hard to get rid of that attitude of mine. But believe me, it's not easy (and I don't consider myself snotty or superior in any other sense).

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Gorath99]

Very true. This is especially annoying for people who are not native English speakers. For some of these people it's a remarkable achievement that they speak the language as well as they do, yet nowadays they are constantly being abused by people who, more often than not, cannot form a single coherent sentence in a language other than English.

There's nothing inherently wrong with pointing out mistakes - in fact many non-native English speakers appreciate it, as it helps them to improve their command of the language - but please do so in a respectful manner.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

it's not the diction that matters, but the message. Good grammer is only helpful to get a message across.

Ideally, that'd be right. But unfortunately, apart when you really try to give neutral information (like a cooking recipe or something), when you give a message in a human society, it's almost always about imposing your point of view, converting someone to your point of view, or telling a story that'll captivate your audience, or asking something.

In that light, it's little wonder that your message must be written in properly: just like perfume, the wrapping (packaging, bottle, gift-wrapping) is as important, if not more important than the actual product (which is merely a cheap dose of alcohol-based scented liquid). And just like people buy expensive perfumes in nice wrappings, and not 5 gallon plastic-bottles of the same stuff for cheap, people are much more likely to hear your message if it's written in proper english.

That's just how it is. If you ignore that rule, you won't often get to win an argument, get something you want,... and you're more likely to stagnate at the bottom of the social ladder.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Its n00b, not nub you dumbass

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[keshto]

Good grammer is only helpful to get a message across. I'm not writing a fucking paper, it's an response in a damn forum.

Yes, it is a damn forum. But you are doing exactly what you are doing when you writing an academic paper-- communicating your ideas. And it is *your* job to communicate your ideas well, not *my* job to try and parse garbage because you, as the person writing the blurb, can't be bothered to correct your spellings. Your bad-spelling and l33t-speak distract me from your ideas. Your loss.

You bitch about the people who try to correct you. I agree they are wrong- they are wasting their time. If you cared enough, you'd have learned by now. My strategy would be to silently assume you are stupid and discount whatever you say. If you really are smart, I'll ultimately appreciate your opinions, but not right away. Prejudiced? Yes. My loss? Probably not. There are few people who are smart and yet don't say things reasonably correctly. Chances are, you are not one of them.

Note that this is not inconsistent with the claim that "it's OK to be lax on Slashdot, because this is not an article in Science/Nature." You wouldn't write "BTW" on an academic paper, but in informal communication I think it's OK. l33t-speak and mis-spellings, on the other hand, are almost never OK.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[dolphinling]

Vowel sound, not vowel. It makes it easier to pronounce. That's why you see "an honorary degree", but not "an hospital" (unless the person has a really weird accent and pronounces it "an 'ospital").

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[djSpinMonkey]

Usually they are just have one line response

What you say??

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

in walks captain obvious trying show how smart he is

I think you mean "trying to show".

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[rjelks]

"Good grammer is only helpful to get a message across."

I hate to do this, but it's grammar, not grammer.

Just kidding. I think that we all rely on spellcheck too much.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Zurd]

If you notice an error in a post and don't correct it before hitting the submit button, it's like deliberately stabbing your readers in the eye.

This makes me even angrier than the idea that you didn't know any better.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[sleepingsquirrel]

I sometimes wonder if I'm one of the last generations (I'm 34) who will have any solid grounding in grammar, spelling, and basic English constructs for the future.

Yes. Let me reassure you that you are indeed the special shining star that your mother told you. The climax of humanity, if I may. Some day, I'm sure we'll all worship you and your grammatical correctness. It is truely the end of an era. I don't know how we'll manage. <sniff>

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[rednip]

I had a college professor who couldn't say the word "purchases", and he used the term often. It was like nails dragging across the chalkboard. Do you think the I should have stood up in class, interupted him, and said "that's purchases you unitellegent moron".

I try very hard not to be a jerk about grammar or spelling, learning to roll with the punches.

Sometimes in life we need to overlook our pet peeves, otherwise we cannot live in society. Personally I almost feel compelled to yell at people who have "W 04" bumper stickers, but I have to understand that they have the right to exercise their political views, even if it's so very wrong.

I sometimes wonder if I'm one of the last generations (I'm 34) who will have any solid grounding in grammar, spelling, and basic English constructs for the future.

Personally, I see a resurgance of writing skills, thanks to email, forums and blogs. I'm just a little older than you, and personally I grew up never writing a letter, and avoiding anything that required a written response. It wasn't until I started writing emails and posting in various forums that I made a real effort at both spelling and grammar. So while I take SN and GT messages to heart as well as I can, I still berate them for having nothing else to add. Kinda like the rude teenage girl who talks about your ugly zit loudly right behind your back.

Again SP and GT aren't always bad, just for God's Sake, add something, and really show your general intellegence.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[greenegg77]

I sometimes wonder if I'm one of the last generations (I'm 34) who will have any solid grounding in grammar, spelling, and basic English constructs for the future.

Nope, we're not the last generation. I know that my kids hate me for being a grammar Nazi with them, but I think it's important for them to do it right. When I read something that has been published, I expect it to be professional. If the company/publisher doesn't want to take the time to spell-check and grammar-check their document, then they obviously haven't taken the time to make sure their product works or their news story is correct either.

In a forum such as /., (now that's a nerve-wracking combo of punctuation) grammar is less important, since this is an informal discussion. Using correct grammar here, though, will make you sound more intelligent and knowledgeable, thus giving more credence to your post. On the other hand, posts with numerous misspellings and grammatical errors make the poster sound like an ignoramus, whether they are or not.

Personally, though, I love it when a Nazi jumps on someone and makes mistakes in their own post. If you're going to get all self-righteous on someone, you better make sure your own nose is clean. Nothing like correcting the Nazi on his own mistakes...

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[baronben]

Here's why we need to be careful about language:

*I effected the change

*I affected the change

Two words, which mean almost the same thing, which sound alike, but have very different implications. The first implies that I spearheaded the change, that it is my responsibility. The second implies that I had slight input on the change.

The English language has one of the largest vocabularies in the world, which means that it has many nuanced definitions. It is important to use the words that you mean to. If you don't, than you're not communicating the message you meant to.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[codermotor]

"I've almost gotten to the point where I consider a phrase like "makes its own gravy" to be written wrong because of the missing apostrophe, because it's so common -- even in advertising copy, for pete's sake."

That's because "its" is the proper spelling of the possessive form of the pronoun it.

It's is a contraction of the phrase it is.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[wdanen]

Parent knows it's correct. He/she was saying that the vast amount of incorrect usage of punctuation has almost caused him/her to assume its is wrong simply because it doesn't have an apostrophe like contractions should.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[raindrop#1]

"it's going to impact the message for me"

Surely you mean, "it's going to affect the message..."?

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[rednip]

But you are doing exactly what you are doing when you writing an academic paper-- communicating your ideas.

You wouldn't write "BTW" on an academic paper, but in informal communication I think it's OK.

Why thank you, but you don't respond you just...

silently assume you are stupid and discount whatever you say.

Truth is there are two kinds of problems, one where someone mispelts (or missuses) a word or too and others where a writter makes a ulmost incomphensiable senetance. The second bugs me as well, but if you can't read over a couple of words you can't clearly make out, I'd suggest never reading Chaucer (just kidding).

Again, my message to all of you GT and SN is I try to take your damn message to heart, just add something to the message rather than just belittling my entire message for an error, it doesn't add to the general conversation.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[sharkey]

Take off every Gerund!
For great participle!!

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[chota]

"English" (the language) is a proper noun, and should be capitalized. The intarwebs told me so.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[ppswede]

I fully agree with parent. I'm not a perfect speller, especially not in English which is not my native language, but when I read a text I take in two types of information: The actual content of the text as well as a view on the person who wrote that text. If a text is full of spelling mistakes and is structured in a bad way I judge whoever wrote the text as either sloppy or perhaps not competent enough to write a text about the subject (if structured in a very incoherent way). I don't go around correcting everyone, and I do know that it's human to make mistakes, but it astounds me that so many people don't care how they present themselves in the written language.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Blakey Rat]

Personally I almost feel compelled to yell at people who have "W 04" bumper stickers, but I have to understand that they have the right to exercise their political views, even if it's so very wrong.

I'm glad you're here to tell us which political views are right and wrong.

But I do reserve the right to yell at anybody with a Howard Dean bumper sticker. That's just sad.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[6Yankee]

I've almost gotten to the point where I consider a phrase like "makes its own gravy" to be written wrong because of the missing apostrophe, because it's so common -- even in advertising copy, for pete's sake.

And that, right there, is half the problem. The education system completely fell apart some time ago; the first batch of kids to have been failed by it have now gone through uni and into the media, where they serve to corrupt the remainder of the populace by example.

The language is doomed. But I intend to fight its demise.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[AngelfMercy]

I sometimes wonder if I'm one of the last generations (I'm 34) who will have any solid grounding in grammar, spelling, and basic English constructs for the future.
don't worry, us ESL kids will keep the faith

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[rockola]

I speak Finnish as my native language. ... I have noticed that whenever I read poorly written (grammar/spelling) text, I always have a negative presupposition against it. I just can't help it, it's something so deep in me.

That's the wonderful effect of the Finnish school system, where everyone learns to read and write at least two languages, almost everyone who goes to high school learns to read and write a third one (and even those who don't go have to take a third language for a number of years, learning is another matter though), and many take an optional fourth and possibly fifth language. However, speaking any of those is another matter... as the classes aren't really designed for conversational skills. Or weren't, way back when (although I have no reason to believe things have changed too much since).

And yes, poor grammar annoys the hell out of me too. Especially when I'm the culprit.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

"You mean the people don't like to be criticized."

See, there's a difference between "criticized" and "corrected".

Correcting someone's mistake shouldn't be seen as "omg you are just so horribly uneducated, you stupid filthy waste of breath". Yet so many people who make mistakes will get frothing mad over the correction *because* they see it as a criticism.

It's the difference between saying "You made a mistake." and "You're an idiot for making a mistake."

None of us are perfect, and there are definitely places where you shouldn't waste your own (figurative) breath correcting people, but if you adapt your "IM" writing style to real discussions elsewhere and people have trouble grokking what you're trying to say, you might want to consider the formal version of english to make your points.

I think one of the good points made above is that it's becoming hard for "us normal folk" to figure out whether a person is just out-and-out dumb or if they're just lazy. How do we decide whether to take such a person seriously? Does he have a real point he's trying to get across? Does it matter if we can't understand what he's trying to say? And should he get pissed if we say something about it?

Certainly is a can of worms.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

It is truely the end of an era.

Yes, it truly is. So I guess you're from one of the more recent generations that no longer have a solid grounding in grammar, spelling and basic English constructs? ;-P

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

> You mean the people don't *like* to be
> criticized.

Like it or not, for every grammar nazi with the courage and courtesy to criticize you to your face over your errors, there are a thousand more who simply criticize you silently as an ignorant hillbilly. You're being criticized either way.

Grammar and spelling errors are 100% preventable with very little effort. Whether you're writing in a formal or casual situation, sloppy language just makes you look uneducated, stupid, and/or lazy. Is that what you want?

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[lamp540]

You seem to think that you are more grammatical than other people. No one is more grammatical than anyone else. All languages have consistent grammars. You're just complaining about people not spelling or speaking like you do.

This bullshit hyper focus on the one true grammar and the one true spelling is a new thing. Look at writing from the 18th and 19th century.

Your ability to form perfect "english" sentences doesn't make you smarter or better than anyone else, it's only a way for uppity middle class and upper class people to look down on other people. Get off your high horse.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[almaw]

> ...when I'm forced to try and make sense of a "document"...

I think you mean "try to make sense". ;-)

If you're going to whinge about people's grandma, learn how to suck eggs first... :)

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[SuperRob]

Well, that right there is part of the problem. Some people think that they have a firm command of the English language, but can find "mistakes" in correctly written English. I find it helpful to just assume I don't know for sure and let it slide.

The exception is when I see someone making a mistake that I used to make; I might correct the person and just explain that I used to do it too. More often than not, I'll just chuckle quietly to myself. :)

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

"Try and" is accepted in certain dialects of American English, especially North Midlands (of which Pittsburghese is a member). Even though the meaning is changed under a strict interpretation of what is said, to say "try and do" is to present an optimistic view where completion of a task is the necessary outcome of the input of effort, thus making it similar to, if not the same as, saying "try to do."

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[It's the tripnaut!]

Make of that what you will in regards to my comments above.

I have always wondered what the correct usage of "in regards" really is. I know for a fact that saying "with regards to" is actually incorrect since it should be "with regard to." That being said, shouldn't it be "in regard to?"

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[rednip]

Like it or not, for every grammar nazi with the courage and courtesy to criticize you to your face over your errors,

Courage, from an AC, WAHH ha ahah ahahahahaha ahahahah ahahhah, (catches breath) that's a good one.

simply criticize you silently as an ignorant hillbilly

And that's supposed to be *courtesy*? How very *typical*

Grammar and spelling errors are 100% preventable with very little effort.

Post other than AC and let us all see your posting history. Me thinks, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Either a) you made many spelling and grammer errors yourself. b)you rarely post more than a quick line or two, and thus making it easy to edit.

I've said it with every single reply to many of these posts, I take what SN and GT say to heart, but I find that they never add anything to the discussion other than their literary masturbation over correct diction.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[bakes]

No. Do, or do not. There is no try.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[sleepingsquirrel]

touché

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[rednip]

...effected...affected...Two words, which mean almost the same thing, which sound alike, but have very different implications.

Very true, but in both cases the writer indicates that he has made an effort at least add to the change. SN and GT don't do that, they just jump in with their mighty intellect and attempt wipe away a couple minutes of original thought, and perhaps even real insight with a quick critique of diction. I do try to take what they say to heart, for the reasons which you point out. Personally, I realilized a couple of years ago that I needed to express myself more clearly, both for professional and personal reasons. However, I've found that the typical SN and GT is really just trying to insult me when they can't otherwise 'beat' me.

Intellegent people can (and should, maybe need) to be able to carry on conversation which those who are less able. Pompous arrogant jerks need to tell the world why they don't need (or want to) communicate with those they deam less capable than themselves.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[fitten]

I pass over most mistakes, too, and make some myself from time to time. Like you, nothing is more frustrating at work than reading some piece of garbage that someone who cannot express their ideas wrote and trying to piece it all together.

Here's another tip. Writing your ideas clearly is usually much (much) harder than simply telling someone your ideas. I actually take the time to write my ideas down sometimes because, in doing so, I make them more concrete in my own mind. I can't tell you the number of times I've discovered issues with something I was designing simply because I was writing a design description document about the design.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Nimey]

Quite right. It's a form of rudeness to your audience to force them to parse and reparse your butchered English into something remotely understandable. I include the wankers who refuse to obey capitalization rules, e.g. lowercasing all letters.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[MochaMan]

Good grammer is only helpful to get a message across.

And what, if not that, are you attempting to do when you express your opinion?

BTW:

You mean the people don't like to be criticized. [question mark required]

As someone who is constantly picked on by these people, I can say that more than often, [unnecessary comma] they are rude, and [required] have very little to add to any discussion, other than showing off their impressive command of the English language. I'd be more receptive to this criticism [add this] if some of them made their response to the thread at hand, [unnecessary comma] and did [incorrect verb: "and ended with" works] a BTW, but that's not what happens. Usually they are just have [unnecessary] one line responses [needs the 's' to accord with 'they'] that is [are] rude, and [unnecessary] often picking [just 'pick'] on one or two 'mistakes' [quotes unnecessary ;)], and are [required] always [hyperbole: use 'usually' or 'almost always'] critical of one's intelligence. [new paragraph] I've said it before, but it's not the diction, but the message [moved this from the end of the sentence] that matters. Good grammer [sic] is only helpful to get a message across. I'm not writing a fucking paper, it's an [you mean 'a'] response in a damn forum.

Am I missing something here?

Yes, good humor, understanding, and basic people skills.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[DruggedBunny]

Unless I'm missing something, "makes its own gravy" is grammatically correct. Possessive its has no apostrophe, assuming that's what you're referring to.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[TodPunk]

A bit different. Here's why:

I had a Business Communications course in college about a year ago. It was just a 100 level course, and something I had thought might include references to proper layouts to important communique. I was wrong. It was a grammar nazi fest set out by the professor who had 2 PHDs in ENGLISH!

It was the worst 2 weeks of my life (I dropped the class, quickly). It was someof the most nitpicky rules and regulations to writing that I've ever seen, and I've watched /. for a while now. In the end of the day, though, I learned a powerful lesson:

Despite his 2 PHDs and possibly large paycheck, I tend to get more done in a day with more people than he does by spreading his "knowledge" of the English language. Even though he's on at least 3 committees that decide how things are presented to city councils and what not, I have learned there's a balance between expecting perfection in grammar, and getting things communicated.

Short Version: Grammar matters, but only to a point. If the small problems in your packaging are that important to the person you're communicating to, they probably won't be helping you get much done in the near future anyway.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[rednip]

You are 100% right. Now if only I could get you to edit my posts in real time, I'd have the ability to make raelly good posts. :)

Truth is if I added the time that you took to edit my post, and combined it with the time I took to create the thoughts, my post would have been on the 4th page by now, and you would never have read it. Since the topic is spelling and grammar errors your post is on topic and relavent, but still it'd be nice if your post contained some other content. You know, its missing something, perhaps a blatant critique of my intelligence, rather than just being implied. You know, I practically feel cheated, most other SN and GT do that. How dare you, being subtle like that!

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[jdgeorge]

I don't know how we'll manage.

You needn't worry about that. Literate managers who speak fluent Chinese will be provided for the members of your generation.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it hard to believe someone could really have problems with mistakes that make something hard to understand. I can read just about anything and get the point of what the person was trying to say. Maybe you are so hung up on finding mistakes it distracts you from the material you are reading. I can say that my spelling and grammar skills absolutely suck. All through school, I was A+ with math, physics, computers, electronics but I was the bottom of the barrel with english and history. I had no interest in those classes and they did not come naturally to me. I can grasp any concept with little effort but straight up memorizing lists and figures is hard. Every thing I've done professionally in my life was either manual labor or highly technical. In the military I fixed radar and communication gear then moved on to be a very good fullt qualified nuclear reactor operator. I moved up the ranks quickly because of my technical ability. I got out of the military and decided to try computers. In 3 years I moved from a tier 2 technician to the lead network engineer and more then doubled my salary. I can also fix just about anything as I fully understand mechanical and electronic priciples. On cars I've replaced transmissions, half shafts and CV joints, timing belts, cylinder heads and more with no real training with cars. On the construction side, I've built an addition to my house, put up an above ground pool, and built a few nice decks. I guess my point is.. You can be a very "smart" person and still suck at spelling and grammar. The two are not related. People who ONLY associate intelligence with good spelling and grammar have a very shallow and limited view of others. I currently work in top 25 law firm. I can tell you from first hand experience there is more to overall well rounded intelligence then good use of the english launguage.
If anyone has a problem comprehending what I am trying to say here because of my grammar and spelling mistakes, I feel bad for you.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[baronben]

You're right. I'm a big believer in proper grammar and usage. If I were in charge, The Elements of Style would be waved around like Mao's Quotations. If someone gives me a paper to edit, I'll bring out my red pen and make damn well sure that all their commas follow the Harvard tradition. However, this is the internet we're talking on, you have to expect trolls. If people are going to troll, I'd much rather them yelling about grammar instead of hot grits. I think this blog of geek etiquette said it best: "Be conservative in what you generate and liberal in what you accept." It applies to grammar comments along with everything else in the world.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[spiff8675309]

Eh, I don't know. I tend to consider the diction an integral part of the message, myself; if there are glaringly obvious errors in basic structure, spelling, or diction, and I don't know the person well enough in any other way, it's going to impact the message for me.

As it should. Poor structure, grammar, and spelling is just another way of announcing to the world: "I'm sloppy and I don't care".

I sometimes wonder if I'm one of the last generations (I'm 34) who will have any solid grounding in grammar, spelling, and basic English constructs for the future.

What I don't understand is how this happens with college educated individuals. I'm 35 and I seem to remember not only English composition classes, but also classes that required me to write research papers. Have colleges become so focused on "teach them how to program and push them out the door" that they have forgotten they are institutions of "higher learning" - not just trade schools? Obviously everyone makes occasional errors, but so much of the prose being published today is just atrocious.

I can tell you, as someone who occasionally has to read resumes, that you will not even get a call back, much less an interview, if the spelling and grammar in your resume are not perfect.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

> Yes, good humor, understanding, and basic people skills.

So, you want tolerance toward stupid, lazy people?

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe he was saying that phrases such as "makes its own gravy" look like they're written wrong to him because he's so used to seeing them spelled incorrectly as "makes it's own gravy".

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[1u3hr]

If you notice an error in a post and don't correct it before hitting the submit button, it's like deliberately stabbing your readers in the eye.

Don't take it personally. My grammar is pretty good (I work professionally as an editor) but my typing isn't. My problems with Slashdot posts are mostly technical: 1) no built-in spellcheck 2) an ugly interface with a crappy small font (Why can't we choose the font in our preferences?) 2) no undo 3) preview sometimes takes 30 seconds or more. All of which contribute to a "Fuck it, just type and submit" mentality; when I see the result I often cringe but there's nothing to be done then. If I really want to do it right I type it in my text editor and preview as well, especially if I have links, but that's really way too much time to spend on this ephemera.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[B.D.Mills]

You raise good points. I guess it depends on the level of formality of the environment.

If it's an informal public forum like Slashdot then I assume that every mistake I see is a typo and act accordingly. For example, my spelling is good but my typing can be spectacularly awful, so I must be forgiving. My early days online were in the days of 300 bps modems and often spectacular line noise. Have you ever seen what line noise could do to otherwise coherent messages?

On the other hand, if it's a formal specification for a software project or other similar formal document, then I would feel free to query every misspelling and grammar error I encounter, especially in the specs for the user interface. Professional software must be spelt 100% correctly.

(BTW, it seems the line noise gremlins got to you today, flipping one bit to change "grammar" into "grammer". Damn those gremlins.)

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[1u3hr]

I've almost gotten to the point where I consider a phrase like "makes its own gravy" to be written wrong because of the missing apostrophe, because it's so common -- even in advertising copy, for pete's sake.

Note: "Makes its own gravy" is CORRECT -- "it's" = "it is", not possessive. The rule is, for almost all pronouns (except "one") no apostrophe with possessive. And "Pete" is a name, give it a capital.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[1u3hr]

Okay, some other posts have made the point that the OP didn't actually mean "its" was wrong.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[RedBear]

I've said it before, but it's not the diction that matters, but the message. Good grammer is only helpful to get a message across. I'm not writing a fucking paper, it's an response in a damn forum.

Sure, but if you write properly in a damn forum you'll be much less likely to write incoherently in a place where it really makes a difference. In a business report, say. Those who post in places like this while abstaining from use of proper grammar, spelling, punctuation and shift keying are certainly not saving me any time as I try to interpret the chicken scratches they call words. If you're not trying to get a message across, why are you posting?

It's all well and good to gloss over the occasional spelling or grammar error, and everyone should do that because no one is perfect. But when the errors start to outnumber the non-errors it gets very difficult for anyone to have any respect for the poster's education and/or intelligence, and thus it's difficult to respect their message. A damn forum is really no different from an important business report. You are putting yourself down on the page no matter what. Those words aren't on their own. They represent you to whoever you're talking to. What you're basically saying is that because I'm a forum reader I'm not important enough to make an effort to communicate clearly with me.

You don't save time by not using the shift key or punctuation, yet that is always the most common excuse given, as if the rules of linguistic communication are less important in this particular place of communication. A lack of respect for grammatical rules shows on a certain level a lack of respect for the people you are talking to, because you make them do extra work to try to interpret what you're saying. Just because you can read it doesn't mean we can.

The original poster is not a troll, nor is he lacking in good humor or people skills. At least, no more so than those who eschew the very rules that allow us to communicate in the first place. He's even making an effort to understand a different mindset rather than heap ridicule on people for their knowledge or lack thereof. Don't compare him to the idiots in your experience who heap criticism on you for making a few mistakes. Those people are just as stupid as the ones who can't use the shift key, they just happen to be good with grammar and spelling. So let's just leave them out of this, OK?

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Entrinzikyl]

I tend to consider the diction an integral part of the message, myself;

What bothers me more than bad spelling and grammar are the people who complain about other people's errors and then go about making errors of their own. I don't want to pick on the poster because he doesn't seem as arrogant as many grammar nazis, but in the above sentence the word myself is redundant. It serves no purpose there, and it reduces the clarity of the sentence.

The problem with grammar is that it really is subjective. You can't please everyone, because there really is no absolutelu correct of way of writing. We all have our pet peeves, and if we would all just stop whining about them things might be better.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Apocros]

while i generally agree, i have to take some exception to the capitalization bit. i find the shift keys (both of them) are rather inconvenient to hit while typing (yes, i'm rather certain my technique would make Mavis Beacon cringe, but i can do it quite fast and accurately), so i almost never capitalize anything words other than names of people (other proper nouns have to live without). it's not about being contrary, simply convenience. and in this case, convenience means avoiding awkward finger stretches for the sake of speed and digital comfort.

further, this habit i've developed is reinforced by working almost exclusively in a computer environment wherein capital letters are infrequently used (eg unix). but, other than my aversion to the shift key, i try to spell correctly and use proper grammar. when that doesn't happen, it's almost always a case of my mind or fingers getting ahead of the other, and i cringe when i read such mistakes in my own writing.

still, i suppose the capitalization issue bothers some as much as missing commas and malapropisms tend to bother me. to each his own, n'est pas?

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[izomiac]

But geeks tend to be more tolerant, after all, don't most people here occasionally use Microsoft products?

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[__aaaaxm1522]

Nice catch, thanks.

Before you make high & mighty commments about learning to suck eggs, you might want to re-read my post. I believe I said that I tended to ignore minor mistakes. Obviously, you don't. :)

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[__aaaaxm1522]

You're absolutely right, and I even knew that one. Fingers fly a bit too fast, and looks what happens.

Thanks for the catch.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh. Wow! Gosh you are smart. You've worked for SO MANY BIG PLACES! I LOVE YOU!

err, whatever dude. Feel the need to brag to compensate for some inadequacies? Your spelling/grammar is pretty good. I don't know about the other guy, but I've seen some pretty fucked up documents, as in "Bob wrote this? Fuck, it looks like it's been run through Google Translator from English to Chinese to German and back six times"

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

I sometimes wonder if I'm one of the last generations (I'm 34) who will have any solid grounding in grammar, spelling, and basic English constructs for the future.

I think ur right m8 :).

Seriously though, some of the people my age (mid-twenties) couldn't write a grammatically correct sentence to save their life. Here's a snippet from an email I got recently:

ill see if i can get thursday off thowe any one ales comeing out and do u wanna com out on satreday

This man is 24 years old and hasn't got any learning difficulties or anything like that. I'd say he's below average, but the gap between him and the average person isn't anywhere near as wide as I am comfortable with.

I remember when I was eleven or so, I was playing a game with somebody else my age on holiday, and he insisted that "cat" was wrong and "kat" was right. I honestly thought he was joking first - until he told me "I know I'm right because I go to an expensive school that costs thousands and thousands" (paraphrased, but that was the tone of it).

I'm just scared a day will arrive when reading won't be taught in schools, just how to change channels.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[b0rk b0rk b0rk]

I sometimes wonder if I'm one of the last generations (I'm 34) who will have any solid grounding in grammar, spelling, and basic English constructs for the future.

I don't think so... I'm sixteen, and the misuse of "its" makes me cringe every time I see it. Most of the (intelligent) people my age I know can spell decently

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[elgatozorbas]

I'm not writing a fucking paper, it's an response in a damn forum.

So?

You can 'unlearn' the spelling you usually use in a whitepaper? You need not turn on the SPU (speling processing unit)? The people reading the forum are less important than those reading the white paper?

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Martin Spamer]

I've almost gotten to the point where I consider a phrase like "makes its own gravy" to be written wrong because of the missing apostrophe, because it's so common -- even in advertising copy, for pete's sake.

gotten to should be reached.
written wrong should be wrongly written
for pete's sake should be for petes' sake it's the plural of pete as a substiture people in general and possesive. So the apostrophe goes on the end.

Normally I would let these slide but given your position I assume you would want to know :)

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, okay, okay.
Let me think of the most educated man I know...
Uhh... HANNIBAL LECTOR! Okay? Yeah. I mean, could you just imagine him s(?)itting on the toilet learning how to dissasemble a gun while listening to classical music? Yeah, that guys badass. Oh and yeah! Remember Manhunter from the eighties? It had the guy from csi in it and in it Hannibal was played by some dude that wasn't Anthony Hopkins, but was still cool I guess. So- Oh yeah and

***Spoiler alert, my man!***

remember that part where he played with the phone to call out? WAY COOL MAN!! Friggin' Hannibal's a phreak! This was in the eighties remember? So I bet the dude had, like, a bbs account and everything.

So anyways, my point... uh..
Yeah, okay. Hannibal's the most intellectual dude I know. So like, let's say you're - what's her name. Jodie Foster. But instead of Jodie Foster, you're you and you've got to write a report on Hannibal "the Cannibal!" Lector. So when you go up to him with your papers (this is after you're told ten times not to approach the glass) when you go up to him. Introduce yourself and everything, right? Hello, I'm whatever from the FBI and he ignores the little quiz you want him to play with. Okay? Let's say he's bored. Like, in the mood to be his normal sadistic self. Let's say he wants to get inside your mind and all that. Maybe get you to free him or something. So, he dismisses the paper, has you sit down and talk to him. You respect the guy in some ways right? Want to command his discipline. THis guy, he knows random and out of the way shit and it totally all makes sense in that head of his. He starts to rub off on you. You catch a little bit of his prose. Sort of like when you're around a drunk or some stoned jerk-off. You sort of catch it. Oh- or like when you speak with a dude who has english as a second language. Don't you find your self speaking to them in their own broken style? Exactly like that man. We're monkey. I don't want to fly too off subject with memetics and shit but you get my drift, right man? Okay. So you're there in that -what's it called. Oh shit. Asylum? No.. uh.. Institution? Christ! I forget. Okay whatever, you're there. You want to write a good report for the boss and you want some of his skills. His sharp intellect. So you talk to him, naturally. From the heart. He sees through bullshit, so you level with him don't try any fancy tricks. You revert to a safe medium of communication. You, you're sensitive to grammar. It hurts you. You're like that chick from Pattern Recognition except you're allergic to bad spelling instead of ... what was she allergic too? Christ.. The word's not coming to me. DAMN! I hate when this happens! RGH! One minute, let me go check. Okay, I'm back. She was allergic to logos and slogans and shit. 'specialy the tire dude. Yeah, see. I didn't even open the book. I just saw it and it came back. Okay so... Yeah, naturally you have good grammar. Just like, naturally, the girl wears brandless clothing in that book. So you think that might win you some points with Hannibal. Yeah, I know he's a killer and all but the guy's got moxy. If he wasn't what he was he'd probably be uh... someone cool.. Like Jesus or Ghandi or something. So like, he's a God in a way, a celebrity, an icon, a symbol, a legend. You'd maybe want to one-up him with the skills you are naturally adept at. So you two gab.

Now this guy's a stone cold MACHINE. You won't - NO! you CAN'T beat him. He spends every single second of his life in a quest for omnipotent power. He'd fit in anywhere from a military gun range to some posh crazy wine tasting shit or some shit. He can recite critical nerve centers that will disable your ass at the same rate as he would the great poets of ancient greece. Do you see? He somehow crams all this shit down and still has time to listen to classical music. Yeah, totally off the wall and random. He'll learn something JUST IN CASE it will one day come in handy fifteen years down the line when he might be in whatever situation where he

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[rednip]

HA HA you have misspelt 'spelling'. You sir, obviously lack any real intelligence, and thus you opinions lack any merit. People should discount your ideas in their entirety.

Consider that as the entire post, well that's how SN and GT work, but that's not how I work it, so to continue...

The people reading the forum are less important than those reading the white paper?

No, noone is 'less important' than any others, all human being share the same level of importance, even those that cannot spell correctly all of the time. That's what you are missing.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

The vast majority of spelling corrections are done in a reasonably polite manner. I'm sure you do get the occasional rude idiot, but you can just ignore them.

It appears that you believe this minority to be the majority; that you perceive most corrections to be rude when they are neutral, or even mildly polite. Furthermore, you appear to think that spelling and grammar are a minor point, yet you make a big deal out of them whenever they're pointed out. It is hard for me not to conclude that you are oversensitive about your spelling, and don't like having it corrected. You would, then, be the very type of person that the article complains about. Any attempt to correct you is suddenly an attack on your intelligence.

I suppose that it's possible that you really have just encountered more idiots than normal. Still, try to separate the message from the insult. Not all corrections are necessarily insults, and yet I do see some people lash back at even the most polite corrections.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[elgatozorbas]

No, noone is 'less important' than any others, all human being share the same level of importance, even those that cannot spell correctly all of the time. That's what you are missing.

Not really. My point was not that those writing spelling mistakes are less important than others, or that they are less intelligent (as is frequently stated in this discussion).

On the contrary: because I assume that most people on slashdot are capable of writing without (too much) errors, it is a sign of disrecpect to the readers (imho) to choose not to do so. In other words: they must be thinking less of their readers, otherwise they would do the effort of writing correctly. At least that is the message conveyed to me (and others here). You may argue that this is untrue, and you your values are different, but methinks that an element of respect for others is to pay attention to what they think is important, not what you think is important (though this statement is a bit shaky and harder than the one I intend to make :-).

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. "Written wrong is."

And I always thought the "for pete's sake" was referring to St. Peter. Also a substitute for God or anyone else.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Many with English as their native tongue are worse then me when it comes to write in English. I find this disturbing.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[FlatCatInASlatVat]

A most gracious reply. This whole grammar thing is such a difficult issue, actually. I think a lot of us sticklers have almost an obsessive compulsive disorder or low level autism when it comes to proper English. At least, when I hear or see an error, I feel a real sense of physical discomfort that won't really go away until the error is corrected. It's similar to seeing an error in some code and knowing it's going to bomb and you can't relax until it's fixed. And yet, it's not my "code". It's someone else's and who am I to presume to correct him or her. I struggle with this all the time.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[jambarama]

The real problem with mispelling on slashdot is this: if you make a reasonably insightful post, but you have grammar errors, guess what people respond to. The ideas you post are completely ignored and the spelling is blasted. It makes it easy to get off a quick easy response without even thinking, and isn't that what everyone wants to do?

Not that I've ever done that....

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[imac.usr]

Haha, and I've been writing it "pete's" for years. This is why I try not to criticize other people's writing. :D (Seriously, I'm grateful you pointed it out.)

And for the record, I know "makes its own gravy" is the correct version; my comment was that due to the common mixing of "its"/"it's," it sometimes seems wrong to see the correct form because I'm seeing the incorrect form more and more....

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

If anyone is "missing something", it's those that defend bad English usage. It's not acceptable, it's lazy and frankly if you can't even try communicate properly then you probably don't deserve to be heard. THAT is basic people skills, and I rarely have good humor for those that express contempt towards their readers.

I'm sorry, for I got lost in your one run-on sentence. If only you had used proper grammar I would have been able to understand your underlying meaning. Try the following:

It's not acceptable: it's lazy. Frankly, if you can't even try to communicate properly then you probably don't deserve to be heard.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[lawpoop]

I was an exchange student in Finland, and managed to pick up some of the language.

Here are some examples of free word order in Finnish that I posted in another comment. Would you agree with / modify them?Thanks!

Auto otti hän?
He took the car?

Otti hän auto?
He took the car?

Hän otti auto?
He took the car?

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing goes together like yelling and Howard Dean!

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[lgw]

One often overlooked reason for a native speaker to watch his spelling and grammar on Slashdot is precisely because it's an international forum. For some, this forum is their largest daily exposure to English (though, admittedly, this is unlikely for those form a country with a *good* school system, as Finland has a reputation for). We could really set a better example here.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Uerige]

Anyone here who could actually read that?
I think it's perfectly OK to write all lowercase when it's only a few sentences. You wrote three paragraphs like that. I couldn't even finish the first one before getting bored, it reads like those monotone voices that robots had in really old movies.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[SLi]

Well, not quite. Apart from the word order :)

First of all, as the direct object, it would be "auton" (accusative form) in all of the examples. Additionally we need the -ko/-kö ending to implicate the question, which is generally stuck to the first word in the sentence.

The sentences would become:

Autonko hän otti?
(emphasis on the car)

Ottiko hän auton?
(This is pretty much without emphasis, this would be the "normal" word order)

Hänkö otti auton?
This is more like "Oh, did he take a/the car?". Perhaps a slight emphasis on "he".

If you want to emphasize that he, and not someone else, took the car, you could say
Hänkö auton otti?

Demonstrating the effect of the mere word order can be done by turning this into a non-question sentence, as in:

Auton Pekka otti.
(Emphasis on the car: "It's the car that Pekka took.")

Otti Pekka auton.
(Emphasis on "took", like in assuring that "Yes, Pekka did take the car.")

Pekka otti auton.
(This is the normal form, without much emphasis on anything. Modifying the word order from here will change the emphasis.)

Pekka auton otti.
(Emphasis on Pekka: "It was Pekka who took the car" (and nobody else). This might be used when someone claimed it was someone else.)

Then there's

Auton otti Pekka.
(I'd say the emphasis is slightly on Pekka here too; the meaning is closer to "The car was taken by Pekka", i.e. the most important thing is probably that the car was taken, but that might already be known to the listener and they just didn't know who (possibly of a certain group) took it.)

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Apocros]

that's an interesting take on the argument. in all seriousness, do you really read capitalized words as imparting some sort of intonation onto the sentence or paragraph?

one thing that i can maybe see wanting is capital letters at the start of a sentence, to help delineate them. but i always put two spaces between sentences for that very purpose (even when typing official documentation wherein proper capitalization is required). since the html convention is to compress whitespace to the minimum required for word-separation, sentences which don't begin with a capital letter may tend to look like a run-on. to my mind though, capitalization doesn't really help much there.

anyway, happy to bore you...

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Major Lame Brain]

I had to go to a bit of trouble to make sense of the below. That kind of insensibility is what makes spelling/grammar important during written communication.

...it's the plural of pete as a substiture people in general and possesive...

Did you mean "...as a substitute for people in general and possessive...?" How difficult would it have been to read your own message carefully enough to spare me the time trying to figure it out? Simple typographical errors are easy to overlook (one third of yours was obviously that), but when I read a finished product like the above, I have to assume that the writer either
1) just didn't care
2) was in such a hurry to post that he/she didn't bother to preview
3) was just lazy.

If you don't care enough to make your message understandable (while correcting someone else's post at that!), why should I care what you have to say? If you're in a hurry to post, I have to wonder why. If it's laziness, why'd you bother to write at all? Correcting someone's mistakes with a spelling error, a typo, a word omission, and possibly a factual error of your own doesn't seem worth the time.

Seriously, I struggled with whether "substiture" was a word I hadn't encountered before; even if it were, the structure still didn't make sense.

What's your reference if you meant what I think you did? I always thought the Pete in "For Pete's sake" referred to Saint Peter. This belief appears to be born out here. In which case the error would be to fail to capitalize it.

I typically try to reply to the content rather than form of posts, but this seemed the right topic for the type of reply I've authored.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[rzebram]

Sixteen here as well, and I actually made the "it's" mistake for years up until a few months ago. In fact, looking back on my old school papers, I can see that I made it frequently but was never corrected on it. It was only after it was pointed out to me by a non-native English speaker did I realize the mistake that I had been making. It would seem that even our English teachers are beginning to let slip the intricacies of our languages, settling instead on common use and enough to let you get by to college.

The school newsletters and our yearbook are notorious for containing spelling and grammar errors. I found no less than 3 mistakes on the first page of the yearbook, which is published by the school, and my father and I frequently find errors in the newsletters. If the establishments which are responsible for teaching us good English can't handle it themselves, it would seem that proper spelling and grammar are bound to slide into the gutter. Will the art of the English language be lost before future generations have even made it through schooling?

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[afroborg]

No, there is right and there is wrong. Correct spelling and grammer are right.

And you are wrong.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[SillyNickName4me]

At least, when I hear or see an error, I feel a real sense of physical discomfort that won't really go away until the error is corrected

Maybe you should try to realize 2 things:

1. Natural language serves as a means of communications, annd changes with time. There is accepted use of a language, but not correct use. Hennce, people can use it in a way that is not gennerally accepted, but that does not make for their use being in error.

2. Humanns are for now a lot better at understanding fuzzy use of language then computers are. This means that humans won't "bomb" on "mistakes", rather, they will almost always interpret them correctly.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[SillyNickName4me]

"for pete's sake" was referring to St. Peter. Also a substitute for God or anyone else.

I am pretty sure St. Peter would object to this...

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[geminidomino]

Step 1: Hit a medical dictionary and check out what "impact (v.)" means in that context.

Step 2: Count number of anal-retentive comments in this story.

Grandparent was right on the money.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite possibly.

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[Foobar of Borg]

Its n00b, not nub you dumbass

Oh, great! Now we have 1337 spelling Nazis!

Programming and human language

[fembots]

Hands up if you read through the paragraphs several times trying to find a mistake!

Technical precision requirement on programming language and human language is very different, for I am (and maybe many others are) extremely lazy and just want to get things done with as little effort as possible.

So if "return true;" works but not "ret tru", then I'm forced to use "return true;" every time.

However, if "alot" works as good as "a lot", I can use whatever comes to up mind at time of typing. When I was in highschool, few of us liked to say "os cof" in place of "of course" and it didn't affect our communication at all.

I think the main difference between a native English speaker and a foreign English user is the former heard a word before he learnt to write it, while the latter tends to learn to write and speak at the same time.

I'm shocked to see natives using "its good", "don't go their", these are mistakes that no foreigners will make.

I'm not sure why this has anything to do with hackers or geeks specificially. Racers, police and builders are all technically competent yet they can still make these kind of mistakes.

Re:Programming and human language

[saforrest]

works as good as ...
I'm shocked to see natives using "its good", "don't go their", these are mistakes that no foreigners will make.

Guess you're a native speaker, eh?

Re:Programming and human language

[Fallingcow]

Hands up if you read through the paragraphs several times trying to find a mistake!

*raises hand*

His proper use of semicolons as delimiters in a list after a colon was most impressive.

*claps*

Re:Programming and human language

[bluedust]

So if "return true;" works but not "ret tru", then I'm forced to use "return true;" every time.
Sure you can:

#define ret return
#define tru true;

bool foo(){

ret tru

}

Re:Programming and human language

[Sgt_Jake]

However, if "alot" works as good as "a lot", I can use whatever comes to up mind at time of typing

Dude... you mean 'if "alot" works as well as "a lot"...'? Sheesh!

(I'm just kidding - I don't know which one is more betterer...)

Re:Programming and human language

[Marc_Hawke]

His keywords were "communicating effectively."

None of his examples hindered effective communication in the slightest. Infact it could be said that it 'increased' the effectiveness of the communication. Now we know that the submitter is more concerned with details than with results. We wouldn't have had that information if we hadn't misspelled anything.

His other point about 'appearing less intelligent' has more credibility, but not much. It comes down to knowing your audience and taking the necessary measures.

I think the reason the submitter imagined a connection between 'technical' people and grammatical/spelling shortcomings is because we are in, (and have been in) an area of real-time written communication.

If you're using Email, or worse Instant Messaging, or even worse IRC, or even worse 'talk.' The 'speed' at which you present your ideas means MUCH MUCH more to the effectiveness of the communication than dotting the I's and crossing the T's. And once it's established, it's just a matter of habit.

I wonder if the submitter has compared 'on-the-fly' writings of the 'Slashdot Crowd' vs their more permanent and published writings.

Re:Programming and human language

[jZnat]

What about the "loose" syntax programming languages? I'm talking about the higher-level languages (don't get me started on markup languages like HTML that was butchered so badly that "quirks mode" had to be developed in order for everything to not look like shit). Also, don't forget about the "else if" (many languages) vs. "elseif" (some languages) vs. "elsif" (Perl) vs. "elif" (Python) problem.

Also: "native English speaker" and "naive English speaker" are one of the few phrases that mean the same thing despite the typo.

Re:Programming and human language

[notmuchtosay]

I agree and would add that communicating well and correct spelling/grammar are not the same. Yes horrible grammar/spelling can get in the way often. Perhaps small misspelling don't even matter. I'm sure we have all seen this (although not sure why it works):

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

I also add: Me fail English thats unpossible

Re:Programming and human language

[peacefinder]

"So if "return true;" works but not "ret tru", then I'm forced to use "return true;" every time."

So what you're saying is, Grammar Nazis should throw more error messages?

Re:Programming and human language

[Anonymous Coward]

However, if "alot" works as good as "a lot", I can use whatever comes to up mind at time of typing.

That's just it though - it doesn't work as well. Sure, you communicate what you intend to. But there's more to human interaction than transmission of meaning.

When somebody writes "his" instead of "he is"* or something equally inane, it says a number of things. It says they never learned to write properly. It says they don't value language skills. It says they don't read much. The last is particularly damning in my eyes. There's only so many times you can read the word "definitely" before the correct spelling sinks in - that is unless you are mildly retarded.

If you left school without learning how to write properly, how do I know that you didn't leave school without learning to add up properly? How do I know you didn't leave university knowing how to program properly? When you write poorly, it reflects on you as an individual and affects the impression you make on people.

And no, dyslexia is no excuse. Paraplegics use wheelchairs to compensate for their disability, people with dyslexia should use spelling checkers to compensate for their disability.

* I spot this with increasing frequency lately.

Re:Programming and human language

[shutdown -p now]

When I was in highschool, few of us liked to say "os cof" in place of "of course" and it didn't affect our communication at all.

And so you discovered defmacro...

Re:Programming and human language

[DaveAtFraud]

Technical precision requirement on programming language and human language is very different, for I am (and maybe many others are) extremely lazy and just want to get things done with as little effort as possible.

Suggestion: don't quit the programming job and become a lawyer and especially not one that deals with contract law. Take a look at Groklaw to see the mess having imprecise language in some contracts causes.

Re:Programming and human language

[EvanED]

His proper use of semicolons as delimiters in a list after a colon was most impressive.

I've never head the rule before, and the one language guide I have doesn't list that under proper uses of semicolons and has an example of a list with commas after a colon. The only time I know of where it is proper to use a semicolon in a list is if the list elements themselves have punctuation. For example, "You have your choice of the following: cheap, fast, and unreliable; cheap, slow, and reliable; or expensive, fast, and reliable."

Do you have a reference that says the use of semicolons in a list without such internal punctuation is acceptable?

Re:Programming and human language

[mamba-mamba]

I'm shocked to see natives using "its good"..

Yesterday, my computer wouldn't do a think I asked of it. Today, I seem to be back in its good graces.

My cat is mad at me because I took it to the vet. It doesn't seem to understand that I did it for its own good!

MM

Re:Programming and human language

[Stauf]

I agree. I'm going to go out on a limb and claim that spelling and grammar matter only insofar as they don't get in the way.

As an extreme example, "I helped my uncle Jack off his horse" is a sentence that requires correct spelling (in this case, a single capital letter). If you mess this up, you've thrown your credibility out the window, and imparted the wrong information. And it's subtle, if I didn't know the writer had an uncle Jack then I'd never realise the problem.

So, while spelling and grammar aren't important when they don't impact on the message, they are very important when they do. The submitter may have used bad examples, but he does have a very valid point.

Re:Programming and human language

[stevejobsjr]

It's a style thing more than it is a grammar thing, but I'd call him out on the parallelism of his list of common errors. He starts with two noun phrases. Then he throws in an independent clause! What's that about?

Re:Programming and human language

[gr8dude]

few of us liked to say "os cof" in place of "of course" and it didn't affect our communication at all.

This is different, I believe it is a special case, some sort of 'private slang' which only the members of your group understand.

Me and my university colleagues have that too:

while(level) level++; = go to the top level of the building
xdnx = something easy to accomplish [coming from the Russian 'xui da nixuia'] :-)
o! *excitement* a = this is what you say when you're in a car and you feel the acceleration

the point is that all these things are totally meaningless for someone who is NOT a part of our team.
while "o! a!" could be easily understood by someone who knows physics, and "while(level) level++;" is not a problem for someone who knows C, "xdnx" is absolutely meaningless.


What I meant to say is that "os cof" was ok for you and your buddies, but it was not ok for the rest of the global population.

Re:Programming and human language

[Fallingcow]

It's used any time the author feels like the list after the colon might otherwise be hard to read or confusing. I think it falls into that category of rules that are considered OK to fudge a bit as long as the author is careful and has a good reason for doing it.

Everything2.net (yeah, not very official, I know) says, "Use a semicolon to connect two sentences together... [or] ...wherever you need a long pause or are ordering a complex list."

You are right, though; he could have gotten away with commas here, and the semicolons kind of break the flow of the sentence. It's possible that he used them only to have more non-comma and non-period punctuation in his story.

Anyway, I'm always happy when I see semicolons used in a manner that even approaches correctness :)

Man!

[daeley]

Talk about your flamebate!

Re:Man!

[joeybagadonuts]

You mispeled Flaim.

Re:Man!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean

Man, talk about you're flamebate...

Re:Man!

[ari_j]

Actually, it's your'e. The Q is silent.

Re:Man!

[Anonymous Coward]

u mispeld u.

Re:Man!

[Vanadar]

Yeah, what a question to axe!

Re:Man!

[damiam]

You mean "Talk about you're flamebate"?

Re:Man!

[bumptehjambox]

I HATE it when people don't use the write homonym for the word their trying to say! Everyone ax like they mussed no everything, but if your using the wrong homonyms, you have pore grammar skills.
It has a very strong affect on whoever is reeding. Dew you no it looks as if the person that rote it cannot be seine.

Yule understand sum day, I hope.

Engineers are bad spellers

[drewfuss]

At georgia tech there is a road named Ferst street. Naturally the running joke is that they misspelled First Street.

Re:Engineers are bad spellers

[DarthWiggle]

Clearly Georgia Tech has a long history of misspelling key words. Little known fact: "Georgia Tech" is a misspelling of "God We Suck" ... :) /me points across the interstate and cackles.

Re:Engineers are bad spellers

[frank_adrian314159]

And being from Georgia doesn't help, either.

Re:Engineers are bad spellers

[SheldonYoung]

While driving around Vancouver I noticed Fir St and chuckled. But just a little.

Re:Engineers are bad spellers

[slagheap]

Naturally the running joke is that they misspelled First Street.

Kentucky puts county names on their vehicle license plates. One of the counties is called "Good". Seeing one of these cars driving along makes me think that Kentucky has a new official state slogan:

Kentucky Good!

Re:Engineers are bad spellers

[OhNotSeven]

Nah, it was just one of those frist psot crowd, may be a little ahead of time.

Re:Engineers are bad spellers

[rock_climbing_guy]

At georgia tech there is a road named Ferst street. Naturally the running joke is that they misspelled First Street.

Did you mean Georgia Teck ?

Re:Engineers are bad spellers

[Spheroid2]

Or even Georgia Tech.

Re:Engineers are bad spellers

[PedroP35]

Actually, you'll find that you're reading "6000" as "GOOD." I used to think the same thing (I'm from Ohio) when I was young and just starting to read (I'm not insulting your intelligence--it's just that I've been around a lot more Kentuckians than you, so I realized the mistake earlier in my life). Sorta like reading 1337 5p33k before it was cool. There is no "Good County"; the 6000 refers to the weight the vehicle is allowed to tow (including the weight of the vehicle, IIRC). You'll notice that it is generally on trucks...in fact, they may have done away with that type of license plate marking in recent years, with the coming of vanity and more graphical plates.

Re:Engineers are bad spellers

[Valdrax]

Yeah, but at least our college is known for something.

nonsence

[Anonymous Coward]

Your being rediculous.

Ferst Post!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeh! I cant beleive it. I maid ferst post!!!

W00t!!

The answer is simple...

[jimi1283]

OOo and Word just don't have leet-speak spelling / grammatical checkers yet.

Re:The answer is simple...

[ryusen]

but, firefox has a l33t extention...

German

[slashflood]

I'm German, you insensitive cold!

Re:German

[Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki]

Germans don't tend to mistake OF for HAVE.

Re:German

[Anonymous Coward]

Germans make other mistakes, looser. If you would travel abroad more, you would know that.

Re:German

[Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki]

I'm not german.

Re:German

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm Dutch and I would never mistake OF for HAVE either, simply because for me they are so different in pronunciation. It's the same for a word like weird/wierd. I write weird because to me wierd 'sounds' completely different. Yeah I guess my pronunciation is not 100% ;).

Re:German

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm German, you insensitive cold!

Ok, you are forgiven, then.

Re:German

[kevcol]

The thing is, when speaking in an unaccented English (unaccented of course depends on where you are located), native speakers tend to shorten the sounds of many words and turn them into contractions. "Should have" is one of those that gets run together in a contraction frequently. "Should've" When some people hear it, the contracted 'have' sounds like 'of'.

Your pronunciation is probably quite correct (each time I've been to your country I was presented with a lot of people who spoke flawless English)- but it's the colloquial use/pronunciation that is the difference.

native speakers?

[pikine]

How do you know those who post in English are native English speakers? I'm not one. I'm sure I make spelling and grammatical mistakes, or even use the wrong words from time to time.

Re:native speakers?

[aslate]

The number of times i've seen those who have learnt English as a second (, third, fourth...) language correcting native English speakers is absurd. The main problem is that you're not taught the ins and outs of your native language in the same way.

I often correct foreigners' mistakes on things such as "I have 16 years", as opposed to "I am 16", but those are just because that's how they say it natively (I learnt something in German!) ...now i don't punctuate after that closing parenthesis, do i?

Re:native speakers?

[pikine]

Let's not be too pedantic about punctuations. I think it is a style that changes over time. I'm just reading Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, the original 1818 text, whatever that means---edited to the taste of readers at that time, maybe. With modern MLA standards, some punctuations or even some word uses in there are laughable, yet who doubts that Frankenstein is a classic in science fiction?

Also, the Brits use run-on sentences all the times, punctuating whatever should be terminated by a period with commas. Americans would laugh at them very hard for looking like peasants. Oh well, we've always known that they get on each other's nerves.

Re:native speakers?

[fejikso]

How do you know those who post in English are native English speakers?

I'm not a English native speaker and I still correct my American friends' spelling. The problem with the English language, as it has been pointed out, is that you have to learn both oral English and written English separately.

An reform of the English spelling would solve this problem. It has been proposed many times before, but without any real success. However, it would add the problem of backward compatibility as well as losing the etymology of the words.

From my point of view, knowing the etymology of a word is very important, but sometimes I think that English could use some reforms. Its oral form has evolved way too far from the written form. Somewhere I read that it's considered to be the language with hardest spelling, after Irish Gaelic.

Us Loose Our Ability to Spell...

[servognome]

that's unpossible

omg!

[dr_dank]

j00 b3tt3r t4k3 th4t b4ck

th3Ms f1ght1n w0rds 4r0und h3r3!

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're asking this on Slashdot?

Or, should that be: "Your aksing this on /.?"

w00t

[el_jake]

what are u insinuating you intensive claud

thumps up! we nerfs rulEz

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[di0s]

HuKt aWn FoNix WerKt fer mE.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Definately. Wot of he sed.

Question

[Anonymous Coward]

How much time did you waste reading and rereading your submission to make sure that it doesn't contain a spelling mistake?

And The Point Being...?

[__aaclcg7560]

They don't teach reading, writing and arithmetic in the schools anymore. I had to go to college for that.

Re:And The Point Being...?

[liryon]

They taught you reading and wirting in college? man I went to the wrong school.

Re:And The Point Being...?

[ArsonSmith]

And when they did teach them they were called the 3 Rs. Go figure.

Reedin, Ritin, Rithmetic,

who says we aren't communicating effectivly?

[FFON]

Do hackers and geeks just not care about communicating effectively?

wot? i'm pretty sure even tho not "correct" every1 who reads this will understand wot i'm saying.

Re:who says we aren't communicating effectivly?

[Linegod]

And everyone who reads it will understand that you are of below average intelligence, and will treat you accordingly.

If you communicate like a moron, you are treated like a moron.

If you don't like that, don't reply, since I'm acting like an arrogant, elitist bastard, but I want you to treat me like a friendly, helpful mentor.

Re:who says we aren't communicating effectivly?

[crabpeople]

"If you communicate like a moron, you are treated like a moron."

disagree.

if you act like a moron PICKING NITS, then you will be treated like a moron.

you are acting like an elitest bastard. no no i take that back... If you think someones a moron because they dont proof read every damn thing they post to the internets then your not a moron. your a fusspot annoying backseat driver. its the same mentality. I cant win an argument on its merits, so ill just take cheap shots at the spelling! then everyone will think im supa smart!

But honestly, if you couldnt read what he just wrote up there, whoes the real moron? who has poorly developed language parsing and reading comprehension skills?

Re:who says we aren't communicating effectivly?

[Jack9]

I don't judge people by their spelling. I judge them by the quality of their communicated thoughts. Stating that your intelligence is measured by the quality of your words, to random Joe is a problem with Joe's perception of the world. The concept of shared perfect communication didn't survive the century. Remember back when every topic was taboo? It's easy to communicate about how scandalous something is, when you can't use any other word in print. Let it go.

If you can't understand someone, isn't it worth the effort, to ask them to restate? Communication can be a 1 way street, but is not always so. Communication is good. (Purposefully attempting to clutter real communication with noise is bad.)

Trying to enforce perfect communication (as opposed to "good enuf"), is a form of ego masturbation. I have not read or heard anything that would even START to convince me otherwise.

Re:who says we aren't communicating effectivly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, indeed, you, are, treated, like, a, moron, sometimes, even, when, being, a, nazi.

This is the one thing that bugs me about these sort of posts.
1) I did not ask for your help.
2) Many times they have grammatical errors themselves.
3) The written "english" does not match the spoken one. For example Your, yur, yer, Uehur are phonetically the SAME in many parts of the country. Yet they mean different things, and one means nothing. How do you tell when someone is speaking to you? OH its context.
4) Many times I have see the "attitude" of those "helping" are of the mind "I can not refute what you say so you sprelled something wrong".
5) English is a weird fluid language. For example GB English != US English. They are both derived from the same root. With American English a recent branch from GB English. So they are fairly close. In fact many languages are quite fluid and change. For example France is trying to "hold back" changes in their language. It will not work in the long term. If language did not change we would still be speaking latin and galic.

Also you can see how mis-spelled words can reflect where people are from. For example the word color. Where I currently live it is pronounced 'couler' not 'cohlor' which the spelling suggests. For me I emphasize the 'or' part. However since I have moved south and picked up some of the grammatical idioms I tend to make the mistake of typing it 'coler'. Here is a real shocker for you, I am sure, but people sound out words to spell them. There is no 'pure' English. Even in different countries the word color is spelled differently. It more accurately reflects the way they SAY the words. As the written language is ultimately a way of conveying the way we speak.

Also over the past 20 years I have somehow lost the art of writing. I am not sure when it happened. I *KNOW* I could do it at one point. But no matter how hard I try it does not come back. Believe me I do try. I do not need people TELLING me that I am getting it wrong either. All it does is remind me that my mind is slowly going.

Re:who says we aren't communicating effectivly?

[kelnos]

I really don't see anything elitist about using proper spelling and grammar, or suggesting ways that others can improve their skills. Written communication is naturally a bad place for this, since it's hard to sense the tone in which a criticism was given. Was it a gentle correction? Was it a holier-than-thou admonition?

Regardless, I see a post like yours, and I think two things: 1) you take a position with which I don't agree, and 2) you didn't take the time to use proper spelling and grammar. I accept the fact that not everyone is going to agree with my point of view, but at the point that you're disagreeing with me, you're fighting an uphill battle. If your purpose in posting is just to let off steam, then I suppose that doesn't matter, but if you're hoping to change your readers' opinions, you need to use every bit of ammunition at your disposal: a well-reasoned argument, presented clearly, with the best mechanics and writing style you can muster. You failed on all counts.

It would be nice if we lived in a world where what we *mean* is what matters, irrespective of what we say. But that's not the case. I don't have a personal reference for just about all of the people that post to Slashdot. The only thing I have to judge whether or not I think someone has something useful to add to a discussion is their writing.

Re:who says we aren't communicating effectivly?

[almaw]

NO.

If you don't understand, as you quite clearly do not, that "your" is a possessive and that "you're" is a contraction of "you are", then I shall immediately conclude that YOU'RE an uneducated idiot and I shall therefore not pay as much attention to YOUR comments.

This is the way that life works. Rightly or wrongly, first impressions are important. A basic grasp of grammar goes a long way towards me thinking I might pay attention to you.

If you consider this elitist and wrong, then I really don't care. I *like* being elitist. It helps me listen to people who have something intelligent to say, and filter out the noise from the people who do not.

Re:who says we aren't communicating effectivly?

[brwski]

Jack9 writes: I don't judge people by their spelling. I judge them by the quality of their communicated thoughts.

Ah, but there's the rub. If someone cannot use the commonly agreed-upon forms for spelling, grammar, etc., I and most others will simply drop what we are reading and move on to something else. No matter how fine the thought behind something, it will likely never be given the time of day if it is presented in a shoddy fashion. Not fair! the Slashdotters cry. Not fair! Ah, but it is. If someone is bright enough to have a fine idea, they are bright enough to express it in a way that is polite to those who may come across it. Conventions of spelling, grammar, and of many other sorts are not there to hamstring people; they are there to grease the skids of language, so to speak.

brwski

Re:who says we aren't communicating effectivly?

[Jimithing DMB]

wot? i'm pretty sure even tho not "correct" every1 who reads this will understand wot i'm saying.

Do you have any idea how hard that is to read? Read the above (as best you can anyway) then read the following:

What? I'm pretty sure even though not "correct" everyone who reads this will understand what I'm saying.

Now I don't know about the rest of the Slashdotters but when I read the incorrect version I have to sound it out in my brain. Consequently, I cannot read it anywhere near as quickly as I can read the correctly spelled version.

So please, next time you think it's okay to abbreviate your typing please think again. I am fine with using quick abbreviations like l8r or cya in chats. They're common enough and in the conext of a chat they are fine. But I trip over every word in a sentence like the one above. The same thing happens when I see grossly misspelled words like catagory or definate. My brain literally stops to sound out the word.

Although some people have tried to claim the written word is merely a graphic expression of what we hear this is not true. It is in many ways distinct from the spoken word. It's not exactly the same neural pathways.

Re:who says we aren't communicating effectivly?

[fakeplasticusername]

If you decide that someone has something valuable to say based only on their method of communication, than you have been throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and probably for a while. some of the smartest people i know have no care for spelling, punctuation or other such masturbation. its those (yes i know it is it's) that care about the silly details that generally are overcompensating.

Re:who says we aren't communicating effectivly?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you communicate like a moron, you are treated like a moron."

disagree.

if you act like a moron PICKING NITS, then you will be treated like a moron.

you are acting like an elitest bastard. no no i take that back... If you think someones a moron because they dont proof read every damn thing they post to the internets then your not a moron. your a

That's about as far as I got before deciding that I should be treating you like a moron. Do you even disagree with evidence?

But honestly, if you couldnt read what he just wrote up there, whoes the real moron? who has poorly developed language parsing and reading comprehension skills?

It's not so much a matter of not being able to understand the sentence, it's more deciding that reading it will take more brain power than it's worth. Every time you used "your," I had to stop a moment and figure out what you really meant.

Generally, the message you send with poor syntax is "I don't really care whether or not you understand this." As such, how much effort should I devote to decoding it? How interesting is the information contained likely to be to me? Probably not much, since you don't care about your readers.

Re:who says we aren't communicating effectivly?

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone is bright enough to have a good idea, must we force them to be educated enough for us to listen to them?

Re:who says we aren't communicating effectivly?

[Stauf]

People who are proud of their horrible spelling and grammar sound to me like people who are proud about their time in prison, or the fact they ran over a cat in their car. They sound juvenile and arrogant.

In most settings, if you want the content of your writing to be taken seriously, you don't want to sound juvenile and arrogant.

(Notice that I'm only talking about people that act proud of their ineptitude, a few spelling mistakes here and there, and a few grammatical errors are perfectly alright in most situations. You wouldn't want them in your resume, but they don't matter on a forum like this.)

Re:who says we aren't communicating effectivly?

[Anonymous Coward]

When filtering available information, it's wise to use the criteria that seems to let the most interesting parts through. Language skills seem to have a correlation with the ability to come up with good ideas and interesting thought, so it's not a bad place to start.

This does mean that now and then I'll skip over a good idea because it's badly worded, but also that I'll read much less drivel and uninteresting nonsense. For me, that's an acceptable trade-off.

Two things:

[ryusen]

1) i think this is an issue that goes well beyond hackers and geeks. there is just a general disregard for spelling and grammar. i'm quite guilty of it myself
2) as for "hackers and geeks," they mostly reside in their own circles. this is especially tru on the internet. within one's own circle, it's much easier to get away with it.

Re:Two things:

[ArsonSmith]

Probably a lot to do with the structered and logical thought patterns of most geeks, rather than the artistic freeflow of most spoken languages.

If I was good at writing I'd been a writer.

Re:Two things:

[WalterSobchak]

as for "hackers and geeks," they mostly reside in their own circles. this is especially tru on the internet. within one's own circle, it's much easier to get away with it.

I disagree. If you are in the "circles" not just for fun but professionally, you should care. English is my second language, and I am seriously irritated by people who can't spell.
When someone (other than Yoda) can not write a single correct sentence in a business proposal - and I mean gross mistakes - I question the author's overall intelligence.

So, if you are on the 'net for fun, misspell all you like. But when it comes to business, whip out your Webster's!

Alex

Re:Two things:

[amchugh]

I see a ton of spelling and/or grammar errors in sign painting (usually superfluous apostrophes), copy editing / marketing (lite, nite, apostrophes, etc...), public relations and other professions which ostensibly are based around communicating clearly with a customer. If they can't get it right, then I'm not surprised that geeks have trouble.

Re:Two things:

[fbartho]

I Was gonna post this anonymously:

I'm on the web for fun, and other than the complete lack of capitalization, its "true" not "tru" ;)

_____________But then this happened and keeps counting upwards: and is funnier in its own right:

Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

It's been 46 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment

You know, this used to say "Slashdot requires you wait at least 2 minutes between... curious how it just says "wait" now

Re:Two things:

[ryusen]

well, i know many "artsy geeks" and they don't have a better track record with spelling or grammar.

Re:Two things:

[ryusen]

yes, professional peers will hold you to a different standard. i guess i was not clear. i meant the difference was when you write a casual memo to your friend in the next cubicle as opposed to when you type up a report for an outside client to review.

Re:Two things:

[ryusen]

i take full credit/blame for my lack of desire to capitalize. as for the true/tru, that was a typo. blame that on my carelessness rather than my knowledge please.

Re:Two things:

[Anonymous Coward]

The use of lower case I to refer to onself is incorrect. Personally, when I see someone write that way I think of an 8th grade girl trying to be cutesy. (Apologies to any 8th grade girls).

Sadly, it's becoming not uncommon. And truth be told, it's one of the few things that make me glad I'm going to die in the near future. /F

Re:Two things:

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean 'it's' or 'it is' true and not 'its' true.

Re:Two things:

[Forum Joe]

The problem I have with this attitude is that if you don't use correct punctuation and grammar in casual memos to your friends, you will, quite simply, get out of practice. Whenever I correct someone on an internet forum their response is always "Bah, who gives a shit? It's only an internet forum!" but if 99% of your writing is on an internet forum, the other 1% is going to suffer. When you DO need to write a formal document (job application, business proposal, etc) you're going to struggle, and have to look up every word. Heaven forbid, you might even use Microsoft Word's grammar checker. It's all about practice. Practice makes perfect, and why not practice your perfect English when you don't need to?

Re:Two things:

[Stauf]

ee cummings? Is that you?

Of course, it doesn't help...

[Improv]

It doesn't help that English spelling is such a mess. In order to really know how to map sounds to spelling, one needs to (perhaps unconsciously) learn a number of rules corrisponding to the bewildering number of languages that have been borrowed from in constructing American (or British, or Australian, or ...) English. Somehow we all manage, more or less, to do it, but it's worth noting that in a lot of other languages, it's a lot harder to misspell words, and spelling bees seem somewhat humourous.

Re:Of course, it doesn't help...

[Batzerto]

I couldn't agree more. What we really need is someone/country/whatever to take English by the horns and fix our crappy spelling and grammer. How many years have we collectively lost in school trying to learn all the crazy spelling and grammar rules? What a waste.

Re:Of course, it doesn't help...

[Pfhorrest]

Peepehl haav traheed. Noh wuhn wahnts tuu ahdahpt thuh neeuu uuehee uhf spehleeng theengs. Huumahns ahr kreetuurs uhf haabiht aand ahr vehree seht ihn theheer uuehees.

Re:Of course, it doesn't help...

[MAdMaxOr]

So, what you are saying is that English is like PHP....

*zing*

Re:Of course, it doesn't help...

[zergl]

Talking about Spelling...
Ever wondered about the spelling of the 'a' in "cache"?

Most people spell it like the 'a' in "flash" (making "Cash" out of it) or like the 'a' in "Cage" (well, at least you can still make out that it's meaning cache that way). At least around here.
But actually true is an 'a' like the 'a' in "flush" since it's derived from the french word "cacher".
I've looked it up in the real fscking huge multi volume Oxford's[1] in the library at our University after we had a intense discussion about it in a proseminar about Web Technologies.

Greets, Zergl

PS: Just dare to criticise my grammar or spelling. I'm german. I'm allowed to make faults occasionally. ;)

[1] it looks quite antique, so I hope it's not outdated, making a fool of myself.

Re:Of course, it doesn't help...

[zergl]

ARRRRGH!!!!1111oneeleven

I already made a fool of myself!
Parsing error:
Spelling != Pronunciation.

Shame on me and ignore the first post. ^^

Re:Of course, it doesn't help...

[Stankatz]

I agree. English is kind of like MS Windows. It sucks, and there are better alternatives, but it's the most widely used standard. The world would probably be better off if we all switched to Linux, but until that happens, there's not a lot of return on your investment in learning a new system.

Re:Of course, it doesn't help...

[theTerribleRobbo]

> ... and spelling bees seem somewhat humourous.

You mean they don't already? It's a bunch of people competing to see if they can use their own language correctly.

Re:Of course, it doesn't help...

[Apocros]

speaking of pronunciation...

in anyone speaking english, i've never heard cache pronounced with a long-a sound (eg cage). mispronunciations annoy me to no end (library as lie-berry is an egregious example), but at the same time, regional accents fascinate me.

anyway, i'm wondering where you've heard the long-a pronunciation. was it really listed that way in the dictionary?

also, the 'u' in flush is usually (in american english, at any rate) pronounced the same as the 'a' in abut (or the sound "uh"). i think that sounds is called a schwa. and the part of me that speaks french would pronounce the 'a' in cacher as more of an "ahh" sound. definately different sounds to my ear.

anyway, those are my two random cents on this subject...

"Am I missing something here?"

[Saxton]

Am I missing something here?

Yes you are. Defiantly.

-Aaron

man....

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how many times that dude double checked his submission for grammar and spelling mistakes. He would have been a nervous wreck upon clicking "submit".

Re:man....

[__aaclcg7560]

You can take your time making sure everything is correct but you get a million idiots pointing out the one mistake that you did make after you click the submit button. Sometimes I wonder I ever post to /. in the first place... I must be crazy. :P

Appreciated!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well... thanks for making us, non-native speakers, not look so dumb at all...

Grammar Nazi

[MyLongNickName]

Grammar Nazi makes it big! You, sir, are the king of the trolls. I bow at your brilliance!

Next up to AskSlashdot: "Why are Linux users so prod of their OS when Microsoft is the only OS worthy of consideration?"

That's easy to answer....

[Gamefreak99]

"Do hackers and geeks just not care about communicating effectively?"

No.

Re:That's easy to answer....

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one blame MS Office for the poor grammer/spell checker.

Re:That's easy to answer....

[Dukael_Mikakis]

"Do hackers and geeks just not care about communicating effectively?"

No.

After all, in the workplace the more you know and the less others know the more valuable you are. Why would you want to communicate effectively?

Re:That's easy to answer....

[Crudely_Indecent]

Hackers, some of us.......managers and bosses, definitely not.

I've had this conversation with my boss several times. The bad thing is that my boss is not technically inclined. For a short period of time I would correct him, but as time passed I realized that he didn't care if he was wrong or giving inaccurate information so I stopped caring enough to correct him.

Bad pronunciation, grammar or spelling will cause me to lose respect faster than learning that you are a Baywatch fan. I'm not talking about minor mispronunciation, but blatant misuse of words, or misrepresentation of documentable facts.

Example Customer Interaction:
Boss: "This service is 256 Megabytes per second"
Me: "Don't say Megabytes, it's megabits"
Customer: "256 Megabytes? That's unbelieveable"
Me: "No, that's not your speed"
Boss: "Yes, it's that fast"

Example AIM session:
Me: "Hey, can you add such-and-such user to the database?"
Boss: "Considerate done"

Example Verbal communication:
Boss: "Hey, I had this great ideal"
Me: "An ideal? What are you talking about? Oh, you mean 'IDEA'"
Boss: "Yeah, an ideal."

MCSE obligatory comment...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have an MCSE, then I automatically assume that you're a bloody idiot. Doubly so if you're under the age of 25 and claim to be an "expert systems administrator". Triply so if you use the word "your" instead of "you're". Bunch of dumbasses.

Re:MCSE obligatory comment...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have ever recieved certain forms of education, then I automatically assume that you're a bloody idiot. Doubly so if you're under the age of 25 and claim to be "capably intelligent". Triply so if you use the word "Microsoft" instead of "Linux". Bunch of dumbasses

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[ZephyrXero]

Well, if you look back at the history of the english language it has changed and evolved numerous times, so I believe we're in a state of flux again. People are finally realizing that some of the "correct" spellings are idiotic and when need a more efficient, less excemption filled language. At least that's what I hope it is...

Me personally? I never could spell, and with spellcheck it's just getting worse...

Maybe...

[xor.pt]

"Am I missing something here?" Maybe a bit more self promotion through pointless articles.

Sayeth an expert ---

[A nonymous Coward]

It is a damned poor mind indeed that can't think of at least two ways of spelling any word.

-- Andrew Jackson

Here

Re:Sayeth an expert ---

[EightBells]

Nowadays to be intelligible is to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, "Lady Windermere's Fan"

Correct English?

[sheriff_p]

Uh,

What is this 'correct English' of which you speak? Can you send me a copy of the official English language handbook? No. Hrm. Well maybe you could direct me to the official governing body of the English language. You mean, French has one and English doesn't?

Bugger!

Then, how do we know what correct English is? You mean, 'correct' English is by definition 'common' English?! No! But then what will all those semi-intelligent pedants who haven't caught on to the fact that 'should have' is no more meaningful than 'should of', but that 'should of' is much more common in spoken English do? Who knows!

All I can say is that having worked in the publishing industry, you could tell the people who had little intelligence but a lot to prove by how frequently and strongly they misunderstood the fact that there is no 'correct' English, and jumped down the throats of those they perceived to not have as good a grasp on this 'correct' English as they did.

+Pete

Re:Correct English?

[versiondub]

I think I could have written something of this sort- but hats off to you for getting to the bottom of this: There really is no 'correct' english. That said, I'd wager that the submitter just lost a flamewar with a guy, and the closing statement must have been something like: 'your a faget' - you can't answer to that.

Re:Correct English?

[kongjie]

Sorry, but that won't fly.

"Should of" is only heard more in spoken English because people mishear "should've" and so few people read anything of substance to any appreciable extent that they don't know any better.

"Should of" is not meaningful in itself; it does not "mean" what "should have" means...it doesn't MEAN anything. It is the linguistic equivalent of people who say "expresso."

So it's really easy to say that "should of" is wrong because "should have" is an adverbial expression and "should of" is not.

If someone asked you "Have you eaten?" would you reply "I of eaten."? Maybe, but you would be wrong.

Re:Correct English?

[rbarreira]

So what do the people who write incorrectly claim to speak and write? Their own version of English? Because I see each one doing different mistakes...

Re:Correct English?

[10101001011]

Well, no one will read this, but the "correct English" that you speak of does exist: the language is called "Queen's English". "Queen's English" is defined as words and their spelling that are employed by the current monarch of Britain. If, however, the monarch is a king, then it would of course change to King's English. While this may sound as if I am trolling, this is a fairly well known concept that was introduced to me by a university professor. The Queen could start spelling 'dog' as 'dogue', or pronounce 'juice' as 'JEW-ICE' and that spelling or pronounciation would be (as offical as something can be with no governing body) adopted officially as the "correct" spelling or pronunciation. As for your comment about no standard book of "English", I would guess the most recent edition of the Oxford English Dictionary and any basic university English 101 textbook would serve that purpose.

Re:Correct English?

[metlin]

Parent poster is merely trying to justify his/her inability to learn and speak a language properly.

Heh.

Re:Correct English?

[justforaday]

You could always try following one of the numerous style guides put out by the major new organizations and publishing houses (or just default to Strunk & White or something similar). They have their differences, but by and large they tend to follow the same rules.

Re:Correct English?

[justforaday]

What's a faget?

Re:Correct English?

[Anonymous Coward]

For those who learn English as a second language the "correct" version (i.e. what is taught) is usually British English since it is the official language in a country whilst U.S. English isn't (since the U.S. doesn't have any official language). I have studied English as a second language myself and the requirement in exams is usually consistency - i.e. either U.S. English or British English (to accomodate those who e.g. have been exchange students in the U.S. for a while and thus are more familiar with it).

Re:Correct English?

[Jace Harker]

Nonsense. There certainly is such a thing as correct English, and it is not necessary for an "official handbook" to exist, although I would be willing to nominate the dictionary, Strunk & White, and the Chicago Manual of Style. (I don't claim that any or all of these deals with the whole question, but certainly each book standardizes some aspect of the language.)

Standard English can be defined as the English which is used, and understood to be correct, by a majority of contemporary native English-speakers. Some might narrow the definition to written English, especially as physically published in book or newspaper form; that is essentially the tacit definition that drives the Oxford English Dictionary.

I won't get into technical debate with you, but I will point out that "should have" is correct and meaningful, and that "should of" is derived from verbal bastardization. That doesn't make it wrong: if "should of" enters widespread use, it will eventually make its way into a dictionary, with its definition and (presumably) etymology. This is how language works.

I have no problem with people who use "incorrect" English, as long as I can understand them. However, I've noticed that posters who have responded in defense of poor written English have -- surprise! -- written their posts in poor English. I noticed because the posts were hard to read and hard to understand.

If you expect me to make the time and effort to read and consider your ideas, you should make an effort to write with care and clarity. Why should I respect your opinion when you don't appear to respect it?

A separate poster commented that some poor writing is a result of learning disability. Obviously I am not speaking about that issue here. However, I would suggest that that poster might find it useful to alert others of the disability in advance, to avoid the normal reaction.

Re:Correct English?

[Krach42]

Queen/King's English only applies to those nations where the Queen/King of England is also their monarch.

But this doesn't work in English. The most direct point here is that Queen's English is "colour", not the American English "color".

American English has no standards body, nor originating source of definition.

"American English" is known linguistically as "White English Vernacular" as opposed to "Black English Vernacular" (Ebonics) Don't take these terms a racist. It's like NAACP, it was coined before such terms were deemed offensive.

WEV is determined by a sorta semi-communal agreement among American English professors.

Re:Correct English?

[Anonymous Coward]

should of is not common in spoken english - should've, which sounds identical, is common.

Re:Correct English?

[emandres]

How about E.B. White's The Elements of Style? That seems to be a rather definitive authority on command of the English language as far as I have seen. On a side note, I have a friend who found a grammatical error in the book.

Re:Correct English?

[Anonymous Coward]

However, I would suggest that that poster might find it useful to alert others of the disability in advance, to avoid the normal reaction.

Or for the average /. reader they should include in their sig
"*this post typed under the influence of drugs/alcohol/with one hand"

Re:Correct English?

[Secret Agent X23]

I'm guessing the publishing company you worked for had a policy of not letting "should of" go out the door on a printed page.

I don't sweat it when see "should of" posted on a discussion board. I do, however, raise an eyebrown when I see it in a national magazine.

Re:Correct English?

[jejones]

Agreed. There's no equivalent of "La Academie Francaise" or "La Academia Real" for English.

But...if there were no rules, we couldn't even refer to some people as English speakers and others as not. Since nobody goes that far in this sort of discussion, I think that we can agree that English does have some rules. If there are different sets of rules for different English-speaking communities or subcultures or whatever the proper word is, I'd even go so far as to say that there's a large overlap among those sets.

I would say that writers should consider their target audiences and write to make communication (which is the goal of a writer, right?) go as smoothly as possible. Misspellings and breaking the rules used by that target audience gets in the way of communication.

If you're writing for people who use apostrophes for plurals and write "loose" when they mean "lose," hey, go for it...but be aware that you'll bug the heck out of a different, and possibly far larger, possible audience.

Re:Correct English?

[slavemowgli]

Since you're asking for it... here's the official English language handbook. :) It's not perfect in the sense that not everything's in there, but it should be all you need 99.9% of the time. :)

Re:Correct English?

[Locke2005]

Can you send me a copy of the official English language handbook? It's called the Oxford English Dictionary, and no, I can't send you one... buy your own!

Re:Correct English?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called The Elements of Style. Check it out sometime.

Re:Correct English?

[kocsonya]

> What is this 'correct English' of which you speak?
> Can you send me a copy of the official English language handbook?

E.g. M. Swan: Practical English Usage (or, for a less advanced reader Basic English Usage).
Or, say The Oxford English Grammar for poms, The Webster's New World English Grammar Handbook for yanks.
Look for English + grammar at Amazon, you will find a huge wealth of knowledge about the subject.
There is (regionally) correct English and it is documented.

The solution to common errors should not be to dumb down the language but to educate the people. Of course it requires money (and willingness to risk having better educated constituents) from the government, a lot of patience and hard work from the teachers and, sadly, effort and an interest in being educated from the students.

Re:Correct English?

[Krach42]

"Should of" could develop meaning, and has since developed meaning. The same as "Angst" has in English.

This word drives me nuts, because English uses it slightly differently from the German word "Angst".

If you don't like that, then "uber" would be an even better example.

Language changes. Reading a style guide of my mother's bygone college years, it listed not to use neologisms. In the list, I had either not ever heard of the word, or I had heard it so much that I had no idea that it was a *new* word just 30~40 years ago.

Style. Spelling. Grammar. EVERYTHING of a language evolves. Maybe some day a large culture *will* say "I of eaten" and have it make sense. But then you'll denounce it as a sloppy, or poor grammar, even though the same language will have *more* grammatical forms than English.

If you didn't catch that. I'm talking about Ebonics. Ebonics has a greater number of tense/aspect/mood markers than standardized American English. Just cause it doesn't match up to people's pretty nice standards people say it's sloppy, and lazy speech. And this is Bullshit. It's even more complex and detailed than English, and I'd like to see the first thing in the world that's more complex and detailed, yet still sloppier and lazier.

Last thing I'm going to say, is that people have this attitude towards standardized language stating that anything varying from it is inferior. And this too is Bullshit. Just because it doesn't fit your pretty standards doesn't mean that there is anything *wrong* with it, unless it's in a formal forum (where standardized grammar and spelling is a matter of etiquette.) Slashdot is *not* a formal forum.

So stick your formal etiquette in your ears you bastards. Slashdot is *NOT* a culture of proper etiquette.

Re:Correct English?

[lawpoop]

"Should of" is just as meaningful as "Should have". Words are an arbitrary association of sound to meaning. There's no logic in saying that "Should have" is not equivalent to "should of". You just don't like it.

It's funny that you bring in linguistics; a linguist would disagree with totally disagree with you. When children learn language, they reverse engineer what they hear, and devise devilishly complicated rules that most of us have never heard of, not even in grammar class. When some hears "Should of", they are not mishearing; rest assured they are making a perfectly functional set of rules based on the input. I'm not up on the currently literature, but I'm sure there is a lot of discussion about the rules governing "should of".

Spoekn languages change all the time -- not just vocabulary, but grammar rules, also. Just have a look at Chaucers 'English' poetry:

WHEN that Aprilis, with his showers swoot,
The drought of March hath pierced to the root,
And bathed every vein in such licour,
Of which virtue engender'd is the flower;
When Zephyrus eke with his swoote breath
Inspired hath in every holt and heath

The tender croppes* and the younge sun
Hath in the Ram his halfe course y-run,
And smalle fowles make melody,
That sleepen all the night with open eye,
(So pricketh them nature in their corages);
Then longe folk to go on pilgrimages,

You see that on the first line? "WHEN that Aprilis, with his showers swoot, " Showers sweet? Doesn't he mean "Sweet showers?" Why, he's putting the adjective *after* the noun! That's not English? But, yes it is; the rules have changed.

The thing is, you're just upset that people aren't speaking 'the King's English'. They never do, and they never will. Hey, I'm all for standardization of communication, but don't make false claims like people 'mishear' words. For an easy, accessible introduction into how language actually works, I suggest Pinker's _The Language Instinct_.

Re:Correct English?

[shaka]

If someone asked you "Have you eaten?" would you reply "I of eaten."? Maybe, but you would be wrong.

This was so utterly funny to me right now, I had to add you to my Friends list immediately!

Re:Correct English?

[justforaday]

If someone asked you "Have you eaten?" would you reply "I of eaten."? Maybe, but you would be wrong.

Oh yeah? Well, what if he has?

Re:Correct English?

[draconar]

I'll agree that "Should have" and "Should of" are equivalent in spoken language. However, the purpose of grammar, especially in written language, is to make it understandable by anybody who reads it. For those who first learned that "should have" is the "correct" expression, reading an otherwise standard sentence with "should of" in the middle of it disrupts the flow of the sentence. This is true with many phrases and spellings that have adapted from spoken language.

It is true that slashdot and many other forums don't require standard English, and I'm fine with that, as long as I can still understand what is said. If I can't understand it, I just ignore the post. Basically, if you can't make your opinions understandable, I don't think they deserve to be read.

Re:Correct English?

[ninjagin]

"... (W)hat will all those semi-intelligent pedants ... do?"

Educate themselves (if they care to) and become more intelligent pedants, I say.

I see your point. There may not be an actual, official set of codified grammatical rules for English. That much can be said. However, as someone who has worked in the publishing industry, you're probably familiar with any number of different texts on grammar and style. I keep four in easy reach, and they all complement each other.

They are:

• Elements of Style (Strunk & White)
• The AP Stylebook (a.k.a. the blue book)
• The Practical Stylist (Sheridan Baker)
• The Complete Stylist (Sheridan Baker)

Combine these four with a fairly weighty dictionary and a nice fat thesaurus, and you get all the grammatical rules (explained in different ways, and acknowledging alternative usages) and all of the generally accepted spellings.

Sure, as you point out, not one of these stylistic resources is explicitly definitive. If you have a sticky bit of usage to untangle, having multiple points of reference often lets you make the best informed decision.

While IANAL, I worked in law for many years, and later as both an editor and writer. In all of those roles, knowing the rules of the language was terribly important, and applying them became more natural and subconscious over time.

The truth is, though, that many people don't give a whit about using good grammar and style. Sometimes folks will correct them out of a desire to aggrandize themselves, as you point out. Most of the time, it's done to help these non-adherents understand that they're stepping on a rule. What the person does with the information is up to them, but I've never edited or given stylistic advice out of malice or a desire to give myself an ego boost.

Right now, I'm avoiding a stylistic critique of your post, but it's because 1) this is slashdot, and 2) because you probably don't give a hoot anyhow.

Re:Correct English?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what do the people who write incorrectly claim to speak and write? Their own version of English? Because I see each one doing different mistakes...

Errr.. that makes no sense!

Rather ironic, don't you think, that a post whining about other people insisting that adherence to particular rules of grammar is so poorly written as to make it difficult to understand.

Re:Correct English?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the assertation that there is no "correct" English can be argued as fact or truth, but for the record there is a prescriptive grammar and descriptive grammar (at least for the English language...or is that, "the language of English.")

With descriptive grammar, there are no rules except that if it works, it's correct. Most people refer to descriptive grammar as natural language.

Prescriptive grammar has it's rules, however, and there is "correct" and "incorrect" use. Prescriptive grammar is used when writing; it is the prescribed grammar. Because descriptive grammar relies on idiom, colloquialism, tone, and other communication factors to convey a meaning - all of which are not available in written text intended for a wide audience - descriptive grammar is best for oral communication, prose, or poetry.

If you are writing a communication with descriptive grammar, there is a huge chance that the audience won't "get it." If you use prescriptive grammar when writing, there's a huge chance the audience will understand your message.

Re:Correct English?

[lawpoop]

You are being obstinate. You understand perfectly well that "should of" is equivalent to the phrase "should have". It doesn't make any sentence unintelligible. I don't think that "it interrupts the flow of the sentence" -- that's not in any way an impirical judgement. C'mon. All that's happening is that you don't like this phrase.

Re:Correct English?

[nEoN nOoDlE]

But there are correct rules of grammar which you have followed in the creation of your post. Saying there is no correct English is ridiculous. Why else would someone make fun of the "All your base are belong to us" translation or create this comic strip if the English language was a free-for-all?

Re:Correct English?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Denmark it's just the same. It's like they're offended when you try to correct them.

Re:Correct English?

[Anonymous Coward]

Was your job in the publishing industry that of an editor? No?

http://www.tcnj.edu/~penny/cmsc485/strunk_summary. html

There are rules, and "correct English" is knowing how to break them properly so that you don't break the communication.

Re:Correct English?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoah there.
The Queen's English is the only English language. Just because the Americans forked it (pun intended) some time ago, and that variation is quite possibly the most widely used, doesn't make it correct.
It's a shame that, as far as I'm aware, there isn't a movement in The States to adopt proper English spelling and pronunciation.

Re:Correct English?

[idsofmarch]

You're right there is no Academie Francaise for English and every movement to create a unified set of rules has resulted in the kind of strangness that made too and to for example. We do have a kind of authority in the Oxford English Dictionary, but that only works for spelling and usages. However, there are generally accepted rules such as the difference between your and you're.

I expect English to continue to evolve as it has for the nearly two thousand years--ever read Old English texts? Yikes!--but in the meantime, I would like things that I read to be understandable, to be spelled correctly, and to have some semblance of logical thought.

So, if a comma is misplaced, a question mark forgotten, I'm willing to ignore it, but the kind of willful disregard for even the pretense of grammar from some of the posters in Slashdot--and in the hacker community--is annoying as all-hell.

Re:Correct English?

[dtungsten]

No, he doesn't like that fact that some people are too lazy to learn it correctly, and want others to pick up the slack.

Re:Correct English?

[Anonymous Coward]

email address is mac.com, complains about expresso vs espresso (as a side comment, no less)... grasping at elistism... this is the funniest post I of seen on /.. You are one very consistent stereotype.

Re:Correct English?

[rbarreira]

And the best part - it's modded at +5 already :D

Re:Correct English?

[MrHanky]

What I can say is that you can tell the people who will get nowhere by how they have something to prove, but no way to prove it. If you can't write, you can't prove anything in writing. People in the publishing business should know this.

As for 'should of' vs. 'should have': The first one is wrong in pretty much the same way that saying the sun and the stars revolve around the earth is wrong. It might make sense to the person writing it, just then, but not to the star that has to travel its own distance to the earth*2*pi every day. It demands exceptions to other well established rules, complicating matters too much to be good usage. Using the preposition 'of' as an auxiliary verb in a few special cases isn't as much wrong as it's stupid. Rhetorically, it just shows that you place a stronger emphasis on expressing an opinion than on thinking well, which certainly doesn't make an argument stronger.

Re:Correct English?

[kongjie]

You've mistaken me for something who doesn't know anything about linguistics and doesn't realize that all language is completely arbitrary and constantly changing.

My point was that people think the dark, hot Italian drink is "expresso" just like they think "I should've" is "I should of." It sounds similar but when you write it out, you realize it is wrong. That beverage is actually currently called "espresso" and it will be until we assimilate all the Italians.

"Should of" falls apart the minute we write it down.

Your poetry argument was nice to read but is largely irrelevant. Ever hear of the term "poetic license"?

"Should of" may one day enter written and spoken English as a standard phrase, but I hope not, because it doesn't enrich the language, nor does it simplify it. At least "ain't" provides us with a contraction for "am not."

People think it's hip to point out how language is a random set of rules and standards and are bullshit forced on us by the man and anyone who thinks otherwise is a grammar pedant. Try to read some of the shit people write these days and you'll run to the classified to hire a few pedants to help fix things.

Linguists study a lot of speech patterns that strike them as interesting and find a lot of rules that govern non-standard usage but that doesn't mean we should adopt their studies for our own speech patterns.

Re:Correct English?

[LauraScudder]

I agree that languages evolve, but language is all about communication. When someone says "should of", it sounds just like "should've" so I immediately understand them. But when I read "should of" I have to pause, sound it out, and realize that they meant "should've". I've read a c.1914 Skunk and White, which lists neologisms, but "all right" -> "alright" is not the same as "have" -> "of". It's a hinderance to written communication because of IS NOT A VERB! Perhaps my problem is that I'm a voracious reader and so printed mistakes leap right out at me, but I can tolerate most everything EXCEPT "should of" which immediately makes me think that the author is semi-illiterate.

Re:Correct English?

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't you mean "What if he ofs?"

Re:Correct English?

[lamp540]

You really don't know that much about language. Written language is a new invention and there is no requirement that a human be able to write like there is a requirement that a human be able to talk. There is no written language part of the mind as there is a a spoken language part. These "mistakes" in writing are either someone writing like they would talk or simply errors in transcription. None of these things is an indication of low intelligence.

I do question the intelligence of people who place so much focus on writing in a language that is different from the vernacular. What exactly is the purpose of your writing? Are you writing in order to communicate or are you writing to show off? Should people that haven't spent years and years perfecting their arbitrary spelling and grammar not be allowed to communicate on the same level as those who did even when the communication is clear? Should the bible never have been translated into english? Maybe we should use tens of thousands of pictograms to represent our written ideas so no unauthorized writers, i.e. not having completed 15+ years of formal school, will write anything?

Also, the OED is not the official dictionary of English. Why should Americans care what someone in oxford thinks is right or wrong? English is spoken all over the planet and your attempts to centralize and standardize it just show a very parochial and unintellectual way of thinking.

Re:Correct English?

[lamp540]

"The solution to common errors should not be to dumb down the language but to educate the people. Of course it requires money (and willingness to risk having better educated constituents) from the government, a lot of patience and hard work from the teachers and, sadly, effort and an interest in being educated from the students."

Is our language a better language because it's more complicated than other languages? How exactly does having all these words which are spelled using different, contradictory rules make english better? Shouldn't the purpose of language be efficient communication?

Re:Correct English?

[lamp540]

Here are all the different "official" standards documents of English that have been listed in all these responses:

Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
the dictionary(any of them?)
Elements of style (Strunk & White)
Chicago Manual of Style
Oxford English Dictionary
Little Brown Book
M. Swan: Practical English Usage
The Oxford English Grammar
The Webster's New World English Grammar Handbook
any book found when searching for "english grammar" on amazon.com
The AP Stylebook
The Practical Stylist
The Complete Stylist

How can they all be official?

"If you have a sticky bit of usage to untangle, having multiple points of reference often lets you make the best informed decision."

If figuring out usage is such a complicated, non-deterministic affair then there is no standard.

Re:Correct English?

[freeze128]

If someone asked you "Have you eaten?" would you reply "I of eaten."? Maybe, but you would be wrong.

Not if you were a Borg.

Re:Correct English?

[David Rolfe]

You see that on the first line? "WHEN that Aprilis, with his showers swoot, " Showers sweet? Doesn't he mean "Sweet showers?" Why, he's putting the adjective *after* the noun! That's not English? But, yes it is; the rules have changed.

C'mon, to be fair you have to admit that English has no word order rules ... just like Latin, it merely has customs (and yet you insinuate that you are a linguist?!). If English relied on word order (c.f., Asian languages) they would have had to subtitle Yoda. :-D

English has rules. The phrase Should of violates those rules. Rules change. At this point though of is still a preposition and have is still a verb.

It's interesting that earlier in this thread that Ebonics is held up as a defense. Ebonics solves this lame argument by accepting the concatenation of prepositions into parts of speech like 'shoulda'. If people would just write out their pidgin English phonetically we wouldn't have to worry about it. One could tell right away that they were writing in dialect and thus one could throw out all grammatical parsing and just use phonetic parsing.

Re:Correct English?

[lawpoop]

At this point though of is still a preposition and have is still a verb. Says who? A lot of people disagree with you. You may not hold the majority opinion in fifty years.

"C'mon, to be fair you have to admit that English has no word order rules ... just like Latin, it merely has customs (and yet you insinuate that you are a linguist?!)."

I didn't say I am a linguist, but I have taken several classes in linguistics.

English has very strict word order rules. Consider:

The ball hit a boy.
A boy hit the ball.

The ball a boy hit.
A boy the ball hit.
Hit the ball a boy.
Hit a boy the ball.

Out of all [noun], [verb], [object] combinations, only two are grammatical, and those two have different meanings. Word order changes meaning in English.

" If English relied on word order (c.f., Asian languages) they would have had to subtitle Yoda. "

Yoda acutally uses word order rules, creating constructions that are often used in English poetry and verse. Consider:

The force you must use.
Away put your weapon.
Told you, did he?

However, we all know that Yoda *would not* say:

Force the use must you.
Weapon your away put.
He did you told?

Whereas in Finnish, for example, word order affects emphasis but not meaning:

Auto otti hän?
He took the car?

Otti hän auto?
He took the car?

Hän otti auto?
He took the car?

Because of endings, a Finnish speaker knows which part of speech each word it. Notice the word order has to stay the same in English, but I've adopted html tags to represent verbal emphasis. However, Finnish word order can change in a sentence, yet each word is still the same part of speech. It does change the emphasis, which you can argue changes the meaning, but my point is that 'hän' is always the subject, 'otti' is always the verb, and 'auto' is always the object. It doesn't matter what order they are in.

If you say "The car he took?" meaning "He took the car?!" makes you sound like Yoda or an old Yiddish grandpa. Notice how I showed you what I mean by changing the word order in the sentence.

"English has rules. The phrase Should of violates those rules. Rules change. At this point though of is still a preposition and have is still a verb."

Yes, English has rules, but nobody will agree on what they are, and there is no authority to say what they are, or when they change.

"One could tell right away that they were writing in dialect and thus one could throw out all grammatical parsing and just use phonetic parsing."

Language is based on sound (or, in the case of sign language, visual form). There is no parsing other than phonetic parsing.

Re:Correct English?

[Krach42]

Well, the unfortunate thing is that English refers both to American and International (UK) English.

I'll agree that American English should probably have a better more unambiguous term. But at this point, we're splitting hairs, and running into the definition of a language that I prefer the most: "A Language is a Dialect with an army."

This is used to explain why Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish are all highly mutually intelligable, but are considered different languages, while most people consider Mandarin and Cantonese to be "dialects" of Chinese, even though they are entirely mutually unintelligable.

So, I'd prefer a better term, but it's all just semantic hair-splitting at this point.

Re:Correct English?

[Krach42]

It's really in many ways an issue of your being aware of it, and noticing it. If you were to just let the issue go, and not consider the author a compete moron anytime you read it, then you'd find that you'll stop caring as much. (This is implicitly true, as the conclusion follows directly from the definition of the pretense. Like saying if you legalize drugs, there will be a drop in drug crime.)

Anyways, yes, I agree there are a number of things that people can do in their writing that make it just outright frustrating to read. I usually overlook simple errors and typos. They're not worth my time to correct.

If the person makes enough errors to be entirely unintelligable, then I politely ask them, if they could please attempt some corrections as I can't understand them.

I certainly don't just blurt out, "It's 'should've' not 'should of'"... unless they're a good friend, and I'm just teasing them.

I'll definitely say that a large number of Slashdot users don't exhibit proper Slashdot etiquette; in either pedanticly correcting people over trivial errors, and not doing so in either a courteous or humourous manner.

Re:Correct English?

[David Rolfe]

Language is based on sound (or, in the case of sign language, visual form). There is no parsing other than phonetic parsing

So the vital problem is that the construction "should of" doesn't sound like "shoulda" or "should've" or "should have". The phrase is still simply wrong even by your own understanding. This ignores the fact that your caveat for sign language also applies to the visual forms of written language -- hence "should of" even looks wrong.

Regarding word order, any insight on why we still use accusative forms of some words in English? I have to agree that all of the verb-first constructions were bizarre. :-D I know nothing of Finnish, so that was very enlightening.

Finally:
I said, "At this point though of is still a preposition and have is still a verb." To which you replied, "Says who? A lot of people disagree with you. You may not hold the majority opinion in fifty years."

I now ask: To whom is of not a preposition? I acknowledge that the verbing of nouns is generally accepted and can go the other way, and hence the nouning of the verb have leads us to phases like "the haves and the have-nots".

Re:Correct English?

[lawpoop]

I don't know what part of the country you're in, or even if you're in the U.S.

But here in Columbus, Ohio, 'should've' sounds exactly like 'should of'.

That's why people write "should of". It's exactly the two words they hear.

Re:Correct English?

[Anonymous Coward]

..."correct English" of which you speak...

nuff sed

Re:Correct English?

[Ztream]

Grammar is an attempt at codifying the patterns of language usage, not the other way around. If people start using "should of", grammar needs to be changed, because it reflects usage.

Or maybe you should reinstate dative forms in the english language? That was once a part of the Holy Grammar, and as such, cannot be altered - so most of the grammar in your post is wrong, as well at the grammar in this one.

Re:Correct English?

[spot35]

Q: Don't you know the Queen's English?!
A: Well, of course she's english, she wouldn't be the queen otherwise.

Re:Correct English?

[Anonymous Coward]

geez, stop replying already, yhbt.

worse than grammar nazis are the fucking stupid morons defending their idiotic spelling.

Re:Correct English?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why people write "should of". It's exactly the two words they hear.

By that argument, I should right (sic) down "I eight breakfast two-day"

Re:Correct English?

[afroborg]

I'll agree that American English should probably have a better more unambiguous term.

It does: "Wrong." ;)

Re:Correct English?

[vrt3]

Actually I believe many people these days would indeed write "I 8 breakfast 2day".

speeling

[Frostalicious]

If we can quash "rediculous" I will be happy.

Re:speeling

[ArsonSmith]

Now your being rediculous!!

Re:speeling

[fLameDogg]

Me to. That really bugs me alot; its a pet peeve of mine.

Sorry.

Re:speeling

[Rikus]

If we can quash "rediculous" I will be happy.

I was once guilty of this crime. Fortunately, it eventually became apparent that if "redicule" is not a word, there is probably not an adjective based on it either. I have recovered (there's almost no chance of me spelling it that way anymore), and now it bothers me (strange feeling in the head) to see it just like so many other spelling errors do, in part because it is a reminder of my own past.

Because it doesn't really matter all that much.

[Punchcardz]

Apart from really poor spelling, minor mistakes such as definately/definitely do not affect someones understanding of the message. Couple that with the rise of modern spell checkers in most situations where you need to give off a very good impression, there is little incentive for being very careful with your spelling, particularly when being informal. Like posting on a message board.

Grammer rooles!

[ac3boy]

I four won wood lick too post my outtrage on thiss matter.

I definately doo nott unnderstand why thiss wood make it heart four peeple to geet my point. I gess i shoud have listned butter inn skool.

could it be..., the schools?

[yagu]

I consider myself an excellent speller with a firm grasp of the English language, its syntax, and semantics. And I consider myself to be high on the scale of technical savvy. But I've met more brilliant people in 21 years in this industry who couldn't spell a lick. I don't know if it's lack of care, or just plain inability to spell.

A peer who collaborated with me on one of my major projects implemented a layer of code to make the program more transparent and usable... and one of the major pieces used file handles to hide named pipes... He spelled it "filehadle", which in this case is more likely a typo, but he missed a lot of other words too. To this day I still get questions about that variable name (it's a good filter..., a programmer who brings that question is not one who I want working with that code).

Another best friend is now VP of a company he founded, and I hope he is getting his correspondence edited before sending.

There are even examples of Mr. Gates' e-mail... if you didn't know it was he, you'd think the author of some of his missives was illiterate.

All of this said and observed, I don't think I've ever been able to see any direct relationship or correlation with "illiteracy" and the technology gurus. I have seen more of a correlation with younger people and while I have no conclusive evidence I would submit this is more about a school system that spends time worrying about the wrong things. (I've even seen typo's/misspellings pop up on the CNN crawler! Ick!)

Another experience: a best friend of mine was in a German Blue Grass band, and they came to the U.S. and toured the midwest out of our house. So, here were four Germans with whom I spent over a week... and one of the most notable things about them was they spoke better English than most Americans! Go figure.

Re:could it be..., the schools?

[sholden]

To this day I still get questions about that variable name (it's a good filter..., a programmer who brings that question is not one who I want working with that code).

A programmer who would question why you have a variable name that is just asking for future errors when it is "mistyped" correctly is one you don't want working on the code?

You prefer people who don't notice such things? And just introduce bugs instead?

Re:could it be..., the schools?

[yagu]

You raise an excellent point. Probably me being a bit snooty... when I shouldn't be... as soon as I read your reply I put myself in that situation... and it's exactly what I'd do. So much for being glib without thinking (which I think might be redundant).

Thanks for pointing it out.

Re:could it be..., the schools?

[almaw]

If you're going to blow your own trumpet to such a high degreee, you can expect holes to be picked. So I shall oblige. I must say, IMVHO, that you really shouldn't consider yourself excellent.

A person with a firm grasp of English would not start his sentences with conjunctions ("and" and "but"). Likewise they would not use an ellipsis followed by a conjunction ("usable... and").

You have also failed with your assertion about Mr. Gates. Your construct "didn't know it was he" should instead read, "didn't know it was him". "There are even examples of Mr. Gates' e-mail" makes no sense in the context in which you put it. I think you mean "There are even examples to be found in Mr. Gates' e-mails".

As for using an ellipsis followed immediately by a comma... Yuck.

Putting "illiteracy" in inverted commas also seems entirely strange to me. Why did you do that? You make no attempt to advocate a different interpretation of the word, or other requisite for such behaviour.

In short, I can only surmise that you are one of those sorts of people who claim to be a rocket scientist on their CV, but actually can't do basic algebra.

The moral of this story is to not blow your own trumpet unless you really think there's a good reason to.

(I now fully expect this post to be torn to shreds by some more zealot-like creature than me. ;-) )

Re:could it be..., the schools?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've even seen typo's/misspellings pop up on the CNN crawler!

Such as misplaced apostrophes?

Re:could it be..., the schools?

[yagu]

I assume you're pointing at the "typo's". While maybe not highly appreciated by all it is an accepted practice for creating plurals of jargon, slang, or idioms. Would you like the page number and paragraph reference from the Chicago Manual of Style?

Re:could it be..., the schools?

[yagu]

from my original post: I consider myself an excellent speller...

I don't think I misspelled anything in my post, and still hold to that statement.

also: with a firm grasp of the English language, its syntax, and semantics.

I do think I have a firm grasp of the English language and can write appropriately to the style appropriate to the forum. In this case I know I butcher formal writing constructs, but I do so knowing the forum understands and accepts a certain informality in /. posts. I never did claim to be excellent in writing, just in spelling.

I stand by my construct "didn't know it was he". "he" in this case is the implied predicate of a clause, "he who wrote the letter". "him" would be more appropriate as in "didn't know him", where "him" in this case appropriately is an object (of "know").

I put illiteracy in quotes because I don't quite think of people who misspell or write less than perfectly illiterate, hence quotes as in, not the true interpretation of illiteracy.

I don't claim to be a rocket scientist, but in college, five straight semesters of calculus, diffy q, partial diffy q, I received the highest score on the finals of all students. I am in the twilight years of an illustrious career in computer technology (others' opinions, not mine). I think I've done well.

Loved your feedback. Fully expected it from someone, and I welcome it. I've added you as "friend".

Best Regards, "y"

Re:could it be..., the schools?

[prockcore]

He spelled it "filehadle"

Any programmer who can't spell is useless. Especially because he selfishly made it more difficult for his co-workers to maintain that code.

If you make lexical mistakes and let the compiler correct them for you, it's a guarrantee that you also make logical mistakes that no compiler can fix for you.

Re:could it be..., the schools?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to post this in hopefully an informative, educational way:

I consider myself an excellent speller ... ...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Re:could it be..., the schools?

[Anonymous Coward]

dictionary entry for speller

Re:could it be..., the schools?

[Spire]

And then there's this function in the Microsoft Windows Shell API.

Lose versus Loose

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, if I see one more dope on the Internet use the word "loose" when they mean "lose," I'm gonna' f-ing scream. How hard is this to remember? Here, for the benefit of all the little brains out there, try and remember this little phrase:

You might lose your lunch when you see someone's bowels go loose.

Re:Lose versus Loose

[AussieVamp2]

I agree, that particular error is incredibly annoying.

I'll take the high road

[Anonymous Coward]

I definitely should of memorized all those rules. And incidently those mistakes really don't lead to any ambiguity. Geez...

Pink Floyd forever!

[Anonymous Coward]

"We don't need no edu-cation. We don't need no thought-control."

sms-speak

[gregmac]

On this subject, why do people resort to phrases like "u", "ur", "l8r", "plz", etc? You have a full keyboard, use it. Shortening a 5 letter word down to 3 saves very little time, and makes you look like a big idiot. I don't even like it in SMS messages: on my phone, and most I've seen, I have a "t9" input. To say "hello", for example, you type 43556. It automatically figures out what word you're trying to spell, and there's a "next" button if it gets it wrong. Very rarely I have to switch to alpha input to type a word it doesn't know.

Now, what really pisses me off is I bought a USB analog video capture device today. I didn't notice until I got back, but it actually says on the front: "DVD Direct Burn. No need to save in ur HDD". Seriously. I'm not sure I would have bought it if I noticed that earlier..

Re:sms-speak

[squoozer]

If you are in the UK you will be able to see this abomination in every super market. Look at packets of Disco crisps. Every one mis-spells flavour as flava. Grrrrr that winds me up so much. I really wish I wasn't chemically addicted to the salt and vinegar "falva" ones.

Re:sms-speak

[Nyago]

I've seen people backspace correct spellings in favour of netspeak. Scary stuff.

Re:sms-speak

[200_success]

I agree completely. The only excuse for using such lame abbreviations should be when you're running up to the 160-character limit for SMS. Everywhere else, it just makes your writing look stupid and unreadable.

Re:sms-speak

[Colol]

Very true about T9, and newer phones are even featuring "type-ahead" these days so 435 will get you options of help, hell, hello... Heck, it even seems to be frequency-weighted on my phone, so the most likely candidate is the first one to pop up.

I can understand using abbreviations when you're trying to overcome the length limitations of standard SMS (160 characters), but (a) modern phones work around SMS limits like magic and (b) I have never, in writing text messages, exceeded the 160-char limit. I've used SMS fairly extensively, between it being my sole link to my girlfriend when she was in the hospital and the best way to reach dear ol' dad since he's always with patients.

I've actually seen people write software documentation (both Open Source and plain ol' shareware) in SMS shorthand style. Drives me up the wall. Meanwhile, I regularly consult Apple's Documentation Style Guide to make sure my own documentation is familiar to users, and utilize the Chicago Manual of Style for nearly anything else. Maybe I'm just anal, but the marketplace doesn't seem like an appropriate venue for SMS/IM-speak and regional vernacular.

Re:sms-speak

[Locke2005]

Omg! People who SMS or play online games a lot quickly learn that even saving 2 letters can make the difference between having a message fit on the display or having it be truncated and thus totally unreadable. Also, when you're trying to type as fast as you normally talk (or as fast as you can think), some typographical errors are inevitable. The objective of communication is to efficiently convey meaning between speaker and listener. To do this, you need to know your audience; for some audiences, these abbreviations ARE the most effective means of communication.

Re:sms-speak

[Anonymous Coward]

They're probably not legally allowed to describe it as "flavour"...

First we had "chocolate"
Then "chocolaty"
"chocolaty flavour"
and now
"chocolaty flava"

which, unsurprisingly, tastes just like a mixture of hydrogenated oil, invert sugar and salt.

Re:sms-speak

[Jaiden]

Did u mean u just bought "a Universal Serial Bus analog video capture device?"

Some of us r unclear on the meaning of "USB."

Dink.

Re:sms-speak

[foolAloof]

I could understand your view regarding the shortened words in SMS. However, an SMS has only 160 characters in it. One more character in the message, and you'll have to pay for two SMSes.

Of course, it's only a cost of one SMS, but if you're in the business that requires you to use the service regularly, it could save your money considerably. Not many people will need that many letters/characters in one short message, but that doesn't mean that such people doesn't exist.

Re:sms-speak

[St. Vitus]

Too true. Here's an example that was recently posted to a job-seeker discussion list I'm on (incriminating nouns removed, and emphasis added):


Does anyone have a contact within the [department] business unit or the
[another department] department at [company] in [town]? I'm interested
in a junior tech writer position there.

Thx for your help!


The first thing I thought was, "Good luck with that job hunt, you're gonna need it!"

Re:sms-speak

[Anonymous Coward]

"DVD Direct Burn. No need to save in ur HDD". Seriously. I'm not sure I would have bought it if I noticed that earlier..

I'm not sure I would have bought it if I had noticed that earlier! If you must sound like a snob at least try to do it right. (And I am not even a native English speaker... *sigh*)

Re:sms-speak

[TheoMurpse]

Very true about T9, and newer phones are even featuring "type-ahead" these days so 435 will get you options of help, hell, hello... Heck, it even seems to be frequency-weighted on my phone, so the most likely candidate is the first one to pop up.

I know what you mean -- my Japanese cellphone has some common Japanese phrases for a lookahead-type function. By "phrase" I mean sentence endings and other small things, not actual sayings and sentences. For those keeping score, I am referring to things like "n desu ga" and "to omou" after I have typed "nde" or "too".

What really fascinates me, and has come in handy as it is a pain to type out "Fuchinobe eki" often (I pass through that station every day), is that it learns by changing the weighted values of words and phrases. The first day I had the phone, I sent an email with my address, which included the painful-to-input phrase "sagamiharashikanagawaken" (Sagamihara City, Kanagawa Prefecture). After that, I could type in "saga" and "sagamiharashi" would come up. I could select "sagamiharashi" from the list of suggestions, and "kanagawaken" would come up as a suggestion immediately. That is awesome. I wish US phones were that sophisticated.

Re:sms-speak

[drsquare]

When you can actually type properly, it's actually faster to write proper English than SMS-speak. You can type as you think, which is easier than having to think about which abbreviation to use. And things like 'l8r' involve a number key which slows you down. I'd bet at least £3 that people who type in sms-speak hunt and peck.

The objective of communication is to efficiently convey meaning between speaker and listener. To do this, you need to know your audience; for some audiences, these abbreviations ARE the most effective means of communication.

To who? Illiterates? Are you telling me, there are people who have trouble reading normal English, and need the words abbreviated and replaced with numbers before they can understand it? Perhaps it's time to bring back the cane.

Mispelling isn't so bad

[kuzb]

I don't think mispelling the occasional word makes you look quite as stupid as internet shorthand.

"u", "ur", "tnx", "b4" - These are the kinds of things that piss me off. Not everyone has perfect spelling and grammar, but speaking like this is awful.

Re:Mispelling isn't so bad

[ashridah]

What I find entertaining is when that kind of stuff started to become prevalent, the people using it tried to claim they were saving bandwidth on IRC.

Nevermind that they would have to have used about 4 times more characters in order to actually fill up the minimum size of an IP packet, typically. Learning to type effectively would clearly benefit these people far more than using slang.

Mobile phones are a different matter, since typing with a number pad can be painful and tedious.

I still use proper english when using SMS personally, however. My own sense of good taste won't let me use slang, even if it does take ages to send an SMS message (cheap phone without spelling completion :( ).

ashridah

Eh

[jZnat]

So, are we talking about 1337 speak, AOL speak, or both?

Some of my friends and I will talk using mock AOL or 1337 speak on some forums and such, but like I said, it's only to mock those who talk like that all the time. Being able to say "el oh el you poned that nub" via a microphone in online games is also a fun way just to agitate the other players if they start to get too serious about the internet. So, remember that the next time you see people shitting out their messages; they might be doing it like that on purpose (which takes an extraordinarily large amount of effort due to grammar and spelling, in a sense, being tied into your fingers as you type, thus slowing you down when you try to intentionally spell in a certain way).

Also, I've noticed that a large amount of the people who can't use proper grammar and spelling in their posts, emails, etc, are also usually quite stupid to begin with.

Re:Eh

[rbarreira]

Can women block pops up for you?

Yeah, they can pretty much block popups and about everything else which is displayed on a computer screen...

Efficiently versus Effectively

[sterno]

Personally I think this boils down to the fact that one can convey a message without necessarily getting the grammar and spelling right. If I use there, their, or they're, you're able to deduce from the context of it's use, what I mean. Thus it's really not critical for you that I even get it right.

When you are using IM, or IRC, the emphasis is on rapidity to keep up with the thoughts of a flowing conversation. So spelling and grammar go out the window in the interests of efficiency. You type it however it comes out of your mind. Invariavly this carries over into other areas like e-mail, blog postings, etc.

How many of us really thoroughly re-read a blog posting like we'd read an academic paper, or an important work document? Frankly, we don't have time to screw around with it. So we don't. We are able to transmit meaning, and for the most part nobody really cares about the little glitches.

So I think it's just that there's such a volume of information out there and such a rush to make more that the important of that accuracy has fallen by the wayside. It gets in the way of getting things done. And remember, if it's all digital, it can always be edited later to fix any problems. If everything's a beta, you can afford to screw it up a bit.

I just hope...

[dep01]

I just hope that one day, we live in a society where people know the difference between there, they're, and their... to, too, and two... that'd be nice.

this article

[Anonymous Coward]

this article is redickulous

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[bburton]

American culture, yes. However, I blame it more specifically on the Internet, computers, and technology. Today, kids grow up sending text messages, communicating over instant message clients, chatting via IRC, etc. In these types of conversations abbreviations, shorthand, and even (shutter) l33tspeak are the norm.

Most people don't care if the person they are chatting with is using perfect English... and they certainly don't care about "minor" things like correct spelling and grammar; all that really matters is that the message gets across quickly, and is understood on the other end.

What concerns me is how all this shorthand is hurting people in other areas of their life. In a business enviroment, writing an e-mail (or anything really) that uses any "netspeak" type shorthand, makes you look, in my eyes, like a lazy idiot.

As if that wasn't bad enough!

[b1ad3runn3r]

The thing that actually bothers me is not that people have a poor grasp of the english language, but the fact that when you correct them in a non-arrogant manner, they actually refuse your help. Okay, okay, ignorance is one thing. Insisting on being ignorant is like... stupid.

Re:As if that wasn't bad enough!

[galore]

Tsk: as if that weren't bad enough!

Re:As if that wasn't bad enough!

[hyc]

Look at the common stereotypes - techies or programmers for example. Think about professional programmers, getting paid by the hour, and what happens when they make typos in their code.

For a C program, the compiler spits out a slew of error messages, of which probably only the first message is meaningful and the rest are spurious. After you've seen this happen a few times, the most common reaction is one of annoyance, swearing at the computer and/or compiler, while editing to fix all the problems.

What observations can you make about this work cycle?
1) "DWIMS" - Do What I Mean, Stupid! - programmers are quick to blame anything but themselves for their own mistakes.
2) Programmers hate to have their mistakes pointed out to them.
3) Programmers have extremely low regard for anyone/thing that points out their mistakes to them.
4) Programmers being paid hourly make more money for making mistakes, and otherwise doing anything that stretches out the development time of a project.

Once you understand 1-3 you can easily see how the same attitude transfers over into verbal communication. The fact is, a large number of supposedly savvy techies are lousy at paying attention to detail, whether communicating with people or with computers. With the computer work they can get away with being sloppy because the computer can only complain about bad syntax, and can seldom identify bad semantics, and they can take as many tries as necessary to tweak their input until the computer accepts it. With human communication you usually only get one shot at communicating a point, and these people who are too lazy and used to getting multiple chances to refine their output come out looking bad.

Anyway, whether poor spelling or grammar reflects on your intelligence or knowledge or not, it certainly reflects on your attitude. And in most human interaction, that can be more important than any other factor.

Re:As if that wasn't bad enough!

[Anonymous Coward]

They weren't That wasn't

what difference does it make?

[ag3ntugly]

yeah you need to use proper grammar and spelling in official letters and memos and things, but when your just commnunicating an idea from yourself to someone else, if you both know what your talking about, then what difference does it make if you misuse a word here and there, its the same reason we use "lol" and "IMHO" and other acronyms rather than full words, its not because we're lazy, its because it gets the idea across, at least thats how I feel about it.

Re:what difference does it make?

[mabinogi]

How sure are you that the other person really _does_ know what you're (not your) talking about?

Sometimes poor grammar and spelling is harmless, but other times a single missed comma or misspelt word is enough to completely change the meaning of a sentence.

Also, a lot of people seem to think that it's a black and white issue - but it's not.
Not all mistakes are equal. There are often people that get overly worked up about things that are more a matter of style rather than grammar, but in other cases people will strongly defend their "right" to create completely nonsensical sentences and call it "communication".

A few seconds extra to proofread and run a spell checker over your emails and posts is a small price to pay to improve the chances that you'll be understood and decrease the likelihood that you'll look like an idiot.

Re:what difference does it make?

[ag3ntugly]

there is a grey area i agree, but in my previous post i used "your" instead of "you're" and you knew exactly what i was trying to say. when i read something i don't take the literal meaning of the letters in front of me, i also hear the words in my head. You also have to take into account what makes sense and what doesn't. for example, "your not ready" doesn't make any sense, but "your're not ready" does, and anyone who points the fact that you misspelled "you're" is only doing it to bust your balls about it, they know what you meant, and so does everyone else.

Re:what difference does it make?

[Chuq]

Sometimes poor grammar and spelling is harmless, but other times a single missed comma or misspelt word is enough to completely change the meaning of a sentence.

Even a single capital letter:

"I helped my uncle Jack off a horse"

"I helped my uncle jack off a horse"

Right brain/left brain

[slapout]

I believe that one is a right brain activity while another is a left brain activity. In tech people, the non communication side seems to be dominate. I've also noticed that we tend to like math and history and dislike english.

Re:Right brain/left brain

[pikine]

You seem to disregard the fact that math is a rigorous language as well, not less so than English. If you claim it's a language deficiency that someone is not able to use correct grammar and spelling in a natural language, the same deficiency will impair the ability to write correct math formulas. And I claim the same deficiency or carelessness will lead to one writing buggy programs, since programs are expressed in terms of programming languages that have rigorous mathematical foundation.

It is nothing but personal preference that you excel in math and history but not English. Linking geek's social ineptitude to poor mastering of English is fallacious. Are there socially inept people who are strong commanders of English? Yes, they become writers, but not the bestseller kinds. They write the gems of the books that you don't find anywhere in a chain book store.

Money to be made

[Bryansix]

I think there is a lot of money to be made on this front. People in general focus on the big picture and miss out on the details. If a company could capitalize on this fact and offer a service for correcting spelling and grammitical errors. In addition a good fact checking service could rake in the preverbial dough as well.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[ZephyrXero]

Seriously though, I think being taught phonix(sp? lol) as a child really hendered my spelling capabilities because so many words are spelled in ways they shouldn't...

Schools?

[Xarius]

I don't know about America, but in England our government is turning schools into fuzzy molly-coddling babysitters where children are no longer "wrong". When I was at school (not too long ago) this sort of thing got drilled into you.

I understand what you're saying, people who don't understand the distinctions between "there, their, and they're" or "your and you're" etc. are pretty much the majority now.

But then again, English is a pretty daft language when all's said and done.

That's ironic, speaking of english skills

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Mostly, this seems to manifest itself as varying degrees of poor spelling and grammar: 'definately' instead of 'definitely'; 'should of' instead of 'should have';

You should have used colons here, not semicolons.

Re:That's ironic, speaking of english skills

[lav-chan]

(a) 'English' is a proper noun.

(b) You probably shouldn't have used a comma there (in your subject), if you wanted to be totally strict, although i'm sure we could cut you some slack since this is supposed to be conversational English.

(c) You probably shouldn't have used a comma in your post there, but we could probably cut you some slack on this one, also.

(d) No, he shouldn't have used colons. Maybe you meant commas, but that's arguable (you're free to use semicolons where you think that commas would be confusing).

Re:That's ironic, speaking of english skills

[shrykk]

You should have used colons here, not semicolons.

I believe it's acceptable usage to use semicolons as extra-powerful commas in lists to add clarity, the obvious example being when you have comma-separated clauses within the list.

e.g. "I visited Paris, the capital of France; Berlin, the capital of Germany; and Majorca, a Spanish island." In the post you replied to the quotes make the sentence look quite 'busy', so the semicolons add clarity.

(BTW hi Rosco, I friendlisted you some time back, probably because of some interesting comment you made)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

English is a mess.

Technical minds like logic and order.

Therefore, geeks hate English.

Aggh, enough of this, I'm grabbing my pole and going ghoti'n.

Where have you been? Grammar is bad all over.

[wernst]

It isn't as if only the geeks have gotten sloppy with grammar and spelling. EVERYBODY is bad at it these days.

Additionally, spell-checkers have made things worse, because now no one knows how to spell things correctly by themselves. When you see somethng choc-full-o-spelling-errors, it is probably because there's no built-in spelling checker. And I am just as guilty of this as the rest of the world.

I'm not complaining, mind you. I'm a professional writer, and the worse the general population can write, the more employable I become...

Re:Where have you been? Grammar is bad all over.

[NoMaster]

When you see somethng choc-full-o-spelling-errors, it is probably because there's no built-in spelling checker.

Not in my workplace...

Take a look at the next Powerpoint or Word document that crosses your desk from higher up the management food chain, and note all the spelling mistakes. Or, more exactly, not mistakes as much as "the grammar & spellchecker is having trouble finding its own arse again, so keeps suggesting "there" for their/they're".

It's a weird cross between Pavlovian behaviour and intellectual surrender - people see the little red squiggle underneath something they've typed, and just assume that the computer must be right. So they right-click, let the checker do its thing, and continue on believing that Computer Knows Best.

Meanwhile, they're creating documents that sometimes verge on the unreadable, and are certainly well into the domain of the incomprehensible...

Re:Where have you been? Grammar is bad all over.

[TheoMurpse]

Additionally, spell-checkers have made things worse, because now no one knows how to spell things correctly by themselves.

You raise an interesting point. In Japan, there is a problem with young people and their knowledge of kanji (Chinese characters). Due to the influx of cellphones and computers, many young people are no longer learning concretely how to write the characters. They can read the characters fine, but as they have no need to handwrite them, they quickly forget the writings for the characters they learned in school. This is the equivalent of me seeing "deja vu" with the proper French diacritical marks -- I can read it, but for the life of me can't remember where the accent grave goes and such.

It has frequently occurred that I will be talking with a Japanese student, and I'll write some kanji I know, and they'll respond with something along the lines of, "Holy crap! I can't even write that kanji."

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[budcub]

you have a point. It used to be ok to use double negatives, until mathmaticians pointed out that two negatives made a positive.

Oui kan spel reel guhd but cince not typt

[WillAffleckUW]

no1 cares nemore

donut hav to use korrectin flewed ahnd no1 evuh says itz bahd.

Definitive answer to last question

[alexhs]

Am I missing something here?

Yes, that you are on Slashdot ! ,
the "news" aggregator with the worse english spelling from stories to comments.

Missing the point, english is about communication

[Anonymous Coward]

English is a means of communications. Therefore, as long as your message is communicated in interpreted as you desire, you are succeeding at communication.

No one misspells interperts and thinks it another word and simply complains because he/she doesnt know what the word is!

STFU NOOOOB

[VanWEric]

u r gey. u no wot i say, y u all n3rd out wit da big werds. There is a place for all of us who don't like to read those sentences. It is called the xForums - xForums.net Basically, we are an online community who put letter in words, words in sentences, and then we even put the sentences into paragraphs! OMG gr4mm4r h4X! I run gaim with fonts and colors disabled. I don't respond to anything with "u r", and I do try to get most of my words right. I'm naturally poor with spelling, but I figure that if I at least try, perhaps the rest of the world will as well.

Agreed

[Whatsisname]

No doubt about it. I cannot take anyone seriously, no matter what they present, for example, if they don't know the simple difference between there, their, and they're, something everyone should have learned when they were 8 years old. It's even worse when someone comes asking for help, and isn't even willing to take the time and effort to communicate clearly and properly.

Agreed

[Oid.Surin]

It has bothered me for a few years seeing people in various irc channels and instant messaging services, that are otherwise very intelligent people, spelling horribly, lacking punctuation, and having a vocabulary that many small children could put to shame. Wow, I like that run on sentence. I am not perfect, I am horrible in English, but, when I do notice I make a mistake, or have one pointed out to me, I attempt to correct it. Most of these people I can think of, could care less. In a face to face situation, if you are unshaven, unbathed, and have bad breath with ratty hair, people will form a negative first opinion of you based on that appearance. In an online medium, that first impression is based off what you say. So FFS could we please at least try?

Writers, System Administration, and OS Updates

[Bob9113]

Over the last few years, I've noticed that a surprisingly large number of lifelong word processor users, who are otherwise very literate, seem to lack the ability to read the fine manual. Mostly, this seems to manifest itself as varying degrees of system insecurity and instability: 'Administrator/root' instead of an unprivileged account; clicking on attachments instead of discarding them; I even see people running Windows without updates and exposed to the Internet from time to time. It baffles me that a culture so dependent on their word processor and obsessed with proper grammar can demonstrate such little attention to detail when it comes to maintaining the system on which their word processor runs.

Of course

[MikeMacK]

Do hackers and geeks just not care about communicating effectively? Do they not realize that a mediocre command of written English makes them appear less intelligent? Am I missing something here?"

Of course they do. You have to communicate effectively to create great software! I think you are confusing communication with syntax and structure. OK, sure we could all probably use some extra work with our grammer and spelling, but I would argue that a weakness in spelling/grammer does not mean you are not a good communicator.

Casting Stones - Past vs. Last

[Anonymous Coward]

It's "past few years," not "last few years." Unless, of course, you're psychic and know that the end of the world is upon us.

It all comes down to one thing.....

[crispybit]

The english language lacks intelli-sense technology like that found in Visual Studio. I have found *nix programmers who dont use VS to be better at spelling and gramar than most Windows programmers. So is Microsoft yet again to be blamed for this travesty........ If so could K Develop introducing intelli-sense to its suite be the damnation of the smart *nix developer

Maybe, just Maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

we dont care cause you know what we are saying even if it's spelled wrong.

we dont care if someone thinks we're smart cause we know we're smart

it's only spelled right because that's how it is in the dictionary. Most modern words are ancient words that are now spelled wrong.

LANGUAGE IS A VIRUS - IT SPREADS AND MUTATES

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Peaceful_Patriot]

I am not a perfect speller. Occasionally I may misplace a comma or semi-colon. It bothers me when I misspell a word on a forum or document that matters. (i.e. A report for work) It bothers me less, or not at all to make these minor errors in a forum like /.

When I am posting here, I am giving my opinion on a topic. The content is what is important. I feel this is the wrong forum for your 'corrections' and 'suggestions.' It breaks the flow of the discussion. It has nothing to do with the topic being discussed, and makes you sound like a show off intellectual.

Frankly, I really dont want your critique of my grammar and spelling skills. If the post is intelligible or the error changes the meaning of the post significantly, then there's your time to jump in with your corrections. Otherwise, it just seems arrogant that folks like you feel free to offer your unsolicited advice and expect me to appreciate it.

State Obvious Problem... Add New Spin

[Cylix]

This is not a new problem at all. To be honest, my grammar isn't the best in the world and I should sit down and polish up my "skilz."

In all honesty, I didn't know we could use "ask slashdot" to post a rhetorical question.

Now I have to think of a rhetorical question or two to submit. *runs off to the drawing board*

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

I try my best to write and speak proper English. It is a pretty frustrating language, as it seams every single rule has a corner case where it's broken. Computer languages aren't like that. Syntax is syntax. These are just some of the things I can think of that are absolutely stupid:

read/read - same word, different pronunciations
it's/its - it's is it is, its is possesive, exclusion to the rule
inflammable/inoperable - same prefix, but opposite meanings

One thing I'd like to know, can you drop 'got' from most sentences?

You've got mail. = You have got mail.
You've mail. = You have mail.

Are they both right?

I agree whole-heartedly

[SocialEngineer]

I've been arguing against senseless abuse of the English language for some time now. Sadly, however, it has gotten me nowhere. People don't care that non-native English speakers write better English than we do.

I wish that there was a way to solidify our education when it comes to writing, but most teachers don't care enough about it - they would rather teach the sciences and math, and completely ignore failing writing skills.

(yeah, I know, I'm probably not that skilled of a writer myself, but I'm better than my peers - sadly)

Re:I agree whole-heartedly

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Not being a native speaker myself I regard it as a matter of politeness to correctly use the foreign language I'm expressing myself in. It often seems quite pointless though, regarding the decreasing amount of care taken by native speakers. It is such a simple, yet beautiful language, but sadly a lot of people just don't seem to care. Instead they prefer to make themselves look like fools, and even be proud of it. So please stop your whiny excuses ("It's the message that matters, screw grammar!") and start learning to use your language properly.

Besides, I'm not talking about typos. I'm talking about words like there, their, they're, then, than etc... those are basics.

Corrections are welcome.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[snoig]

Yes, these days the spelling and grammar I see on the Internet are atrocious. But could we please add punctuation to that list?....

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't fail to disagree with you less!

Speling and gramer

[AsmordeanX]

As a person who often reviews resumes I can tell you one thing that will land a resume in the trash faster than anything else is spelling. Incorrect use of grammer is bad enough, but spelling errors mean to me that this person doesn't care enough to actually use a spell check or have a friend read the resume.

Greatest hits:

1. "I werked at Macdonalds for 3 years"
2. "...teh use of a hydrolic jack..."
3. "Resoomay"

Re:Speling and gramer

[Good Sumerian]

Not sure if this was intentionally misspelled, as the title clearly was, but grammer in the body should be grammar.

Re:Speling and gramer

[nomadic]

Greatest hits:

1. "I werked at Macdonalds for 3 years"
2. "...teh use of a hydrolic jack..."
3. "Resoomay"


Well that's not so bad considering your applicants' backgrounds. Your examples above are a lot less depressing than something like:
1. "I werked at Mt. Sinai Medical Centir as cheif of neurosurgery"
2. "argeud before the supream court"
3. "tought gradute level english classes"

phonics

[Anonymous Coward]

also ITYM "hindered"

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[BewireNomali]

I'll play devil's advocate. The purpose of language is communication, and the standardization of such is to ensure against ambiguity, right? If someone's written work is devoid of some common rules of grammar and usage, does it matter if you completely and unambiguously understand what they are saying/writing?

I try to use the rules, but if I understand you, what else matters?

Look out

[MarkPNeyer]

Everyone's going to scan that post over and over until they can find some small bug and then laugh at you.

Relax

[Anonymous Coward]

Language is a virus.

Your Missing the Point.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't understand what they are saying when they say definately instead of definitely then I would understand. However your are just being nit picky. The point of language is to communicate. TJMO.

Re:Your Missing the Point.

[kungfoolouie]

Exactly what this post is about and this is one that drives me nuts!

"Your" is 2nd person possessive.

You mean: "You're", as in the contraction of "you" and "are"

definitely agree...

[MarcoAtWork]

... or maybe I should write deffinitely like it seems a lot of people are doing nowadays.

I've seen plenty of resumes and cover letters with lose/loose, it's/its, you're/your and believe me, it doesn't help with making a good impression with whomever is interviewing you.

One thing I've noticed is that the spelling and grammar were a lot better in the early 90s, when people who were on the net in general got onto it only in college: it seems the new generation weaned on game message boards and l33t speak has a much lower command of the written English language and that they're actually proud of it.

Nowadays it seems that if somebody is writing in proper English in a messageboard or in an online game, odds are that they are immigrants for whom English is a second language (category to which I belong myself) or they are 30-35+ years old.

There also seems to be some sort of a stigma associated with being articulate on this side of the Atlantic, which is totally mindblowing to witness, as in Europe a firm command of your nation's language is seen as a very good thing to have as early as possible in your life, and if you don't express yourself articulately people will have a much, much, much lower opinion of you.

Re:definitely agree...

[AussieVamp2]

Exactly. If there are two good programmers applying for a job, with basically identical skills apart from written English, I hire the one that can write English correctly. Every time.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[wrf3]

Can i go to the bathroom now?

No. All your base are belong to us.

You'll just have to hold it.

Communication

[Renraku]

The point of language is communication.

Stop right there. It isn't for wordplay, to insult someone behind their backs, or to make suggestions.

Its direct communication.

That being said, someone using 'definately' instead of 'definitely' or 'should of' rather than 'should have' should never render something annoying/unreadable.

Believe me. I've had to decypher some pretty cryptic messages. Badly spelled doesn't annoy me one-third as much as badly written. As long as the message is coherent and I can understand it, spelling isn't too big of a deal.

Of course I would want to look professional in front of management or customers. But the very act of being called unprofessional or inept over a misspelling when the message is loud-and-clear just means that someone's a tight ass that wants everyone to play by their rules.

Re:Communication

[shmlco]

But the very act of being called unprofessional or inept over a misspelling when the message is loud-and-clear just means that someone's a tight ass that wants everyone to play by their rules.

As opposed to a wise-ass who's too stupid, ignorant, or uneducated to know those rules exist in the first place?

Or worse, believes that he's too "special" for them to apply to him?

Sounds exactly like the type of person I want working for me and representing my company...

response

[T_C_Kelly]

It's called Zoloft, try it.

Problem in America... BUT

[Cinematique]

I've seen this issue raised numerous times over the past several years... hell, I've brought it up in random conversation quite a bit...

But...

The question that I've *never* heard asked...

Is America the only country where the native language is so disappointingly mangled by the vast majority of native citizens?

The funny/sad thing is when an American will gripe about a foreigner verbally mangling English... yet that same American most likely can't even speak a 2nd language... let alone speak it fluently. Bah.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[Otter]

Is America the only country where the native language is so disappointingly mangled by the vast majority of native citizens?

As a rule, the answer to any question begining with "Is America the only country where..." is "No".

One exception is "Is America the only country whose whinier citizens are convinced that the most common human failings are something with which they're uniquely burdened?"

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[V1b3s]

I'm an American, but I also happen to speak fluent Russian, and lived in Russia for a number of years. I can say that, generally speaking, Russians are wonderfully anal-retentive about their language. They would correct my mistakes without a second thought, which helped me learn to speak well pretty quickly.

I knew one teenage girl while I was there was from Belarus, and her family spoke Belarussian at home, so her Russian was less than perfect - it was probably the quivalent of some backwoods "hick" English. She too was constantly corrected by her peers until she fixed her mistakes. ...And as far as I know, there is no governing body controlling the Russian language. Its speakers just appreciate it.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[Anonymous Coward]

Coming from Sweden, I can confirm that other languages than english are mangled in their countries. But the process here is a bit different than in the US. Here the main problems of language mangling are related to english making inroads where the native tounge could be used.

For instance, at the university I attend, any courses but the most basic are - upon request from any attending student - held in english. Since at least one exchange student is present at most courses, english-speaking lectures are the norm. I for one know many words from my subjects only in english, particularly so in computer science, where many terms are not even translated.

There is a very real fear in society, that swedish will be reduced to a layman's language, in its own country Sweden.

Fun to note though a bit offtopic is that I've heard exchange students complain about the willingness of swedes to converse in english. Apparently, almost everyone switches to english at the slightest sound of trouble with swedish, very confident in their english skills.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[stoff3]

Well, in the suburbs of Stockholm (Sweden), there are a lot of different nationalities and cultures because of (thanks to?) immigration. The kids that come from places far away from here (Middle East, whatever) naturally have a hard time mastering the language. The "problem" arises when Swedish kids hang out with these kids - the Swedish kids adopt the mangled grammar of the "new Swedish" kids.
The end result is an entire generation that speak only in SMS-speak and mangled grammar.
Of course this is something that's not at all unique to Sweden, but it's very noticable here, and as a self-proclaimed grammar Nazi, it bugs me. The problem is not at all as prevalent amongst adults, but these kids will eventually grow up to be adult too. Makes you wonder, will they learn to speak and write properly in time, or will this new, mangled Swedish become the "standard" language in a few decades?

This is not the issue at hand, though. Parent asked if people in other countries didn't master their own native tongue, as they (according to parent) do in America.
on a large scale, I'd like to say that we Swedes know how to speak our language quite well, with a few exceptions. There's a rule in Swedish grammar that dictates how and when words are written as one (eg. fish store would be fishstore in Swedish). A surprising number of Swedes make the mistake of writing the words separate from each other. To someone who's aware of this rule, these mistakes are like a nail in the eye, you can't avoid seeing them, and when you do you just get annoyed by it.

*sigh*

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[ScentCone]

What really pisses me off about your comment is that it's coming from a non-native English speaker, and it's better written (and exhibits, of course, better cognitive skills) than most of what I'd hear here at home (in the US).

I know, you've probably been speaking English your entire life, but I'm sure you get my point. I mean, most American's don't even have room in their heads for a single second language (though this is rapidly changing with Spanish and probably Chinese), and even with all that extra RAM, they still hose it up.

So, Mr. Swede, despite significant Norwegian DNA in my blood, I annoyedly thank you for your English. *Sigh* indeed.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[0olong]

Poor English spelling and grammar annoys me just as much as the person who submitted this story. English is my third language.

I used to think that one's grasp of a language was almost solely determined by the amount of exposure one had to it. By that same reasoning I assumed people who use only one language would have to know that one language exceptionally well. That's what I thought before I got an Internet connection...

So maybe... maybe not having to go through the 'hardship' of learning another language makes you take too much for granted the value of coherent speech. Maybe not. Maybe you Americans are just too damn lazy. (;

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[amchugh]

America is not the only country.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[shutdown -p now]

Speaking as a Russian; yes, it is indeed true, and for a very simple reason: we usually consider spelling mistakes to be a sign of uneducated person. A university student who cannot spell properly would simply be laughed at. And they do teach Russian quite in-depth in schools, not just the basic spelling rules, but also all the tricks, no matter how little-used, and the logic behind them.

Oh, and Russian language is in fact regulated, by the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[DNA Beast]

In Australia we have to constantly battle with people forgetting to put a 'u' into 'colour', people who write 'center' and 'theater' instead of 'centre' and 'theatre', and people who write 'organise' with a 'z'.

--
Next on Slashdot:- Why don't people learn how to use apostrophes properly, and who is this 'God' person anyway?

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[vzzzbx]

English isn't the official language of the US, although it's become the de facto standard, and it sure as hell isn't a native language (Cherokee, Cheyenne, etc.).

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[mailman-zero]

Most Americans who gripe about foreigners are not likely to be the same ones who have been foreigners themselves.

Almost anyone who has been in a situation will likely symapthize with others who are in the same situation. For instance: I do not complain about the strong accents of Mexicans here in Southern California where I now live, because I lived for two years in Germany where, for much of that time, I could not reproduce the "r" sound in the back of my throat or consistently produce the correct "ch" sound (hard, or soft) when I was supposed to (as in "echt" being soft, and "Acht" being hard).

Ignorance is the greatest reason for intolerance.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[smari]

Well, no. Here in Iceland, it's quite common for people to screw the language up - some on purpose, others without knowing. Example: In Icelandic there are four cases. These also exist in English to some historical extent, but they're so translucent that your common English speaker will never have to know anything about them. In Icelandic there's a "linguistic disease" known as "águfallssýki" (e. Accusitive Disorder), which describes itsself by people using a lot of words in accusative case rather than nominative - e.g. "Ég hlakka" (I can't wait) is changed into "Mér hlakkar" (literally: My can't wait).

But here's the thing - in a sibling post somebody mentioned that immigrants in Stockholm are not adapting to the language properly, and that others are learning bad grammar, spelling, etc. from them. Here I can testify that your average immigrant, once he or she has overcome the hurdles of the new language, pays more respect to the language than your native - he is more likely to spend an extra second pondering upon the correct spelling of a word, the right case, compound, whatever. The natives that are fucking the language over are typicly learning their bad habits from television, music, internet, mass media in general - most of which comes from grammaticly challanged Americans in the first place.

I was reading an Icelandic news paper (alas, a tabloid) the other day, and was shocked to find quite an abundance of spelling errors. I didn't quite go at them with a highlighting marker and mail the paper back to the company, but if I had had such a pen, I would have. Is proof reading a thing of the past? Is it so difficult to spell correctly that even journalists - the fucking professionals, no less - are having a hard time doing it? From which evil is this carelessness stemming?

Personaly, I'm bilingual by upbringing, and have become a polyglot since - I've been speaking both English and Icelandic since long before I could walk or retain my feces, albeit not very well. Spelling has always been a bit of a problem for me, owing to slightly different phonetic values of the characters in the languages rather than any form of dyslexia - but I try, damnit. I try.

Finally, a word on dyslexia. It seems that 1 in 10 people are dyslexic in your average classroom these days. Back when I was in school, there was nobody. Is dyslexia on a rise? No. Is it being noticed more now than before? A bit. What is the cause of the rise? In my most humble opinion, dicipline, or rather an utter lack there of. Dicipline and dyslexia are both far more common in Iceland than say, Denmark or Great Britain... and I think it's primarily due to the lax dicipline in schools. Not that flogging people will help them read, but slightly better dicipline will teach people to respect others, and to respect themselves, which will lead to more people trying harder before giving up on reading. Some people truly are dyslexic, and it's as simple as that.. but I am certain that 9 out of 10 dyslexic people are merely unconfident, lazy or see that they can get away with anything these days.

Phew. That was enough of that. And imagine... if somebody ever does read this post, which is later than late, and longer than long, they're probably going to notice those five very subtle spelling errors I purposefully inserted at strategic places, plus a few that were completely my mistake.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[cvd6262]

I work in Arabic education and that's a language that has its own issues like this.

Basically, you have FusHa, or Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) that is the officaly language of all the Arabic countries (some add French in there too). All the news broadcasts, newspapers, political speeches, etc. are all done in MSA.

The true form of MSA is fully cased with vowel ending to mark word functions. The marks usually do not appear in text, but can be written in to be explicit. I have seen news clips where the anchor speaks perfect MSA with cases (reading from the telepromptor) and then turns to talk to the correspondent appearing on the screen next to them. Suddenly, their cases are all screwed up because they're no longer reading the prompt.

Of course, most all of the populace in the Arab world can understand MSA, but only the educated can speak it, and most of them can only fake the cases. They also do not expect to hear it on the street. Saying, "Kayf al-haal al-yom?" to someone in a cafe is like saying, "How goest thou?" in America.

In fact, I knew I guy who asked a police officer for directions in Syria, using full MSA (and this guy was an ILR 3+ in speaking) and the officer replied in colloquial, "I don't speak Finnish."

However, most Arabs do think that MSA is the proper Arabic and the only Arabic worth being taught. So, when I got in a cab in Cairo and my American buddy who had been in Cairo for a year told the cabby where we wanted to go, he (the cabby) decided to lecture us on how we should speak MSA, and whoever taught us Amiyya (colloquial) should know better... All this while speaking Amiyya.

Needless to say, it is difficult for Arabic programs in the US to decide which to teach. Amiyya is localized, though most will understand Egyptian, while MSA is more-or-less the same across the board. However, learning MSA and not Amiyya means you won't be able to converse with people on the street.

The military, for example, only budgeted one test per language. So, the military Arabic test is in MSA. Supposedly, they also teach colloquials, but what gets tested gets taught.

So, to sum up, there are languages that are actually worse off than English when it comes to bastardized versions of the "real" language.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[angel'o'sphere]

The funny/sad thing is when an American will gripe about a foreigner verbally mangling English


Well, I don't know if I mangle english :d my accent surely is very german ... and that means VERY BAD.

However, what about americans mangling any other language? Ever saw Troy? A movie about an ancient epos of gods and heros.

EVERY name of the heros, locations or gods is SPOKEN WRONG (yes I wateched the movie in english ... erm ... american, no native british english skeaker had raped the gods kike that).

I'm a european, and albeit I am german, greek is more or less my historical tongue, like latin.

I can't get why you are completely unable to speek a simple word like Zeus the correct way instead of speaking it Zoos.

And I'm mentioning SPEAK aka PRONOUNCIATON here and not even spelling. Write as you want as long as you speak it right.

angel'o'sphere

P.S. and yes, it took me some minutes to figure that he was talking about ZEUS when he was allways saying ZOOS.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[nine-times]

I actually think the guy who posted the article is mangling two problems together. First, English is a language often spoken badly. I myself, believe it or not, am not perfect in this regard, but many are far worse. Americans, admittedly, tend to be a bit on the casual side with their grammar, and so might be worse, but English is such a crazy language to begin with, you can barely blame us. We aren't alone in abusing the language.

Have you heard a scottish person talk? Maybe they have good grammar, but who can tell?

Second, geeks and such are often a bit autistic-- if not actually clinically suffering from autism, then at least they exhibit symptoms by virtue of being so underexposed to other humans. As a result of this, good grammar or not, they just can't communicate.

As an aside:

The funny/sad thing is when an American will gripe about a foreigner verbally mangling English... yet that same American most likely can't even speak a 2nd language... let alone speak it fluently. Bah.

I'd say it's funny/sad when Europeans try to condemn Americans for having less exposure to the cultures of other countries. Sure, it's easy to become familiar with other countries when you're so tiny that you can't ride a train for more than 2 hours without leaving the country.

To go back to your original point, size alone can explain part of the reason Americans mangle English so badly: the larger an area you're encompassing, the more dialects will emerge. After all, most of europe really just speaks what are essentially dialects of one of two languages: Latin and German.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[Quantum Skyline]

You're probably familiar with Jamaican patois...

Spoken English in Jamaica is damned hard to understand sometimes, but the written English is second to none. I think its due to still using the British system and having anal retentive teachers. I prefer their style of writing, and if you have the opportunity to read a Caribbean paper (or a Caribbean community paper outside of the Caribbean), and compare it to the New York Times or The Toronto Star, there are marked differences.

Needless to say, when I came home with a C in English class, my parents freaked out, sought out a tutor (who also happened to be from Jamaica), and my written English improved significantly.

One thing I will say, though, is that you need to practise it. I'm out of practise in my formal writing, and welcome the grammar nazis to pick out the mistakes in my posting, as it keeps me sharp. Nobody is going to correct your spelling on MSN or a forum, and just by reading some 14 year old's papers (and IM messages), I shudder at the future of North American English speakers and writers.

In all honesty, sometimes, the bad writing makes us look as bad as the foreigners (who are learning the bloody language) that Slashdotters love to hate.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[Freeptop]

Could you please provide a reference for how the names ought to be pronounced? Every single pronunciation guide I could find on-line said, to the last one, that the pronunciation of "Zeus" is [ZOOS]. I've had an interest in Greek Mythology for some time, and I've never come across any other pronunciation. If there actually is a pronunciation that is more correct than that, I am very curious to know what it is.

Here are a few references I found when attempting to find a pronunciation guide:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Diction ary&va=Zeus&x=0&y=0
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/z/zeus.html
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0853377.htm l
http://library.thinkquest.org/J002110/zeus.htm
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/z/z0012500.html
http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/Z/Zeus. html
http://www.gods-heros-myth.com/godpages/zeus.html
http://www.hyperdic.net/dic/zeus.htm
http://www.uwf.edu/english/lanier/Pronunc.html

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. German and Latin. The slavic people don't count anyway.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[PlacidPundit]

Is America the only country where the native language is so disappointingly mangled by the vast majority of native citizens?

Since almost all of us come from Italy, Spain, France, Germany, China, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Ireland, Scotland, England, and various African territories and nations, there really ISN'T a "native language." American English (and American culture) is like a naturally occurring Esperanto.

The funny/sad thing is when an American will gripe about a foreigner verbally mangling English

I have never heard anyone do this. Which is not to say that it doesn't happen. The closest thing I can recall is Northerners mocking Southerners. And even then, it's sometimes just meant to be taken as humor.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[Frogg]

Have you heard a scottish person talk? Maybe they have good grammar, but who can tell?

I am sure that someone who is fluent in the Scots language can tell if a Scottish person has good grammar or not -- because it's not the same language as English, and its grammar does have rules.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry. When America becomes a Second-World country in a few decades, then we can become anal retentive about our language, too! Because that's all we'll have left to be proud of...just like Russia.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[Vicissidude]

Interesting that you equate your temporary and probably legal stay in Germany to the illegal and permanent migration of Mexican citizens to the US. It seems to me that these two situations are not the same. Americans have every right to gripe about being forced to deal with foreigners who enter their country illegally.

I have been a foreigner who also lived in Germany, but only for a year. While I generally do not make fun of foreign accents, I have to admit that I have in the past. If anything, poor or unintelligible English now annoys me. But that's probably because my employer and other businesses that I deal with force me to speak with these people. It has come to the point that if I hear the unintelligible up-and-down speech pattern of an Indian on the phone, I will hang up on whatever call I was trying to get help on.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Russian- this is true.

This is true, for a very simple reason- there is a subject, in schools, called "Russian Language". Not "Literature" - that is a separate subject. Now, the thing you learn in the above mentioned "Russian Language" is, in fact, grammar and spelling and punctuation, and, in since in order to get an A(well, 5), you have to have no errors whatsoever...

People know the language, or at least, have the opportunity to do so. Combined with the fact that, the Russian language is extremely difficult to learn, knowing it well becomes a certain symbol of education and knowledge- and, at this point, it is a symbol of ignorance and idiocy to not know it as well as you should.

To put it differently- having also gone through the American school system, I really think it would have been nice if somebody told me the actual rules for, lets say, comma placement. I don't think the problem entirely lies there, but I think it helps.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[tedrlord]

Well I know for certain that American English is completely missing a few of the phonemes used in Greek. Omega, for instance. We can't really pronounce the names correctly. Everywhere I've been in the States and Canada, [ZOOS] is more or less the accepted pronunciation.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[tedrlord]

The parent never mentioned illegal immigrants. Why do you automatically assume that? I live in Northern California, and there are a huge amount of Hispanic people. Sure, some are here illegally, but most of them are here legitimately.

We're geographically close to Mexico and in better economic straits, so it's logical to assume there will be immigration.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[Vicissidude]

The parent never mentioned illegal immigrants.

Let me see. Oh yeah, right here: I do not complain about the strong accents of Mexicans here in Southern California where I now live The previous person was not speaking about hispanic people in general. He was speaking about Mexicans- as in people who are citizens of Mexico. Specifically, citizens of Mexico who are living in the US.

Now, the last time I checked, the US does not grant a lot of Mexican citizens entry to LIVE in the US. The US certainly did NOT grant entry to even a small portion of the 10+ million Mexican citizens currently LIVING in the US.

THAT is why I said illegal immigrants.

It may be logical to assume immigration to the US, but it is not logical to assume that it is legal.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[Vicissidude]

The funny/sad thing is when an American will gripe about a foreigner verbally mangling English...

I have never heard anyone do this.

You need to watch Comedy Central some time!

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[HishamMuhammad]

Those English-written articles are of course giving you the standard English pronunciation. I dont see a problem with that -- you're entitled to pronounce foreign names according to the rules of your language, just like you don't call Paris "Pah-hee" like the French do, or Munich "Mewn-shen" like the Germans (man, were those crappy approximations or what).

However, if you are interested in the proper pronunciation of Zeus: the "e" sounds like the "a" in "bay", the "u" sounds like the "oo" in "food".

How to assess this? Look up the Greek spelling in Wikipedia: Zeus article and then this Ancient Greek pronunciation table.

Incidentally, the Ancient Greek pronunciation is exactly the same as we pronounce "Zeus" in my native language (Portuguese), and I assume that's how it is pronounced in German as well (because following strict German rules, Zeus would be pronounced "Tzoyce", as in "Joyce" with a "Tz").

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[tedrlord]

Most Mexicans I know around here live perfectly legally. They have jobs, pay taxes, own property, all that kind of stuff. Most of the service jobs here are staffed by people from Mexico or of Mexican descent. Last time I checked, you needed a social security number for that kind of thing.

I'm sorry if you don't like having Mexicans around, but you shouldn't assume that most of them don't have as much right to be here as you do. Personally, I like any cultures we can get. Lord knows California doesn't have much of its own.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[Vicissidude]

First off, there is a difference between the terms Mexican and hispanic. You seem to be purposefully confusing the two. Mexican refers to citizens of Mexico. Hispanic is an ethnic term that can apply to both Mexicans or Americans.

Second, while most hispanics you know are here legally, 10+ million are here illegally. Those illegal foreigners also have jobs, pay taxes, own property, drive cars, etc. And yes, you need a social security number or drivers license for that sort of thing. But, there are ways of getting those that aren't legal.

As for the rest of your statement, I am perfectly fine with American hispanics. My first girlfriend was hispanic. And one of my groomsmen was hispanic. However, I do have a problem with illegal foreigners living in my country, regardless of where they are from. Those foreigners DO NOT have as much right to be here as I do. Period.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see why you'd rather have responses than mod points - at least responses are possible!

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[Alberic]

but English is such a crazy language to begin with, you can barely blame us

French is my native language. English seemed quite easy to me, and I'm no genius.
It's easy to conjugate (you don't have that much irregular verbs, believe me), there is no declination (sp?) stuff like there is in German, the phonetics are quite consistent, whatever you say (in french, the W in sandwich and the one in wagon are not even pronounced the same), and for what I peeked of the chinese language, there is no accent stuff either in english (4 pronunciacions for a syllab in cantonese, correct me if i'm wrong, with a different meaning each), and the alphabet is quite easy to get a grip with (26 letters, no acutes (e.g., éàèûôùâ). come on), and the grammar is easy (try learn french freakin' tense concordance rules, and if you put 3 correct sentences with "bien que" and "malgré" and "après que", you deserve a crown).

To the point fo the bulletin, I firmly believe for those reasons that the english language is (one of) the easiest languages to learn (for a grown-up, that is).

I do abhor people lacking respect to a language, because to me, a language is the ulimate expression of a culture. That's why I try to spell my english correcly, even here on /., and that's why I abhor people spelling badly. Especially their own language. People trying to get attention on a bulletin board, who don't even have respect toward their own cultural background. That really scares me.

BTW : I do understand good english grammar used by scottish people. That's because I care.

Actually, I read the second part of your post on a refresh, and I guess you won't read further than the second line. Maybe to people who are as arrogant as you are, "french" would suffice to make my post ignored.

P.S. : Size doesn't matter, really.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[EvilNTUser]

It is indeed very annoying. I'm Finnish, and almost never had to think about my English spelling, but now the mistakes made by ignorant Americans who just don't care have started sticking to my head. I still rarely make mistakes, but that's just because I spend more time correcting myself.

Needless to say, I hate them with a passion for making me waste my own time.

P.S. As for the situation in Finland, we have the same fishstore-problem stoff3 described. It's very fortunate for posters on some boards that I'm not a homicidal maniac.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[Anonymous Coward]

No, in the Netherlands it's almost as bad, even though Dutch spelling is several orders of magnitude saner than English spelling.

I'm all for good spelling and good grammar, but there are only 24 hours in a day, at some point it gets arbitrary. Why does some stuff end in "ible" and other things in "able"? (And why do the style manuals say I should have (should've? yuck!) written '"able?"' rather than '"able"?'?)

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[krunchyfrog]

Worse than that, they ask people who really try to speak English correctly to speak White. That really makes us want to move south.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[Cro Magnon]

As far as the language goes, there's no difference between legal & illegal Spanish speakers. One of my co-workers is a naturalized US citizen, and his accent is still hard to understand. But his English is a lot better than my Spanish.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[AlmostBlue]

I am italian and I can say the same thing for italian students: who can't spell properly is laughed at. However italian is a much easier language to be written out, because of its close phoneme-syllable connnection. Nevertheless, when I approached the English language, I did it by writing and listening to it in parallel, so I could notice all the incoherences of it (how do you pronounce "tear"? How do you write down a word sounding as "hare"? "Hair" can do as well... and I could go on). I think that for the english mother tongue person is harder to get acquaintance of the written form of a word because he or she has only heard it for many years without seeing it written . By the way, a welsh friend of mine once asked me --an italian-- if he should have written "referring" or "refering"...

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[nine-times]

Maybe to people who are as arrogant as you are, "french" would suffice to make my post ignored.

No, not quite enough to be ignored, but enough to illuminate your arrogance as well as your obsession with language as the ultimate expression of culture.

I'm glad you find English easy, being that it's such an important language these days. However, I stand by my position that English is a crazy language. Though generally considered Germanic, modern English is actually a hodgepodge of various languages, which has made for loads or irregularities. Many things have been simplified over time, such as nearly dropping the genitive case and the obsoleting the subjunctive, but pronunciation is often the real hobgoblin of learning English. You think French is amazing because "w" sometimes sounds different, well there's hardly a letter in English that indicates a consistent sound, and the fact that we use no markings or accents to indicate the different sounds doesn't make the situation easier. Ignoring all that, English has an enormous lexicon.

Now, I'm not claiming that English is the hardest language to learn. I've heard some of the Chinese dialects and Native American languages are extremely difficult. I found Attic Greek to be difficult, too-- far more complex than English. Admittedly, I find English to be easy, but then again, I'm a native speaker. I'm never sure exactly to what degree I underestimate the complexities in English due to being a native speaker, but I've had linguists point out to me how irregular it is. Also, I've known non-native speakers (who know several languages) who express that it's easy enough to learn the basics and get by, but extremely difficult to master. It all seems simple and regular until you hit upon one of the exceptions.

In any event, you do seem to be underestimating the subtlety of English.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[Vicissidude]

My point is who cares if his English is better than your Spanish? We are in America where people speak English. You are not the one who immigrated (legally or not) to Mexico or any other place where people predominately speak Spanish.

Your language abilities are adequate to communicate. However, his are not.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one of the most disgusting post I've ever read on slashdot ever.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[tedrlord]

At least around here, the terms are pretty much used interchangeably. People of Mexican descent are generally called Mexican, at least around here, the same as people would say I'm Irish. If there's a difference between Mexican and Hispanic, it's more that the latter refers to people from other Spanish-speaking central american countries.

Sure, some people can get around these laws by getting fake IDs, passports and such, but not nearly enough to account for anywhere near the working Mexican population over here. Most of the illegal immigrants end up as day or migrant workers, which isn't exactly an industry most citizens want to be in.

Anyway, I'm sure that some of your best friends are Hispanic and all. I just found your parent post a bit negative toward Mexicans in general. It sounds like we mean different things when we use the term, so it doesn't look like there's any point in continuing to debate the issue.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[Vicissidude]

A social security card or a green card are not nearly as difficult to fake as a driver's license. And there certainly is more of a demand for those documents.

I once helped manage a Chinese restaurant in Texas. The wait staff was a mixture of American and Chinese. The kitchen staff was all Mexican, except for the Taiwanese head chef. We had about 10-15 kitchen workers. When immigration was rumored to be visiting our area, only 1 Mexican cook showed up. When payday came along, everyone got checks except for the Mexicans who got paid cash - and at amounts less than minimum wage. And finally, when I filled out the income tax forms, the Mexicans were not included in any of the forms sent to the government.

Some people may say that Mexicans take jobs that Americans don't want, but that's bullshit. We constantly got applications for work in our kitchen. But they never got hired because they were American and would demand the minimum wage.

There are a lot of Mexicans in places I've lived in Texas, California, and New Mexico. They get by because they're cheap labor. Plus, the local police aren't interested in doing border patrol's work. If they stay out of trouble, they don't get deported. Over time, they have kids, and they are born American citizens. Then, they'll never get deported because their kids serve as an anchor in the US.

Those kids may be citizens, but their parents or grandparents are not.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[cvd6262]

That's OK. I'm pretty sure AC's don't have mod points anyway.

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[angel'o'sphere]

Its not only words like "Zeus", where I agree that it might be difficult to pronounce for an native english speaker (however most english words are difficult for a non-native english speaker also).

The same is true for modern names (of currently living people).

No one in europe (except to a small extend the frensh) would make "fun" about american living persons and pronounce the names in an utterly nonsense way. However the people in he US (talkers in TV etc.) ALLWAYS just speak name like they want.

You only need to watch a german TV report about Iraq and an american one on CNN. Both will speak about the same incidents and mention the same Iraq politicians or "clan chiefs". While the germans try to pronounce/speak foreign words (names of cities, people or geographical issues) like the foreigners speak them, the americans transliterate the foreign writing into a "suitable american" writing and pronounce it then in a way fitting to the "appearance" of the letters.

I pretty well know that [ZOOS] etc. are the "accepted" ways of pronounciation, and exactly the fact that it is "accepted" is what it makes so strange/unbelieveable to us (the few who notice and regulary watch undubbed american movies).

angel'o'sphere

Re:Problem in America... BUT

[angel'o'sphere]

This "Tzoyce" is a very good approximation.
And it shows one of the things where I'm sensible to very good: [Zoos] has a long 'oo' sound and Joyce/"Tzoyce" just like Zeus has a VERY SHORT 'eu' sound.

So the word sounds strange in two ways, simple the sound and then in addition the duration.

angel'o'sphere

Language Changes

[danikar]

The language changes over the years. Go back to the 1700s and talk to a english speaker. They would look at you like you had two heads.

I think people can communicate effectivly without having to worry about spelling every word correctly and using perfect grammer. After all most people on the web can understand leet speak. So why would anyone have trouble understanding "Should of" instead of "Should have"

I R teh 1337 h4x0R B0w d0Wn. heh

Anyone else see this in the corporate world?

[lowrydr310]

I work as a systems engineer for a very large corporation. It's scary to see people who are higher than me within the company misuse words, almost the same examples as above! I find even managers making mistakes like that.

What's worse is when I find these same errors when I'm reviewing documentation that's about to be submitted to our customers!

I'm not a spelling/grammar nazi, but when you're releasing professional documentation to customers in return for millions of dollars the least you could do is make sure there are no blatant grammatical/spelling errors. I guess that's why they have people like me proofread before it's sent out.

Re:Anyone else see this in the corporate world?

[Red Flayer]

I always knew that English degree was going to get me a better job than flipping burgers

Re:Anyone else see this in the corporate world?

[Red Flayer]

Does this mean we'll need to hire English majors to work someplace besides the company cafeteria.

s/Ask/Whine\ to/

[jhoger]

For myself, I make decisions about when to correct other people. If you learn it from nothing else, you'll learn this general concept from being married.

Sometimes it's just not worth the grief.

If an adult cannot write well, you nagging them really isn't going to change anything. It's either so serious that you would be teaching them a class (do you really have the time for this?), or it's so trivial that you might as well not bother, or the person knows the mistake when they see it, and you're needling them.

Also, ask yourself why you feel a need to correct others. Is it for you to be above than everyone else (your problem), or perhaps you think you can make the world perfect (not possible)...

When you're correcting something client-facing, failing to make the kind of corrections you suggest is not defensible. But just nagging folks for things that don't matter or won't change anything is a waste of energy.

Further, languages do change over time based on actual usage. If nobody can mangage it's vs its or loose vs lose (common /.'er problems) eventually those distinctions will go away. Language isn't here to give each other a hard time. It's here to allow us to talk to each other.

What you are missing is simply this...

[kclittle]

English is not logical in its spelling.

Good spelling is for the most part a matter of memory, not intelligence.

Re:What you are missing is simply this...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. It's prolly more important to get the msg across than the maintane a perfact grammer throughout the post.

if I was writing up a paper for publication, it would count. Here, I am not trying to impress some fuckwad who has nothing better to do than browse geek discusions and nit pick grammar, I jest don't give a fuck. You grammar nazis have nothing to add to the discussion. Nothing. The discussion is the information, and you guys are bitching about the package it comes in.

Blah Blah Blah, mod me flamebait, of fuck it, I'll psot anon coward.

It could be seen

[ChrisJones]

as a sign of how robustly lossy English is ;)

Are you wearing blinkers?

[zurtle]

It's only part of the living language that some people call English. Read a book calling Mother Tongue by Bill Bryson. This condition has never left English - Chaucer spelt the naughty word c*nt THREE different ways in Canterbury Tales (it was more acceptable back then). Look at English words that are of foreign extraction but spelt incorrectly: from the missing acute on "cafe" to "ordinary" (from "ordinaire"..... the list goes on: in fact it happens in reverse - Kangaroo (from Aboriginal extraction (one small tribe in Sydney actually, it went by many other names all over Aussie). Read "The Spoken Word") is spelt "kangourou" in French.

I'd suggest this guy wakes up to the fact that spelling is largely subjective, often phonetic by some people, and the language is evolving: in 200 years time "should of" may well be the rule rather than the exception.

Bizarre, probably more of a troll/flamebait topic for discussion than anything else.

Anyone care to say how uncouth the Americans are for dropping the "u" in "humour"???

I explain this in almost every interview

[ChaosMt]

In an interview, they will see "Music Theory" as my college major. They will then ask, "How is it that you got into computers?" I then explain how IBM during the boom specifically went after music theory majors just out of college. Why? They are a) great at symbolic languages with strict syntax and b) can easily be offered more money than they ever believed they would ever make.

As such, don't asking me about strange, disorderly rules of english phonetics and grammar. Don't ask geeks anything concerning social subtlies, such as language and money.

Re:I explain this in almost every interview

[Durinthal]

..damn it, why do I have to be a few years late? I'm doubling in music and CS at college right now.

not a big deal

[hb0mb]

Just because our grammar is bad doesn't mean that we aren't communicating effectively. As long as the meaning of the message comes across, then I don't have a problem with it. I mean bitching about definately and definitely is a bit nit-pickish to me. Unless they use something like "u're dum cuz im a lil krazy.. omg tite" type of grammar then they should be beaten with a stick.

Sound point, wrong assumptions

[tezza]

Good language skills are important in any walk of middle class life. If you desire to be a middle class mover, then you will need them. If you are a non-aspirant middle-classer, then it is not important.

You say slashdot readers are: obsessed with technical knowledge and accuracy

Some slashdot readers are. Others are more interested in:

Tech Gossip, neither knowledgeable nor accurate
Latest Gadgets, ditto
Science Fiction
Anime, large breasted Japanese girls(!?!), transforming creatures and flying penises
Microsoft Delivery Schedule, always wrong
Mac Advocacy, occassionally right.

Not so many obsessed with technical knowledge and accuracy.

Re:Sound point, wrong assumptions

[shutdown -p now]

You say slashdot readers are: obsessed with technical knowledge and accuracy

Actually, he didn't. He said "hackers".

Re:Sound point, wrong assumptions

[constantnormal]

Do there exists sites for those who are "obsessed with technical knowledge and accuracy?"

How about with a healthy(?) dose of sometimes-informed opinionated ranting thrown in?

Re:Sound point, wrong assumptions

[constantnormal]

Pretty sad, when I can't even proofread my own submissions to a forum on correctness in spelling and grammar.

I tried, really I did. I think it was a case of seeing what I intended to write, rather than what I actually did write.

What I meant to say was 'Do there exist sites for those who are "obsessed with technical knowledge and accuracy?"'

Perhaps this explains the high level of egregious spelling and grammar errors seen in Slashdot postings. While a spellchecker would be an offensive and meddlesome crutch, just allowing the submitter to correct their own posts might go a long way toward making the Slashdot audience seem a bit more literate. Displaying the posting input in the same font size as the preview/main text would also be helpful.

One wonders if keeping Slashdot use at a certain level of irritability serves the purposes of Cmdr Taco & Co, as a more bland reader interaction would be less popular.

MOD STORY INSIGHTFUL!

[Spy der Mann]

*clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap* :) Finally. I'm tired of being the grammar / spelling nazi around here. And yes I'm sh*t tired of people using stupid grammar just because they're lazy to learn the language.

Maybe it's a coincidence, but the fact that I'm _NOT_ a native english speaker answers why people have such a weak grammar / spelling. I didn't learn english by hearing. But by reading (In fact I had some trouble knowing how to pronounce certain words).

But anyway, from Mexico, it's common the rumour that americans are oh god the cream of the crop and they're so superior to us in everything. And then I come, and after a while of chatting I end up making a huge "WTF!? O.O" face.

Please kids, learn a little grammar. Is that too hard?

Re:MOD STORY INSIGHTFUL!

[nomadic]

But anyway, from Mexico, it's common the rumour that americans are oh god the cream of the crop and they're so superior to us in everything.

Geeze, have a little chip on your shoulder, don't we?

Re:MOD STORY INSIGHTFUL!

[madaxe42]

they're lazy to learn the language.

they're too lazy to...

Re:MOD STORY INSIGHTFUL!

[kernelpanicked]

"they're lazy to learn the language"
"I'm _NOT_ a native english speaker"

No SHIT!!

Re:MOD STORY INSIGHTFUL!

[pmike_bauer]

I didn't learn english by hearing. But by reading.
For a grammar and spelling Nazi, you are not very picky.
The word "English" should be capitalized; the quote, "But by reading", is not a sentence.

Re:MOD STORY INSIGHTFUL!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am one of the many bad spellers. When last I said my bad spelling was legendary, my friend corrected me and said "No, it's mythical"

But it's a little funny you mention Mexico. I did not know a damned thing about Grammar until I took Spanish classes. It had always just been the way it was, and I had never even thought anyone would structure their sentences differently in another language. That's when you learn gramma and really start to understand the intracases of grammar: When you have a second language to compare your native language to.

As for spelling, boo yah to everyone who said "As long as you understand the message who cares?" But in defense of bad spellers everywhere, it's Englishes fault for words not being spelled phonetically.

Re:MOD STORY INSIGHTFUL!

[Anonymous Coward]

lil grammar wuld tk 2 much effort

k thks by ;)

Re:MOD STORY INSIGHTFUL!

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that the English skills displayed by the majority of Americans are deplorable. We have become a nation of illerates who ought to be embarrased by our collective ignorace. I would like to point out, however, that learning a foreign language virtually guarantees that your understanding of grammar and spelling will be better than most native speakers. I learned Spanish while living in Venezuela, among a cadre of highly educated people. Imagine my surprise when I moved back to the US, into an area with a large hispanic (mostly Mexican) population. Half of the stores have misspelled their names, and it's a rarity to read a menu that doesn't have numerous errors. I'm not trying to portray Mexicans negatively, just pointing out that it's common for native speakers to be lazy about learning their language.

Re:MOD STORY INSIGHTFUL!

[bannerman]

I didn't learn english by hearing. But by reading

I'm pretty sure that should be a comma, not a period. Learn the language, noob!

Re:MOD STORY INSIGHTFUL!

[benzarro]

My grandparents bitch about the Mexicans coming up to Washington D.C. and changing the climate of lexicon. You're just as obsolete as their mindset. Have fun being left behind as language continues to evolve as it always has. Ever try reading original manuscripts of Shakespeare? Holy shit! Their esses are effs! What the fuck were they thinking! Douche.

Re:MOD STORY INSIGHTFUL!

[Mornelithe]

Ever try reading original manuscripts of Shakespeare? Holy shit! Their esses are effs! What the fuck were they thinking!

What's your point? Shakespeare wrote with correct spelling and grammar for his time.

"Language evolves" is no excuse for mangling the spelling and grammar of the language you're actually speaking at the time. "Should of" won't evolve into correct grammar, because it doesn't make any sense. "Definately" is unlikely to become the proper spelling of the word. It's not even a phonetic spelling (who pronounces "definitely" with a long a sound in place of the second i).

Saying that language evolves doesn't negate the fact that incorrect spelling and poor grammar makes one look less intelligent to people who actually know how to do things correctly.

Re:MOD STORY INSIGHTFUL!

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone should devise a test to see if the user knows the difference betweeen "its" and "it's." I am betting the majority of Slashdot users will fail this test, thereby exposing their arrogant stupidity.

Re:MOD STORY INSIGHTFUL!

[Anonymous Coward]

I would've come to the same conclusion, but I have no idea what the poster is talking about.

Re:MOD STORY INSIGHTFUL!

[lamp540]

We're too busy economically, culturally, and militarily dominating your country in order to bother learning "a little grammar", you stupid wetback.

Re:MOD STORY INSIGHTFUL!

[Stankatz]

You sound like a man who would appreciate a little constructive criticism of his own grammar. Here goes:

I'm tired of being the grammar / spelling [N]azi around here.

(A slash used to indicate the concept and or or should not be surrounded by spaces. Nazi is a proper noun, and, thus, should be capitalized.)

And[,] yes[,] I'm sh*t tired of people using stupid grammar just because they're [too] lazy to learn the language.

(There are no filters on Slashdot, so feel free to say shit all you like.)

Maybe it's a coincidence, but the fact that I'm _NOT_ a native [E]nglish speaker answers why people have such a weak grammar / spelling. I didn't learn [E]nglish by hearing[,] but by reading[.] (In fact I had some trouble knowing how to pronounce certain words).

(Slashdot allows the use of some HTML presentation elements, so feel free to use italics instead of underscores.)

But anyway, [in] Mexico, it's [a] common the rumour that [A]mericans are[,] oh [G]od[,] the cream of the crop[,] and they're so superior to us in everything. And then I come, and after a while of chatting[,] I end up making a huge "WTF!? O.O" face.

Please[,] kids, learn a little grammar. Is that too hard?

Perhaps you had better spend a little time perfecting your own English before criticizing others' English. Besides, most of the mistakes you made in your post are also mistakes in Spanish.

Re:MOD STORY INSIGHTFUL!

[LeoDraco]

You do realize that those are medial "esses", right? They are not "effs" at all.

Re:MOD STORY INSIGHTFUL!

[benzarro]

Nonono, you're mixing up what I was talking about with those darned lateral r's and distal q's. I was more focused on the radial posterior esses.

Now we can happily be on the same page. Oar a vwar!

Re:MOD STORY INSIGHTFUL!

[benzarro]

Fossil. You're just mad that youths are commanding greater influence on language at a much, much earlier age. (thank you, AOL!)

(Ha. "Thank you AOL..." What a riot.)

Earlier signs of obsolesence sting, is that it?

Re:MOD STORY INSIGHTFUL!

[Mornelithe]

No. I'm a youth myself, jackass. But, unlike millions of other people my age out there, I was able to learn the apparently mind-bending task of actually spelling things properly, and using relatively correct grammar most of the time.

Most of the shit that gets thrown out on AOL isn't influencing language as a whole. Not many people actually say dumb shit like "LOL". Most people can actually speak in normal, if colloquial, language. If anything, business speak and political correctness are influencing the way people speak way more than kids are.

People writing real shit that's actually going to last into future generations are actually using correct spelling and grammar. I don't see any papers coming out of universities written in AOL speak with shitty grammar. I don't see any new literature doing so. Your blog isn't going to be passed on to future generations like Shakespeare, precisely because you're writing shit.

And contrary to your naive beliefs, some people my age do actually care about proper grammar and spelling. Wonder of wonders, some people are actually interested in studying language, and you can't do that without learning all the rules and so on by which it operates.

So go on all you want masturbating about how the "youth are changing things," but you're fucking stupid if you think that we're going to end up with something where grammar and spelling doesn't matter at all, because that would be fucking gibberish that no one would understand.

One day these dumb AOL kiddies are going to grow up and realize that the way they're talking makes them look like morons, and they're going to get jobs and require that people actually learn to use the language they're mangling today.

Hell, I used to talk a little like that, but then I turned 12 and fucking grew out of it. Good language isn't going away as far as intelligent conversation is concerned. Sorry to have to tell you.

Re:MOD STORY INSIGHTFUL!

[spot35]

You are absolutely correct. I didn't learn any English grammar at school, but took a Spanish class in college. From this I learnt a lot about the contructs used in English and found, as a result, that I became a lot more eloquent in both languages.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Rui Lopes]

It's still common in other languages (e.g., Portuguese). And it's correctly used!

Just make it up

[mohrt]

You don't need to learn how to speak correctly, just come up with your own dialect.

isnt this a quasi "relative" question?

[tont0r]

Sure, 90% of us make grammar errors and ill agree that its more prone with hax0rz, coders, l337 sp34kers, etc. but realize that english classes and what not arent exactly our strong point.

case in point, go to an english major and ask them some college algebra questions or even better, some trig questions. they (the majority, im sure there are some english/math majors out there) would sooner spit fireballs from their eye sockets before they could answer the question.

me personally, im all over the A's and B's in math classes(calc 1-3, diff eq, linear alg), but i got C's in both english 1 and 2. so i think it should be looked at from that perspective before assuming if you know computers, you cant spell :).

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[ProfaneBaby]

Seriously though, I think being taught phonix(sp? lol) as a child really hendered my spelling capabilities because so many words are spelled in ways they shouldn't...

The above sentence made me cry.

English isn't logical

[cybermint]

English, like most if not all other widely used languages, is not logical. It has so many quirks to remember that people make up poems to remember how to spell certain words.

Computers are, more or less, completely logic based. Someone who is good with computer logic may not be so great with spoken/written language.

yeah youre missing something

[Anonymous Coward]

the point of language is to communicate. as long as that happens, nobody gives a fuck about your spelling, grammar, or lack of capital letters.

the english language has always been a bastardized congealement of street trash and royalty and it hopefully always will be. it has always changed and it always will change.

another thing that will never change is jerks like you who think they are gods gift to the human race. oh well.

Re: Hackers, Spelling, and Grammar?

[JoeMirando]

Strom,

All I can say is:

Hookt on Fonicks Werkt Four Mee!

Joe Mirando

So your above post..

[Anonymous Coward]

...is well written, and very understandable.

And yet you claim to be "constantly picked on" by the Grammar Police.

Obviously you're (not 'your'! :D) quite capable of expressing yourself just fine. Does this mean that you draw the ire of the G.P. *on purpose*, that you maim the English language *on purpose*?

Poor you! Getting picked on. The HORROR!

Re:So your above post..

[rednip]

Poor you! Getting picked on. The HORROR!

While sometimes you can't see it, mostly I like to have responses to my posts. It means that people are reading and (sometimes) thinking about what I have to say. A spelling nazi, mearly scans the words and indicates his disaproval by going after the individual words rather than the ideas they are being used to convey. I can't remember seeing one say "good point" but I think you meant "your" rather than "you're".

I always try for self improvement, and I've taken a lot of those 'lessons' to heart, but I am often willing to "do them a favor" and remind them what an ass they truely are.

Different problems?

[mccalli]

Mostly, this seems to manifest itself as varying degrees of poor spelling and grammar

Assuming we're dealing with a native English speaker, I see these as different problems. Poor spelling might simply be poor typing (though if I see 'loosing' for 'losing' one more time, I will become upset...). Poor grammar is more fundamental I feel, as it implies a lack of comprehension. In coding terms, I may not remember the method name but I should at least understand the algorithm I'm attempting to implement.

...I even see the names of products and companies misspelled from time to time.

Good. They assume far too much importance in the world as it is. If people still get them wrong, perhaps indoctrination hasn't quite been completed yet.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Different problems?

[Anonymous Coward]

though if I see 'loosing' for 'losing' one more time, I will become upset...

That does it. You and me both!

You go after the "loosers", I'll start logging the I.P's of every idiot who can't spell "sepArate" (not sepErate) properly...

Re:Different problems?

[incubeous]

"Poor grammar is more fundamental I feel, as it implies a lack of comprehension. In coding terms, I may not remember the method name but I should at least understand the algorithm I'm attempting to implement." I find that highly untrue. People still can understand you when you type "loosing". You still retain knowledge, in light of your metaphor, of the 'algorithm'. Just because you mispell a word and use incorrect grammar in 90% of the cases doesn't mean people still can't understand you. I'm sick of mispelling a word and then being looked down upon. Oh no, riddiculous has only one d? I better go back to college, apparently I know nothing.

Re:Different problems?

[Stauf]

Poor spelling might simply be poor typing (though if I see 'loosing' for 'losing' one more time, I will become upset...). Poor grammar is more fundamental I feel, as it implies a lack of comprehension.

Bravo. Typos are common and can happen to the best of us. The order and syntax of your language, though, is deliberate, and if you get it wrong, it's a pretty true indication that you don't know how to use it.

Now I'm not talking about specific, obscure rules of grammar; I'm talking about the simple stuff. Think about the sentence "Students who seek their instructors' advice often can improve their grades". This seems pretty straightforward, but does it mean that "Student who often seek their instructors' advice can improve their grades" (i.e. the students who see the instuctor regularly can improve their grades) or does it mean "Students who seek their instructors' advice can often improve their grades" (i.e. the students who see their instructor at least once are usually able to improve their grades). There's no way to tell from the sentence, and it's a very definite case of bad grammar hindering comprehension.

This sort of problem is common. If it takes a reader a minute or two to figure out what you're trying to say, then that reader will think less of your writing ability; and if a reader only knows you by your ability to write and the content of your writing, they may be led to assume less of you.

Re:Different problems?

[pavium]

The mispelling of words by marketing types is probably a misguided attempt to confer distinctiveness.

This, after all, is the Holy Grail of product marketing - 'My beer is Lite, yours is only light'.

Having worked a little in the Trade Mark business, I learned that mispelling a word does not imbue it with distinctiveness. A badly spelled description is still a description.

Re:Different problems?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're both loosing your grip....

Re:Different problems?

[No One You Know]

You go after the "loosers", I'll start logging the I.P's of every idiot who can't spell "sepArate" (not sepErate) properly...

Fuckin' A. You guys just pegged my two biggest spelling peeves.

I once worked with a guy who was comically bad in this respect. My favourite email from him went like this:

"Successul Accomplished!
Much thanks
Scott"

We used to joke that he sent a 5-word email with as many spelling and grammar errors.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[jellomizer]

I think is the way they taught us. I was never taught phonics I was I was taught sight words so when I see the word I supposed to memorize it and regurgitate back when needed. So it causes the problem for many if it feels good write it. Because it turned writing into an technical skill to an emotional skill. As for grammar they just assumed that you will pick it up. But growing up with kids who speak poor grammar you just pick up bad habits. Unfortunately schools in the mid-80s decided to teach us to be more politically correct then grammatically correct. I remember reading books in elementary where I was still struggling to learn how to read about children from Mexico so they mix spanish words with english and new symbols that just makes the kid more confused. The schools avoided giving us fun stories about robots and lasers, they made sure that every story we read was dull and taught us a point in being politically correct. When you take the joy out of reading and writing you do not pick up good skills

Article

[b1t r0t]

Seriously, this is the big can'o'worms.

It basically falls into two categories. The one you're probably not complaining about is intentional joke misspellings like "teh intarwebnet". The one you are complaining about is the category where some words are just plain misspelled ("catagory"), and others use a correctly spelled wrong word (lose/loose, principal/principle, populace/populous, you're/your, its/it's). While some of the offenders are not native English speakers, most are the product of our (.us) wonderful educational system.

I suspect a major cause of this is people who didn't read a lot when they were young. Not that it matters any more, because publishers can't afford anyone clueful enough to copyedit spelling any more. And that is thanks to spelling checkers which blindly let correctly spelled wrong words through. I think you can thank Microsoft Word stifling competition in the word processor market for the lack of good grammar checking.

/teh intarnet is fool of morans

Re:Article

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't that the education system is poor, at least not in most cases. It is because we don't care. If If it is a paper for school or work, I will make the spelling perfect and the grammar as well as I can. If I'm talking with some friends online or writing a message in a forum, as long as it is intelligible, I don't care.

Oh, and the fact that English isn't written phonetically doesn't help...

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

consider how often a programmer probably uses the english language in comparison to the utilization of his respective programming languages.

Some of us are not native english speakers...

[deacon]

And really, if we are writing something important, we use the spell checker. If we are doing a 45 second post to /., it does not matter.

Do not judge the book by the cover, in either direction.

[ob. Family Guy]

[zolaar]

::smacks lips::
Don't be stu-paah, che talk goo an aay-ting!

The problem with English...

[John Seminal]

You just can not spell a word the way it sounds. English is like French in this regard.

And if you want to make it even more messy, how about asking what English really is?

Centre? or Center? Are you American or British? Two countries, one language. It is not simple enough to say that Americans speak American.

I have been asking people what English evolved from? Some say English is a Germanic language. Others say we share a common heritage with Latin. But we are not a Romance language, not like French or Spanish or Italian. BTW, it is interesting to know, if you learn any one of those languages, you have learned 50% of all others in the same family.

And English grammer is very different than the rest of the world:

In the USA we would say: "I like her". In France or Russian, the sentance would be "I her like".

I will leave everyone with words from the great Mark Twain.

I went often to look at the collection of curiosities in Heidelberg Castle, and one day I surprised the keeper of it with my German. I spoke entirely in that language. He was greatly interested; and after I had talked a while he said my German was very rare, possibly a "unique"; and wanted to add it to his museum.

If he had known what it had cost me to acquire my art, he would also have known that it would break any collector to buy it. Harris and I had been hard at work on our German during several weeks at that time, and although we had made good progress, it had been accomplished under great difficulty and annoyance, for three of our teachers had died in the mean time. A person who has not studied German can form no idea of what a perplexing language it is.

Surely there is not another language that is so slipshod and systemless, and so slippery and elusive to the grasp. One is washed about in it, hither and thither, in the most helpless way; and when at last he thinks he has captured a rule which offers firm ground to take a rest on amid the general rage and turmoil of the ten parts of speech, he turns over the page and reads, "Let the pupil make careful note of the following exceptions." He runs his eye down and finds that there are more exceptions to the rule than instances of it.

The best thing we can do, if we want people who know good English, is to teach them a foriegn language early in life. Start teaching French or German in the 7th or 8th grade. By knowing a second language, one can learn about their own. No native speaker thinks about word placements in English because they say "what sounds right". But when the study of French or German starts, and words are not in the order we would expect, it causes reflection on our own language.

It will also bring more world peace. I doubt Americans would be so quick to eat their Freedom Fries and beg for war if they could read a newspaper from Europe, instead of being brainwashed my Fox News. While Bush might like to think Texas is big, the world is much bigger.

Re:The problem with English...

[shdragon]

The best thing we can do, if we want people who know good English, is to teach them a foriegn language early in life. Start teaching French or German in the 7th or 8th grade. By knowing a second language, one can learn about their own. No native speaker thinks about word placements in English because they say "what sounds right". But when the study of French or German starts, and words are not in the order we would expect, it causes reflection on our own language.

I agree, everyone should know more than just one language. However, starting at the 7th or 8th grade is too late. The part of the brain that allows us to easily decipher & pick up a language shuts down right before most kids are getting into Pre-K & K.

Re:The problem with English...

[Anonymous Coward]

The best thing we can do, if we want people who know good English, is to teach them a foriegn language early in life. Start teaching French or German in the 7th or 8th grade. By knowing a second language, one can learn about their own. No native speaker thinks about word placements in English because they say "what sounds right".

Yes, it's very good to start learning a second language already as a child since once you speak more than one it's much easier to learn others as well. First of all it makes it easier to "accept" that something which (initially) seems very weird is correct in another language and you can adopt the right way of learning other languages - i.e. instead of formulating what you wish to express into a sentence in your native language and then translating that "on-the-fly" when speaking you learn to formulate the sentence in the language in which you wish to say it even though your ability to formulate sentences in that language is limited.

Back to basics

[zenbanana]

Hackers and geeks are the ones who tended to not pay attention in non-interesting classes in high school, such as English and other "soft" subjects. Perhaps that explains this phenomenon.
Also, IT has one of the highest percentages of non-college graduates of any of the professions, and one of the things people learn in college (at least good colleges) is how to write well.

"Rediculous"

[freeweed]

My personal favourite. Saw it for the first time maybe 2 years ago, now half the kids on IRC use it exclusively - and a goodly portion of Slashdot.

Of course, declining spelling/grammer skills are occuring everywhere these days, but I'll touch on a few things I've noticed specifically in the technical field.

1. Online chat. The need to keep up with a conversation online leads to very poor typing skills. Especially in an environment such as IRC, which is often 90% argument. People madly rush to get their point in before 15 others do, and make horrendous typing mistakes. Heh. Of course, others correct them on it, which makes them all the angrier. Eventually, I've found this devolves into "I'M NOT WRITING AN ESSAY LEAVE MY TIPING SKILZ OUT OF THS!!!!!1". Give it enough time, and poor typing is a point of pride to many people.

2. Geek culture. We've always had a bit of counter-culture in us. We hated the ties at IBM. We hate showering daily :) And we HATE authority, old-fashioned anything, and general proper behaviour (whatever that is).

3. An incredible influx of young people online. No one is as poor with language skills as a teenager. And no one is as defensive when you try to correct them. Combine these two and you have the recipe for #1 above, in spades. For most young people these days, IRC/MSN/? is their first experience with large amounts of typing (or writing, for that matter) that occurs without a spelling and grammer checker. When chatting, it's painfully obvious how the technology has propped them up. Most younger folk have also not worked in (for example) an office environment, where language skills actually matter.

Solved the Problem

[mbrewthx]

That's why I married an English, French, Spanish and English Literature Teacher.

What you are missing...

[jsimon12]

Am I missing something here?

You are missing the bigger picture in life. And that is that spelling and grammer only matter up to high school unless you are an English major or a Tech writer. Otherwise you get credit for best effort as long as it makes sense.

So grow up, no more gold stars or smily faces for aceing the spelling test buddy.

Re:What you are missing...

[otis wildflower]

You are missing the bigger picture in life. And that is that spelling and grammer only matter up to high school unless you are an English major or a Tech writer. Otherwise you get credit for best effort as long as it makes sense.

Ummm.. No.

There are still plenty of folks in corporate management who consider reading bad grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation akin to the sound of fingernails scraped across a chalkboard. They consider correct writing and speaking a sign of intelligence, and the lack of it a lack of it. Of course, non-native English users get a legitimate break, but anyone coming out of an accredited degree-granting institution should be able to write a letter free of spelling, grammar and punctuation errors.

Those are the folks who decide whether you get hired, promoted, fired, etc.

And yes, I am frequently tempted to carry a permanent marker around with me to correct graffiti, ad copy, etc. Seeing poor spelling is bad, but poor punctuation kills me.

ObBob:
http://www.sablesys.com/apostrophes.gif
http://angryflower.com/worlds.gif
http://angryflower.com/destro.gif

Re:What you are missing...

[swerk]

Interesting.

I think good spelling and grammar are a small section of what some of us find lacking today: good manners. They're not really necessary; there's extra effort involved for little or no real return. But, whether it "counts" or not, it's part of how a person projects.

Now, if everybody is curt with everybody else, and nobody expects or would even appreciate anything different, there's really no problem. Some of us do appreciate eloquence though. Some of us do appreciate someone taking a few extra seconds and polishing their message a bit, whether it's written or not. Maybe the only real problem is that some people value those things while others don't. If we all agreed that good grammar and polite etiquette are a complete waste of time, then nobody would bother, and nobody would feel like there has been any sort of decay in what's valued. At the very least, we would probably tend to be more honest with one another; no more sugar coating.

I'm not sure where I fall. When I think of "good manners" I think of seven forks about which I know nothing of their proper use, stilted "I beg your pardon, good sir, but..." nonsense, bowing or curtsying when greeting someone, all that antiquated stuff I'm genuinely not interested in. It's just progress, we've phased those things out for a variety of reasons. Perhaps proficiency in English is doomed to a similar fate. I certainly find myself caring less about it over time. In terms of doing good or harm to anyone, pristine spelling isn't exactly important even relative to other areas of etiquette. The girl yakking away on her phone on the freeway isn't just rude, she's a threat to other people's lives. But if she wants to L her AO when she gets home, then OMG, there's, like, nothing wrong with that, and stuff.

Whether we're talking about the US or the entire world, it's a melting pot culture, all kinds of lowest common denominators get settled on eventually. It's what we all make it. We're either going through a phase now where language skills dip in common value, or it's just going to be the case where over time those skills are less and less relevant. Neither picture offends my senses.

In the news the last couple of days...

[mr_zonules]

Was a HS teacher/coach who was murdered (in the Seattle area). They found the criminal the next day, and then learned that the police had already had him in custody an hour before the shooting. He had warrants for his arrest, but they did not come up on their computers when they had him, due to a name misspelling (his name had an "h" that was entered as an "n" iirc). So they let him go, and then he killed a tennis coach.

Also, I feel sorry for anyone who spells something wrong in this thread!!

-Z

don't you know?

[pair-a-noyd]

You are witnessing the birth of Cityspeak...

Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a pretty good grasp of the English language, and I write lisp.

Enough said.

Re:I second that

[rbarreira]

Where I come from, we usually end sentences with a period... Please be attentive.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[RobertKozak]

I tihnk taht seplnilg rellay deosnt matetr at all. For exmalpe, I bet taht you can raed tihs precfcetly fnie.

I bieelve it was proevn that as lnog as the frist and lsat lettres do not chnage, our brians can aoutomtacalily rearragne tehm and we have full comhenpresion.

I cnnaot fnid the lnik rgiht now but I am srue taht tihs was psoted on salhsodt a few mnoths ago.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[MynockGuano]

You are wrong. It will never take hold for one simple reason: the words don't make sense together. "Of" is not a verb; "have" is. Common usage or not, it will never logically make sense. "Should of" almost certainly stems from phonetically spelling "should've" ("should have"). Even in speaking, therefore, it never occurs.

How about some examples?

[Anonymous Coward]

Support your claim and explain what gives your generalization any credit.

What Would Maddox Say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I agree we should get back to our roots when it comes to language.

Yon Grammer Troll is doth idiot.

Recently seen...

[rnturn]

A mispelled word in a TV ad. If memory serves it was a Toyota car ad.

I'm thinking it was done deliberately. Now that I've seen one, I'll actually watch the commercials to see if I can spot other typos.

It seems so

[Amtiskaw]

My experiences do seem to back this up. I started working at my current firm just a few months ago. Whilst looking through their existing code I've been amazed at the diabolical quality of the spelling and grammar in comments, and even variable and module names. Everyday works misspelt time and again, some of it wouldn't be out of place in a child's phonetically spelled scrawlings. And it seems to be that the better the programmer is technically, the worse their grasp of everyday English. Unfortunately I tend to be fairly anal about spelling and grammar, so I guess that bodes badly for my programming ability.

IMHO, part of the problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

...is that the modern English language's orthography is non-intuitive. It's not pronounced as it is written. Many modern languages are pronounced exactly as written, but because of English's long history, great vowel shift, and assimilation of foreign words, English orthography is very confusing.
It should be written "skillz", not skills, because it is actually a "z" sound at the end of that word. Try to pronounce it as written (with the same sound at the end of the word as at the beginning) and you're saying it incorrectly (or strangely at a minimum).
I'd like to see all languages move to using the IPA (http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/ipa/ipa.html , but I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen. It would actually be more possible now than ever because Unicode supports the IPA. (BTW...yes...I am a cunning linguist).

Re:Grammer and Spelling Nazi's are always so funny

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

I think you meant "grammar".

Sheesh! I'm going to loose my mind reading all of these things that people should of known how to write properly! Their driving me nuts!

(Yes...that WAS on purpose...)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Kevin Stevens]

This is just a part of language evolution. You are defending a standard that tries define something that is fluid at best. You are fighting the equivalent of the drug war, language does not want to stay static, it wants to be free and pick up new additions, and lose old usages, and the most comfortable spellings and pronunciations will prevail. Most people concatenate "a lot" in their speech, to the point where it is one word. So they do this when writing too. I have never read the word "alot" or "definately" and spent an iota of extra brain power deciphering it. By my definition, they have still communicated clearly and coherently to me.

The english language changes. Trying to constrain the language by putting a bunch of rules on what is and what is not proper is about as effective as trying to get a kitten to stay in one spot all day.

Me fail english? That's unpossible!

[EvanED]

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Anyway, I fully agree. I also have a few pet peeves that are at a bit higher level than simple grammatical or spelling errors. There are phrases such as "I could care less" that are well formed but are still incorrect, because people mean something other than what they are saying.

Then I have another set of pet peeves that are aimed at the language and its use in general because they are almost universal. One of my favorites is "My watch is fast" when the speaker of course doesn't mean that his watch is fast, but that it is ahead. Presumably the minute hand still takes pretty much 60 minutes to complete a circle. (Of course there is a corrolation between a watch going fast and being ahead, but that isn't what people refer to, as evidenced by the occasional "My watch is 5 minutes fast" when "5 minutes" isn't a unit of speed.) Then there's all sorts of fun with questions like "Aren't you coming?"

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

English would be more precise if it's rules didn't have exceptions. Everyone would be pissed if i++ had to be written i++s sometimes and i++esses other times depending on the context. Programming languages says just enought to get the job done. And written english is slowing going there too. If people can read the text and understand what you mean, who cares if it's grammatically correct? Most comprehension problems are the lack of correct terms, not the way the words are written. This is why people don't care about grammar. Maybe at some point it made some sense to have all the exceptions, and maybe there is a reason, but the "language whitepaper" has been lost and what has been reverse engineered is not complete/coherent/speculation.

The day a complete, concise, clear, simple and LOGICAL white paper on english is out is the day people are going to write a bit better. (And it's also the same day when method used to learn english are going to be more straightfoward and the day where "can spell at grade X" will make some sense.)

The worst...

[Darth Maul]

...for me is 'loose' as a spelling for 'lose' or 'looser' instead of 'loser'. I only seem to have noticed this over the past few years, but it's all over the IntarWeb now! So how do you spell the past tense?

Re:The worst...

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

[...] 'loose' as a spelling for 'lose'[...] So how do you spell the past tense?

Ess You See Kay Ee Dee.

The "loose/lose" and "should of" instead of "should have" are probably the only two that really irk me, for some reason. I generally don't even blink at "definately" or even the "there/their/they're" mixups most of the time, but "loose" just triggers a downright irrational irritation in me...

(For the record: "lose" means the opposite of "win", or alternatively "to unintentionally not have possession of something any more". "Loose", on the other hand, as a verb, means to intentionally let go of something. You "Loose the hounds" when you allow them to attack a burglar. You "Lose the Hounds" if the burglar runs off with them first...)

(I will now sit back and allow even better grammar fascists to correct my corrections...)

Re:The worst...

[Anonymous Coward]

Loose is also the opposite of tight. (No one click any links in replies to this post).

Re:The worst...

[Stauf]

The "loose/lose" and "should of" instead of "should have" are probably the only two that really irk me, for some reason.

I also irrationally hate this exact thing. I think it's because it's a misspelling that changes a verb to an adjective (lose/loose) or a verb to a preposition (have/of). This sort of syntax error is glaring because if taken at face value, the sentence makes no sense whatsoever, and worse, if spoken out loud the sentence doesn't even sound meaningful.

With 'their/they're/there', they look sort of similar of the page and, when sounded out, the sentence works. With 'definitately' I'm often inclined to just think 'typo' and move on.

Grammer and speling

[majordomo]

Why due grammer and speling matter, u say? Its only communicashun that matter's? Well, mistake's make you look un-educated or sloopy, which mite be you're problem, but they make thing's harder to reed, wich makes' them my problem. Personally speeching, its' hard for me to read thing's with bad grammer and speling becuz I do'nt like the over head of haveing to correct other people's idiosyncracy's (or mistake's) on the flie. The more mistake's their are, the harder to reed; the fuer, the beter.

Do the math on spelling and grammar---the only winning move is not to err.

English is good

[sxmjmae]

The amazing thing about English is that butchers the grammar and spelling and still get the 'general idea' across.

The statement "Me know english good 'nough." will communicate what I wanted to say and surprisingly you will understand it.

In very few other languages can you get away with such grammarical fubar.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[brausch]

Of course, without proper language and compiler support (declarations required, etc.) their programs might not be any better than their English! That could explain a lot though...

"Grammar Considered Harmful" by more than hackers.

[Shag]

While I have to agree that an unfortunate percentage of people in the technology field who (are presumed to) have English as their native tongue haven't particularly mastered it, I haven't seen any indication that people in other fields are doing any better.

My mother was a sometime proofreader, my father a sometime typesetter. I received what I can only presume was at best a typical language education in school from the late 1970s to late 1980s, read an awful lot of books, and wound up with grammar and spelling abilities that seemed a bit "above average" at the time, but now seem freakish.

Given any English-language newspaper from anywhere in the world, I will probably find errors in grammar or spelling. They're not quite as ubiquitous in books, but it's not uncommon for the typical 200-page work to have an error or two. Computer programs, web pages and the like are typically held to a lower standard, so I'm not the least bit surprised when they contain language errors.

That said, might English speakers actually have it better than people who prefer other languages? Most application interfaces are initially written in English, and sloppy translation during the "internationalization" process could have amusing or embarrassing results.

Jagged jars

[Anonymous Coward]

Meesa spek wel!

http://mambo.mamboforge.net/demo/index.php?option=

[peskypescado]

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by itslef but the wrod as a wlohe.

As a native Eng. spkr, Japanese learner....

[gsfprez]

the very concept of "spelling bees" is an absolute abomination of the human intellect in terms of wasting mental capacity on something so outrageously vapid.

For what LOGICAL purpose could there be...

Three words that sound identical, yet have 3 spellings and 3 meanings...

Silent letters

The existance of the letter "c"

all the different vowels, yet often being used identically in pronunciation

The following letter combinations..."ph", "ie", "rh"...

English is a fscking train wreck of a language. there's no consistency, no logic, and no way to learn it unless you emmerse in it for a few years - at least.

I have no problem with people breaking English.. its a horrid horrid language - from a purely logical point of view.

Japanese, on the other hand, is quite easy to learn, spell (leave out Kangi), and is actually beautiful.. English doesn't even have that last one going for it.

Worse than english? French.. i mean, you don't pronounce 1/2 of the word most of the time.. its all silent.. lame.

Re:As a native Eng. spkr, Japanese learner....

[OrangeTide]

Most Japanese ends up as tongue twisters... onnanohito to onnanohito

Russian is nice, it has a compact alphabet that is very phonetic. as long as you don't try to Romanize it.

English wasn't designed, it is an ever evolving language that borrows structure and words from other languages. If you want something that is well designed there is Lojban. Which is a logical language, designed to study language. It's easily parsable by a computer, and it has a very regular structure (makes for challenging poetry!). But Lojban suffers from a restriction that eliminates metaphors with cultural bias, and since all metaphors have heavy cultural bias you have a real nerfed language. Lojban is super easy to learn though, you can be fluent reader/speaker in it after about 3 months of study. Plus it uses the standard latin alphabet, tossing out a few letters that are not necessary.

Write all your source code comments in Lojban and at least your comments wouldn't be ambiguous. (Of course they could still be blatantly false:)

This is an interesting subject....

[hypernayte]

Has anyone ever read "EATS, SHOOTS & LEAVES", by Lyn Truss? If not, you ought to look into it. Very applicable, here.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[TheScottishGuy]

touGH mOTIon (it's just made from those 2 phonetic sounds right?, or was the o meant to be from something else?)

Don't be hard on the poor guy. . .

[jafac]

Obviously, it's his first day on the Internet.

Over the last few years, I've noticed that a surprisingly large number of native English speakers, who are otherwise very technically competent,.... .... Do they not realize that a mediocre command of written English makes them appear less intelligent? Am I missing something here?"

Maybe technical competence, doesn't necessarily come with the insecure need to "appear intelligent"?

Since when was apearing intelligent a goal?

[Anonymous Coward]

The english language is an evolving hack.
A few minor errors are fine in the average message.

Regards,

anti_spam256@yahoo.ca

WUT DO U MAAN??!?!!! WTF

[mangus_angus]

I DONT KNOW WUT UR TOKNG ABOUT I CHAT ON DA INT3RN3T AL DA TIEM AND I SPEAK AND TYPE ANGLISH FIEN11!111! WTF I THINK U NED 2 HANG OUT IN SOME DIF3RANT CIRCLES11!! OMG WTF

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing I'd like to know, can you drop 'got' from most sentences?

You've got mail. = You have got mail.
You've mail. = You have mail.

Are they both right?

Those are both okay, though I'd prefer the second version.

However, "Peter got shot" (or "Peter has got shot") does not mean the same as "Peter shot" (or "Peter has shot"), so no I wouldn't say that you can drop "got" from most sentences.

The missing point...

[Decameron81]

"Do they not realize that a mediocre command of written English makes them appear less intelligent? Am I missing something here?"

Less intelligent to whom? Do you think we'd be sitting here all day posting on slashdot if we had friends to try and look smarter to?

Languages evolve or die

[burndive]

What you don't understand is that English is a language in flux. It is constantly being rewritten, modified, specialized, imported and exported, much like open source software. Standards are useful. However, if standard English (and there are several versions--pick one) is enforced, it will go the way of ancient Greek, Latin, and more recently French: extinction.

looser

[Anonymous Coward]

you're a looser dude

Strategry...

[Yoda2]

I like our President enjoy making up words. My criteria is that my message is clear. I mostly do it to amuse myself or to cover the lack of a clear word in a given situation. If someone calls me on it then I ask them, "Did you understand what I meant?" After they answer "Yes," I note that it was a "word," just not part of the currently accepted English language.

Re:Strategry...

[OrangeTide]

GW Bush is certainly not going to be mistaken as The Great Communicator. Perhaps the Great Confuzzler.

(we totally need to get Bush to use the word Confuzzle in his next speech)

spellcheqk is just another word.

[carlback]

Isn't this one of the ways language evolves over time?

It's "GrammAr" and "Nazis" (no apostrophe)

[mr_rangr]

Sheesh.

grammar nazis get their fp story

[circletimessquare]

and no one cares

seriously, some people have a problem, and this is it: semantics get more attention than meaning for them

the shallow surface is so distracting their minds can't focus on anything deeper

so who has the problem? the kid who misspells a few words/ makes some simple mistakes in grammar no one has a problem getting around? or those who have some sort of mental handicap where they can't get past a little white noise, that is present in ALL communication, and so they stay stuck at the surface?

who has the real problem?

it is true: you have to communicate as effectively as you can in life, certainly... but there is always white noise, always miscommunication, and some of it can most certainly be traced to not having the proper grammar/ spelling

but hardly to the extent grammar nazis will insist

they have the communication problem, NOT the kid who spells definitely "definately"

really!

i was reading a slashdot story here a while ago, and it basically showed that you can rmv th vwls frm a sntnc nd th wrds r stll ndrstndbl nd cmprhnsbl nd rdbl.

wht ds tht tll s bt smntcs nd mnng?

it tells us that semantics is not really that imporant in communication, and is only a point of contention among those who have a bigger communication problem than all of the bad grammar/ had spelling kids out there: an overly anal retentive focus on the shallow surface, a mental, almost autistic handicap in communication where they can't focus on the MEANING because of a little noise in the SEMANTICS

grammar nazis: you are the ones with the problem, not the kids with grammar and spelling mistakes

seriously

language evolves, it changes

today's l33t speak is tomorrow's standard english spelling and pronunciation

and if you've read this far into my rant, then you know exactly what i'm talking about

meanwhile, all of the grammar nazis are still hung up on my first sentence ...because i didn't capitalize the first letter or use a period

whatever!

Re:grammar nazis get their fp story

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not even going to respond to that non-sensical garbage. Christ, you didn't even capitalize or punctuate properly.

Re:grammar nazis get their fp story

[pinchhazard]

dt

What does that spell? I bet you can't tell.

"idiot"

Re:grammar nazis get their fp story

[Anonymous Coward]

if it weren't for the rules, you'd never understand english to begin with.

Re:grammar nazis get their fp story

[Decameron81]

"meanwhile, all of the grammar nazis are still hung up on my first sentence ...because i didn't capitalize the first letter or use a period"

Well of course you can write in any way you want. You can also dress in any way you want.

However keep in mind that while that's your choice... it may be the choice of others (a boss, a colleague, etc) to refuse to read what you wrote. Not everyone enjoys getting a headache.

Re:grammar nazis get their fp story

[alue]

i was reading a slashdot story here a while ago, and it basically showed that you can rmv th vwls frm a sntnc nd th wrds r stll ndrstndbl nd cmprhnsbl nd rdbl.

I think the claim was that the order of letters in a word doesn't matter as long as the first and last letters are in place. If that's what you meant, you were probably referring to "Can You Raed Tihs?"

Re:grammar nazis get their fp story

[Anonymous Coward]

Laziness is one of the three principle virtues of a prgrammer, and reading your post was too hard.

Re:grammar nazis get their fp story

[Have Blue]

Why do you rip your MP3s at 192K? Why not 64K?

Because there's less noise? Who cares. You can still tell what song it is at 64K. Why are you wasting so much disk space?

If you download a really bad rip, do you add it to your collection or throw it out within a few seconds of listening to it?

Get my point yet?

Re:grammar nazis get their fp story

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, semantics *is* meaning. That's what semantics means.

So semantics is pretty darned important.

Re:grammar nazis get their fp story

[Anonymous Coward]

"i was reading a slashdot story here a while ago, and it basically showed that you can rmv th vwls frm a sntnc nd th wrds r stll ndrstndbl nd cmprhnsbl nd rdbl.

wht ds tht tll s bt smntcs nd mnng?"

That actually took some effort to comprehend, so it's a bad example. The words have to at least RESEMBLE the ones they are supposed to represent.

And someone doesn't understand that l33t speak is mainly used for irony, not for serious communication.

Re:grammar nazis get their fp story

[bigtangringo]

Well put post, but I disagree.

IMHO, if you have an apathy for something as basic as correct usage of a language, then you (and I for that matter) don't consider your ideas important enough to convey to others.

Re:grammar nazis get their fp story

[DarkHelmet]

they have the communication problem, NOT the kid who spells definitely "definately"

I disagree with you. The problem doesn't stem either from grammatical correctness, or language adaptation, but rather some of the places where poor grammar and punctuation end up landing.

I work for a newspaper software company. Our division was about to get flyers printed out promoting our latest and greatest online product. It turns out that the flyer was in need of drastic grammatical and spelling correction.

The main problem with poor spelling in some cases is that your target audience might not take you seriously. In the case of Slashdot, people may or may not take you seriously. In the case of a series of grammar-nazi newspaper editors, it certainly counts.

Given a choice between spelling properly when it's unnecessary and spelling poorly when correctness is essential, I choose the latter.

P.S: On a humorous note, one of the emails that was floating around the company was titled, "Online Classifieds Flyer has Bad Grammer." I teased the guy who sent that one out for a good week or so. It was a great laugh :)

Re:grammar nazis get their fp story

[puppetman]

Spelling "definitely" incorrectly is one thing. Writing all in lower or upper case with no puctuation is another.

Email lacks body language, inflection, and a bunch of other things that help understanding. If you are missing key gramatical elements, clarity drops dramatically; punctuation, grammar and capitilization all go a long way towards understanding.

Once in a while, I get an email that takes an extra minute to decipher, and I'm often still not sure of the meaning. The result is that I assume the person who wrote it is a moron until he or she proves otherwise. And some of these emails are work-related.

And you know what - it's the job of the writer to convince the reader, and I don't have to read anything I don't want to.

If anything, you've convinced me to respond, "Please resend in English." Normally I try to work my way through it; no more. I guess I'm another convert to the Grammar Nazi party.

Congrats.

Re:grammar nazis get their fp story

[dreadknought]

Aautllcy, I bvielee taht the rrpeot was taht you can slrbcame the letetrs of a word, lianevg the frist and last leretts incatt, and you can stlil read most wodrs. Afetr raeidng taht, I wrote a plgiun for trilalin taht does jsut that. This is its opuutt.

Re:grammar nazis get their fp story

[fireklar]

To be perfectly honest, we're not still hung up on the first sentence, because after we saw it, we skipped straight to the next post.

Re:grammar nazis get their fp story

[hyfe]

but hardly to the extent grammar nazis will insist

they have the communication problem, NOT the kid who spells definitely "definately"

Grammar nazis are one thing, and they really are everywhere. I'm norwegian myself and there are a few words I insist on spelling wrongly as I believe their current spelling is flat out stupid.

I am also fairly appaled at how bad my little brother (14 years old now) are at writing correctly as he makes a lot of really, really stupid mistakes that should have been weeded out a long time ago. Not very surprisingly, he also has some trouble with the finer points of spelling. What worries me though, is that he's getting top grades, and are one of the best in his class. Language detoration seems to be universal at the moment.

However, that is nothing compared to some of the idiocy is see some americans sprouting. It goes way beyond 20 posts in a row mispelling relevant as relevent; I can live with those. There are plenty of Americans on various forums I honestly have serious problems even understanding. No punctuation, bad spelling and an attitude to communication that's just horrible. Sure, I understood what you said, after reading through it twice slowly.

Honestly, just a little bloody effort, and reading would be sooo bloody easier.

Re:grammar nazis get their fp story

[ignavusinfo]

> it tells us that semantics is not really that imporant [sic] in communication

funny! you *were* being funny, right? or are you under the misapprehension that semantics and meaning are somehow different things? k.

Re:grammar nazis get their fp story

[Anonymous Coward]

semantics - n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)

1. Linguistics. The study or science of meaning in language.
2. Linguistics. The study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent. Also called semasiology.
3. The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form: We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics.

Re:grammar nazis get their fp story

[Anonymous Coward]

meanwhile, all of the grammar nazis are still hung up on my first sentence ...because i didn't capitalize the first letter or use a period

Nope. I, a self-proclaimed Grammar Nazi, am hung up on your first sentence because it makes no sense. Here's what I'm calling your first sentence:

seriously, some people have a problem, and this is it: semantics get more attention than meaning for them

I say that I'm "calling" it your first sentence because, grammatically speaking, it isn't a sentence. That's not what's deeply wrong with it. Here's the definition of the word "semantics":

semantics
n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)

1. Linguistics. The study or science of meaning in language.
2. Linguistics. The study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent. Also called semasiology.
3. The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form.

So here's the semantics of what you said, couched in the form of a correct sentence:
Seriously, some people have a problem, and this is it: meaning gets more attention than meaning from them.

Now you know how stupid you sound.

Re:grammar nazis get their fp story

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this scored "insightful"? It's flame bait.

circletimessquare misses the point. This is not about some `grammar nazis' getting hung up on `some simple mistakes.' This is about otherwise intelligent individuals who write sloppily and should know better, but unfortunately seem to be propagating their bad habits to their colleagues.

It is one thing to misspell words or change grammar to convey an artistic or cultural point. Writers and poets have done that for centuries. But it is another thing entirely to write like a moron. When someone insists on using `definately' do they express some sublime concept or insight? No, they just look dumb. And others who copy it look dumb.

Like it or not, there is a difference between `which' and `that', hyphens sometimes matter, `it's' is a contraction of 'it is' and there is no such word as `irregardless'. We live in a society in which style matters a good deal of the time: we match our socks as well as our verb tenses. If you're doing otherwise, and you can carry it off as a unique personal expression, then fine. But most of the time, you'll just wind up looking like an idiot.

Re:grammar nazis get their fp story

[ChuckleBug]

semantics get more attention than meaning for them

semantics
n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
1. Linguistics. The study or science of meaning in language.
2. Linguistics. The study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent. Also called semasiology.
3. The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form: We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics.
(American Heritage Dictionary)

So the sentence-like thingy I quoted is meaningless. Since your whole argument is that your shitty grammar, punctuation, spelling, and general difficult-to-read quality can be ignored because you get the meaning across, you've managed to refute yourself. Kudos.

Just so you understand, let me break it down: You said all those grammar freaks suck because they're all about semantics, while you're all about meaning. That's nonsense.

Ignorance is one thing. Congratulating yourself for being intentionally ignorant is pretty nauseating.

Re:grammar nazis get their fp story

[ampathee]

> i was reading a slashdot story here a while ago, and it basically showed that you can rmv th vwls frm a sntnc nd th wrds r stll ndrstndbl nd cmprhnsbl nd rdbl.

> wht ds tht tll s bt smntcs nd mnng?

Sure I could read that, but I had to slow down to do it. The thing that annoys me about incorrect grammar and spelling is that (in bulk) it requires me to slow my reading - my brain has to do a fuzzy match rather just check a lookup table, if you will.

It's not a problem if it's just a few mistakes, but as the mistakes get more frequent, I have to slow down more.. and it gets to the point where I just can't be bothered reading it.

Re:grammar nazis get their fp story

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't make a habit of posting to Slashdot stories (I'm more of a lurker), but I'm something of grammar Nazi myself, so this topic interests me.

The way I see it, there are two issues. In your post, you talk about the issue of comprehension. It is true that the ultimate goal of language is communicating ideas. It does make sense, then, that an e-mail or post which communicates to the reader everything that the author intended is completely successful.

However, it does not follow from this that attention to grammar and spelling, even to a degree that one might consider anal, is unimportant. The rules of written English are a vital tool for effective communication under this criterion.

Your example is an excellent one:
"you can rmv th vwls frm a sntnc nd th wrds r stll ndrstndbl nd cmprhnsbl nd rdbl."

You're right; I was able to read and understand that sentence. It took me at least twice as long to read as a sentence written with correct spelling would have, though. I have to make a concious mental effort to get through mangled sentences, and that's effort I could be using to consider its real implications -- the part of the sentence which is actually important. If your entire post had been written without vowels, I would have simply ignored it because it would have taken too much effort to read!

I've seen all sorts of grammatical disasters on the Internet. Surely you've come across lengthy stream-of-conciousness posts without paragraphs or periods to let you know where one idea begins and the other ends. They just get ignored because they're too frustrating.

That's an extreme example, but it applies all the way down to the simplest rules of grammar. Every sentence that has three independent clauses too many, list that lacks proper parallelism (this one's a biggie!) and your that should really be a you're makes the reader's job a little more tedious. No, a mistake here and there isn't a problem, but when a careless writer allows them to add up, you get something like the incomprehensible mires of words posted to Slashdot as stories. I only skim the stories here because the posts almost always containt a better written (not to mention more factually correct) explanation.

The second issue is that written language really and truly is an art form. Writers should seek to master written language because it is such a powerful form of expression. Grammar and spelling are just the most basic building blocks for writers; they are not the main problem here. The same writers who aren't paying attention to those simple rules aren't learning the more advanced concepts that can make their writing stand out.

Important aspects of writing, like careful organization of ideas, are ignored by a lot of writers. Even more importantly than that, a lot of writers lack any control over tone. Readers may understand the meaning of sentences strung together without consideration for organization or tone, but they won't get anything out of them other then the literal meanings of those words. They won't find anything that might have made the writer's argument especially profound or evocative.

Worse still, personal communications written with a careless consideration for tone can seem too personal, too formal, or just downright rude. I see e-mails like this all the time. A writer must always think about who he is writing too!

Yes, it's a lot to think about when sitting down at the keyboard to write a simple e-mail or Slashdot post, but it is important. My point is that any opinion or fact worth writing is worth taking some time to write carefully. A few mistakes won't hurt anybody, but a little attention to detail will go a long way producing writing that people really want to read.

Wow, that post went about twice as long as I intended it to.

Cheers, Justin

Re:grammar nazis get their fp story

[motank]

cept no one here is writing a paper. seriously, i can understand if you're a professor and you're reading all these papers and students haven't bothered to use proper spelling, then you can be pissed off and write nasty comments on the side, and bash them in class, and give them the grades they deserve. i've had points taken off for spelling many times before, and i accept it as my own fault for being too hasty. but this is TEH fucking internet, slashdot, a forum. who cares? yea im way too lazy to reach for the shift key, so what? Perhaps when an editor submits a story with horrible spelling there's some merit to the complains, but for comments, etc, seriously? give me a break.

Re:grammar nazis get their fp story

[Mazem]

The main difference between interesting and insightful posts is that insightful posts contain an element of flamebait.

Re:grammar nazis get their fp story

[crabpeople]

right on

i cant believe the amount of un intelligent grammar nazis wh oare getting modded up. and your stuck at 1. such is life i suppose.

I also secretly think that everyone who is a gramar nazi is either not intelligent or over 30. but hehe i cant really back that up :)

Re:grammar nazis get their fp story

[tepples]

Grandparent: "it basically showed that you can rmv th vwls frm a sntnc nd th wrds r stll ndrstndbl nd cmprhnsbl nd rdbl."

Parent: "I think the claim was that the order of letters in a word doesn't matter as long as the first and last letters are in place."

Grandparent is more than likely referring to a phenomenon that forms the basis of Hebrew writing. It showed up in at least one of the comments to "Can You Raed Tihs?".

Re:grammar nazis get their fp story

[Decameron81]

I am not a grammar nazi. I never point out grammatical mistakes unless there's some particular reason to do so. Especially since I am no English expert, being my main tongue spanish.

However the reason why I personally believe that grammar is important is because it makes the text easier to read for the reader. This may sound like a trivial pro. But IMO it shows that you care about the reader as much as to present the information you are willing to share in the most clean and understandable way you were able to find. It's a matter of inviting people to read what you wrote, and it's a matter of making it clear for them what you were trying to say.

Of course, they may still understand you without all the whistles and details, but how much extra effort does it require to put them in place anyway?

Just my 2 cents.

And now we pause for a quick commercial message

[pchartwell]

C-I-A-B-A-T-T-A. Ciabatta. Peace, out. ... ("I even see the names of products and companies misspelled from time to time" - - - the HORROR!)

I definately shouldn't of read this.

[Spazmania]

When I say "definately" instead of "definitely," do you understand me? When I say "should of" instead of "should have," is there any confusion about my meaning? How then have I failed to communicate effectively?

Perhaps I did not communicate elegantly but you understood every word. Language evolves. Don't be so snooty about it.

Re:I definately shouldn't of read this.

[Anonymous Coward]

*tumbleweed flying by*

That's because noone bothered to read past the subject. Good work, dipshit. Go to school.

No time for trivia

[Anonymous Coward]

What you are missing is that content is stronger than form. People enthused, enraptured, with technology and its sources and ends often just don't always have time to dot their i's and cross their t's, 0's, and zeds.

Hell, my favorite geek buddy says he doesn't want a GF because it would take time away from programming.

The paradigm consolidators who clean up after the innovators can run the spelling check.

Re:No time for trivia

[Anonymous Coward]

...and you are a true bred geek if you read "Galois Field" at first when you saw "GF" in the parent posting...

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[myowntrueself]

Natural languages change.

If you think that natural languages are rule-based (I do not) then the rules must be subject to change over time.

Such linguistic changes are not (usually) deliberate, but emerge from common usage.

Natural languages are essentially *defined* by the way in which their community of speakers use them.

As that usage changes, so the language changes.

Formal languages may be set-in-stone, natural languages are NOT formal languages.

My word to pedants? Deal with it.

Linguistic pedantry is an insistence on application of standards suitable to formal languages to natural languages.

syntax

[Anonymous Coward]

english has vary poor syntax, its not a vary well constructed language.

doctors..

[greywire]

probably the same reason why doctors have such notoriously bad writing. One wonders how in the world you can get the proper prescription with such unreadable writing.

Personaly, I was an english major who worked as a draftman at Boeing and am now a programmer. So at one time, I wrote beautifully -- perfectly formed letters and at least decent sentance structure.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, my brain has gone lazy and unless I really think about it my writing becomes sloppy in every sense.. I am sure there are several mis-spelled words above.

A friend of mine would say, its because you learn so much new stuff and eventualy something old has to be shoved aside to make room.. and this is why really smart people become "crazy". There's no room left for useless stuff like pretty writing, fashion sense, humanity, etc...

Re:doctors..

[Dunbal]

probably the same reason why doctors have such notoriously bad writing. One wonders how in the world you can get the proper prescription with such unreadable writing.

I think I am qualified to field this one, as a doctor... Do you have any idea how MUCH stuff a doctor has to write? We literally have to write EVERYTHING WE DO down somewhere. There's no excuse for illegible handwriting since this sort of defeats the entire purpose of writing something down in the first place. However when you go to court and have a lawyer criticize a piece of handwriting it's hard to make said lawyer understand that you've worked 90 hours that week, have been awake for the past 28, and are writing the stuff while standing up with a pen that quit about 2 hours ago and with wet hands...

This isn't a complaint, I wouldn't change my job for the world!!! But sometimes the handwriting has to give a little. The actual practice of medicine is not exactly "ideal writing conditions" you know with a big comfy chair and a desk and all the time in the world ;)

As for the proper prescription, most medications follow some sort of convention, eg: -olol for beta blockers, -dipine for calcium channel blockers, -idine for antihistamines, etc etc. So long as you get the first part and the last part roughly right, the guys at the pharmacy can usually work it out. Sometimes the dose helps in this decoding process too. In the worst case, the pharmacist calls the doctor and asks what the heck we meant to say. Oh it's not ideal by any means, and docs who make careless mistakes on their prescriptions are legally exposed if an error occurs, but the system mostly works :)

Re:doctors..

[greywire]

I think I am qualified to field this one, as a doctor... Do you have any idea how MUCH stuff a doctor has to write? We literally have to write EVERYTHING WE DO down somewhere. There's no excuse for illegible handwriting since this sort of defeats the entire

Maybe the problem is not one of poor communication skills, but of "over communication" -- since doctors and other highly skilled people generaly communicate much more than other people, they tend to develop methods to make that communication more efficient. Like spelling things the way they sound, or writing in a way that is physicaly quicker or (more likely) less of a strain on the hands.

Its not because we're dumb, or dont care about the "right" way to communicate, its because we need to get the point across efficiently.

And that leads to bad spelling, bad writing, etc. Ahve oyu noctied hwo uyo cna rdee bdlay msispleled wrods? The human brain does weird things...

Communication is an interesting subject indeed.

Or as Calvin (& Hobbs) would say: "Verbing weirds language.."

Misspelling--a sign of talent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, if I see poor spelling in an application's help file, I tend to regard the programmer as above average.

Yeah, I know that's not fair. Some people can spell well and program brilliantly and any responsible programmer should get his kid sister to check his spelling. But all things considered, we each have only so many brain cells. If they're used to remember that it's "their" rather than "thier"--a common geek mistake--something may be lacking elsewhere.

I say that as someone who can do neither particularly well. Where would I be as a writer without a spell checker? In a lot of trouble. And I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said that someone who could not come up with two or three different ways to spell a word wasn't very bright.

--Mike Perry, Untangling Tolkien

English is a buggy language and needs patching

[Reverend528]

If a lot of people are misspelling a word, that's usually a sign that the spelling is somehow confusing. The designers of the english language clearly didn't do enough usability studies with it. And that's just the issue of spelling; proper english grammar is needlessly complicated. I don't care what's "correct" according to english books, punctuation belongs outside of quotes, where it is easy to parse. THere's also that stupid idea that you shouldn't split infinitives in English because you can't do it in latin.

Natural languages are evolving bodies of knowledge. I see no reason to not refrain from evolving english.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Paradise Pete]

It used to be ok to use double negatives

Double negatives are just fine in some languages. In Spanish, for instance, not using double negatives sounds weird. For example, it's right to say "I'm not going to eat nothing," and really odd to say "I'm not going to eat something." A Spanish listener would wonder exactly what the "something" is you're not going to eat, as if you had something specific in mind.

GREAT GOOGLY MOOGLY

[Suicyco]

(as the other million posts state) What is THIS topic doing on the front page of slashdot? Krimeny, the ultra flame of all flamage, spelling and grammer nazi's. I'm fleeing.

Lol

[Dunbal]

IMO, this article should be modded -1 (Troll).

Perhaps spelling mistakes make one appear less intelligent to the writer. However a person who will judge another's intelligence merely on the basis of spelling is simply not worth much time. A person whose only contribution to a topic is pointing out spelling mistakes really is a sad sight, since it's obviously the only thing that person is capable of contributing.

I remember one day seeing a quite famous person make some horrible spelling mistakes. But then I thought to myself - her spelling was probably less than perfect because instead of reading or paying attention in English class she was busy thinking up all that wonderful music that only she can write. Each of us have different qualities and faults, and not all of us are perfect spellers.

If I make the odd spelling mistake, I really don't care since this hasn't stopped me getting a doctorate (obviously not in English Language) nor does it prevent me from speaking 4 languages fluently. I also pride myself in being able to read and write fluent "typo".

5p31iNg N4z|5 @r3 iN+p13r4Nt p33p5,t3hy 5uXorz!!!11oneone

Almost a Complete Answer: SpellCatcher

[poena.dare]

SpellCatcher has been saving my ass for 15 years now.

While I don't condone stupidity, some of us can't spell no matter how hard we try. Next time you see one of my posts, know that when I write, "M$ suks azz, I hate dem dirtee baztardz," SpellCatcher corrects it to be, "I am less than enthused with Microsoft's business practices."

I can't spell in any language

[Anonymous Coward]

This question hit a very raw nerve in me. I know a number of languages.
I've written newspaper articles in Arabic and Hebrew. I've written a number
of books in English. I've
lectured mathematics in French for two years.
I've publish poetry in Arabic.

One thing that all these languages have in
common for me is that for the life of me I can't
write a single sentence in any
of these languages without making a number of spelling mistakes.

I simply can't spell in any language.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Svet-Am]

...I was raised and educated to believe...

While I agree with both your points and the points brought up in the Ask Slashdot question, I couldn't resist the opportunity to point out your misuse of the word 'raise' here.

Look it up, 'rear' as a verb in this sense is used for bringing up children. 'raise' is used in this sense for growing crops and animals.

My high school English teachers absolutely *loved* to nail us on that one, so I speak from experience. :-D

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Surur]

I try my best to write and speak proper English. It is a pretty frustrating language, as it seams every single rule has a corner case where it's broken.

Seems, not seams. You need to try a bit harder.

Surur

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

English is a living language, why do i care if "should have" is technically correct according to some english professor somewhere. "should of" is common usage, and in the long term the common usage will win out (once the grammar police die out from old age).

What a strange logic: it's like saying "most people round 100/3 to 33, it's common usage, so when the math police die out of old age, the common usage will win out".

That's stupid because 100/3 != 33, it's completely incorrect, just like "should of" makes absolutely no sense. The only reason most people understand "should of" as "should have" is because they know the correct form is "should have".

Grammar

[Robotron23]

Here on slashdot, anything modded up usually has a spelling error or two, but a good percentage of that has to be due to rushed typing, us geeks being in a constant hurry surfing, downloading and so forth.

But when comparing Slashdot to your average BBS, you really learn not to take for granted what your reading here on slashdot. If one looks at the gaming forums over at blizzard.com, especially those for WoW, theres bad grammar, unusual abbreviations and rushed posting to boot. The people here really are geek/nerds whatever, somebody did a browser-usage assessment for those clicking links from /. stories and found that almost 70% were using Firefox, and under 15% were using IE. As such its pretty easy to expect a good level of spelling, grammar and so forth for the obvious reasons, higher than average intelligence etc.

Also whats intriguing about the usership here on /. is the fact that a lot of us have read and re-read 1984. For those who haven't 1984 basically introduces the concept of Newspeak, a perverted, abbreviated form of English designed to prevent any communication against the State and Big Brother as a whole. Perhaps we don't want to let our words become as abbreviated as Newspeak? But instead want to preserve our language on the Internet, things like L33Tspeak are completely rejected here (unless in jest) again this sort of supports that view.

Also, we must bear in mind the Internets usership, the type of persons who now use it as a service, back in 2000, when Broadband was almost entirely a business interest their were a lot less people online, as such the standard ofgrammar and spelling on...Usenet for example, was high. And when you see stats like "50% of 11 year olds cannot form coherant sentances" you wonder how many of those individuals are now using the Internet. Lastly, we must bear in mind that some are unable to spell long words correctly due to their gene makeup and so forth, a difficulty in spelling, grammar and written language as a whole can even be inherited, even if ones spoken speech is of a very high standard indeed. Thus, we must expect there to always be a degree of bad grammar, whether the users' IQ is 90 or 150.

On the Importance of Grammar

[EngMedic]

"... Am I missing something here?"

Yes, you are. From How to Ask Smart Questions, "We've found by experience that people who are careless and sloppy writers are usually also careless and sloppy at thinking and coding (often enough to bet on, anyway). Answering questions for careless and sloppy thinkers is not rewarding; we'd rather spend our time elsewhere.

So expressing your question clearly and well is important. If you can't be bothered to do that, we can't be bothered to pay attention. Spend the extra effort to polish your language. It doesn't have to be stiff or formal -- in fact, hacker culture values informal, slangy and humorous language used with precision. But it has to be precise; there has to be some indication that you're thinking and paying attention.

Spell, punctuate, and capitalize correctly. Don't confuse "its" with "it's", "loose" with "lose", or "discrete" with "discreet". Don't TYPE IN ALL CAPS, this is read as shouting and considered rude. (All-smalls is only slightly less annoying, as it's difficult to read. Alan Cox can get away with it, but you can't.)

More generally, if you write like a semi-literate boob you will very likely be ignored. Writing like a l33t script kiddie hax0r is the absolute kiss of death and guarantees you will receive nothing but stony silence (or, at best, a heaping helping of scorn and sarcasm) in return."

Personally, poor grammar and frequent errors in spelling cause an obscure form of mental anguish. I reflexively correct people online, which causes no end of irritation, but i really don't care. Sloppy expression is tied up with sloppy thought, which makes getting work done nigh upon impossible.

Orwell talks about this a bit, actually, if in a tangential fashion. Read Politics and the English Language for more.

Sayeth a more geek-relevent expert

[devphil]

While I've always liked the Jackson quote, this one strikes a little closer to home for me:

Besides a mathematical inclination, an exceptionally good mastery of one's native tongue is the most vital asset of a competent programmer.

- Edsger Dijkstra, 1930-2002

Becasue

[UndyingShadow]

Because many of us talk to computers a great part of the day (where spelling & grammer are EVERYTHING) we often simply can't be bothered to do it properly when the compiler (aka Human) can easily figure out the intended meaning dispite mistakes. I think of my listener as the best damn thing I've ever programmed. If a human doesn't understand, it tells you instead of puking on your head.

Engineering education

[mrm677]

While getting my B.S. in Electrical Engineering at a Big-10 university, I never had to write anything longer than a couple pages (besides a technical lab report).

On the other hand, the asker of the question is a snob and obviously hasn't dealt with a typical community where a large percentage of people do not have a college education. Heck, go to Milwaukee and you will learn that the high school drop-out rate is beyond 50%.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

wish people would stop telling others how to eat, live and in this case, type. If we're happy as techies to occasionally egt things wrong so be it. We don't live in a perfect world so perfection is pretty much out of reach. Like said earlier it loooks like english is evolving to higher efficiency. wahoo.

Blame the internet

[slashmojo]

When millions of people from around the world with a multitude of languages and dialects all converge online and have to communicate its only a matter of time before we all pick up 'bad habits'..

General slang, localised slang, americanisms, net specific terms, tech slang, typos (in hurry to send that 'instant message'), abbreviations, slashdotisms ;) , mispellings and grammatical errors made by non native english speakers that gradually make their way into mainstream use..

Personally I find that my english has deteriorated drastically over the last few years.. I often can no longer remember the difference between uk english and american english for example (I am from uk), I am forever making typos simply because I am in a hurry, working on 20 different windows trying to keep track of so many different things and often keeping many completely unrelated conversations running simultaneously..

Such is life on the intarweb these days.. ;)

Perhaps its a bad thing for language purists but in a way its a kind of language evolution.. not the first time in history but I suppose its happening much faster and on a global scale this time.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

why do i care if "should have" is technically correct according to some english professor somewhere.

It isn't just some english professor somewhere it's everyone who didn't fail grammar school. Why should anyone care to read what you have to say if you can't even be bothered to present your ideas correctly? If such a simple task is beyond you why should anyone take anything else you say seriously?

some things make anti-sense!

[Ygorl]

I think a big part of why things like rediculous and definately bother me is that they don't make any sense given the way words are put together. English obviously isn't a language like some, where you mostly make words by putting together other words, but it definitely incorporates a lot of this. So, rediculous... diculous again? Like a dicule again? Huh? What's a dicule? definately... I suppose definite has roots in "define"; so would definate be "sort of defined"? Then "definately" might mean, um, "maybe probably"? I dunno. The point is, a lot of misspelled words require the reader (at least when the reader reads the way I do) to pause, do some kind of phonetic matching to figure out what real word the written word is supposed to be. It makes reading slower and more difficult. As anyone who doesn't like needless exertion should appreciate, that's no fun.

Simply put..

[rongage]

Hookt ahn fonix reely werkt fer mee!

You are so right.

[Lord Graga]

Caring for your grammar and your spelling seems to become less and less important to many people outside acedemic enviroments. Being a 17 year old dane myself I shouldn't be the one noticing, but it has become so clear that spelling and grammar is going into the toilet that even I can see it.

One thing I have noticed recently is people switching between "then" and "than". It's a common error on the European WoW servers, which I recently joined. Going from a pretty high-class programming IRC channel filled with Americans and Englishmen (such words should be capitalized, right?) to a non-english gamin enviroment was quite harsh to my grammar. I actually noticed my writing abilities going slightly downwards after starting to chat on these servers.

I have thought about how to solve these kind of problems, but I have yet to come up with an useful solution. I'm trying to be as much "grammar nazi" as possible, but it seems to have little effect with the people that I talk to.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[stewartjm]

You pointed out precisely why some "techs" would regard it as a badge of honor in your first paragraph. To most techs getting it right is far more important than making it look right.

And from such a point of view the examples in the article text are ludicrous. If I misspell definitely or misuse "should have" as "should of", then you, the person being communicated to, still know exactly what I mean. Thus the purpose of communication has been fulfilled.

That said, I learned all the stupid rules and try to follow them, and it irks me when I see their there, and they're mixed up. Though I do it myself from time to time. :)

But in the final analysis, I think the world is a better place when the language is decided by the people using it rather than by some central authority. And it wouldn't bother me at all to see the standard become completely phonetic. I.e. if it sounds right sounded out, then it's good enough. Even though I'd then have to get used to all of the theres being used interchangably :)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[MynockGuano]

As a matter of fact, I find that proper English will almost always follow an ordered set of basic rules. There are exceptions, of course, but generally if one has a problem deciding how to spell or phrase something, one can, with a reasonable degree of confidence, deduce logically how it should be done.

communicating *effectively*

[khallow]

I think the key here is communicating "effectively". Ultimately, how much of your time do you want to spend convincing your reader that you aren't stupid and have something important to say each time you write something? More or less correctly written English goes a long ways to covering the gap for a lot of audiences including the kind that sign paychecks or handles your paperwork.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[computational super]

You know, the thing about that is... proper spelling and grammar make the writer look more "grown up". A tpyo or two are one thing, but if the grammar and spelling are at an eighth-grade level, I tend to assume that the writer is in the eighth grade. I'm always on the side of the grammar nazis on slashdot (even when they get me) because really poor grammar (from an otherwise obvious native English speaker) tend to make me discount the opinion of the poster. Although the grammar nazi victim may not think this is fair, I know I'm not alone... and you'd think that the poster would want to improve his/her writing skills just to make his/her opinions, thoughts, rantings, etc. more valuable to others.

I disagre

[SCVirus]

i do not thnk tht hckers r tending to be not spelling and grammer nazish.

How b dis fo spellin

[Anonymous Coward]

Phuk u

You need SENSITIVITY TRAINING, dammit...

[glassgnost]

This is the obvious and forseeable consequence of shifting the focus of schooling from producing results to the care and feeding of self-esteem...

Language...

[CarlJagt]

...is like water, it follows the path of least resistance. When forced into a specific format (read: spoken, sung, written or coded) there will not always be congruence between the writer and the writer's obedience to the convention's 'rules.'

Sure thing I scoff at typos, mixed metaphors, leet, verbification, etc. But the meaning is, more or less, deliverable in a form that I, as a somewhat intelligent being, can workably decipher.

Remember, language rules are by convention and, while it certainly doesn't help to invent your own, it does help to care enough to communicate clearly to as many as possible.

I won't pride myself for fine language and flawless grammar. But neither will I major in the minors and meet some quota in correcting another's command of a language; especially if its mode agrees with the forum. Here at /., whatever. At CNN, oh boy. In speech to the queen, crikey!

I'd rather bash flawed ideas, shaky axioms and dummass corollaries. More meat.

English is a living language

[davidwr]

'nuff said.

Yes. You're missing a lot.

[Telastyn]

The fact of the matter is that simple mispellings and minor grammatical errors do -not- effect someone's ability to communicate effectively. English allows for... "good enough".

Unfortunately, I notice the same sort of trend. Not in the technical elite though. I notice it in forums, in games and otherwise from the 'immature crowd'. They seem to miss that point entirely. The amount of... mutilation done to their English -does- make their communication less efficient.

Maybe it's just some "you damned kids!" crotchety-ness on my part. I'd like to think that even the 1337-speakers of my day could write proper english when the scenario called for it. Some people I've seen in the past year or two just seem wholy incapable...

Minor errors and infrequent abbreviation is excusable. Making your writing hard to understand because you won't spend the effort just makes you sound retarded.

Re:Yes. You're missing a lot.

[Decameron81]

"The fact of the matter is that simple mispellings and minor grammatical errors do -not- effect someone's ability to communicate effectively."

What...?

No worries

[mrfoos]

If it's communication you're worried about then worry no more. You know you knew what those bad spellers/grammarers meant. That's all words are for. To communicate an idea. Don't tell me it impedes your comprehension by spellings such as 'definately' or the use of 'should of'. You knew instantly and exactly what they were communicating. Complaining merely reflects your desire to control others. I'm not proud that my grammar and spelling skills suck but I get more bang for my buck by focusing on issues of significance. I'll just stay out of english teaching.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Red Flayer]

I am typically annoyed by errors in grammar and spelling. However, the purpose of language is to communicate. The purpose of grammar is to enable better understanding by using a standard framework.

If a person's message is clear, then I don't see what the big problem is. It's not like English needs to be compiled before it can be spoken or written.

And how many people skim through long, complicated paragraphs because they just want to get to the point? I do. If I even bother reading them.

I find that few people have the knowledge to parse grammar correctly, anyway. So any nuances added to writing through selective phrasing or structuring is lost to most readers.

Keep It Simple Stupid.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[benjcurry]

I agree completely that English is a living language. However, the point remains that some things are correct and others are not. Ummm...right?

Are you missing something?

[dark404]

"Am I missing something here?"

Yes. The natural shift in languages, the patchwork nature of the English language itself (one part germanic, one part romantic, add a dash of irregular verbs and illogical rules*), and a batch of five billion exceptions to the exception to the exception.

Languages are not static, and will change as time goes on. People who give overly much importance on the 'current' state of the language (which has shifted even since you last took English) really should find a hobby other than being a nit picky prick.

*Such as the now defunct, "You cannot split infinitives in English because you cannot do that in latin." Ignoring the infinitive form in latin being part of the word.

Re:Are you missing something?

[dhalgren]

I see where you're coming from, but I think there's a significant difference between evolution and sloppiness.

For instance, I often get emails from my boss which do NOT indicate a shift in language usage; they indicate--well, I'm not sure what they indicate, since I usually have to write him back and ask him to explain what he wanted again. Misspelled words, sentence fragments, and so forth often make the language so ambiguous that it could mean two or more different things.

Yes, his first language is English.

Language evolution is one thing; mangling or misusing language to the point of ambiguity is quite another.

Re:Are you missing something?

[dark404]

Ever try reading Old English?

Re:Are you missing something?

[dhalgren]

As a matter of fact, yes. It's a bad analogy, though, as the English language has since been standardized. Actually, it's a great analogy--only not in your favour. The very reason that English was standardized was to avoid both ambiguity and the mental load of having to decipher what the intent of the author might have been.

Adding to the language is great. wtf, afaik, lol, etc are useful. But loosers hoo kant spel or tawk gud doo nuthing to improof cumyunikayshun.

Re:Are you missing something?

[stanmann]

Do you mean shakespeare or beowulf?

Yes to both.

lose vs. loose

[Anonymous Coward]

My pet peeve is using loose instead of lose. Spell checker doesn't catch it...

Re:lose vs. loose

[Bassman59]

"My pet peeve is using loose instead of lose. Spell checker doesn't catch it..."

Agreed! And people who fail to make this distinction aren't "loosers," they're just plain fucking morons.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[JDevers]

Your post just made me notice something. First off, I could read every word you posted...now most of the words you typed aren't really SPELLED wrong, but just typed very poorly (same letters, just mixed up..with the ends of each word staying the same). Still though, I COULD read every word of it. Second though, I noticed I read it at well under half normal speed. I wonder if we have to spend significantly more time processing text if it is "difficult" to visually understand...

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[magicclams]

I've always attributed this phenomenon to the same principle that dictates there are very few pretty girls who are also tech geeks. Imagine if you will, a Venn Diagram with two intersecting circles. One represents the population of tech geeks. The other represents the population of outstanding English communicators (or pretty girls). The intersection represents the population of tech geeks who are also outstanding communicators.

Assuming that there is no relationship between the two skills, one would expect that the intersection would be equivalent to the prevalence of tech geeks (X) times the prevalence of communicators (Y). As you can see, if one places any kind of standard of excellence upon either category, this is going to be a vanishingly small number.

In short, the average tech geek is probably no more skilled at English communication than the average American. And sadly, the average American is not very skilled at all.

It's inevitable

[Shadow of Eternity]

If you pay close enough attention, it becomes quite obvious that while a lot of it is bad english, there is a fair amount of consistency underneath all the shit. In short, minus the shit, theres a new language forming.

Ob-Simpsons

[Anonymous Coward]

Lisa: If you misuse language, he'll correct you!
Homer: Well, lets put him to the test! Me love beer!
Linguo: *I* love beer!
Homer: Hey! He loves beer! Here little fellah!
Linguo: ERROR!
Homer: I'm sorry, I thought he was a party robot.

----

Louie: They's throwing robots!
Linguo: They *are* throwing robots.
Legs: He's disrespecting us. Shuttupa you face!
Linguo: Shut up *your* face!
Legs: Wassamatta you?
Louie: You aint so big.
Legs: Me and him are gonna whack you in the Labonza!
Linguo: Bad... grammar... overload. Error! Error!
Homer: What the hell!? :gasp: Linguo..... dead!?
Linguo: Lingo...... *is*......... deeeeeeeeeaaaaaad.

Techies *should* have a spellchecker

[mr_rangr]

I use Safari, and it underlines my misspellings. You'd think that technology hounds would know how to turn on a spellchecking feature. Or to install one if they don't have one.

It's hard to take some who claims to be intelligent seriously when they can't even spell. Granted, it's shallow, but it's *so* easy to be a good speller. And I don't want to hear the whining about it taking too much time. If you're going to do something, try to do it well. Bad spelling just tells me a person is too lazy to communicate effectively.

I'm more lenient with grammar, as that's a tough one, and grammar checkers aren't so readily available. But I'd at least expect people to show a rudimentary understanding of proper grammar.

Thomas Jefferson put this way

[Anonymous Coward]

"I have nothing but contempt for a man who can spell a word in but one way."

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch

[wjames]

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe. ceehiro.

Re:Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch

[Dunbal]

I tihkn I raed aboot thta arteecul somwhir. I reili thenk thiy are on to sufmin puhrips teh hoonan breyn is a lut smertur and a bettir ahbstrecteng tool than peepul gifve it creydat for...tooduuloo

Re:Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch

[TheoMurpse]

Although the lighthouse is shadowboxing...
Aglthuoh teh lghhstioue is sbdhnwxaioog...

I posit that for compound words, this doesn't work too well.

Techies tend to be pretty good

[Anonymous Coward]

In my experience, geeks tend to be pretty good about spelling and grammer. It's the script kiddies and non-techie AOL types that write things like this: "plz help i got a new ipod its locked. if u no how to rst it email me thanks."

It's a natural progression...

[Jack Johnson]

In 2005 the flow of information from person to person is instantaneous and dynamic.

I think people in general spend less time composing and choosing to word themselves accurately and correctly because the speed and ease of commication allows everything to be elaborated or clarified, if necessary, immediately.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[taniwha]

I completely agree, once you realise that then if you don't like the way something is spelled you can go out and spell it a different way and hope it catches on. (The US has been doing this with it's own version of english spellings for years). We don't have an organisation to petition in order to change the official spelling of a word - just 'common usage' - don't like a word? just go out and change it to suit and see if others agree

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[defaria]

Well just because it's now right!

(Or was that just because it's not right... Hmmmm... Surely you'll forgive my little spelling error on not -> now. I mean it was a minor error write? :-)

Words are important. Correct usage of words convey proper meaning. Like it or now... err not, how you communicate reflects on you directly. Sure you may not be a dumb ass but not correcting obvious errors always gives me the impression that attention to detail is not your forte.

See also Plan 4 Improvement of English Language and if you can read and comprehend the last sentence with ease then you've been on the Internet too long!

Re:Grammer and Spelling Nazi's are always so funny

[CarbonBasedUnit]

Impromto Grammer? Wasn't that the agency Christan Bale's Grammaton Cleric character worked for in "Equilibrium"?

Yeah, grammer dont matter cause its the web is alright if know what I mean for it's its anyway! My point is, you dont loose the meaning alot when the words who cares anyway grammer nazi screw you think ur 1337 nookuler unpossible and nobody care you cant no way!!!!!!!!!

Largely a question of opinion

[gte910h]

People spellcheck when something is important enough to them to maintain the appearence of "care was taken when writing this". People now realize that spelling doesn't really matter otherwise. It really really bothers some pattern obsessed types (aspergerish engineers, etc), but inexact spelling is fine for everyone else in the world.

I've actually noticed a marked improvement in grammar over the last couple years, if you actually subvocalize what the text is on the screen. It's not really bad grammar, rather, incorrect choice of homonym transcripting that many people suffer from. They communicate well in the english language, they just don't realize which words they're actually using (as is the case in "should of/should have").

However, if you think that the use of "whom", keeping one's infinitives unsplit, or forcing the propositions away from the end of one's sentences are rightous goals, then you are mistaken, and you are going to have a lifetime of unhappiness. The world has realized these "rules" are a fiction of a grammar textbook in the 1800s, and we've decided to ignore teh rules and ridicule those who parrot them.

--Michael

[1]Style: Towards Clarity and Grace is GREAT for a guide to concise writing without the hoity toity rules but good explainations of the rules that matter. Good gift to a highschooler to piss off their english teacher, but make their science teacher love them.

Perhaps people don't CARE?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't care what other people think and your point is still expressed in a way that others can understand, then language is merely a tool for communication.

As an additional point, do you view an immigrant with limited English as "stupid" because they are ignorant? Probably not. Why should your perception of someone be different when they are a native English speaker and they are also ignorant of proper English?

Effective?

[Conception]

Do hackers and geeks just not care about communicating effectively?

That I think is a main point that people often get wrong. IM Speak if you will is just as effective in communicating for most people and is more efficient.

'definately' and 'should of' may be wrong but that doesn't mean using them makes you less effective at communicating, since you still understand it. Language always changes. And I think with the rate of technology change being what it is, we are just witnessing a rate of language change to match. Faster, Cheaper, Better. "I have to leave now." versus "g2g". Both are effective, but one is far more effeciant. Spelling and Grammar, apart from being taught less and less in school, will continue to matter less and less as people find new and more effective ways to communicate. It's not a particularly happy thought as I enjoy a nice intelligent discourse without using "lol", but I suspect the next generation of computer users won't mind so much.

Intelligence or ability to reason by population

[HPW-PDA]

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?Art Num=96881 I read a remark someone had made on a forum that the I.Q. of the USA (or the Earth) as of the data that was released in 1980 was that 99% had an I.Q. of 130, of that... 90% of the 99% had an I.Q. of 90, so in other words roughly 90 out of 100 people are "Gumpish" (Forest Gump portrayed a character of I.Q. of 70, "Stupid"). The data that was released in 2000 was that 99% had an I.Q. of 117, of that... 90% of the 99% had an I.Q. of 89, of course there is an error factor to consider and what type of test that were given, the quantity of subjects and so forth. I did some minor research on the subject "just out of curiosity" and it seems to be on track with what was said, even if the error was 50% it is still not good! The chilling thing about this is that we as a society do not take this information very well, as in the case of the forum respondents were very defensive as it is of course insulting to most to think of themselves as stupid and it is not very well publicized by the media for obvious reasons. Could you just imagine a major newspaper, magazine or TV news station providing the information that 90% of their viewers are stupid! There would be riots! We think of ourselves as civilized smarter animal, "Top of the food chain type being" and to think that our Supreme Being bubble could be burst so easily is comical. Thousands of years ago when we were dragging our knuckles on the ground we were as all the other animals to the "Survival of the fittest" and we would keep the weak, sick, old and the genetically inferior to the outside of the heard so the lions would have something to eat and promote the best chance for the strongest of the species and if you watch "National Geographic channel" to see it documented time and time again, its not hard to come to that conclusion. What we now do is give the weak and genetically inferior welfare and a place in society. Yes I know it's a mean statement but to understand that what I am stating you have to understand that I to am genetically inferior myself, I have diabetes and other ailments that would not put me on the top of the list, I am just trying to make an observation. Not trying as best I can not to make any moral judgments(but of course I am just human), and many people might take it personal. I only bring up this point because I see the stupidest things happen in government, religion and for that matter just walking down the street and it I need a definition for it. I do not promote that we eliminate the weak and genetically inferior to the outside of the heard. I just wanted to understand why 90% of us are just so stupid to understand and make decisions on what to me seems ...."Simple and Easy" (I am not part of the 1%) When I was about 10 years old my grandfather told me not to argue with stupid people, "They don't know there stupid and if they did know they were, they wouldn't be stupid in the first place"(but then again if I was stupid how would I know not to argue?) I don't think a lesser I.Q. has to do with culture, religious (or not) beliefs, ethnicity etc... I do believe it has to do with genetics (Duh!), but our ego, religious (or not) beliefs and culture has a major role in suppressing our evolving into a better species. I wonder what the fix for this conundrum is. Sometimes people do and say "Stupid things" for no other reason but because they are part of the 90% I could be wrong, just my observation for this hour.

Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't care.

Language is a method of communication. If communication fails, the language has failed. If it has not, then, well I'd say it's working out pretty damn well.

IMO WTF does it matter? :) kthxbye.

Re:You are so wrong, grammer is not important.

[joebp]

What is this "grammer" you speak of?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[geekboy642]

The only reason it exists at all is because most people say should've, which sounds similar. With the level of knuckle-dragging being taught in most schools today, most people never think about what they're actually writing, and appear teh stoopud.

Oh yeah, and I was taught phonics since I started learning to read.

Oh come on

[Eslyjah]

That's rediculous!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[anusm636b(v)3]

I think is just a lack of caring about how you sound (or present yourself) to other people. I encounter this a lot in my place of work. The kind of people I work with (military) usually can't get better employment. It is not just limited to the uneducated though I see it coming from people who are supposed to know better... (people in positions that require college degrees). I don't complain about them, or bring it to their attention, I just laugh to myself and let it be.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Paradise Pete]

"should of" is common usage

Using should of indicates you don't truly understand verb conjugation in your own language. It's a different case from a change in pronunciation or a change in a word's meaning, which can evolve all they like without breaking anything or creating more "special cases."

They forgoteded

[kaje103]

printf("Too much programming in other languages and they forgot how to spell!");

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[computational super]

"Should of" is a perfect example, because it's something that children say because they don't know any better. The presumption is that, as you grow up, your intelligence grows with you, and you outgrow grammar errors such as "should of", "supposably", and "pasghetti". Sure, the language will evolve, but "should of" will always sound like something a ten-year-old would say.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[dolphinling]

In "You have got mail", "have got" is the verb; the sentence is in the past perfect. (One could argue about whether or not "got" is correct, though.) In "You have mail" "have" is the verb; the sentence is in the present.

They're both correct, but have subtly different meanings.

Compilers

[coldtone]

It's because spelling mistakes don't cause compile errors or crashes. It doesn't matter how you spell a variable name, only that you spell it the same way every time.

I am writing an application to help with this very problem. I call it Cold Spell.

From a 'other side of the pond' perspective

[Paolo DF]

I just noticed that a lot of people just regard as an innocent mistake replacing 'should of' with 'should have' just because they sound almost the same and you get the meaning.
The true point, however, is that the wordsshould' and 'of' put together just don't mean anything!
It is not aboupelling, it is about MEANING of the words, a thing you can call GRAMMAR and SYNTAX. Another thing is misplacing a letter every now and then, and that is a TYPO (typographic error).
You shouldn't be so indulgent with yourselves!
And, BTW, no, I didn't reread my post :-)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[justforaday]

How the hell did this post get modded insightful in a thread about communicating clearly?!? Unless, of course, it was modded up to exemplify the submitter's point.

zerg

[Lord Omlette]

April 1st was 3 months ago, more or less...

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[bigtangringo]

It matters quite a bit, to me atleast. It hurts my brain to read terrible spelling and grammar.

My brain automatically picks out these errors and lowers the percieved IQ of the writer.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Hope Thelps]

I try to use the rules, but if I understand you, what else matters?

So if your sentences are only a little difficult to understand then you'd rather that nobody corrects you until the accumulation of bad practices over a number of years makes half of what you say gibberish?

Correcting innocent typos is pointless, and rather impolite. Correcting persistent errors (like Cmdr Taco's "than" and "then" confusion) should aid future communication.

why don't employers consider this?

[farble1670]

not really sure how the author defines a "hacker", but yes i agree with the observation.

it's fairly obvious from my experience that the poor grammar + spelling comes from english being a second language for them. it's not really surprising that they might have trouble communicating in english, non-verbally, on highly complex technical topics.

the question i have is why employers don't consider this, when hiring. for a large number of my colleagues, attempting a technical email conversation leaves me scratching my head.

Grammar, Schmammer......

[Anonymous Coward]

All your language are belong to us!!

Amazing...

[LuisAnaya]

Hi:

English is my second language and seeing native speakers making such basic mistakes never ceases to amaze me. (although it has helped me to identify spam...).

While I started working in the US, I was pointed out on my performance review that I had to improve my language skills. Which I did by taking english courses on top of my already 14 years of english as a second language. For some reason, at work, my "language skills needed to be improved" (Well, there might be a reason... but I'm not opening that other can of worms...).

Right now, it seems that proper language skills (being these English or even in Spanish, my first language) is becoming less important at school in favor to math, sciences and technology. Probably because the demand of these skills is ever increasing in this information age.

This is not only a malady to those that are in technology fields; I've seen it in other fields. I remember one of my co-workers used to correct the grammar on newspapers articles. I called once to my insurance company to point out 21 grammar errors in one of their slips they sent in Spanish. It boils down to the fact that nobody cares.

Well, you also have to admit that learning what's a subject, a predicate, an article or direct object are not really very exciting subjects. (Be glad that English does not have tacit subject, pluscuamperfect past participle, indirect object and accentuation rules).

I also believe that there are other factors. For instance, not long ago, we were writing letters to other people as a means of communication. Now with the advent of electronic medium, we have instant deliverance of ideas in which the speed on how they are conveyed are more important that the correctnes of the idea.

I do not think that this trend will improve or correct in the future. Eventually we'll end up with a different grammar. Many of these "horrors" will eventually be accepted as "correct" and incorporated in the language.

Luis

This is a sad result of a TV Culture

[Spirckle]

Kids don't really get acquainted with books anymore and because they are mostly raised by parents who were also raised on TV, there is no pressure to learn good writing (or reading) skills.

Couple that with the propensity of techies and geeks to act as if the Vulcan mind meld was a reality, there seems to be very little desire to communicate anything effectively outside of our clique. Much of what spews out of the mouth of the technogentsia is derision for those who don't immerse themselves in the tech world.

Then there are the brain "features" that make techies so good at logic and math sometimes leave the language centers lacking.

So there you have it -- don't expect milk from a tomato.

Living languages live and change

[xdancergirlx]

The thing that separates a language like latin from "living" languages is that people use them. Visit http://www.etymonline.com/ or grab a book in middle english. Compared to those earlier english authors, none of us can spell at all. According to "us" of course, we know the correct way to do things.

I used to be super nit-picky about grammar and spelling but one day I hit upon a novel idea, one even mentioned by the original thread: language is used for communication. What does it matter if americans spell light "lite" and right "rite" and pronounce lieutenant as though some one was renting a septic tank. If the people on the receiving end of the communication can understand it, well... the word works fine.

For example, who am I to tell africans living in north america who speak their own dialect of english (eubonics for lack of a better term) that they can't speak properly? That "dawg" isn't a word? It is a word, and it has meaning and context for millions of people. Merriam-Webster isn't the edjudicator for an language, the people who use that language are.

We live in a world where social, political, and technological changes are happening at a rate that is mind-numbing compared to much of history, is it surprising that our language is changing quickly too? I think at some point one has to accept that change or else either speak only latin... or maybe run and fetch the "nifey" and end it all.

I do think formal writing is important for presenting a certain image sometimes but it's not worth the stress to get upset everytime someone doesn't spell something rite (-intentional).

ps. I'm not spell checking this, just for the fun of it!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't fail to not disagree with you more!

Is the message clear?

[david_anderson]

Correct spelling and grammar are certainly helpful in getting your message across, and should therefore be encouraged.

On the other hand, if you successfully make your point using bad grammar you are still ahead of those that have good grammar but broken logic circuits. Or even worse, those that don't seem to have reading comprehension.

Of course, everything that can be done to make your communications clearer will work in your favor (unless you are trying for ambiguity) so it is in your best interests to at least try to improve your communications skills.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[ezzzD55J]

If someone's written work is devoid of some common rules of grammar and usage, does it matter if you completely and unambiguously understand what they are saying/writing?

(What a funny way to phrase that.) Answer: Yes.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[wowbagger]

Actually, you are wrong.

"should of" is not the common usage.

"should've" is the common usage - which is a contraction of "should have"

However, some people, having only heard "should've" and mis-heard it as "should of", think that "should of" is the common usage.

Spelling errors spread like viruses

[owlmon]

The original post mentioned the misspelling "definately." This is an example of a spelling error that spread through usenet news and other online (web) forums. I have seen several cases of this over the years.

I suspect that many people are influenced by what they read online. If they see a common word misspelled in a particular way, they assume that the spelling is correct, and use it themselves.

I try to use perfect spelling in whatever I post, because I do not wish to start (or enforce) a "spelling virus."

I wish that Slashdot had a spellchecker button. It would be rather embarrassing if I misspelled a word in this post!

Spoken versus written language

[foonf]

I think most people treat online communication more like speech than writing. I know that very little of the formal process of written composition (outlining, proofreading, etc.) goes into most things I write online. And many of the things pointed out in the parent post do not correspond to errors in spoken language at all. For instance, "should of" is a perfectly fine lexicalization of how most native English speakers actually pronounce "should have". In the case of "definitely" versus "definately", the problem phoneme is usually spoken as an "uh" sound that under many circumstances can be realized by almost any written vowel in English, so someone sounding words out without a dictionary could easily make the wrong choice without noticing it (especially since the misspelling is so common).

In the intended context of online communication, it is debatable whether mistakes like these, along with typing errors ("teh", etc.), abbreviations, and other deviations from formal written English, are really errors at all, since they don't prevent understanding of the message by others who are also familiar with the discourse norms on the Internet. Much as I tend to be a pedant for such things myself, I have concluded that there is little to be gained from behaving toward online English in a perscriptive and belittling fashion; it is as much a valid form of language as any other, with its own distinct rules and norms, and is worthy of respect as such.

When I was in College...

[dcigary]

...our Computer Science instructor used to grade us on the GRAMMAR of our comments in the code as well as the code. His theory was that to be a good CS Major in the 'real' world, you had to communicate effectively as well.

Technology hasn't helped

[Lego-Lad]

I am a poor speller. I read once that people who consistently misspell certain words will continue to do so throughout life. What I've notice with myself is that I no longer put a lot of effort into correcting myself because of spelling (and sometimes grammar) checks that are built into the programs I use. Even Photoshop has a spell check. The incentive to be a good speller has evaporated because, I suppose, I don't really have to worry about it on a daily basis. I can't remember the last hand written letter I sent.

Are you sure it's just correlation or coincidence?

[Trillan]

It's easy enough to say "they're great technically, but make a few spelling errors" but are you sure that's the case? I've found that, in general and over time, the single best metric for how well a person will perform a technical job is his or her writing skill.

Code written by a person who can't spell generally appears as if the person can't code either. I'm not just referring to a few spelling errors or bad edits; everyone makes those. But a resume or other document with a large number of errors is a real warning sign that too many overlook.

And if you can't spell programmer, you're certainly not going to be one on my team.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[MemeRot]

The problem is that spelling is completely arbitrary. America obsessed about spelling in post-colonial times and came up with standard dictionaries. Britain didn't care.

We should throw out the old spelling. Knight is spelled the way it is because it used to be pronounced kuh-nig-it (yes, just like monty python). All it does is confuse everyone. With its odd mix of Latin and Anglo-Saxon words and grammar rules it's complicated enough as it is without weirdo spellings that are unrelated to pronunciation.

That being said though, the above sentence made me cry as well.

Perspective from a linguist

[xylix]

Hmmm... something thinks a lot of themselves, don't they? I am a linguist (one who studies language, not one who speaks many languages). When you are in school, or when you are learning a second language you are introduced to 'rules' of grammar. This is prescriptive grammar for pedagocig purposes. LInguists are more interested in descriptive grammar, spelling etc. - that is, describing the language, which includes the way that language changes. Yes, Strom Carlson, l hate to have to break it to you, but language does change. There are entire journals devoted to this topic [eg Language Variation and Change].

The post is ostensibly about a "lack strong English skills" and "mediocre command of written English" but the StromCarlson only gives spelling examples. In the first place bad spelling is NOT equal to a lack of strong English skills. In the second place, as a linguist, I reject the idea that someone has poor language skills based only on the variation from prescriptive grammar or spelling. I could go on and on giving you examples, but I won't. Please just accept that the spellings, syntax and usage we use today are not set in stone. They have change from other forms used in the past and WILL change again. One radical example - English is a head-first SVO (Subject-Verb-Object) language, but if you look far enough into the past you can see that it used to be a head-last SOV (Subject-Object-Verb) language.

English is filled with irregularities in spelling and syntax. I personally hope that English DOES change to become more regular. Right now, or sometime in the near future, the number of people who use English as a second language is going to exceed the number of native speakers. I think that is going to have a large effect on the variation and change, and regularization of English. And I welcome it.

About the example "should of" instead of "should have". Can you tell me exactly why this is wrong. No - just saying "it is wrong" is not enough. There are lots of interesting examples like this where the function of a word changes to encompass new uses. Are you also going to bitch about someone who says "Can you pass me the salt" (instead of using COULD) for a polite request. Your grandfather probably would have. Can has expanded from a modal of ability to also being a modal used for suggestions and polite requests.

Just my 2 cents

Re:Perspective from a linguist

[woah]

Larry is that you?

Get back to finishing Perl 6.

Re:Perspective from a linguist

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to answer.."should of" is not the same as "should have". "Should have" would never sound like "should of". "Should of" is a phonetic way of spelling the contraction "should've".
As for my 2 cents, spelling and grammatical errors don't bother me as much as just plain using the wrong words. For example, I had a girlfriend who would say she was 'foibled' when something went wrong, when 'foiled' was the word she was looking for. But, knowing it annoyed me, she continued to use it. More so than spelling or grammatical errors, these kinds of things _definately_ show lack of intelligence. :P

Re:Perspective from a linguist

[Darth_Burrito]

Right now, or sometime in the near future, the number of people who use English as a second language is going to exceed the number of native speakers. I think that is going to have a large effect on the variation and change, and regularization of English... there are lots of interesting examples like this where the function of a word changes to encompass new uses. Are you also going to bitch about someone who says "Can you pass me the salt" (instead of using COULD) for a polite request.

I couldn't agree with you more. Personally, I think one contributing factor to a divergence in IT peoples' use of the english language has to do with a large influx of non-native english speakers within the field. my dos centavos

Re:Perspective from a linguist

[taursir]

Yeah. I pretty much viewed this post as a, "I memorized a dictionary, and I want to descriminate". Language does change, but how long is it going to take for the prescriptivists to notice? I bet the same person who wrote this post would use contact as a verb, something which was not standard practice in English a while back, as I understand it. If you are going to say some changes are bad, when do you draw the line? ;) And, cheers on the linguistics-- I'm presently working on a degree in it. It's quite... intoxicating.

Totally! as applied to other forms

[Red Flayer]

For that matter, you grammer and speling freaks, why not rechoir that all poetry is written as a sonnet or canto?

Every play in five acts?

Every piece of concert music as a symphony?

Content is way more important than form when communicating ideas.

Re:Totally! as applied to other forms

[Anonymous Coward]

"Rechoir"?? Require, for the love of God! You're not reconvening a group of singers, are you?

My brain hurts after reading that sentence.

Re:Totally! as applied to other forms

[Anonymous Coward]

Talk about someone missing the point.

Because a play can be perfectly understandable in three acts or less nor does a song have to be symphony length to get a point across. However, a total lack of grammar can make communication very inefficient and difficult.

Re:Totally! as applied to other forms

[aleatory_story]

That's where you're wrong, see: "The Medium is the Message."

Why do you think those poets experimented with other forms? Maybe because form is important and greatly affects interpretation?

The method of communicating to an audience has a huge impact over how they experience and interpret the ideas you present--any communication expert will tell you that. Ever wonder why it's commonly a failure when people make video games into movies, movies into books, and so forth? There's a variety of reasons, but one of the main ones is that conversions between media are difficult. There are things inherent about forms of communication that give them clarity, character, appeal, et cetera. The composition (form) of a specific medium is extremely important.

A video game with great content ideas but whose form is thrown together without a care is going to be a buggy failure. The same goes for verbal communication: if you don't care about how you write, no one will care about your ideas. No one of great competency, anyway. If your content carries any importance at all, you want it to be precise as possible so that there are no miscommunications. You do this by mastering form, not content. One misunderstood word in fragile matters could be the difference between success and failure.

Indeed, you could make arguments of the vice versa: great form without great ideas is useless. The point is that both are essential and should not be ignored.

Re:Totally! as applied to other forms

[|/|/|||]

I guess that the content itself determines the ultimate value of the message, but I also think that presentation can give the reader a quick way to make assumptions about the content.

When someone is trying to make a point and they can't put together a complete sentence, I automatically become very skeptical of their point. It's as if I'd asked someone for the data that supports their conclusions and they dug around on the floor to find a grimy old napkin with some shorthand scribbles on it. Maybe the information embodied in those scribbles justifies their conclusions, but I'm not likely to give it much credence unless it's presented in a more legible fashion.

As another thought, it's pretty easy for malformed ideas to hide amongst malformed sentences. Deviating from standard grammar and spelling reduces comprehension on the part of the reader, which is going to make the reader hesitant to agree with the apparent content of the message.

I don't know what your talking about

[revery]

Your loosing your mind. Its not hour fault that you don't know how to read more better.

--

Kneel before my righteous furry

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[magicclams]

An addendum to my previous comment: Also, it is notable that tech geeks probably use typewritten communication more than any other group that isn't self-selecting for English communication skills. That is, if you're writing in any other field besides tech, you're not going to get far if you can't write clearly, and you'll probably be forced to choose a different career path. In tech, communications clarity is a secondary concern compared to your ability to write logically.

Re:Ob-Simpsons - Ralph Wiggum

[wernst]

Ralph: Me fail English? That's unpossible!

well...

[oh_the_humanity]

you knew when i spelled definately that i meant definitely. so if a geeks typos on a slahdot post, does anyone really give a shit ?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, your post was rather poorly written. You come across as a foreigner or a pre-teen.

Here are some links.

[raistlinjones]

The Slashdot article is here. Snopes also has a page about the idea, with a few extra links about the validity of it.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

That was not exactly an example of good skills.

That being said, you're off the mark one place--"if it feels good write it" can work. I personally am a fairly precise writer exactly because incorrect spelling and grammar don't feel good. A misspelt word draws my eye, drags on my mind, and continuously pulls my attention back to it until it is fixed; likewise, a grammatical error will continually tug at me because it can be crippling to sentence flow. Well-formed English doesn't just follow arcane and unimportant rules, it feels correct.

Your mileage may, of course, vary.

well...

[Anonymous Coward]

i think i can sum up the answers of all the "geeks" who will read this.

"lol, no we dunt. we spel good"

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[EvanED]

I agree!

I find that figuring out the proper way to work something I want to say is often a fairly dense exercise in logic. I have to work out a way that conveys exactly what I want to say without being too verbose. (Okay, this is perhaps at a bit higher level than mechanical aspects like grammar, but the same thing applies there.)

Of course, it gets annoying when what you would like to say has a different meaning than what everyone else uses, or at least be somewhat odd. Think about the expression "My watch is 5 minutes fast" and what it means. If you think about it logically, the sentence makes no sense because "5 minutes" is a measure of speed, and "fast" is a measure of time. Every time someone says something like that (and I do it too), I immediately think to myself "I bet it goes very close to 60 minutes per hour." But people use it anyway.

English V1.0

[squoozer]

I don't really have a problem with poor grammer as long as the person is able to get their meaning across. I have come across situations, however, where the meaning has been lost in a wave of gibberish. I think we should aim more for clarity in writting rather than making sure every i is dotted and t crossed. Certainly in an technical document I read I woudl rather it was clear and had bad spelling than the other way round

My spelling and grammer were terrible when I left school (the school I was at all but gave up on the ones that weren't naturally high performers) but I have, over the last few years, tried to improve my English skills.

One fairly cheap we of educating the masses regarding English would be for the Government to sponsor the creation of a web site that took people in my situation (able to read and write well enough to get a degree) and taught them more about the language. This wouldn't work for everyone but it could potentially catch a large number of people that have to write substantial amounts on a daily basis. Note that I am not saying we should ignore those who have very little or nothing in the way of English skills. They could also do with help but it would be of a different type.

To go slightly off topic... I realize it is a somewhat radical idea but I would like to see the English language standardized and a formal grammer developed for it. I IIRC there have been attempts to develop formal grammers for English but they mostly focussed on fitting the grammer to the current language. I would like to see it happen the other way round. Develope a grammer that fits 95%+ of the current language and then over the course of say 20 years phase out the bits that don't fit. Initially there would be little benifit and probably the only people that would use it would be those that were writting specifications or similar documents. As the formal grammer improved and we developed better ways of processing we could begin to enter the realms of fully computer processable text. Imagine being able to just run something you have written against the mother of all schemas to prove that it is correct. What a benefit. Combine that with the fact that there is now meaning in the document and you could probably do near perfect machine translations. I'm sure there are plenty of other plus points as well. All it would take is a central governing body.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[aichpvee]

What, no mention of using "that" for people instead of "who"? It's been so long since I've seen it used properly (even in magazine and newspaper articles) that it almost looks wrong when someone doesn't make that mistake.

Re:Grammer and Spelling Nazi's are always so funny

[benjcurry]

I think you meant the following:

This seems to always happen on any forum, netgroup, maillist or whatever. Someone pops up who doesn't like other people's grammar and decides to provide an inpromptu grammar or spelling lesson. Who the hell cares? While grammar is important in formal documents, publications and formal situations (interviews or negotiations), I for one do not think it matter much on the net. As long as your point comes across, that is what matters. Only trolls care how it is spelled. But then again I am NOT a grammar Nazi.

I'm exhausted by correcting this paragraph. You suck.

Grammatical error in post.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mostly, this seems to manifest itself as varying degrees of poor spelling and grammar: 'definately' instead of 'definitely'; 'should of' instead of 'should have'; and I even see the names of products and companies misspelled from time to time.

Your last semicolon has an "and" after it. This is incorrect. Use of semicolon is to replace ", and", ", but", and ", or".

ex("I see no need for a semicolon, but I'll use one anyway." = "I see no need for a semicolon; I'll use one anyway").

So Mr. Genius.. should I say colour instead of color? humour instead of humor? Aluminium is the metal; here we changed it for no reason to Aluminum which doesn't follow the "ium" rule on the periodic table. Why do we capitolize English if we're referring to a common language and not the country? Why is the plural of goose geese but the plural of moose isn't meese? Cacti, Fungi, Viruses?!

Why follow a language which is broken to begin with?

Cognative recognition has proven that humans understand typo's fine. I paid $77 for a book on the CISSP and before I was done with the first chapter I saw over 20 spelling and grammatical errors. What the hell?

Ghoti -- competition! Free hosting~!

[madaxe42]

Is juant ey nighce bogh beaule orv ghoti pheuth.

Month's free hosting to the first person to tell me what that says.

Re:Ghoti -- competition! Free hosting~!

[gardyloo]

Smells fishy to me.

Re:Ghoti -- competition! Free hosting~!

[alex_podam]

Something about a bowl of fish...?
(ghoti = fish, according to G.B. Shaw)

Re:Ghoti -- competition! Free hosting~!

[pharwell]

I want a nice big bowl of fish food?

Re:Ghoti -- competition! Free hosting~!

[madaxe42]

Well, I would have given you hosting, but fish food can be arranged, I'm sure. :D

Re:Ghoti -- competition! Free hosting~!

[pharwell]

how far off was I? (wasn't too sure about the last word)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[coronaride]

The bottom line (get it? line? ghoti?) is that I, personally, could care less which language you use as long as it is used properly. Enough of this econo-speak - how you say and spell things does make a difference in how what you are communicating.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Lord Pillage]

Homer: Linguo dead?

Linguo: Lingo is deeeaa-uuhhhhd

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[ezzzD55J]

It has nothing to do with the topic being discussed, and makes you sound like a show off intellectual.

What is slashdot but a bunch of intellectuals (or intellectual wannabes) showing off to each other?

As for sounding like an intellectual - spelling errors can make you look like a retard. What do you prefer?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[crazyvas]

Your high school English teachers were incorrect, at least according to several dictionaries.

Check it out at http://www.m-w.com/.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=raised explicitly lists "raise children" as an example.

Here's another: "your" instead of "you're"

[kungfoolouie]

That one drives me nuts. Along with "their" and "they're" Many people feel that the point of language is to communicate; and that is absolutely true. But to slack off simply because you think that it is good enough to be understood is not an excuse.

One horrible side effect is that in the tech field in the US, there are many people who do not speak English as their native language. The result ? Those who do not communicate naturally in English end up picking up some bad habits from those who think it is just fine to miscommunicate.

Re:Here's another: "your" instead of "you're"

[ian rogers]

dude your so dumb no body care if there spelling those wrong

Yeah, I agree. That really pisses me off.

I for one, blame it on people using things like AIM so much, and teachers not caring about surface errors.

But then again, one of my teachers wrote "LOL" on a paper of mine. Sad.

The worst part about it is when people argue "it's the internet, it doesn't matter."

Re:Here's another: "your" instead of "you're"

[crazyvas]

Yes, the "your"/"you're" distinction drives me crazy too, as does the "there"/"their"/"they're"

dude your so dumb no body care if there spelling those wrong

Hee hee, funny! But this sentence illustrates an important point: It took me much longer to read, parse, understand, correct, and re-read the sentence to make sense out of it and figure out exactly what it is trying to say. Good grammar and spelling would have reduced that time a whole lot.

Especially with regard to technical documents, these are typically written once, and read many times. It is a lot more efficient for the single writer to write correctly, and save multiple readers from having to perform error correction.

To those who make the silly argument that communication is all that matters, would you like it if we completely stopped using punctuation including periods and commas (since one could argue these are redundant)? How about if we stopped capitalizing the first letter of a sentence, and the first letters of proper nouns as well?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but I just fucking HATE TripMaster Monkey. Karma-whoring /.-obsessed bastard.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Angostura]

Subbed for clarity:

I'll play devil's advocate. The purpose of language is communication and the advantage of standardization is the avoidance of ambiguity, right? As long as you completely understand them, does it matter if a person breaks common rules of grammar and usage?

I try to use the rules, but if I understand you, what else matters?

Understanding is not binary, there are shades of meaning. The problem is that one person can believe he completely understands another, while subtly getting it wrong.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Counterexamples: several classical languages of correspondance and scholarship became fixed and remained so with great success: Panini's Sanskrit grammar; Hebrew (until it became spoken again); Latin. Yes, it was only the written form of these languages that became static, all the same, there are cases where languages "want" to remain static.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the post is intelligible or the error changes the meaning of the post significantly, then there's your time to jump in with your corrections.

Ahem.. I would just like to point out the irony of this sentence.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[servognome]

I try to use the rules, but if I understand you, what else matters?

I think of it like a stuck pixel on an LCD around the edge of the screen. During normal use you wouldn't even notice it; the monitor works fine, you can watch movies, play games, surf the net... but in the back of your mind that monitor is still broken.
Poor spelling or grammar still gets the point across. Though, if the reader notices it lingers in the back of their mind and detracts from your message.

It's not limited to the computing world...

[KC7GR]

Not by a long shot. I'm sad to say that I've seen the exact same problem in plenty of other fields, technical and otherwise. You never know where it's going to pop up. I've even seen it in (supposedly) proofread equipment service manuals.

One particularly vivid example that comes to mind is that of Motorola Online, a web site used by Motorola's customers to browse their catalog, with an eye towards ordering parts and accessories for their two-way radio product line.

I have access to this site, being a Motorola reseller. I've seen numerous spelling and grammatical errors, mostly in descriptions of parts ("antanna" as opposed to "antenna," or better yet "raido" as opposed to "radio").

It also shows up in the professional publishing arena in some fantasy novels. The hardcover combo edition of Andre Norton's "Mark of the Cat" and "Year of the Rat" was badly infested with misspellings (mainly of character and place names) in the second story. In fact, I question if it was even proofread at all.

If it had been a COBOL program, it would have crashed on the first line of code.

So, in summary: Rest assured, it's not just you! I'm just waiting to see what happens when something like you describe causes a major problem, as opposed to a little embarassment.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[h4rm0ny]

There is a lot of information contained in the spelling of words. If spelling is discarded then you get ambiguities such as raze and raise, their, they're and there. If you studied latin as I did, and have a good knowledge of how the language evolved, then you can glean extra meaning from words. Enforcing proper usage of the English language prevents it being muddied until everything sinks to the lowest common denominator of those who use it.

Using words whose meanings you do not know ...

[__aadkms7016]

The language mistake that has the most potential for disaster using a word whose meaning you don't really know. Perhaps you saw the word in a newspaper or heard it in a movie, thought you understood it from context, so you start using it. Everyone misunderstands you, and if you get unlucky, very bad things can happen ...

The real problem?

[Time Doctor]

I think the real problem here is that most of the technical folks who are bad with grammar, just don't have any interest at all in learning; or even worse, are vehemently against learning. I'm not the best, but I'm far from the worst at learning. Perhaps if they picked up books from people like Bill Walsh, they might be entertained whilst learning.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Herr Joebob]

If the post is intelligible or the error changes the meaning of the post significantly, then there's your time to jump in with your corrections.

Ask and ye shall receive- that should be "unintelligible" or "is not intelligible".

This is a perfect example of a surprisingly common error- the typo or misspelling that exactly reverses the sense of what the writer is trying to say. It baffles me that people can allow this to go through when it's so easy to catch with a quick proofread.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[coronaride]

I agree with you completely, but using words like 'retard' can make you look shallow and bigoted.

new age writers

[eneville]

l3a7n t) us3 4 sp337 ch3c37 ;)

It's a way to spot posers, I find.

[Anonymous Coward]

After 30 years in the computer business, I have found that the programmers with excellent command of their native language write excellent code.

I have also found that the majority of coders who cannot manage natural language syntax write programs very inefficiently, and cannot write comprehensible documentation at all.

Hoo Nelly. I'm gonna get a flamebait mod on this one! But I'm just calling it like I see it, so, "Flame on, me boyos!"

Don't think so

[AtomicJake]

I'm not complaining, mind you. I'm a professional writer, and the worse the general population can write, the more employable I become...

Plain wrong. The worse the general population can write, the less they can read, too. Very soon, your sentences will have 5 words max. And afterward you should book a course in iconography...

Why do you care?

[Anonymous Coward]

I really think you and people like you have spent so much time learning the english language and grammer rules that you feel that everyone should follow them to the T (hence the term grammer nazi comes fourth). Maybe you should just relax and understand people dont want to follow every rule made and that includes the ones governing the english language. Everyone has their specialities in this world, some people love language and others love mathmatics and others sciences. You should reconsider your agruement because it is the same as and evolutionary scientist yelling at the catholic chruch for not beliving what he/she belives. So just take my advice and relax and understand some people just dont want to learn anymore about english then they already know.

Just look at it this way maybe a few of us had crappy english teachers when we were young, oh btw i didnt put this is spell check just for you :)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[REDONDOS]

I just agree with you. I understand that not every body has had the same opportunities in education throughout his/her life, but what about people who were your high school classmates? Or, even worse, how about people attending your own university? Of course I will complain if they write/talk to me in a fashionably careless way.

This is an issue I have to deal with every day of my life, and since I always cared about the language mainly because it is the most important tool we have to communicate our thoughts, I get nervous and sometimes I correct them. Not because I think they're stupid, but because they should learn not to repeat the phrase/word in question. Sorry for not posting any examples, my everyday speaking is in Spanish so most of you wouldn't know what I'm talking about.

Anyway, it's cool that someone finally said something about this.

consequences

[ahowl]

People will only use correct grammar and spelling when there are clear and tangible consequences for not doing so. It's as if a cop started yelling at you for speeding, but doesn't actually write you up for it. "Should" != results, and that will never change.

Correcting geeks.

[wowbagger]

Correcting geeks, be it in grammar, facts, dress, manners, or any other way, is like handling old nitroglycerin - you might get away with it, or you might get an explosion.

Many geeks (myself included) are very intelligent, and very proud (of the intelligence and in general). They do not like being shown to be less than perfect as that is what they demand of themselves - so in correcting them you have provoked an emotional response of "How dare you make me feel bad about myself by disrupting my self image!"

Now, *some* geeks (and I would like to think this is the group I am in most of the time) will recognize this response, and realize that it is an emotional response, and realize that the only way to improve is to be corrected, and will thank you for the correction.

However, many geeks, their professed "rationalism" aside, will go with the emotional reaction, and go on the attack.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Brooklynoid]

It bothers me less, or not at all to make these minor errors in a forum like /.

I'm as concerned about these errors when I post online as I am at work; postings in a forum like Slashdot last essentially forever. I'm a techie and I hire techies for consulting positions. And I always Google candidates (by name and email address) before hiring them. I believe that putting an illiterate consultant in front of my customers reflects poorly on my company and gives them little reason to choose my services over an offshore competitor.

nope

[emilng]

I bieelve it was proevn that as lnog as the frist and lsat lettres do not chnage, our brians can aoutomtacalily rearragne tehm and we have full comhenpresion.

Read this:
A dootcr has aimttded the magltheuansr of a tageene ceacnr pintaet who deid aetfr a hatospil durg blendur

Re:nope

[Anonymous Coward]

You aren't even trying. I read everything but "magltheuansr" at almost full speed. Grandparent is still wrong, but that wasn't a demonstration of it.

Re:nope

[ComputerSlicer23]

Hmmm, "A Doctor has admitted the ... of a teenage cancer patient who died after a hospital drug ...", I only missed two words in my initial reading at about half speed.

I think the first one is "manslaughter", but I still can't figure out the second one. Hmmm, after 30 seconds, that's "blunder". I kept turning it into "blender". I knew the word was "make a mistake", I just didn't come up with blunder quickly. I understood the exact meaning of the sentence in one read, even if I didn't know the other two words.

I think a lot of the problem is you are using relatively uncommon words (manslaughter, and blunder are well outside my common every day usage). Doctor, cancer, and hospital aren't words I see every day. Most of the rest I probably see at least 5 days a week in my reading. I bet you'd get better at it, the longer you read someone. Especially if you were familiar with that author's way of writting.

You are also saying it in a way that wasn't the way I would. The original poster was saying, was something I'd heard before, and is said almost exactly the way I would have said it.

I would have said that "A doctor has admitted [fault|responsibility] after drug mix up killed a teenage cancer patient." Which I feel I would have gotten everything but probably "responsibility" out of that if you screwed with the spelling.

Kirby

Re:nope

[Fareq]

Incidentally, a very easy way to mangle words in a manner that is very difficult to decode works like this.

It is vrey dluciffit to raed wdros taht hvae all of the cartnel lrettes resreved lkie tihs scncetnee deos -- ellaicepsy it tsohe wdros are legnor tahn fvie lrettes lnog.

The avobe scnetnee is plbabory flriay slpmie to raed, bsuacee msot of the wdros are pttery sroht and aslo pttery common -- I epecxt tihs one to be a llttie bit hedrar to raed.

I read something somewhere -- quite possibly on snopes -- that illustrated this. Quite interesting, actually.

Re:nope

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither of those were difficult either, though they did slow me to about 50% speed with half-second pauses on a few words.

Out of interest, what's your take on this one? I made that for this discussion, but no one has commented on whether or not it is as nontrivial as I think it is yet.

Re:nope

[Anonymous Coward]

I could read it at fairly normal speed.

The funny thing is that after reading a few sentences of mixed up words, each subsequent sentence becomes faster and faster to decipher (at least in my case).

The trick is that most sentences are composed of fairly well-used word progressions - so we get the words from context. We expect them to follow.

I have a pet theory that everyone thinks in cliches :)

(Now, if you wrote a non-standard English sentence where we didn't have the normal word order of Subject, Verb, Object etc. AND we also had words that don't normally follow in context, e.g. The Doctor's Opera sang of Fish and chins... then the reader is going to have a huge difficulty understanding it :)
(The use of Opera instead of operation and chins instead of chips might throw people off...maybe.)

Taking life too seriousely

[TheRain]

I'm from the left coast (U.S.), so maybe that's part of the difference.... but I not only dissagree with what this person is saying, but I detest this kind of thinking. Who gives a crap about the fomality or attention to spelling. You know what? A lot of the time people make a concious choice to use poor spelling or informal language or to simply not care. The reason is, they want to not worry about that particular thing. They've got billions of other things to worry about, especially when you're dealing with technical information. If you get the gist of it, what else matters? It seems like a prevelant east coast (U.S. again) mentality that talking or writing the right way makes you somehow better. Bullcrock! Sometimes it's quicker to just say crap the way it needs to be said.

Even AMD needs a grammar lesson...

[Chowser]

Funny this came today, when I noticed in the "Daily Buzz" over at CNET that AMD's ad against intel that came out and reads: "Intel's illegal actions hurt consumers--everyday." Looks like even the big corporation ad execs could use a little grammar lesson. http://news.com.com/AMD+takes+antitrust+case+to+th e+masses/2100-7341_3-5768046.html?tag=cnetfd.buzz

It's not just geeks...

[ecko3437]

It's not just geeks. Even my friends (not techies) do this stuff. I correct them most of the time and they do tend to learn. I don't think it's got anything to do with technology, I believe it's more part of the English classes in school. Rather than learning how to spell more advanced words and things like that this year (or rather, last year), we spent a good 8 weeks learning about how to write an outline. Come on, I learned that in computers class in three days.

Schools in America are getting worse and worse by the year. They've got very skewed views of how things should be handled and things like that, and 9/11 didn't exactly help that. I had to stay after school for an hour because my friend and I said the word "bomb" in a sentence and the teacher overheard. But that's for another website, another thread, another time.

Schools need to kick their English departments in their asses. In fact, I didn't even have to take my English final this year. No one did. How are English departments supposed to know how they're doing?

two reasons...

[urdine]

One, speed of communication is worth more than clarity of communication online (usually). There's also a torrent of information now, so it's more about who speaks louder than who speaks more elegantly.

Two, anonymity prevents people from really caring about how they say things online because there's no "shame" in it and no reason to try to improve.

These two things I think make it messier online, which has had the effect of making people more "used to" seeing misspellings and mistakes everywhere, so it's spilled into real life as well, sadly.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Reverend528]

do
you ! mean
someone
like ~
e
e
cummings

?

Convenience versus Duration of Applicability

[ishpeck]

There was once a time when only those with high social status knew how to write. I believe that is still the case. By virtue of the internet, we tend to get explosed to many different people of varying degrees of literary talent but those who tend to write better than others seem to get more respect.

When I write something that I hope will last, something that I want posterity reading, I usually do a grammar check. But if I'm just trying to flame someone on a web forum, I don't even bother to capitalize.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[ezzzD55J]

Keep It Simple Stupid.

Keeping it simple is using one way to spell things (the correct way), not allowing all kinds of fuzz because people can't be arsed to spell things correctly. It helps parsing. It shows respect to the reader. Amongst other things.

Mark Twain on spelling problems

[Anonymous Coward]

*A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling*
by Mark Twain

For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all. Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli. Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.

Missing capitalization

[slashflood]

What I hate the most is the missing capitalization in more and more emails I receive. Most of the slashdot readers are speaking english, but capitalization really counts in the german language. It is extremely difficult to read all-lower-case emails.

Capitalization is the difference between "I had to help my uncle Jack off a horse.." and "I had to help my uncle jack off a horse.."

Re:Missing capitalization

[kencurry]

I'm no English maven, but I think that in your example, the noun form should be hyphenated: "jack-off"

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[hoggoth]

> a quick proofread

But... but if we proofread how will we get FP?!

Kornbluth's "The Marching Morons"

[Prototerm]

This was a collection of short stories from the 50's or 60's that, basically, said that the world was populated with 99 percent idiots, with few real-world skills beyond the one or two they needed for their daily job. All the real thinking and innovation is done by the remaining 1 percent who are looked down on by the rest of society. One of the stores, "The Little Black Bag" was even made into a Twilight Zone episode (a doctor's bag from the future was so automated anyone could use it).

With spell checkers, and even (poor though they are) grammer checkers, what need does anyone have of those two skills after they graduate?

Look at the kind of entertainment on TV and in the movies that are popular nowadays. Comic books (and I include Star Wars and Star Trek in that category)!

One last thought: if you just thanked God that you're in that 1 percent of the population, don't be too sure.

Re:Kornbluth's "The Marching Morons"

[Anonymous Coward]

I read a remark someone had made on a forum that the I.Q. of the USA (or the Earth) as of the data that was released in 1980 was that 99% had an I.Q. of 130, of that... 90% of the 99% had an I.Q. of 90, so in other words roughly 90 out of 100 people are "Gumpish" (Forest Gump portrayed a character of I.Q. of 70, "Stupid"). The data that was released in 2000 was that 99% had an I.Q. of 117, of that... 90% of the 99% had an I.Q. of 89, of course there is an error factor to consider and what type of test that were given, the quantity of subjects and so forth. I did some minor research on the subject "just out of curiosity" and it seems to be on track with what was said, even if the error was 50% it is still not good! The chilling thing about this is that we as a society do not take this information very well, as in the case of the forum respondents were very defensive as it is of course insulting to most to think of themselves as stupid and it is not very well publicized by the media for obvious reasons. Could you just imagine a major newspaper, magazine or TV news station providing the information that 90% of their viewers are stupid! There would be riots! We think of ourselves as civilized smarter animal, "Top of the food chain type being" and to think that our Supreme Being bubble could be burst so easily is comical. Thousands of years ago when we were dragging our knuckles on the ground we were as all the other animals to the "Survival of the fittest" and we would keep the weak, sick, old and the genetically inferior to the outside of the heard so the lions would have something to eat and promote the best chance for the strongest of the species and if you watch "National Geographic channel" to see it documented time and time again, its not hard to come to that conclusion. What we now do is give the weak and genetically inferior welfare and a place in society. Yes I know it's a mean statement but to understand that what I am stating you have to understand that I to am genetically inferior myself, I have diabetes and other ailments that would not put me on the top of the list, I am just trying to make an observation. Not trying as best I can not to make any moral judgments(but of course I am just human), and many people might take it personal. I only bring up this point because I see the stupidest things happen in government, religion and for that matter just walking down the street and it I need a definition for it. I do not promote that we eliminate the weak and genetically inferior to the outside of the heard. I just wanted to understand why 90% of us are just so stupid to understand and make decisions on what to me seems ...."Simple and Easy" (I am not part of the 1%) When I was about 10 years old my grandfather told me not to argue with stupid people, "They don't know there stupid and if they did know they were, they wouldn't be stupid in the first place"(but then again if I was stupid how would I know not to argue?) I don't think a lesser I.Q. has to do with culture, religious (or not) beliefs, ethnicity etc... I do believe it has to do with genetics (Duh!), but our ego, religious (or not) beliefs and culture has a major role in suppressing our evolving into a better species. I wonder what the fix for this conundrum is. Sometimes people do and say "Stupid things" for no other reason but because they are part of the 90% I could be wrong, just my observation for this hour.

Re:Kornbluth's "The Marching Morons"

[lamp540]

Anyone that says that 99% of people are idiots isn't that smart themselves. The "intelligence" of a member of a species is defined in relation to the other members. Inorder to make the judgement that nearly all humans are idiots you'd have to be comparing them with a more intelligent species. Most people are of AVERAGE intelligence, or at least fall close to that. As far as we know, in the ways that we can measure, human intelligence distribution follows the normal distribution--the bell curve. You could say that the 99% of the people that are less intelligent than the smartest 1% are idiots but then how useful would that be? Is there a meaningful separation in terms of accomplishments and intellect between the 99 and the 1 or was "99%" just chosen because it sounds good? I don't doubt that there are some smart people out there that for reasons of pride like to look down on people that are less able in the particular way s that they are able, HOWEVER the most intelligent people recognize the value and worth of a great range of people.

Also, if it's true that modern life dumbs people down, then wouldn't this be the fault of the 1% innovators and thinkers since they're the ones who are in control of everything?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[a7244270]

What a strange logic: it's like saying "most people round 100/3 to 33, it's common usage, so when the math police die out of old age, the common usage will win out".

That's stupid because 100/3 != 33, it's completely incorrect


The main flaw in your argument is that math is constant, while language evolves. This is completely natural and more importantly, desirous. Rigid adherence to outdated grammatical constructs can only hinder communication. A perfect example would be the adoption of "google" as a verb; would you prefer to say "navigate to google's site and use it to search for widgets" or "google widgets"

That being said, I do agree with you, "should of" is horrible, but you have to take the good with the bad.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[mooingyak]

And yet it's also a perfect example of what the post you replied to is talking about. Yes he forgot the negation, but it was still quite clear what he meant. Moreso since we've also seen this exact kind of typo many times.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[EvanED]

(i.e. A report for work)

Here's another thing that bothers me about common usage. ;-) (Sorry to pick on you.)

The abbreviation "i.e." does not mean "for example."

Repeat after me:
The abbreviation "i.e." does not mean "for example."
The abbreviation "i.e." does not mean "for example."
The abbreviation "i.e." does not mean "for example."

The abbreviation to use if you mean "for example" is "e.g.". The abbreviation "i.e." stands for (the Latin of) "that is."

I.e., "i.e." is used when you are rephrasing, clarifying, etc. what was already said. The sentence "i.e. A report for work", if taken literally, means that the only documents that matter to you are reports for work.

For more information, see, e.g., http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/8707/52862, http://www.planetoid.org/grammar_for_geeks/ie_vs_e g.html, or http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/abbreviations/f /ievseg.htm. (Note the use of "e.g." for "for example.")

(Sorry, I go on this rant periodically. Don't take it personally.)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[lawpoop]

" It will never take hold for one simple reason: the words don't make sense together. "Of" is not a verb; "have" is. Common usage or not, it will never logically make sense."

OK, but the corrollary of what you are saying that that "have done" or "should have" make sense. How does 'have' indicate action in the past? Are you holding or posessing an action, thus it occured in the past? Grammar itself is an *arbitrary* association of sounds to meanings.

" "Should of" almost certainly stems from phonetically spelling "should've" ("should have"). Even in speaking, therefore, it never occurs."

It most certainly occurs, evidenced by the fact that people write "Should of" when they write what they think they are saying". Let me repeat that. Those who write 'should of' think that that is what they are saying. They are not saying "Should have", they are not saying "Should've". They are saying "Should of".

Grammar changes all the time in spoken languages. In another 50 or 100 years, this might become standard.

people have been complaining

[Darth Liberus]

...about this very topic since the dawn of written language. Folks blamed television before the Interweb came along; radio and movies were at fault before that. I'm quite sure that the village elders complained about how that newfangled "paper" thing was ruining the language: "in my day we used STONE TABLETS! You care a lot more about spelling when you're chipping your words in stone, I'll tell you that! THE WORLD IS GOIN' TO HELL IN A HANDBASKET!"

That said, "should of" really bothers me. I can understand a minor misspelling, but using the wrong word? Come on, people, the word is should've.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the post is intelligible or the error changes the meaning of the post significantly, then there's your time to jump in with your corrections.

Unintelligible. That changes the meaning of the sentence. You made Strom's point. Nice.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[HybridJeff]

Am I the only one who assumed that the above post was a joke about the "hooked on phonics" program?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[dpuu]

That techies may regard a lack of literacy is a badge of honor is a mirror of the pervasive attitude amongst the literate that holds a lack of technical knowledge as a badge of honor. How many (non-technical) people do you know who will proudly proclaim that they don't understand algebra/trig/calculus?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[TheCrackRat]

fishin' GH as in tough O women TI as in -tion ghoti'n

My 2 Cents

[linsys]

Hmmmm... Let me tell you my experience with this.. I'm one of these "Hackers" not sure exactly what you mean by the term, but for this note I will define it:

"A person who delights in having an intimate understanding of the internal workings of a system, computers and computer networks in particular. The term is often misused in a pejorative context, where cracker would be the correct term."

I dropped out of H.S at the age of 16 years old.. it was boring, I certainly hated English and history but was taking advanced Calculus and advanced chemistry by the age of 15..

Got a score on my ACTs of 35 while high on you know what..

I could memorize the spelling of just about any word for spelling tests and then would forget them about 10 minutes after the test was over..

After leaving H.S I was a "flunky" for a while then got into the computer field and was making over 80K year by the age of 22.. with NO degree (certified by M.S, RH, Cisco, Sun) and barley a G.E.D..

I have always been plagued by that person who corrects my spelling all the time, but looking back, this person was always some ugly nerd girl who no one liked but had to correct my spelling all the time, guess it made her feel better to correct me (because yes I was kool.. what ever that is..), then when I got into corp America there was always this person who made far less then me in some project management job who corrected my spelling.. their expertise or skills didn't compare to mine except for their knowledge of M.S project.. and I'm sure they didn't like it when I told them that they didn't manage the direction of the project I did as the system architect.. these people always seem to be about 40 years old.. and hated the fact that I made double their salary at 22..

Am I a cocky little s*i*, yes.. so please if you feel the need to correct my spelling to make your self feel better go right ahead!! My suggestion to the "spelling police" would be to spend your time doing something more productive then worrying about how people spell... No one cares but you, and no one ever will...

Re:My 2 Cents

[linsys]

On and that's why now I run my own company and hired a sexy secretary to correct all my mistakes (well only for important docuemtns)...

What does Snoop Dogg think?

[mrighi]

Or, as Snoop Dogg might be wondering,

"Playa tha last few years, I've noticed thiznat a surprisingly large gangsta of native English speaka, who is otherwise very technically competent, seem ta lack strong English skills aww nah. Mostly, this seems ta manifest itself as frontin' degrees of pizzy ho-slappin' n grammar fo' sho': 'definatizzles instead of 'def'; 'should of' instead of 'should have'; n I even see tha names of products n companies misspelled from tizzle ta time . Yippie yo, you can't see my flow. It baffles me thiznat a culture so obsessed wit technical knowledge n accuracy can demonstrate such shawty attention ta detail W-H-to-tha-izzen it comes ta communicat'n that knowledge wit bitch n it baffles me even mizzle tizzle many thugz become enraged wizzle you attempt ta H-to-tha-izzelp them correct n learn fizzle they mistakes mah nizzle. Do nigga n geeks jizzle not care `bout weed-smokin' effectively? Do tizzle not realize tizzle a mediocre command of written English makes them appear less intelligent? Am I miss'n sum-m sum-m here?""

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[ezzzD55J]

I agree with you completely, but using words like 'retard' can make you look shallow and bigoted.

Oops, yes you're right. I suppose I got a little excited. Thanks for the tip ;)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[crazyvas]

I feel this is the wrong forum for your 'corrections' and 'suggestions.'

There is no specific 'correct' forum for corrections and suggestions, the reason being that language is used in all forums as a means of communications. So this is not necessarily the wrong forum. In fact, in the ideal situation here on /., a correction will be read by the parent poster, but not by most others, since it might end up being modded down.

It breaks the flow of the discussion.

Bad spelling and grammar contribute to incoherence which definitely breaks the flow of the discussion. Good spelling and grammar will reduce distractions and facilitate good flow of the discussion.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Angostura]

An easy way to remember this:

i.e. - in explanation
e.g. - example given

Spelling, get over it!

[Anonymous Coward]

William Randolph Hearst's father (Patty's great-grandfather) was a U.S. Senator. One of my favorite quotes of his is "If b-u-r-d doesn't spell bird, then I don't know what does."

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[MynockGuano]

Yea, I know what you mean; but the spelling Nazis are the worst! >8)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[djSpinMonkey]

If the post is intelligible or the error changes the meaning of the post significantly, then there's your time to jump in with your corrections.

So, like, right now?

Re: Racist?

[MemeRot]

How in the world is spelling properly oppressive to minorities?

Tin foil hat time, man.

I think you're generalizing.

[borgheron]

I think you're drawing a conclusion based on a limited set of people and applying it across an entire population. By definition your assertion is false since there exists at least one hacker, developer, etc. who is good at spelling & grammar.

Have you ever noticed how people are starting to stereotype developers? For example saying "All developers are X", where X is some bad trait?

It really irks me.

Later, GJC

agreed.

[selfdiscipline]

Yes, I find it interesting that the submitter in their illustration of the alleged problem, talked of "definately" vs. "definitely" and "should of" vs. "should have", and then went on to talk about communicating effectively. Is "definately" less "effective" than definitely in providing the intended meaning?
Proper grammar/spelling is mostly an artifact of academic culture. It's an easy way of categorizing how smart someone is (since most smart people are well educated). I don't mind if people correct my spelling or grammar; I realize that it's important to follow certain rituals if you want to be part of a certain culture.
But I have to sympathize with those geeks who refuse to learn academic english, because I don't see the added value in conveying meaning for most academic rules.
In summary, I think getting annoyed at "definately" is like getting annoyed because someone doesn't wear a suit to an interview. It can provide a good baseline judgement on how willing the interviewee is to work with other's expectations (those who are willing to follow other people's rules of grammar are probably more likely to follow other people's coding design recommendations), but as even the submitter will admit, it may not tell much about their intelligence.

Re:agreed.

[Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki]

Do you know how annoying it is to read "should of" instead of "should have", for example? It's sortof like if i applepie a random word into a sentence. It doesn't make any betelgeuse.

Re:agreed.

[EvanED]

I've posted a couple other posts about this, but the underlying assumption you're making is this: " I don't see the added value in conveying meaning for most academic rules". And I agree with you so far as that assumption leads us, that rules are arbitrary.

But, I don't agree with the assumption. The problem is that people ignoring the rules make language more ambiguous and thus introduce errors into your message. I'm not going to go into this again here because I've written two examples of where widespread misuse of words has reduced the options for what words we can use when we need to be precise. Word choice is not exactly a grammar issue, but it's only at a very slightly higher level.

But there can be ambiguities at the grammatical level too that are brought about by confusion about what is right. The only example I can think of off the top of my head is too strained, so I will forgo it and if I think of a better one come back and reply again.

Re:agreed.

[stienman]

Actually, bad grammer and obvious mistakes are more like a polished, young, eager, well dressed interviewee coming into your office. They smile and you notice that they have an obvious mouth hygiene problem - very, very bad from many years of neglect.

The person may be fine for the job, and the ensuing conversation will hopefully show you what kind of person they are despite the horror that is their mouth.

The problem is that you'll find it very difficult to pay attention to the message because your brain keeps snagging on this out of place feature. Why would this person go to all this trouble to look nice when it's apparant that they spent all these years neglecting their teeth? It would have taken very little time and effort over the years to keep themselves completely presentable.

This detracts fromt the message. No matter how good the message is, most people feel a nagging in the back of their mind when they run across obviously bad grammer or spelling - it's like snagging a fingernail on a sweater as you brush your fingers across it, and you have to focus on the words instead of the sentences and ideas.

Further, it tells us that the speaker has little respect for the audience and no respect for his message.

It's not just a cultural issue. It's a communications issue. The speaker should put at least as much effort into the conveyance of the message as he would like the audience to consider the message.

Lastly, most english readers read a word at a time - the brain processes words, not letters. When a word is incorrectly spelled the brain pauses on it, and the thought process is interrupted.

-Adam

Re:agreed.

[EvanED]

I got an example, suggested by another posts.

You're living in an apartment, and they only allow small pets. As a result, you decide to be a bit odd and get a pet tarantula. It's a big bugger, and you take it out now and then, but occasionally forget to lock the door after putting it back in its cage. One day, after forgetting to do this, you are writing in your diary about it, and you write "one of these days I'm going to lose that tarantula and it's going to bite someone."

And, a month later, your prediction comes true. You forget to lock the cage, and it escapes and bites someone. They sue you (hey, it's the US), and during discovery they see your diary. They're looking through it and see that entry. Only it turns out that you didn't say "lose" like you meant, you said "loose". This simple mistake -- whether it be a simple typo, slip of the mind, or actual ignorance on the correct word -- completely changes the meaning of the sentence. Suddenly, your neighbor decides that he isn't going to sue you for negligence for not locking the cage, and you're faced with an intentional battery tort.

This is still somewhat strained, but spelling is often very important.

Re:agreed.

[selfdiscipline]

I like your original response, but man... yeah, your scenario is a little strained. I agree that a large portion of grammar and spelling issues reduces clarity or introduces ambiguity. But not enough for many intelligent techies to care. The fact that you could only come up with a pretty lame scenario to illustrate your point seems to reinforce my idea that the issue is pretty trivial. But then, I'm really, really bad with coming up scenarios to reinforce my points, too.
I think the reason that spelling and grammar mistakes tend to irritate to people is as I said, an issue of clashing with intellectual culture, not because those bothered really can't understand what those of poor english are trying to say.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[AntiNeutrino]

In this case, do you mean intelligible or unintelligible?

Disdain for the illogical

[DunbarTheInept]

One common hacker trait is an utter disdain for things that are deliberately illogical. The problem is that the standards of language often are illogical and yet enforced anyway. It's clear that the intent of English was to have a langauge where the letters record the sound of the word. But it failed miserably at it due to merging in words from different languages and now spelling in English is an utterly illogical mess. So it's not surprising that hackers wouldn't really care to spell things by the standard. To do so you have to fight against what is logical.

Then there's the grammar standards of where punctuation marks are used. The comma was invented to just indicate an audio pause in speech. Then later on anal people changed it to only being usable under specific circumstances - Again, For, No, Reason.

Then there's the confusion over whether or not the quote marks are supposed to accurately quote what is inside them or not. I'd say that only things that are part of what is being quoted belong inside the quotes. Punctuation that is an artifact of the fact that the quote got pasted into another sentence are part of that external sentence, NOT part of the quoted material - so they logically belong outside the quote marks. For example:
Logical, but incorrect according to standard:
"Hello", John said.
Did John say, "Hello"?
Illogical, but correct according to standard:
"Hello," John said. (The comma isn't part of the quote dammit)
Did John say, "Hello?" (The question mark is there because of the sentence the "Hello" is pasted inside of, NOT because it is part of the "Hello" that John might have said. This allegedly correct way looks, to me, like the question is aksing whether John spoke "Hello" in a questioning tone, because the question mark ended up inside the quoted part.

According to standard, a question asked in the negative isn't really asked in the negative. "Aren't you coming with us", should logically be answerable by saying "Yes I am not coming with you". But the expected interpretation is the inverse of that. Again, the standard is at odds with logic.

Most people look at stuff like that and don't care. People who think logically get fed up with crap like that and rebell.

Re:Disdain for the illogical

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?Art Num=96881 90% are intellectually limited; you can only do what you are evolutionarily genetically engineered for.

Re:Disdain for the illogical

[DunbarTheInept]

I have no clue what the hell you're talking about becasue all your link says is "This article does not exist".

Re:Disdain for the illogical

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind, though, that if the phrase 'Did John say, "Hello?"' was spoken, "Hello" would still be in a questioning tone regardless of how John said it.

Re:Disdain for the illogical

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hello", John said.
Did John say, "Hello"?

Both are correct by British standards and technical writing standards. The U.S. "standards" (there is no governing body over proper language constructs) are to the contrary.

Re:Disdain for the illogical

[omegaware]

Actually, if John simply said, "Hello" (rather than asking, "Hello?") then an inquiry as to whether he did, in fact, say it should read:

Did John say, "Hello"?

Punctuation marks that are stronger than a period (i.e., question marks and exclamation points but not commas) fall outside the closing quotes if they have been added by the writer and inside only if they were extant in the original text/speech being quoted. Just wanted to clear that up!

--Matt

Re:Disdain for the illogical

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post reads to me as if you believe yourself to be far smarter than you are.

You have decided that something doesn't make sense, simply because you aren't intelligent enough to grasp the complexities of it.

And as for commmas, I give you these examples.

1. The majority of slashdot posters are not smart like you.

2. The majority of slashdot posters are not smart, like you.

You likely believe the first statement to be the correct one, though not all of us would agree.

Re:Disdain for the illogical

[Anonymous Coward]

Man is that funny....

In your original post, you make the argument that formatting doesn't matter, so long as the information is conveyed.

Then, because another poster's submission clearly got mangled a bit by an errant return character, which is obvious from the slashdot added [libertypost.org], you cannot be bothered to take the time to figure out what he said/meant.

That is how we who speak and type correctly feel about your use of the English language... we generally can't be bothered to take the time to figure out what the fuck you're trying to say, so generally you're just wasting your time typing it.

Corrected Link:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?Art Num=96881

Re:Disdain for the illogical

[hexgrid]

Yeah, my misspelling and incorrect grammar are, like, a conscious act of rebellion. Yeah. That's it.

Re:Disdain for the illogical

[DunbarTheInept]

In your original post, you make the argument that formatting doesn't matter
In the alternate universe where I had done so, your reply would have actually made sense. But here in the real world, I didn't say formatting doesn't matter. Just the opposite, in fact.

Re:Disdain for the illogical

[DunbarTheInept]

If you want to make a point, it would help if you gave examples that supported your point instead of contradicted it.

The difference between the meaning of 1 and 2 is purely because of where the pause is put, which is what the comma denotes. So your example supports my point.

Re:Disdain for the illogical

[DunbarTheInept]

This is not what I was taught. Throughout my grammar school years I kept trying to do it exactly how you show and teachers kept marking me wrong for it.

Could this be a British/American difference?

Re:Disdain for the illogical

[omegaware]

I can't say whether it's a British/American difference, but I'm American and my guess is that this is just another example of grammar school teachers who don't really understand what they're teaching (much in the same way that they will often insist that a sentence cannot begin with "But" or "And" or that it cannot end in a preposition). See the Chicago Manual of Style for reference.

--Matt

Re:Disdain for the illogical

[Anonymous Coward]

Some problems caused with quotes is due to the way printing presses used to break the "." bar when it was at the end of a line. Each character was on it's own metal bar, thinner characters had thinner bars. Printer personnel took to moving it inside quotes to reduce this, and it has been stuck there ever since.

Re:Disdain for the illogical

[juan2074]

But sentences can begin with "But" or "And".
And they often do.

Re:Disdain for the illogical

[Anonymous Coward]

Here! Here! (or is it hear, hear!) :-)

At any rate, bang on, mate! The English language is ridiculously unlogical :-) It should be no surprize :-) that hackers and other geeks rebel.

If we keep insisting on more logical spelings and gramar, the situation is bound to improve. People will be forced to aksept a more logical version of English. Consider it a matter of ekselorating the evolution of the language.

WE NEED A LOGICAL LANGUAGE! So, let us create one!

Re:Disdain for the illogical

[Anonymous Coward]

You really are too stupid to understand the subtelty he's implying, aren't you?

You simply reinforced his point that you are far less intelligent than you think you are.

Re:Disdain for the illogical

[braindead]

I'm with Dunbar on this one. Because he has a point, and because he explains his point instead of attacking your character.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[meregistered]

I agree with Bewire.

Communication is the interchange of information, knowledge, and emotion. Many of the finer points of written English do not actually enhance these functions of communication. This suggests that their generally accepted necessity may be validly in question.
Spelling is important as is punctuation so long as they either: don't detract from, or enhance the communication for which they are being used.

OK the above has spawned one additional thought:
I believe the reality is that the arbitrary and illogical manner the 'finer' points of written & spoken English have been structured have lost respect. If these points are exposed to many minds who deal with logical structure on a regular basis and they are rejected perhaps the failure is not on the part of those who are misusing the structure; perhaps the failure is on the part of those who originally structured it.

Man I'm wordy at times.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Steve Embalmer]

Hear hear! Not to add to your obvious troll, but three fp's in one day?? What does he do, sit in his parent's basement all day long pressing F5 and cut/pasting from Wiki with the other hand?

Sad.

And pathetic

/rant

speling

[radar92]

Heck I have always stunk at spelling, math was not my best subject either, and I hunt and peck on the keyboard. Im good at computers and have built a reputation in my organization for being good at them. I expect my supers really dont care if I can spell(thats why theres google) as long as I keep doing my magic :) Were all wired diffrently, I excell at computer and stink in other areas. win some lose some.

There's no such thing as "correct" language.

[Nanuk]

The very idea that there is a 'correct' way to write or speak our language is silly.

This decade's mispronunciation is next century's dialect.

Give up. Get over your 'correctness.' Languages are living things, the minute a language stops being misused is the minute it stops being used at all.

Correction

[DeckardJK]

No one cares.

Seriously, some people have a problem, and this is it: semantics get more attention than meaning for them.

The shallow surface is so distracting their minds can't focus on anything deeper.

So who has the problem? The kid who misspells a few words and makes some simple mistakes in grammar that no one has a problem getting around. Is it those who have some sort of mental handicap where they can't get past a little white noise, that is present in ALL communication, and so they stay stuck at the surface?

Who has the real problem?

It is true; you have to communicate as effectively as you can in life, certainly. There is always white noise, miscommunication, and some of it can most certainly may be traced to not having the proper grammar/ spelling but hardly to the extent grammar Nazis will insist

They have the communication problem, not the kid who spells definitely "definitely."

Really!

I was reading a Slashdot story here a while ago, and it basically showed that you can remove the vowels from a sentence and the words are still understandable and comprehensible and readable. What does that tell us about semantics and meaning?

It tells us that semantics is not really that important in communication; it is only a point of contention among those who have a bigger communication problem than all of the bad grammar/ had spelling kids out there: an overly anal retentive focus on the shallow surface, a mental, almost autistic handicap in communication wh

I give up. I can see why your teachers probably just found it easy to put a bit "F" at the top of your reports.

Re:Correction

[Dr. Photo]

"There is no such word as "sh*t" in English."

The asterisk implies a Glob of it. :)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[SSSSSmokey]

Exactly. English is simply extremely complex, but logical. I scored a 32 (out of 36) on the ACT and a 770 (out of 800) SAT in English. It isn't because I've read every word in the dictionary or whatever. It is because you can use logic to find out what the stuff means.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel this is the wrong forum for your 'corrections' and 'suggestions.' It breaks the flow of the discussion.

Yet 'breaking the flow of discussion' is exactly what such spelling/grammar mistakes do - whenever I come across them, my brain is forced correct the mistake before going on. This breaks apart my reading of the post, sometimes annoying me to the point of distraction. 'Insightfull' indeed.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point, and especially true when editing in an HTML form box without the aid of flyspell-mode (but there is the preview button). However when the same person repeatedly uses "then" when he or she (or CmdrTaco) means "than", it should be apparent that the person needs to be gently corrected (which on Slashdot means shouting and name calling).

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[general_re]

So any nuances added to writing through selective phrasing or structuring is lost to most readers.

Your subject and verb do not agree in number. Cut out the extraneous material in between, and what you're left with is "So any nuances...is lost to most readers, when it should, of course, be "any nuances...are lost." It's a common enough mistake, losing track of number and tense, particularly when you've got verbiage in between the two. An even better formulation might have been to keep it singular, as "nuance" tends to be, and written "So any nuance...is lost."

But as you said, the message was clear enough. Everyone surely understood the point you were making, so who cares, right? How many people even noticed that? A handful, probably, but what if one of the handful of people spotted that in, say, your resume?

In the end, why take the chance that it'll be noticed in some important situation? Not that a /. post is particularly important, but still, it's just as easy to get such seeming trivia right with a bit of practice. Good grammar is almost never noticed, but the absence of same is almost inevitably going to be noticed sooner or later, and probably at the worst possible time for its author ;)

Conversational English

[sleepingsquirrel]

When I am posting here, I am giving my opinion on a topic. The content is what is important. I feel this is the wrong forum for your 'corrections' and 'suggestions.' It breaks the flow of the discussion. It has nothing to do with the topic being discussed, and makes you sound like a show off intellectual

Intellectual? Actually, it makes a person sound like pedantic half-wit. There is a difference between conversational and formal writing. And /. isn't the latter.

Re:Conversational English

[cduffy]

Slashdot may not be formal writing, but it's still a social congregation -- and, in such a forum, it's better to be a pedant than a halfwit.

Re:Conversational English

[madprof]

So say you. The correctness, or otherwise, of the English being used is independent of whether the English is conversational or formal to a certain extent.
My conversational English tries to be as correct as possible, mainly because I like conversations where I discuss stuff with people and thus I need to really communicate. /. is a place to discuss stuff. Communicating your ideas is often important.
When people communicate sloppily can be irritating because you lose the subtlety in the language that allows you to make a point really really well.
Subtlety can appear in conversational English but sloppiness can't appear in what we'd consider formal English.

Re:Conversational English

[sleepingsquirrel]

If your understanding is clouded by someone's bad grammar, then by all means, ask for a clarification. The annoyance comes from correction of a minor mistakes, when the poster's intent is clear. "Should of" is a example of this. I'll generally give the benefit of the doubt in instances like this since...

1. "Should of" sounds a lot like "Should've"
2. Using contractions in formal settings is frowned upon. The poster tried to use a contraction. Therefore, he's not trying to be formal.
3. Slashdot and other forums (by their design) encourage a rush to post, since the earliest posts get the most replies.

If nothing else, correcting someone publicaly should be the last resort. If you wouldn't announce on the loud speaker that someone's pants were unzipped, you might want to try correcting them through private communication first.

Re:Conversational English

[madprof]

That is a very fair and well-put point.
I do wish, though, like the person who wrote the original story, that people would be a bit more careful.
My pet hates on here are:
"should of"
"more then that"
confusing of "their", "there", "they're"
confusing of "affect" and "effect"

If nothing else I worry that if I read that stuff and don't register it as incorrect I'll lapse into it myself.
Call me anal. ;-)

Re:Wow!

[Yobgod Ababua]

Speaking of ambiguity...

I believe the quoted OP intended the "it" in "does it matter" to refer to "someone's work if devoid of common rules of grammar and usage", not to "you completely and unambiguously understand what they are saying/writing", although both are possible legitimate parsings.

Even if a highly misspelt and ungrammatical post/email/letter is completely unambiguous and can be completely and correctly understood, it usually takes more effort for the reader to get to that point of comprehension than it would without the errors. We are wonderful error-correcting devices, but it's not a zero-cost implementation.

By purposefully ignoring grammar and/or spelling when communicating, you're making things easier for yourself at the expense of requiring more effort from your readers. That's at the very least impolite and quite possibly arrogant and downright rude.

It's especially so in a forum like a news post, where you only need to write once, but what you write will be read many many times. Just making some attempt at reasonable grammar and spelling should greatly improve the overall efficiency of communication at a relatively small cost to the author. Just because something works doesn't mean it works well...

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Angostura]

I meant to add:

There is also the issue of ease of understanding. Any text is written just once, it is however, likely to be read multiple times by multiple readers. Shouldn't the author try to ease the workload of the readership?

Finally, consider the following quote: "As long as you completely understand them, does it matter if a person breaks common rules of grammar and usage?" transformed thus:

"As long as the page renders correctly in my browser does it matter if the HTML fails to conform to the DTD?"

Doesn't that make you shudder?

Unfortunately...

[BarneyRabble]

Working in the technical field, a good portion of the resumes that are sent to future employers are tossed within minutes because the applicant misspelled a word, or used incorrect grammar in a sentence.

Spelling and grammar counts everywhere you go these days, it is a reflection of your background and education, and if you dn not show it properly, it makes a poor reflection on you.

This was drilled into my head when I was young. (God bless those Catholic nuns who made me stay after school to make me recite my prepositions and nouns and verbs until it was right.)

Another bad habit people have are the use of contractions in their sentences. To another person, it is a lazy way of not writing out your thoughts and views properly.

I was also forced to use the book "The Elements of Style" by E. B. White. in high school to write my papers with. Unfortunately these days everyone just cuts and pastes their information from the Internet with little regard for individuality and actually WRITE a paragraph on what they found.

So boys and girls, learn a lesson. If you are unable to spell the word, sound it out, find your dictionary and thesaurus, and make yourself look good. Then you can move up in the world.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[TheCrackRat]

You can't always drop it, but it can always be replaced with another word.

"Peter got shot" becomes "Peter was shot".

So 'got' is never required.

Me Fail English Thats Unpossible

[cranos]

Now that we have the ob simpson quote out of the way, let me continue.

Poorly written documents, whether it is technical documentation or articles on the various news sites continue to annoy me.

The problem is not limited to geeks either, I have found many journalists seem to lack basic command of the written word, instead writing as if it were speech. They give me funny looks when I correct their articles before allowing them up on the site I manage.

I'm not saying I am perfect by any means however if you are going to present yourself as a professional then please at least how to punctuate!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

If I get my point across, who cares about grammer and spelling. Programmers would most likely point out that c, c++, java, etc. are their native languages and talking to humans doesn't really matter.

Language for the masses

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure this has been repeated by others already, but ill re-repeat.
Language is not static, it's always changing. Thus as speakings of a language, we all help to change it. Down the road I'm sure the impact of the internet on language/communicate will be more obvious. Perhaps l33t [namely number usage] will become a more accepted part of spelling.
But whatever the changes, the speakers will adapt, and new speakers will find it only natural. It wont stop there either. There is no stopping point, until english is "dead".

the creation of 'proper' language was [and still is] a tool of the bougie aristocratic types, that realize the more the can keep the masses ig'nant, the more power and control they will retain.

I agree. There's a proper forum for corrections

[DoctoRoR]

I'm a techie who is presumably competent in English; I've got published fiction and card-carrying status with a professional writers association. But my prose is hardly flawless on a first draft typed at 60 words/minute, and that's the style of communication on free-for-all boards like /. and most web venues.

Unsolicited correction of someone's English on the web is like stepping up to fellow customers in a clothes store and suggesting ways to improve their current wardrobe. Sure, you might be more fashion-savvy, but you'd still be arrogant.

Re:I agree. There's a proper forum for corrections

[coronaride]

But my prose is hardly flawless on a first draft typed at 60 words/minute, and that's the style of communication on free-for-all boards like /. and most web venues.

Your comment actually brings up a decent point, however. If people slowed down to check for grammer/spelling mistakes, it might actually make them pause to think about what they're trying to say.

Whenever I type up anything of length (greater than one or two paragraphs), I always read it over a few times to make sure that my point is getting across satisfactorily. That said, this post was finished in 2.2 seconds.

Re:I agree. There's a proper forum for corrections

[wwest4]

I was about to say "amen," but that literally means "so be it." God knows I'd get pummeled in this thread.

Anyways, amen to that. On slashdot, the bar is (appropriately) a bit lower than that of a professional writing forum.

Re:I agree. There's a proper forum for corrections

[Anonymous Coward]

... If people slowed down to check for grammer/spelling mistakes...

It's grammar to those championing the pompous and precise :)

Re:I agree. There's a proper forum for corrections

[coronaride]

Damn! See, there you go. I should of *cough* er..um...yeah, I should have slowed down.

Re:I agree. There's a proper forum for corrections

[falconwolf]

I'm a techie who is presumably competent in English; I've got published fiction and card-carrying status with a professional writers association. But my prose is hardly flawless on a first draft typed at 60 words/minute, and that's the style of communication on free-for-all boards like /. and most web venues.

Is it better to take a little tyme to edit and make sure a post is understood or better to rapidly post and risk a misunderstanding? Myself, I prefer to be understood so when writing I like to keep a dictionary near me to check spelling and grammer if I'm not sure of the correct spelling or usage.

Falcon

Oh, some may say I missed an incorrect spelling, "tyme", but in fact that is a correct spelling though you won't find it in most dictionaries. Instead you may have to look in the full edition of the "Oxford English Dictionary" to find it.

Re:I agree. There's a proper forum for corrections

[topper24hours]

I thought it meant "I believe".

Re:I agree. There's a proper forum for corrections

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck no, I was going to comment on your "spelling and grammer", not your "tyme". I figured a misspelling like "tyme" had to be deliberate; the 'I' and 'Y' keys aren't that close together.

Re:I agree. There's a proper forum for corrections

[falconwolf]

Heck no, I was going to comment on your "spelling and grammer", not your "tyme". I figured a misspelling like "tyme" had to be deliberate; the 'I' and 'Y' keys aren't that close together.

Thanks, looking at my dictionary I just realized I've been spelling "grammar" incorrectly as "grammer". Oh my memory!

Falcon

Re:I agree. There's a proper forum for corrections

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, you might be more fashion-savvy, but you'd still be arrogant.

It's sad that helpfulness is so often seen as arrogance. Arrogance is an attitude. When I correct someone's spelling or grammar, I do it because I figure no intelligent person wants to walk around making rookie mistakes. If you constantly spell racist as rascist, wouldn't you want someone to point it out so you could learn and improve yourself? I'm not talking about missing apostrophes or punctuation, because they rarely matter. I'm talking about situations where it's obvious the poster doesn't know the correct way to write something.

It's a bit like seeing someone with his pants unzipped. If you tell him, chances are good that he doesn't know, and would appreciate the tip. On the other hand, there's a small chance that he does know, and will get pissed at you because he's ABSOLUTELY ENTITLED to walk around with unzipped pants if he wants to! So really, I take the risk because the benefit of someone learning something useful outweighs the risk that some ungrateful prick will think I'm trying to prove myself better than him.

Of course, there's a right way and a wrong way to go about mentioning it too, and being arrogant about it doesn't help anyone.

Re:I agree. There's a proper forum for corrections

[Dread_ed]

Your analogy breaks down with fashon, as fashon has certain rules, like grammar, but you do not make the connection in your analogy. For example, if someone was putting pants on their head I would probably say something to them.

If your output sucks do not expect everyone to gloss over it with tolerance and blissful acceptance. YOU wrote it, YOU are responsible for the content. If someone else is offended by it, or for jimminy's sake they try to help you not sound like an idiot by correcting you, don't get all jumped up and high and mighty about how grammar dosen't matter. Take it as a learning lesson.

Remember YOU were the one who wrote it. It is the utmost in arrogance to shovel shit in someone elses face and say "act like it smells like roses!"

Re:I agree. There's a proper forum for corrections

[DoctoRoR]

In your first two sentences, it's fashion not "fashon", jiminy not "jimminy", and you should pay attention to changing subject number ("someone... their...them"). If "fashon has certain rules, like grammar," then you should note that fashion rules are even more flexible than grammar. My analogy is, in fact, more generous than it should be. If you comment on someone's fashion in a clothes store, at least the both of you are in a place dealing with clothes and fashion. If you comment on someone's spelling mistake ('definately' instead of 'definitely') in a forum about object-oriented programming, you are (1) calling attention to what may be a typo in a very public fashion in (2) a venue that is not about spelling and grammar.

I suppose you give a lecture to every teen with jeans so low their butt shows, because it violates your fashion rules.

"If your output sucks do not expect everyone to gloss over it with tolerance and blissful acceptance... It is the utmost in arrogance to shovel shit in someone elses face and say "act like it smells like roses!"

How easy it is to set up straw men to support your weak case. We're talking about 'definately' and 'should of'. If these are your examples of "shit" and "sucks", I would caution you in throwing stones from your obviously glass house. I can live without people who are seriously offended by such mistakes in a web venue. These type of people might also take offense at sentence fragments in literature. The best writers of English can and will break grammatical rules, but the main issue I have with the top post, and your post in particular, is the global requirement of perfect spelling and grammar. At the very least, the top post (and you) should differentiate between professional publications and the majority of web venues. If you or Strom did intend to limit the domain of your perfect-English zone, then you should have presented your argument better instead of concentrating on spelling and grammar.

Re:I agree. There's a proper forum for corrections

[almiki]

Unsolicited correction of someone's English on the web is like stepping up to fellow customers in a clothes store and suggesting ways to improve their current wardrobe. Sure, you might be more fashion-savvy, but you'd still be arrogant.

Is it arrogant to let someone know that his shoe is untied?

Re:I agree. There's a proper forum for corrections

[Anonymous Coward]

You are soooo right. I tell people to tie their shoes. I also point out their bad complexion but helpfully suggest facials, ridicule their stupid jokes in front of women but direct them to excellent humor books, give them pointers on losing the flab when we are in line at McDonalds, and correct their English in technical threads. I consider it my duty to make the world a better place, flaw by flaw. Decorum is for the weak and/or uneducated. We rewl.

Re:I agree. There's a proper forum for corrections

[cecille]

I 100% agree. I will obsessively re-read my technical papers for grammatical errors, but when I'm stopping for 5 minutes to drop a post on slashdot, it hardly matters to me if I mixed up a few characters.

To be honest, this question seems less like an actual ask slashdot question, and more of a way to air grievances that we've all heard before, and get them posted in a prominent place.

I, personally, am sick of seeing people write well thought out, interesting and informative comments on a page, only to be picked apart because they made a typo. Not only is it rude and arrogant, but it adds nothing to the forum. If you disagree with a post, fine, present your counter-argument, but don't pick apart the poster because they have bad grammar or spelling.

Not only that, but some of us do not live in the US...there are other spellings (Canadian and British forms) and people who do not speak English as a first language, who I'm sure do not need their errors pointed out every time they post.

Re:I agree. There's a proper forum for corrections

[Uerige]

There are people who like being corrected.
There's no way anyone can learn proper English if mistakes aren't pointed out to them.

Re:I agree. There's a proper forum for corrections

[Dread_ed]

You miss the point. All I am saying is that if you get corrected don't get offended and do not put unreasonable expectations on other people with respect to how they will react to how you write.

A perfect example of what I am talking about is here for you to examine:

Thank you, by the way, for your corrections. I appreciate it and will try not to make them in the future! :)

And, whether or not you believe it, I am sincere in my thanks.

Re:I agree. There's a proper forum for corrections

[rac44]

Not everyone agrees about what is arrogant behavior: it's largely a matter of custom. In some countries, correcting the mistakes visitors make in speaking the local language is commonplace and is considered helpful. On the other hand, people can't seriously be faulted for mistakes on the web if the forum they're using doesn't have any facilities for correcting typos.

Re:I agree. There's a proper forum for corrections

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing more annoying then somebody correcting your spelling. Trying to enforce spelling and grammer rules is an exercise for small minded people. Just something for people in non-technical majors to bother tech people about.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[sowth]

How is that ironic? The poster said he/she was taught with poor teaching methods. He/She writes poorly. Sounds like the opposite of irony to me.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[KarMann]

Obviously, you're not familiar with the Obfuscated Perl/C/whatever contests, are you?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[ari_j]

Others have commented on the important errors in what you wrote, so I am going to be the arrogant prick who points out that it should be "show-off" instead of "show off" and that you should not have capitalized the "A" in "A report for work." Additionally, you should have moved the punctuation around a bit and inserted a comma. "...or document that matters (i.e., a report for work)." would have been much better. Just because it's customary to do exactly what someone wishes you wouldn't in response to his Slashdot comments. :)

Amazing

[kernelpanicked]

I've been modded troll and flamebait for damn near every opinion I've ever posted on slashdot, yet this guy manages to get the troll of trolls posted front page. No sir, it is I who has definitely missed something here.

Old news; here's the proof

[Black Perl]

A Plan for the Improvement of English
Spelling

by Mark Twain

For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would
be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and
likewise "x" would no longer be part of the
alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be
retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be
dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling,
so that "which" and "one" would take the same
konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y"
replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j"
anomali wonse and for all.

Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue
iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless
double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so
modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and
unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud
fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez
"c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the
maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and
"th" rispektivli.

Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform,
wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe
Ingliy-spiking werld.

Re:Old news; here's the proof

[Dunbal]

Whoa, /\/\4rK +vv4|nn i5 t3h p#4+h3r pf 1337!

Ever noticed how...

[grcumb]

... All the best geeks write well?

It's because they do a lot of reading and almost as much writing. It's because precision matters to them, and they don't consider hand-waving in the general direction of a topic to be knowledge.

For my part, I definitely judge geeks by their ability to communicate. A spelling error on a CV is death, as far as I'm concerned.

That said, I also enjoy neologisms and word play. I don't believe in a tyrannical, académie française approach to language. But before you use 'freedom' as an excuse to mangle the language, though, consider that, generally speaking, people know the difference between flamboyance and laziness.

Lastly, as others have said, this terrible imprecision in written language is everywhere, even among writers. For some real horror stories, simply run a google search for 'poetry'. 8^)

A compiler is a "language Nazi".

[chmilar]

When you are writing code, the compiler is unsympathetic to your syntactic mistakes. It gives you a clear "Error on line X", and rejects the code. You are forced to fix it.

English, on the other hand, allows for a lot of "slack", in terms of syntax. It would be hard to write an automatic English parser that, for instance, would reject your Slashdot posting after you hit the "Submit" button, until you get it right.

Plenty of people use spellcheckers, but those will still pass "should of".

The Slashdot "language Nazis" are the closest you will get to an "English compiler". However, while you can't tell your C compiler, "Fuck off! I'm not going to fix my syntax error," you can ignore the language Nazis.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[coronaride]

A completely obvious (and more correct, in my opinion) alternative to "Peter got shot":

Peter was shot.

So there you have it - the word 'got' was dropped.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Bob Uhl]

Why? 'Retard' is a perfectly good medical term, as are 'moron,' 'idiot' and 'cretin.' Granted, it's no longer PC.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[loudmax]

the epidemic of poor spelling/grammar is not confined to the tech world, but is pervasive throughout just about every aspect of American culture

Absolutely. It's not just us technical folks. Lots of people can't spell. However, IT professionals rely on written communication more than just about anyone else other than journalists and authors. Our spelling errors are in proportion to the quantity of writing we do, only they're broadcast all over the internet.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[be951]

English is a living language, why do i care if "should have" is technically correct according to some english professor somewhere.

Same reason they teach theory courses to CS students. If you understand the roots of words and phrases and why they mean what they mean, you are better equipped to handle language elements that you have not seen before without having them spoon fed to you.

And in writing, especially in a business context, it demonstrates attention to detail and implies that you are well rounded in your education rather than just technically competent at what you do. As an example, look at any job search book or article. One of the first things you will read is that your resume must be free of spelling and grammatical errors since the whole recruitment process is about eliminating candidates until you are down to the one remaining that gets the offer. Recruiters are happy to have an easy way to make the first cut.

Answer to devil's advocate

[Spy der Mann]

I try to use the rules, but if I understand you, what else matters?

The problem is when non-native speakers are taught the meaning of "should have" and never EVER have had contact with the completely illogical term "should of". I'm saying this because i couldn't understand what my friend tried to tell me whenever he said "should of". I'm not saying it was difficult to understand him. I'm saying i could NOT understand him AT ALL. I didn't know if he missed a word, and only after the third time he tried to explain, i caught the meaning.

You call this EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION? I don't think so.

Why should non-native speakers have to LEARN a WHOLE NEW LANGUAGE that is not even english? Shouldn't native english speakers learn ENGLISH in the first place?

Poor grammar does NOT help communication between people of different countries. And the fact that english is the universal language today is only by chance. Remember latin was universal 1000 years ago.

Re:Answer to devil's advocate

[mooingyak]

Odd. I don't make the should of/should have mistake, but if I were speaking rather than writing, they would sound exactly the same, which I think is the cause of the problem in the first place.

Re:Answer to devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you need to work on your enunciation.

Re:Answer to devil's advocate

[TechieMiriam]

English is by no means the universal language. It's just a language that's very common in a lot of places in the western world. http://anthro.palomar.edu/language/language_1.htm

And every language has slang. Every language has a second language within a language. Every language has misspellings and mispronunciation that leads to misunderstandings between native speakers and non-native language learners. It's not just English.

Native speakers do learn to use correct English. Quite often, they use it in school all through their education. But later they choose to use slang words more professionally and adopt parts of a new internet language to their casual conversations. That's the reason that the foreign languages section of the book store offers entire books on foreign language slang--so you can understand regional dialect.

Re:Answer to devil's advocate

[StikyPad]

You know, I've never even seen anyone write "should of," or else I've completely blocked it from memory, but now I'm worried that I'll start using it because I've seen it thirty times in the past 10 minutes.

On a side note: there's a brain teaser where the reader is told to count the F's in a sentence, and the number he actually finds is then said to correspond with his intelligence. The validity of any correlations aside, most people don't notice the F in "of" because they pronounce it as a V in their mind.

Re:Answer to devil's advocate

[big ben bullet]

One SHOULD be able to COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY by NOT using CAPITALS every few words.

Capitalisation rules are part of the language too you know?

Ohw, and i don't speak English natively... i'm a Belgian (Flemish part)

Re:Answer to devil's advocate

[TheoMurpse]

Remember latin was universal 1000 years ago.

Yeah, I totally forgot about that whole "African Latin" and "Chinese Latin" movement 1000 years ago ;)

That being said (I know what you meant), I've always recognized your posts, Spy der Mann, by your sig with the "should of"/"should've" tip. I'm glad to know the backstory behind it, now.

You have 100% concurrence from me on this topic.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Em Adespoton]

This all started before the internet -- even before BBSes were popular. In the mid 80's, North America adopted a new "hollistic" teaching strategy -- this method of teaching eschewed traditional grammar drills in favour of contextual grammatical teaching methods. So an entire generation has grown up not knowing the rules, just how the words they use themselves fit together. In University, I experienced a number of people finishing off their english degrees who didn't even know the proper terms for various figures of speech, not to mention how the rules all fit together!

This is all completely seperate from the influence of technology and the internet -- hackers know a specific language, whether it be C++, LISP, SNOBOL, BASIC, Rexx, or something else, because the wordset is very small, and the ruleset is also quite small. All the definitions are fixed, and the hackers had to learn the basics of the language precisely in order to do anything useful with it. Conversely, an entire generation of North Americans has grown up being taught that you can get along quite well without learning anything specific about the English language.

By the way, "shutter" is something on a house or behind a camera lens; "shudder" is what your body does when you are cold or afraid. This is yet another example of learning a word by hearing it in context instead of learning it by reading it and looking up the definition.

Sometimes Chinese looks much more attractive as a language....

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[dillon_rinker]

You began your statement with a parenthetical. You use nothing but sentence fragments. Your essay has no thesis statement and no topic sentences, althogh the latter doesn't matter because there are no paragraphs. You capitalized a word in the middle of a sentence. You quoted someone else but did not use quotation marks.

It took me longer to nitpick your post than it took for you to contradict the post you replied to. Astoundingly, you proved that poster's point.

CONTENT matters. STYLE matters less. To " completely and unambigously" in the passage you quote, I would add "effortlessly." I should not have to exert myself to understand what you're saying. A difficult concept may require effort, but parsing your words shouldn't. If it does, then you are an idiot. If you make what I perceive to be stupid mistakes, then you appear to be an idiot. There is an unsubtle distinction between the two.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[dtachev]

My native language is Bulgarian, and double negatives, while logically incorrect, sound pretty natural to me. Actually, I had a hard time not using them in English.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you meant "shudder".

Forget "Sloppy", Think "Ineffective".

[gbulmash]

The rules of spelling and grammer serve multiple purposes. Aside from giving those trained in them an excuse to ridicule others, they help people to communicate effectively.

Another post said:
wot? i'm pretty sure even tho not "correct" every1 who reads this will understand wot i'm saying.

Yes, but it will take me 30-50% longer to read that and glean its meaning than it would if you wrote it correctly.

To put it in more "techie" terms: when you use bad grammar and bad spelling, you're asking me to run your shit code on my brain and take the performance hit to correct the errors at runtime.

The guy I quoted above is basically saying: "Sure, my code is crap and runs slow, but it gets the job done, so quit bitching." I don't know about you, but I consider that attitude to be really f'ing arrogant.

- Greg

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[mooingyak]

from an otherwise obvious native English speaker

Just wanted to emphasizes this point, as I'm something of a closet grammar nazi myself. I'm always more forgiving to those who don't sound like native speakers, except for when the change is particularly amusing.

Eg:

A Russian coder that I used to work with once wrote some C code that would generate SQL queries dynamically. In his comments inside the code, he described this as "Building SQL queries on a fly" which had me giggling quite a bit when I first read it.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

My point is that inventing the verb "to google" is possible, because it's a pure invention (and why not add nouns and verbs to the dictionary after all). But mangling regular grammar out of recognition isn't possible. "I should of stayed" is a sentence without a verb, therefore without sense. "I should have googled" has sense, given the definition of the recently-added, popular "to google" verb.

What I mean is, if you want to add a fifth wheel to a car, why not, if it works, but don't take away one of the 4 original wheels, because the car won't work anymore on 3.

Formal vs. Informal Communication

[PotatoMan]

There's a difference between bad grammar in a Slashdot post and bad grammar in the New York Times.

FWIW, my rule is that message boards, blogs, etc. are informal communications, and I ignore such personal defects as bad spelling, or Democratic political views.

I do, however, think that people who make their living from such communication (reporters, magazine writers) should meet minimum professional standards in published work. These are formal communications, and should be held to higher standards.

So posters to Slashdot (people like me) should be valued solely on their content and contribution.

Commander Taco, however, is engaged in journalism, and should learn the difference between 'then' and 'than'.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Herr Joebob]

it was still quite clear what he meant

Fair enough, especially in this case where the context was crystal clear. I think the upshot is that even if your point can be clearly inferred, the object of writing or speaking 'properly' comes down to "how can I communicate my point without distracting my listener with poorly formed language". AKA the Principle of Least Astonishment. :)

MOD PARENT FUNNY!

[Anonymous Coward]

You speaking good very.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[wwest4]

If you agree so strongly, then you'd probably appreciate having your post critiqued.

> spelling/grammar
This isn't a technically appropriate use of the solidus.

> pervasive throughout every aspect
This is a "needless redundancy" ;)

> coherence was no longer important...
I'm assuming that you wouldn't use the ellipsis in such a non-standard unless you already knew its actual purpose.

> when we as a society decided
You might want to learn of another punctuation mark we use: It's called the "comma," and it looks like this ---> ,

> I've known many techs that not only
It's preferable to use "who" instead of "that" for restricive clauses referring to persons.

> intolerant of errors),
The rule is that one uses either parentheses or commas to set off a phrase or clause from the rest of the sentence. Here, you're using one comma when two would be called for. That would be bad enough, if it weren't for the fact that you decided to make it a parenthetical phrase. If you use parentheses, you must use no additional punctuation. So this one is doubly wrong.

> his own native human language.
Surely, you mean spoken language.

I kid, but I also mean to illustrate a point. Your post was, for its own purposes, just fine. Complaints about your post, in the context of slashdot, would be tantamount to nothing less than pedantry. It takes a lot of effort to approach technical writing perfection, and it's common for people to disagree on how much effort is called for in any given circumstance. I would argue that the key skills required for a computer technician might imply that the foundation for achieving a very high technical proficiency as a writer lies within him; but technical writing is something that need not be too vigorously pursued.

It's also worth repeating the oft-heard notion that technical proficiency is not all it takes to be a good communicator.

If you don't care enough to try to present it well

[thesandtiger]

... then why should I care enough to read it?

I don't mind if someone has a few spelling mistakes or grammatical faux pas - we all make mistakes from time to time.

What I do hate - absofuckinglutely loathe - is shit like "u" instead of "you" and "4" instead of "for" and all that instant messenger shorthand when the person is clearly sitting at a regular keyboard and has plenty of time to compose a statement.

Rule of thumb: if you're IM'ing someone from your cell phone or trying to type quickly in a shoot-em-up, then fine, use shortcuts. If you're doing anything else - if you're not engaged in real-time communications - then at least make the effort to follow the rules.

Now, why am I so bugged by the "u" and "4" and all that shit? Because I'm somewhat dyslexic. When someone starts throwing stuff around like that, it takes me at least two or three times as long to parse it and make sense of it. I take the time to write clearly - I *agonize* over written communications I send out because I want to make absolutely sure that my point is getting across - it's important to me to know I'm understood.

So, if YOU don't treat what you're saying as important, then why the hell should I?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Hope Thelps]

it's/its - it's is it is, its is possesive, exclusion to the rule

The possessive pronoun "its" isn't an exception to a rule. It's just a word in its own right, like "his" and "her" and "your". I can see how the variations can be awkward though.

inflammable/inoperable - same prefix, but opposite meanings

This is actually a good example in two ways. Firstly, yes, the way the word "inflammable" doesn't appear to follow an expected rule is awkward, and the confusion it causes could even be dangerous. If there was a way to remove "inflammable" from the language then that would be great.

However, since the word "inflammable" is in fact used to mean pretty much the same as "flammable" then it's a good example of a situation where correcting someone's mistakes can be important. Allowing someone to continue to make the mistake of thinking that "inflammable" means "non-flammable" could actually prove dangerous.

Re:Wow!

[ezzzD55J]

I believe the quoted OP intended the "it" in "does it matter" to refer to "someone's work if devoid of common rules of grammar and usage", not to "you completely and unambiguously understand what they are saying/writing", although both are possible legitimate parsings.

Yes, that's how I parsed it eventually actually. That's why I said Yes, meaning, Yes, it matters if someone's work is devoid of common rules of grammar and usage (presuming this means some of those rules are broken by broken spelling or grammar).

Maybe I misparsed it, but as I said, a peculiar way to phrase things ;)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

"If the post is intelligible or the error changes the meaning of the post significantly, then there's your time to jump in with your corrections."

If the post is unintelligible.

People put down spelling to make their points.

[ps3udonym]

I find that when someone points out spelling or gramatical errors, it is almost always to try and discredit the ideas that the author is putting forth. So the question is, would you rather have new inventive and creative ideas from ALL sources, or is your mind so limited that it can only accept those with pretty spelling. PS: Oh, and I DO spell check and am very careful with all my writting.. AT WORK. There they pay me for it, on chat and forums they don't. End of story.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[DunbarTheInept]

(The US has been doing this with it's own version of english spellings for years). We don't have an organisation to petition

For example, with the word "organization" it's pronounced with a "zee" (or "zed" if you prefer) so why not spell it with one instead of a softer "s" that doesn't accurately record the sound.

Obligatory Tom Stoppard Quote

[SiO2]

"We are tied down to a language that makes up in obscurity what it lacks in style." --Tom Stoppard

SiO2

Re:Obligatory Tom Stoppard Quote

[h4rm0ny]

Rosencrantz: Do you think Death could possibly be a boat?
Guildenstern: No, no, no... Death is "not." Death isn't. Take my meaning? Death is the ultimate negative. Not-being. You can't not be on a boat.
Rosencrantz: I've frequently not been on boats.
Guildenstern: No, no... What you've been is not on boats.


-Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead.

Re:Obligatory Tom Stoppard Quote

[Zordak]

Best. Play. Ever.

Re:Obligatory Tom Stoppard Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Rosencrantz: Do you think Death could possibly be a boat?
Guildenstern: No, no, no... Death is "not." Death isn't. Take my meaning? Death is the ultimate negative. Not-being. You can't not be on a boat.
Rosencrantz: I've frequently not been on boats.
Guildenstern: No, no... What you've been is not on boats.
Me: Fuck off. Rosencrantz; have you frequently not been?
Me: Yeah. Didn't think so.

Re:Obligatory Tom Stoppard Quote

[h4rm0ny]

The moment I posted that, I remembered an even more appropriate quote:

Guildenstern: The old man thinks he's in love with his daughter.
Rosencrantz: Good God. We're out of our depths here.
Guildenstern: No, no, no! He hasn't got a daughter! The old man thinks he's in love with his daughter.
Rosencrantz: The old man is?
Guildenstern: Hamlet... in love... with the old man's daughter... the old man... thinks.
Rosencrantz: Ah.

I wonder what Stoppard would make of the debate here? Something amusing, probably.

Re:Obligatory Tom Stoppard Quote

[SeventyBang]

And ever means at any time. Past, present, future. I suppose there was no need for him to attend plays in the future since the best had already been viewed.

Re:Obligatory Tom Stoppard Quote

[h4rm0ny]

And ever means at any time. Past, present, future. I suppose there was no need for him to attend plays in the future since the best had already been viewed.

Extraordinary! What a remarkable command over the sequence of time. However if this is the best play ever, then I concur there will be no need for me to attend plays in the future, myself.

Re:Obligatory Tom Stoppard Quote

[IWorkForMorons]

I think this sums up why I could never watch more then a half hour of that movie before switching to video games...

Re:Obligatory Tom Stoppard Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

God, I love Tom Stoppard!

I only wish my VHS copy of "Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are Dead" wasn't in such poor condition. The tape is worn out and likely needs to be replaced with a DVD copy.

Now I'm off to find a DVD copy to replace the old VHS!

Yippe Yee, Yippee Yo!

Re:Obligatory Tom Stoppard Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your comment sums up why your parents should take your TV away and make you read more...

Re:Obligatory Tom Stoppard Quote

[boinger]

It just came out within the last couple of months on DVD.

I pre-ordered and got mine the day it was released.

yay!

Re:Obligatory Tom Stoppard Quote

[IWorkForMorons]

Um...actually, I can read just fine. But that, not to mention nearly all of Shakespeare's work, is just too mindnumbing to understand. I have a friend that thinks it's hilarious, but I find it torturous to watch.

Oh, yeah, and it's a movie. So it's not like you're reading in the first place...

Re:Obligatory Tom Stoppard Quote

[STrinity]

Oh, yeah, and it's a movie.

No, it's a play that was adapted into a surprisingly awful movie.So it's not like you're reading in the first place...

Funny, I have the script on my bookshelf....

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[squoozer]

Rather than criticize the less than perfect grammer and spelling of the parent I would like to offer him/her some encouragement.

I too was taught in a regime that felt that books should be chosen for their political correctness rather than their interest and by the time I left school I probably hadn't read more than half a dozen books.

I was quite interested in sci-fi and fantasy novels and decided to give Lord of the Rings a try. I don't mind admitting that it was a struggle. A huge struggle. My reading skills, or lack of them, meant that the book was a chore to read but I pressed on and eventually finished it. Despite the amount of time it had taken me to read it I had become absorbed in the story and really enjoyed it. The best part though was the sense of personal achievement I got from finishing it. At the time I never in my wildest dreams thought that I could finish a book of that length and complexity. Since then I have never not had a book on the go - I've got 6 on the go at the moment and have developed a taste for Thomad Hardy.

What I am trying to say is that although the modern school system is letting kids down left right and centre you can teach yourself English. Read a few books that you enjoy and you will quickly find that you won't be able to put books down. That will make reading the tripe that the school gives you so much easier.

language evolves

[Andronoid]

What many people have pointed out is that we use bad grammar simply because most of the prescriptive rules of grammar come from efforts to distinguish affluent speaker from "commoners" and have no real proven benefit as far as "effectively communicating." In fact there is more of a reason to use "poor" (in the prescriptive sense) grammar rather than "good" grammar because poor grammar can be written and understood more quickly good grammar. For example, in some circles "ur" is written and understood much more quickly "you're" or "your". Even if there is some cost due to confusing "you're" with "your" when typing "ur", "ur" might still end up having an overall higher net benefit than the other two words. In fact I wouldn't be suprised if "ur" some day becomes the dominant form of both words. My point is that language evolves organically and there is not, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be a "correct" form of any language (just as the there will never be a "most highly evolved species") simply because there in no priviledged vantage point from which to view language. If we followed prescriptive we'd still be pronouncing make as "mach" and for no good reason (well asside from the spelling thing).

Re:Language Evolves

[computational super]

You mispelled "certainly".

Some common mistakes

[nickos]

I'm doing good
should usually be
I'm doing well
Doing good is what do-gooders do :)

I'll write you
should be
I'll write to you
As an example of why this is wrong, think of the statement I'll write my name. When spoken, I'll write you sounds like I'll write "you".

I said "Abracadabra."
should be
I said "Abracadabra".
Adding periods to the inside of the quotes changes the quoted text. As an example of why this is wrong, think of the phrase Click the button labelled "Start."

Re:Some common mistakes

[skelly33]

Some of these "mistakes" are contingent upon where one receives their education. I, for example, have been repeatedly instructed to always include punctuation within a trailing quote. An example of this in use where the reader should recognize it does not affect the meaning of the quoted text is:

"Say hello," he demanded coldly, "to my little friend!"

Without the narrative interruption in the middle, the quote would read, "Say hello to my little firend!" Note the absence of the comma from the uninterrupted quote? The comma does not change the meaning of the quoted text any more than the trailing punctuation does.

Even so, I believe your "Start." example is simply a misuse of quotes, bad grammar/punctuation, if you will, in that it should not have been at the end of a sentence, or should have used some other means such as italicizing to represent the quoted text.

That aside, I would just like to add that about as common (and distracting) as spelling/grammatical errors are bastardizations of common phrases. "I could care less," for example. The phrase is, "I couldn't care less." People just seem to carelessly throw around words without thinking before they speak(/write).

Perhaps the movement for political correctness was born out of this mess.

Re:Some common mistakes

[nickos]

Sorry to reply to my own post, but here's another one:

a bunch of water
should be
a load of water or loads of water
You can only say there's a bunch of something when it's a plural. Say I wrote a load of code or I wrote a bunch of lines of code, but never I wrote a bunch of code.

Re:Some common mistakes

[nickos]

To be more specific it's when the noun is countable and plural.

Re:Some common mistakes

[dpu]

My rule of thumb regarding punctuation within quotation marks is very simple: if I'm writing dialogue, the punctuation goes inside the quotes, otherwise it's ouside.

Perhaps the rules are different in different countries (I'm from Canada), but books by Guy Gavriel Kay (Canadian), Stephen King (American), and Douglas Adams (British) all show punctuation being inside quotation marks during dialogue.

One difference I just noticed is that the Stephen King books use double-quotes, while the Canadian and British books use single-quotes.

Re:Some common mistakes

[skelly33]

"One difference I just noticed is that the Stephen King books use double-quotes, while the Canadian and British books use single-quotes."

I only use double-quotes if the text is interpreted; using single-quotes makes it literal. :^)

Re:Some common mistakes

[nickos]

"Say hello," he demanded coldly, "to my little friend!"

Without the narrative interruption in the middle, the quote would read, "Say hello to my little firend!" Note the absence of the comma from the uninterrupted quote? The comma does not change the meaning of the quoted text any more than the trailing punctuation does.

But there is a difference between:
"Say hello to my little friend!"
and
"Say hello, to my little friend!"
The comma creates a pause and unnecessarily breaks up the sentance.

Re:Some common mistakes

[mjkjedi]

I said "Abracadabra."
should be
I said "Abracadabra".

This is not a mistake. The first way is American, the second way is British. (I don't know about other English-speaking countries, but I assume they follow the British style.) I agree that the second way makes more sense, but the first way is not incorrect.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Red Flayer]

Keeping it simple refers to not using uber-elite syntactical structures and vocabulary with far to many unnecessary modifiers to elucidate a point when it is just as easy to say it cleanly and simply.

On Geeks and Grammar

[CodeBuster]

While I agree with the basic assertion, that hackers and technically minded people generally have poor grammar and usage habits, I also believe that the usage, or misusage as the case may be, is not always due to lack of understanding or knowledge of the grammatically correct way of expression. Rather, it has become common in the technical profession, primarily to facilitate efficiency in communication, to truncate certain words or adopt abbreviated phrasing, especially in informal communications such as e-mail, IRC chat, and instant messaging conversations. The desire to streamline communication in "geek" conversations is not a new phenomenon, but it has become more obvious to outsiders in recent years, with the explosion of the Internet into the mainstream, than it was previously. It is also common for hackers to inject programming terms in their normal speaking as shorthand for more verbose English equivalents. For example, I have heard some geeks qualify their questions with the phrase "?P" which is taken from the Prolog language to indicate a conditional predicate such as "Pizza, P?" instead of "Would you like to go for Pizza?". The point is that languages and usage evolve over time in dynamic fashion as the needs and priorities of speakers change. Those who appoint themselves as Arbiters or the "pure" language and sit in judgment of everyone else get modded Troll and rightly so. The language belongs to all of the speakers, not just the grammar Nazis and the intellectual elitists who wish to mummify the language by wrapping it up in a static and unchanging form.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[SIGALRM]

Sorry, but I just fucking HATE TripMaster Monkey.

I'd like him alot better if he didn't use l33t ASCII art in his sig.

Lebalebanon

[Ranger]

Do hackers and geeks just not care about communicating effectively?

That's H4X0rs and g33ks you insensitive clod. Besides if the leader of the free world can invent new countries like Lebalebanon, who am I to judge?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[virtual_mps]

In these types of conversations abbreviations, shorthand, and even (shutter) l33tspeak are the norm.

shutter? like on a window? (Warning: if you're going to be a language nazi you need to proofread...)

It's a two cultures thing

[monopole]

So much of American education is split across two cultures: one technical, one literate. There is little impetus to take courses in writing for the technically inclined, but in the same manner, a considerable proportion of culturally inclined individuals are technically illiterate. It's far more embarassing to be found ignorant of Shakespeare than C or multivariable calculus. This lack of diversity in education is actually much more severe with Physics majors ignorant of EE and Chemists who cannot program.

On top of this, a disproportionate numer of technical people have dislexia, Aspergers syndrome , ADHD or other learning disabilities (myself included). Due to the inability of the educational system to handle such problems, such indiviuals have to compensate by a combination of focusing on their strenghts and using self taught remedies to their problems.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[coronaride]

whenever I come across them, my brain is forced correct the mistake before going on

The moment I saw this article I just knew that the pedantry would be flowing like wine; so far, it's been wine from my own cellar. Anyhow, you're going to kick yourself for that one, now, aren't you? :)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[bdowd]

Language is all about communication. You are communicating much more than your thoughts and ideas. When you use incorrect grammar, you are telling me that, just possibly, your thought patterns are as mal-formed and ill-conceived as your expression of them. If you can't explain your ideas coherently; in a cogent manner which at least sounds intelligent, I am not very likely to put much effort into decoding what you really have to say.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[general_re]

...what you're left with is "So any nuances...is lost to most readers, when it should...

Meh, dropped the close-quote. Oh, well. ;)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[KarMann]

It has nothing to do with the topic being discussed, and makes you sound like a show off intellectual.

If showing off were the primary motivation, then why would I (and, I suspect, many others) always go AC when making such corrections? I mean, I know it's because of down-modding, but going AC pretty well blows away your supposed motive, doesn't it?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[myowntrueself]

"If you studied latin as I did, and have a good knowledge of how the language evolved, then you can glean extra meaning from words."

That might give *you* ideas about the 'extra meaning of words' but that doesn't necessarily reflect the intended meaning of the other person using it.

They may not have your 'specialised knowledge' and be using the word as per 'common usage' not etymological history.

In other words, your 'extra meaning' could very easily be (effectively) *imaginary* and confined to your head.

The problem is not that bad

[kahei]

There's a lot of bad English around, and there's a lot of bad English around in the tech world, but I'd say it's concentrated toward the bottom of the hierarchy.

The more important someone's opinion or research is, the more likely they are to be the kind of person who'd express it properly. None of the great figures of IT is known for poor English. Malapropisms and approximate grammar are common as heck in writing in general, but not at all common in top-quality research or important corporate documents.

The fact is, that the people who are likely to rise high enough to be putting their name on top-quality research or vital strategic reports are the people who are likely to learn to use good English. The people who spend their time making messy, dull, near-incomprehensible 'sentences' and then loudly proclaiming that there is no correct standard of English and that nobody has the right to criticize them are found often on Slashdot, but not often in positions of importance.

Politics is an exception.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[mooingyak]

Now I wish I hadn't blown through the last of my mod points this morning because you earned some here... except this is my third comment in this article so I guess it doesn't matter.

Anyway, excellent observation. I will use that next time someone doesn't understand why I care so much.

Nothing has changed.

[Moken]

The fact that tech people have grammar skills that are lacking is not the result of any new trend in society other than the internet itself. The internet allows people of all educational levels, nationalities and languages to "speak" (write) in millions of places.

In the past, the only places you'd see people write extensively were the places that trained writers would write. Newspapers, published books, newsletters, magazines... that sort of thing. Joe Blow the mechanic or the farmer never got criticized on his grammar because no one ever saw him write. The snail mail letters he sent were of little note because he was generally writing to a single person or group of people that would be sympathetic.

Nowadays, we have average people using computers, asking questions and posting opinions, so their terrible grammar and spelling is seen by everyone. Add this to the fact that there are millions of them, and you'll see the cause of this seeming epidemic.

The bottom line is that the importance that people put on grammar and spelling hasn't changed... most people still don't care, but now these people have their writings read. This is a side-effect of giving these people voice on the internet, not of these people becoming mongoloids.

This is, of course, not counting the insane amount of abbreviation that occurs on the net, due to the fact that we're typing rather than speaking.

Thanks!

[Spy der Mann]

Thanks! :) We need more users like you, who point out not only others' errors, but also their corrections.

I call bullshit!

[MrCranky]

My inlaws are both German and learned english by watching TV after they emigrated to Canada in the 50s. They both always use of incorrectly instead of have.

Re:Wow!

[BewireNomali]

By purposefully ignoring grammar and/or spelling when communicating, you're making things easier for yourself at the expense of requiring more effort from your readers. That's at the very least impolite and quite possibly arrogant and downright rude.


Well said. I'll buy that.

Purely subjective...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they not realize that a mediocre command of written English makes them appear less intelligent? Am I missing something here?

Yes you are. Do you not realise that utilising American spellings make you sound less intelligent?

I say, is that Big Ben I hear? Must be time for tiffin! Toodle-pip!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Clantiery a qibtlauonese hophiestys.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[supersocialist]

It sortof proves its own point very nicely, though. It's elegant in it's... inelegance.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[EvanED]

Here's the problem with that. The 'mushification' of English (or language in general) means that it becomes more difficult to communicate precisely.

For instance, I just went on a rant, as I periodically do, to someone about the difference between the abbreviations e.g. (which means "for example") and i.e. (which does not, and instead means "that is" or "in other words"). Consider this for a moment.

If everyone knew and used these abbreviations correctly, there's no problem. However, there are times when someone uses "i.e." and it's unclear if they are using it correctly or incorrectly. Mushification killing unambiguity*.

Then when I'm writing something, I wonder -- can I use "i.e." and know that people will understand that I'm not referring to an example? The distinction is often important. So I decide that I better not, and substitute "that is" in its place. Mushification killing conciseness.

* This appears to not be a word. However, I feel confidant that you know what I mean. And besides, I have already used "mushification" a couple times, so it's not as if I'm sticking to completly well-formed English.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[h4rm0ny]

Your logic breaks down in that the sets of technically competent people and pretty girls overlap to the same proportion as any other unrelated groups. That is to say the probability of a given person being both techy and pretty is smaller than them being just techy or just pretty, but of X techy people, the same proportion should be pretty as in the general population.

If this is so, then there would be no reason to think that techy people should be unattractive. If anything, I'd say brains and looks are more commonly found together. And if you're talking attractiveness rather than physical features, then they certainly are.

Now the gender balance is something else, but hopefully society is becoming more open to gender blindness in the technical fields.

You are missing something

[lawpoop]

"Do hackers and geeks just not care about communicating effectively? Do they not realize that a mediocre command of written English makes them appear less intelligent?"

I would bet that internet communication is viewed as less formal than other situations where you have to write. What you have on the internet is an opportunity to see the writings of technology oriented people -- scientists, programmers, engineers, geeks in general -- whereas before there was no clearinghouse for the writings of those not linguistically inclined. A lack of appreciation of the rules of spelling does not make them look bad in their own circles. Spelling and small grammatical errors rarely confuse the reader as to the actual meaning that the writer intended -- to communicate effectively, you should be a fluent writer. There is a difference between making mistakes and making better sentences. A lot of writers just aren't good. There aren't necessarily grammatical mistakes, it's just not good writing.

" Am I missing something here?

Hackers value new technology and progress. Here's the bottom line that you are missing: Modern English spelling is an old and crufty system. It's hard to learn and hard to maintain. You can't figure out common mispellings by sounding the word out (otherwise there wouldn't be a common mispelling). Geeks are appreciative of the 'new and improved' -- which do exist, despite the occasional false billing -- so, it's no surprise that they have little respect from a relic of the Victorian era. In the US, I don't think it's been update much since Noah Webster.

Re:You are missing something

[skelly33]

"Modern English spelling is an old and crufty system."

Perhaps you would be interested in the writings of Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens). Take his following piece, for example:

• A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling by "Mark Twain"
  
  For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s," and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g / j" anomali wonse and for all.
  
  Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c," "y," and "x" - bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez - tu riplais "ch," "sh," and "th" rispektivli.
  
  Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
  

There are other such wonderful ideas on reform of the English language too. Perhaps you can support their causes.

As for me, I'm perfectly content with English; I much prefer it to the conjugations found in other European tongues.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[DunbarTheInept]

now most of the words you typed aren't really SPELLED wrong, but just typed very poorly (same letters, just mixed up

Given that the order of the letters IS part of the spelling, that seems like a strange statement to make. After all, I don't think you could claim that "war" and "raw" are two words that are spelled the same.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[|/|/|||]

and even (shutter) l33tspeak

What, are you a camera? ;)

I agree that not being able to use english correctly will end up being a detriment to many of today's youths. Once they enter the "real world" where most people use concise language, they're going to be either misunderstood or ignored.

I see posts on message boards occasionally that are all shorthand, or that don't use any punctuation, or that are in all caps, and I skip over them. It's not worth the effort of trying to read something so illegible. Maybe this is seen as a plus - some sort of obfuscation - but I think it just ends up alienating the author.

Graduate school

[Black Cardinal]

I think part of it is the integration of students across international boundaries at university. This is even more true if you go to graduate school. For example, when I was in graduate school studying electrical engineering (in the USA), more than half of my fellow students weren't native English speakers.

Since the curriculum focuses on technical aspects, and not our English, and so much time is spent with people with varying commands of English grammar, everyone's English gets kind of averaged together. I know my grammar was more "correct" before I went to college than afterward, because I had gotten used to the "lower" level of English used amongst the students in the much less homogenized environment (compared to high school). We all tend to pick up habits of speech from around us.

Now that I've worked at a major tech company for about 10 years, I routinely use silly idiomatic phrases like "bandwidth" to talk about my time and preface everything with the word "so," simply because they're habits learned from the company culture.

Speak to me in the King's English!

[globaljustin]

Do hackers and geeks just not care about communicating effectively?

Nice use of the loaded question. Of course they do. Hackers and geeks built, maintain, and teach others how to use the INTERNET, quite possibly the biggest communications advancement since the movable-type printing press

Do they not realize that a mediocre command of written English makes them appear less intelligent? Am I missing something here?

Why does missspellling a word make its use "mediocre"? It could be that people who are truly at the cutting edge of communications technology have realized that a wrong vowel here and an improper grammar there do not significantly or even noticably alter the message...unless the person reading is...um...overlyanalytical.

In the end, it is more efficient, and therefore, more effective to overlook some small, time saving errors in a message.

Some might say that geeks and hackers are allowed to communicate by their own rules in the digital reality that they created.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Hope Thelps]

You can't always drop it, but it can always be replaced with another word.

"Peter got shot" becomes "Peter was shot".

So 'got' is never required.

Similarly, you could always (I think) replace "ate" with "consumed", but I'm not sure there's any great significance to being able to do that. The same goes for many other words. I think I must be missing the point.

Quote from Andrew Johnson

[Black Perl]

"It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word."

--Andrew Johnson (American 17th US President (1865-69).

While I mostly agree with your post

[lheal]

... there are a few small point I'd like you to consider:

I've known many techs [1]that not only didn't care about the rules of the English language, [2]they actually regarded their ignorance of such rules as a perverse badge of honor, as if mastering the intricacies of the language [3]was somehow beneath them.

1. Unless your tech acquaintances were of the non-human variety, referring to them as "that" is not standard. "Who" covers both singular and plural, and should have been used in place of "that".
2. By using "they", you create a run-on sentence with "techs ... didn't care" and "they ... regarded". I suggest "language, but actually ...".
3. The phrase "as if mastering" introduces a subjunctive clause. In a subjunctive case, always use "were", not "was".

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[justforaday]

I think many of us here understand that language evolves. The fact that there is no single guidebook that governs the English language, however, does not give people the right to toss out any and all rules that do exist, as several comments here would seem to suggest.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[KarMann]

If it's already that obvious what you're going to say, then why bother to say it at all, if everyone already knows it at that point? It certainly drops the signal-to-noise ratio, or bits of entropy per word, however you like to look at it, either by redundancy or by increased noise (i.e., saying things backwards one time).

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[MynockGuano]

It still stands that "of" is not a verb. "They have won the mach" will become, "They of won the match?"

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Organisation is acceptable British spelling.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[ezzzD55J]

"You began your statement with a parenthetical. You use nothing but sentence fragments. Your essay has no thesis statement and no topic sentences, althogh the latter doesn't matter because there are no paragraphs. You capitalized a word in the middle of a sentence. You quoted someone else but did not use quotation marks."

I won't nitpick on the althogh. In fact I won't respond to your nitpicks at all, but I do think they're a funny attempt ;) It took me longer to nitpick your post than it took for you to contradict the post you replied to. Astoundingly, you proved that poster's point.

CONTENT matters. STYLE matters less. To " completely and unambigously" in the passage you quote, I would add "effortlessly." I should not have to exert myself to understand what you're saying. A difficult concept may require effort, but parsing your words shouldn't. If it does, then you are an idiot. If you make what I perceive to be stupid mistakes, then you appear to be an idiot. There is an unsubtle distinction between the two.

It seems to me you are arguing for me. Bogus spelling and grammar take more effort to parse. As another poster pointed out significantly: especially in public forums, it is rude not to pay attention to detail, which includes spelling and grammar (and, to an extent, style, IMHO), because you're writing something once that will be read many times. Any smear in the article is a smear to N people; to readers thinking that you realize your posting is being read by N people, it's an N-fold smear because apparently you don't even respect each reader enough to give them a 1/Nth correct post. I hope it makes a little sense. And that I spelled 'apparently' correctly.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[cyxxon]

What native english speakers always seem to forget in this special case is that non-native english speakers (like me) usually have to reread the whole sentence if "should of" occured in it. If just does not make any sense to use these two words there, when you'd actually expect a verb or a verb and an auxiliary...

Re: Racist?

[the_gain_card]

Well because 'black english' is recognized as its own dialect. Often 'aks' is said instead of 'ask' for example. But why is it racist? because the oppressed minorities don't get good education for the most part; they are not privy to language lessons that teach them what a compound-complex sentence is; or what a gerund is; they don't learn to speak the king's english, so to speak. So holding all people to such a standard, which was created and written down by mostly dead white folks, and more men than women for that matter, can be seen as racist as you are assuming they aren't speaking to your standard and SHOULD BE, when in fact they are speaking the english they learned in whatever environment they came up in.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Adult film producer]

Sounds like a plan to me, now how do I spell lieutenant with the F in it ? Leftenant ? Do americans pronounce it with the F anymore ?

Re:You are so wrong, grammer is not important.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is all about snobbery. People who think they are better than other people SUCK!

No, the reason why the Italians are doing that is because they respect you took the effort to try to learn their language, even though you didn't need to. That isn't an accomplishment to take lightly.

But if you are Italian and yet you speak like a foreigner, people will assume you're either mentally handicapped, or perhaps that you're just too stupid to be worth talking to.

You should speak your mother tongue correctly. Anything less is an insult to your countrymen, and an insult to your intelligence.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Em Adespoton]

"Got" is the past tense of to get, so "You've got mail" really means that in the past, you went out and fetched your mail (The have is a modifier used to put it in the perfect). Compare this to "You have to get mail," where the "to" signifies that the verb is "get" and "have" is an imperative.

There are some interesting articles out on how this sad state of affairs is prevalent in the business administration world too -- many memos sent out in businesses are grammatically incorrect enough that they require all recipients to have a face to face meeting with the sender in order to actually figure out what exactly was meant.

(As for "exactly was meant" vs "was meant exactly," this is the sort of grammatical rule that can [and is] changing in the English language).

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[shadowpuppy]

I for one have noticed a decrease in my english skills over the years. Which is not something, I'm exactly proud of. They used be be fairly good. I suspect it's due to lack of decent practice.

As for being annoyed about being corrected, I have a partial explaination. Geeks tend to take part in online debates. As a general rule of thumb, the debate has degraded to pointless bickering once someone brings in spelling and grammar since that is generally what the debate is not originally about. As such if someone tries to correct me in the middle of something, it's a distraction.

On the other hand many of us don't like being corrected at all since it implies that we are wrong which we also don't like. Sometimes you just have to bite your tounge and accept being wrong.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[justforaday]

...and even (shutter) l33tspeak are the norm.

What? Were you taking a picture or something?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[coronaride]

Perfectly good medical term?

2 /'rE-"tärd/ often offensive : a retarded person; also : a person held to resemble a retarded person in behavior

That's the only noun definition for retard and it's neither perfect, good, or medical.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[ezzzD55J]

Keeping it simple refers to not using uber-elite syntactical structures and vocabulary with far to many unnecessary modifiers to elucidate a point when it is just as easy to say it cleanly and simply.

Couldn't agree more.

;)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[calethix]

There are 11 types of people in the world: those who can count in binary, and those who can't.

Kind of off topic but since this thread is about giving people unwanted criticism, shouldn't that be 10 types of people? :)

Anyway, I'm with the grandparent. Computer languages have far less exceptions than English. I have a huge list of confusing bits of the English language at work. The only one I can remember off the top of my head is "The buck does funny things when it sees the does". Same spelling, entirely different meaning based on the context.

I guess the assignment/equals operator issue of some languages would fall into that type of category but that's the only one I can think of.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[falconwolf]

Sometimes Chinese looks much more attractive as a language....

Yeap, all 66,000 ideograms. Even better is Mongolian with it's 70,000+ ideograms.

Ne how, ne how ma?

Falcon

Consistency for Geeks and/or Hackers

[0011000101100]

Most of the time geeks and/or hackers dont care about spelling because what they do most of the day does not call for it. I have never been good at spelling ,but I am not to bad with the grammer. Unfortunatly In programming grammer is not needed ,but neither is spelling. I know from working at a consolting company that that the variables ,constants and what nots have very long names and very discriptive names. The reason for this is so that anyone can follow the code and know what is being excecuted. This is partly due to the fact that most projects require more than one person to work on them and everyone needs to be able to know what is going on.

More often than not if someone like to program they program at home,like myself. In this case I don't and I would go as far to say that many dont care what thier code looks like or if words are spelled correctly. I remember in high school in computer science class leaning over and asking a friend how to spell something. One day I was just really off and couldn't spell anything and what he made me realise is that when you program it's not so much spelling correctly as it is being consistant in the spelling. So many

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[h4rm0ny]

"I dislike the French because because they do not speak English, but I abhor the Americans because they speak English badly."

-Winston Churchill.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

But... but if we proofread how will we get FP?!

Here's a clue: ever notice how TripMasterMonkey manages to post page-long, perfectly-proofread responses exactly one minute after every article appears on slashdot?

He's a subscriber. Pay some money and you, too can get +5 first-posts every time!

Pull it out and let's move on.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did the editors even allow this post?

Don't you hate it when you want real information exchange and some stick-up-the-ass individual screws it all up by nagging about minor technicalities?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it is an extension of the word 'organise' which is pronounced with an 's'.

Do you think the plural of the word 'house' should be spelled 'houzez'?

Grammar != spelling

[Kidaz]

I realised, after writing many reports in my final year at uni, that my grammar is not what I want it to be, i.e., what it SHOULD be.

By having poor grammar, and claiming those who criticize it (whether constructively or not) are grammar Nazi's, is tantamount to saying "my valuation (or lack thereof) of grammar is more important than you critict!". This is arrogant.

My personal opinion is that there are more people who value good grammar, or find poor grammar a hinderance, than those who do not. And what's more, not by a small margin.

Also, realise that grammar and spelling are different. I think that those who have medical conditions such as dyslexia (I think I have a very mild form of this) should be treated more leniantly in spelling cases but not grammar. Anyone with a medical knowledge capable of backing this up?

P.S., read "Eats, shoots, and leaves".

Spelling doesn't matter!

[Anonymous Coward]

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrgde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprometnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Their, there, too, to, two, ... and on. The English language needs fixing. Why bother learning stupid stuff.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

His logic didn't break down, just your understanding of his post. He said pretty much the same thing as you did.

Strict rules inhibit evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

It's ironic to complain about "improper English" when the language itself is an "improper" amalgam of various other languages. And what is proper English now would have been considered improper or rude to English folks centuries ago.

Regardless, language evolves. To inhibit that evolution by the enforcement of [whose?] rules is mostly, if not purely, an act of power -- not about "good communication".

That being said, the existence of language standards is probably a good thing. It's enforcement that inevitably transforms the spirit of guidelines into tyranny of laws.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[DunbarTheInept]

Whooosh - right over your head. That was the whole POINT. The poster brought up the way the US English has altered spelling from the British English, and then serendipitously used an example of just such a word in the very next sentence.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a good way to remember. Whenever I read "i.e." or "e.g." the voice in my head says, repectively, "In othEr words" or "for EGg-zample."

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[TheWizardOfCheese]

If someone's written work is devoid of some common rules of grammar and usage, does it matter if you completely and unambiguously understand what they are saying/writing?

Well, the first problem is that you are begging the question: why do you think it is possible to write clearly and unambiguously without recourse to conventional spelling, grammar, and usage? I think this is a highly doubtful proposition, because even clear and correct writing is often ambiguous. When I do understand bad writing, it is because I am smarter and have worked harder than the person who wrote it (remember, we are talking about native speakers, not geniuses who don't know the language.) Then too, bad writing is rude because it conveys the implicit message that time you save in writing is worth more than time I save in reading. But why do you think I should bother to read something you can't be bothered to write?

I think you are also mistaken in assuming that the only drawback of bad writing is that other people can't understand you. Literacy is a system, and if you are a bad writer you are unlikely to be a very good reader. Consider the locution I employed in my first paragraph: "begging the question." This phrase derives from a meaning of "begging" that is no longer current, namely "taking for granted." Because this is an antiquated meaning, many people interpret the phrase as "begging for the question." What's wrong with that? After all, language is continuously changing. Certainly. But if you don't even know the old meaning, and make a point of refusing to learn it, you have cut yourself off from the writings of earlier generations; writings that in many cases are more interesting than what you have to say now (that, after all, is why they have been preserved.) For my part, I believe that most people who misuse phrases like this do so in ignorance and are tacitly acknowledging my point: they have adopted the phrase, without understanding it, in hopes that by emulating better writing, their own will be more favourably received.

Little Brown Book

[gadlaw]

Look it up on Amazon. From the description. From the Back Cover Authoritative and accessible, The Little Brown Handbook helps writing students find what they need and then use what they find. One of the best-selling handbooks on the market, it provides comprehensive coverage of writing, research and grammar, with detailed discussions of critical thinking and argument, using computers and the Internet for writing and research, the latest guidelines for citing sources correctly in MLA, APA, CMS, CSE and COS styles, and writing in the disciplines.

Re:Little Brown Book

[Trifthen]

When I was in IB in High School, we used Writers Inc. I had one of the old yellow hardback copies that don't seem to be around anymore, and I can't find it anywhere. Very good book on all various esoterica pertaining to writing.

Anal retentive; Anal expulsive

[Anonymous Coward]

Even the most anal retentive people have some anal expulsive characteristics. Maybe that's your answer.

let me guess

[subtropolis]

You worked in the bindery department running the folding machine.

Non-fonetik langwudge

[CODiNE]

Eye thinc part uv the problem iz the very nachur of the englis langwudge.

Being a student of Spanish, Japanese and sign language... I notice that spelling is simply not a problem for a large portion of the world's population.

Also, perhaps it's just a sign of my ignorance and non-native skills in Japanese and Spanish, but the other languages seem more rigid and structured as to how a normal sentence flows. With phonetic languages, if you know how to say the word you already know how to spell it. The exceptions to the rule are usually pretty rare and uncommon, but everyone knows how to handle them. In English the exceptions are the rule... it's very hard to have an easy, clear, systematic set of rules for daily speech. Goodness, when you take an English class in this country, they hardly teach you English! The teachers frequently say "Well, does that SOUND right? No? Then you shouldn't write it that way". You have NO IDEA how frustrating that kind of talk is for deaf students or non-native speakers, it's excruciating and there's no escaping it.

Honestly I think English is the most screwed up language there ever was... being such a mix of various vocabularies and grammatical structures from other languages. If you believe in the whole tower of Babel story it kind of makes sense that English is a "man-made" language but the others had a bit of organization at the start. Of course if you don't believe that story it's a load of bull to you, yet still the other languages tend to stay more true to themselves.

Also I think to an extent in other countries (especially Europe) there's a greater exposure to other languages. So the tendency in school is to learn your own language well so you can understand others better. Here it's sort of like "Well you already know how to speak, we're just going to show you how to write those words down." I imagine learning a bit of other languages while young gives one a greater understanding of different linguistic concepts and they wouldn't feel as abstract as they might to someone with just one language.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[fatalwall]

Sounds to me like have no clue what your talking about. I myself have improved my spelling and grammer by the use of the internet, computers, tecknology, ect. Using instant messaging has given me a deeper respect for grammer. Now is it that most people dont care or are they just embarased that they can grasp a language thats used around them every day? I myself used to get angry when people would point out my spelling flaws, but luckily i have managed to accept that I will never be a perfect speller. You shouldn't be concerned about shorthand. Its really nothing to be afread of when you realize how many anagrams we use for names of products and such. Please dont call us lazy idiots for speaking in a manner that you have a problem understanding. How would you feel if we called you a stupid for waisting hard drive space or bandwith by typing in what you consider english. Please look at both sides before you critise people. As both groups in this case should be considered ignorant.

Poor grammar

[Anonymous Coward]

The poster is correct: poor language skills make you look like a dope.

On the other hand, complaining about the grammar of others is annoying, impolite, and unproductive.

Teach your children well.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel this is the wrong forum for your 'corrections' and 'suggestions.'

Exactly. Ask yourself, would you correct someone who said 'should of' instead of 'should have' when they were talking to you? then why on a forum (and if you answered Yes, how many times have you been asaulted for it?)

Ever considered..

[SlashDread]

to -change- your incomprehensible spelling and impossible grammer rules?
The Queens English, and to lesser extend American English, is a stagnating monstrous multi-headed beast which is pronounced radically different than the miriads of spelling possibilities imply.
No wonder English speaking countries have staggering heights of dislexia. Sjees, even Sheakespeare spelled his name wrong.
These misspellers? They are modernizers! Listen to them!
He, Im Dutch. I can say things like this.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[david.given]

Frankly, I really dont want your critique of my grammar and spelling skills. If the post is intelligible or the error changes the meaning of the post significantly, then there's your time to jump in with your corrections.

Your text is your voice. It doesn't convey information about what you said, it conveys information about you --- it's the equivalent of your accent. If you write sloppily, you'll sound as if you're speaking sloppily, which means that people will associate what you said with sloppiness, which is probably not what you want if you want to be taken seriously...

I know it shouldn't happen, but it does, in just the same way that people associated educated accents with intelligence and working-class accents with stupidity.

Personally, I don't think you have a problem --- you come across coherently and precisely and you're not slurring at all. However, uh... I think in that last sentence you might have meant 'unintelligable'...

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

On the subject of things that don't make sense:

One of my pet peeves is when people use "could care less" to mean "couldn't care less". Anyone who does this simply isn't thinking about what they are saying.

It doesn't matter how common the incorrect usage becomes, it will always be incorrect.

I have ONE WORD for you!

[Famanoran]

Lysdexia.

I'm a chronic dyslexic. I assume a fair portion of other geeks are as well.

For the life of me, I can't remember whether "defence" is "defence" or "defense", yet I speak NZ English which is more like UK English.

I know definitely is spelt with an 'i', but a dysloxic moment may make me use an 'a'.

I don't just get it on a letter basis as well.
Back when I was younger, I used to frequently scramble entire sentences up. Hell, I used to skip whole words, or even three or four at a time.

It's gotten better as I've got older - I've made a concious effort for read what I write more, but it still happens.

English courses for computer science students

[Hannah E. Davis]

Last term, I had to take a required computer science course called Communications. The purpose of this course was, at least in theory, to teach computer science students how to communicate effectively since aside from first year English (which barely counts), very few had ever taken any kind of university-level English course. Unfortunately, this meant it was basically English For Dummies.

Let me put it this way: on the first day of class, some pretty young girl piped up and asked in a bewildered voice, "Um, professor, what's a verb?" This worried me slightly, as I had gleaned such gems of knowledge sometime in primary school, but the prof, unphased, replied brightly, "Oh, don't worry, I forget things like that too!"

From that class, I gained little but an easy A+ and the knowledge that most computer science really do live up to their reputation as people who can't write to save their lives. Why is this? I'm not entirely sure, but I have a few theories. The main one is just that computer science types simply don't get a chance to take real English classes that force them to learn how to write properly. Just as we can't expect anyone to come out of an Introduction-To-Computing-For-Arts-Students knowing how to really use a computer, we can't expect anyone to come out of an Introduction-To-English-Communication-For-Computer -Science-Students class knowing how to properly use the English language.

Also, writing good English is often a style thing. Many hackers may be obsessed with getting something working properly (and efficiently), but the indentation of the code and the clarity of the comments/error messages may be viewed as being of relatively little importance. In this case, coding style can be seen as equivalent to spelling/grammar. Both increase readability and maintainability, but a piece of [bug-free] code with no indentation will still compile and run, and similarly, an research paper with terrible spelling can still put forward a theory.

Disclaimer: I have noticed that posting on Slashdot, almost without fail, makes me look immensely stupid. Thus, please ignore any glaring grammar/spelling mistakes in this post as they do not reflect my real writing skills.

Different brain function.

[Fuzzball963]

I don't have ADHD, but I do have Aspergers Syndrome, which also only recently has been taken more seriously as a mental condition. It doesn't affect my spelling and grammar but I do find it very very hard to concentrate for long periods of time on some things, simply because there's so many other interesting things to see and think about. My brain is forever going :). Makes it hard to sleep some nights :) This means a lot of times when I'm doing an instant message my brain is usually on autopilot, I think about what I'm saying but not about how to spell it necessarily :). Most times I'm pretty good with at leat getting within hailing distance of the English language though.

Correction

[Koriani]

" ... Mostly, this seems to manifest itself as varying degrees of poor spelling and grammar: 'definately' instead of 'definitely'; 'should of' instead of 'should have'; and I even see the names of products and companies misspelled from time to time."

As long as we're being nitpicky. . . there's a rule in English grammar called 'parallelism'.
This sentence doesn't follow the rule correctly. Instead of "...and I even see the names ...", it would be more correct to write "even the names ..." With this correction, the last item in your list is written in the same 'form' as the first two.

Sorry, I missed the rest of your message due to your 'mediocre' command of the English language.

Communicate better

[rjethmal]

I'm not a native English speaker. However, I often find I can communicate much more clearly than many of my friends, colleagues, and acquaintances who are native speakers of the English language.

Spelling, grammar, and vocabulary matter a great deal. Just because I am able to understand what you are saying does not mean you have successfully communicated your ideas.

If you ever intend to wield the full power of any language you should be striving for correctness. It's one of the few things you can do to ensure as many people as possible will, at the very least, have a chance in hell of coming close to grasping the specific mental model you are attempting to verbalize.

If you don't believe me, talk to these guys.

Linguistical drift happens. Get over it.

[Schwern]

I used to worry about things like "definately" vs "definitely" but then I read a few books on the history of the English language and realized a lot of what we consider to be "correct" was either A) previously considered to be incorrect B) based upon a no longer used pronounciation C) simply imposed by an authority. The book I recommend reading is Bill Bryson's "Mother Tongue" which entertainingly goes through the history of the English language and shows that it is very much an evolving thing.

"definately" vs "definitely" is a perfect example. Spelling of words tends to follow pronunciation changes. I drift between pronouncing it def-in-at-ly and def-in-it-ly. Thus my spelling tends to follow suit. One might argue that it should clearly be "definitely" since it comes from the root "definite". I would counter with a word from this very paragraph: "Pronunciation" whose English root is "pronounce". Shouldn't it be "pronounciation"? But that's considered a misspelling. To further confuse the matter, the latin root is "pronunciatio" and I'll bet at one time we spelled it "pronunce".

With all the exceptions and entanglements in English spelling its no wonder it drifts all over the place. Consider the widely divergent pronunciations of various English speakers all around the world (and just within the US) and you can start to care less and less about the particular details of grammar and spelling. Throw in the fact that at one point Webster (of the dictionary) just decided to change some spellings he didn't like (the American "color" vs the British "colour" is one example) and you can see how silly it is to insist on rote memorization of "proper" spelling. There's a good reason the Oxford English Dictionary documents the language *as used* rather than as is considered correct.

As long as the message gets across and reading speed is not impared its ok. ("its" vs "it's" is a whole other story).

Of course, their r sum th1ngz w3 kn agre g0 2 far.

Four things contribute...

[tthomas48]

1) I think many of the people who are drawn to tech are drawn because they don't like the ambiguity of the English language. Otherwise, they might have pursued a Liberal Arts Degree.
2) Most coders feel the same way about the language they program in as they do about the English language. It is an inexact and inefficient way to communicate with the underlying logical hardware. I think this frustration eventually just leads to the inability to care. There is also a difference between caring about the minutia of the Star Wars series and caring about the minutia of everything in everyday life.
3) I live in a state where over 50% of the kids do not graduate from high school. We seem to assume that all those kids in the top of the class somehow are managing to learn everything perfectly, while these over half just drop out. Chances are the educational system is failing the smart kids also. Most smart kids are being forced to do test prep (whether enrolled in private or public schools). I think this is reflected on Slashdot. You see wonderful vocabularies with no ability to string the long words together.
4) The web is conversational. We are moving towards a more casual conversational form of writing. This makes the web resemble a theatrical play in style more than a novel. Of course it resembles a theatrical play with no spell checker...
5) And that leads to my final point. When was the last time you visited a website like this with a spell checker? It's all Slashdot's fault!

Mexico v. U.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's all you need to know about the differences between Mexico and the U.S. In America, the beggars are middle-aged drunks. In Mexico, they're 8 year old little girls.

Re:Mexico v. U.S.

[Stankatz]

Here's all you need to know about the differences between Mexico and the U.S. In America, most people aspire to get a good job, contribute to society, and raise a family to do the same. In Mexico, most people aspire to sneak across their northern border, reproduce, and start collecting Wellfare checks.

Respect your reader!

[Mneme]

A lot of the comments here seem to say something along the lines of

If undarstand me you can, than understood he message was, and so quite you're compainin'

The mistake is to not realizing that in bad writing, the understanding part is not effortless. You waste your readers' time. If it costs each of your readers just two seconds more to read your badly written prose, how many readers do you need before the waste of their time outweighs what you see as a waste of yours. Precious few! If it takes you a minute to correct your grammer, fix that typo, or add an actual link to the website you've just mentioned, you may have saved tens of minutes of everyone else's time.

And you'll save us all wasting yet more minutes wading through responses to your post that merely complain about your grammer, post the missing links, and generally complain about or fix the things you were too lazy to do.

(Same applies to email, where too many people love emailing everyone a "memo" in the form of an attached a .doc file, saving themselves all of a second's worth of copy and paste...)

Re:Respect your reader!

[Stauf]

The mistake is to not realizing that in bad writing, the understanding part is not effortless. You waste your readers' time. If it costs each of your readers just two seconds more to read your badly written prose, how many readers do you need before the waste of their time outweighs what you see as a waste of yours.

I'm of the mind that, if the writer didn't care enough about his subject matter to take the seconds to communicate effectively, I shouldn't care about his subject either. If he seems proud of the fact that he doesn't waste his seconds communicating to me, I see him as even more arrogant then your average spelling/grammar nazi.

The assumption that your reader should have to 'translate' your prose is the assumption that your time is more valuable then his. I don't think I need to say that such assumptions are just plain rude.

Re:Respect your reader!

[NoMaster]

Spot on.

To all the people out there who say "it's the message that's important, not the medium", I say 2 things:

1. Remember that next time someone gives you a really crappy gift, and tells you "it's the thought that counts" ;-)
   
   
2. Consider it as a comms link. If the receiver is getting errors, it either requests resends or exerts extra effort reconstructing the data by error-correction.
   

And to expand on the second point - if your comms link is running errors all the time, and you have alternate access to an error-free link, would you stick with the first link even if the errors were completely recoverable?

cout "omggggggg"

[systemic chaos]

I think it may be that tech geeks simply enjoy communicating at their leisures in a language that will not present them with a compile error for every typo. Still, logical errors abound in all languages it seems.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[be951]

Excellent point. Many posts here have whined about "common usage" and the notion that "everyone knows what it means anyway". This may be true of the average native speaker, but small things like that could easily confuse a non-native speaker or reader of English. This is particularly true if one is not used to hearing the language, since most of the common errors are based on words that sound alike.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[MidnightBrewer]

I don't think the problem is so much that people correct, but the tone in which they correct - "Oh my God, how could you make such a heinous mistake? What is *wrong* with you? Were you dropped on your head as a child?" etc. Basically, advice is fine. Advice couched in the tones of an insensitive clod who pretends he's never made a typo is as good as not giving it in the first place, as you just end up alienating the person.

As for giving unsolicited advice and expecting someone to appreciate it, be careful; every post a person makes on Slashdot falls into that category, whether it's about spelling or not. When a post is written in a testy, holier-than-thou voice is when the flame wars start. Be careful to not become the pot calling the kettle black. :)

My take...

[sootman]

"It baffles me that a culture so obsessed with technical knowledge and accuracy can demonstrate such little attention to detail when it comes to communicating that knowledge with others..."

Communication is just another area of knowledge. Techs always talk about working with doctors and lawyers who are very smart but are unable to grasp the simplest computer concepts. Just as many computer techs might not know much about their cars, or gardening, or a million other things, they might not know much about grammar. Being able to code != being able to write English. That's all.

(The above is the basic answer to the question. Below is just more detail.)

Most of the difficulty comes from the fact that spoken words sound different than the way they are written. The only way I can remember your example of 'definitely' is to break it down--de, finite, ly. 'Vocally' is spelled like it sounds but 'logically' is pronounced 'logicly'. And of course it's not just spelling. You mentioned 'could of.' It's the same with my personal pet peeve, 'try and.' How we speak is different from how we write. (Or is that 'different than'? Let's see, imagine it as a verb--A differs from B. Yup, the correct choice is 'different from.')

However, some other rules are just plain arbitrary. It's one thing to keep "their, they're, there" straight, another altogether to remember it's/its. I mean, that's just plain arbitrary--the rules of possession and contraction both say to use an apostrophe, but someone decided that the two words should look different, so they flipped a coin.

And that's just spelling. Grammar is the same way. Some things just don't sound right. I should say "Joe is taller than I" instead of "Joe is taller than me" because what I'm really saying is "Joe is taller than I am (tall)." But that just sounds crappy. As does "It is I." You're supposed to use the nominative form after the verb "to be" but "It's me" just sounds so much better.

All this comes from the fact that, unlike C or any other computer language that was invented and has to compile, human language is a natural thing--people started communicating, *then* they tried to wrap rules around the language. Because it is based on a natural thing, there will always be exceptions to rules. No sense mentioning our miserable excuse for a language is a horrible mishmash of Latin vocabulary, German grammar, and a couple dozen other things.

For anyone wishing to learn about English, I highly recommend studying another language. I learned more about English in my first semester of high school Spanish than I had ever learned in all previous English classes combined. I mean, I'm sure I was *taught* everything along the way, but since I naturally write and talk acceptably, it never really stuck. Learning how to operate another language was a steady stream of learning a rule about Spanish and then realizing, "OK, so the correxponding rule in English is..." Seriously, I didn't know what an infinitive or gerund was until I learned what they were while taking Spanish.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Em Adespoton]

The problem with a fully phonetic approach can be best explained in the world of online gaming.

Take a MUD that's been running for 4 years, for example. That's 4 years of the world changing, new classes, objects, areas being defined. Those who were there for those 4 years grew with the MUD, and know exactly how to use it. However, someone new logging on after 4 years, assuming it's a MERC (for example) MUD, will be totally lost, unless there are defined rules and FAQs available to help them along. If they're just told "just jump in! I'm sure you'll figure everything out from context," you can bet they'll likely leave pretty quickly.

The same is true of living languages. Contextual learning might be fine if you've spent the last 20 years of your life doing it, but what happens when you move to somewhere where the language has grown in a different direction? What happens when you move to a country with a completely different language structure? You need to learn the rules. If there's no fixed set of rules, how are you going to learn the language? Very painfully and slowly, if you rely solely on context. Adult minds aren't designed to learn that way, only to subsist.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[cartman]

If someone's written work is devoid of some common rules of grammar and usage, does it matter if you completely and unambiguously understand what they are saying/writing?.. I try to use the rules, but if I understand you, what else matters?

You make a strong point. It's for that reason that I tend not to be too pedantic when criticizing others' grammar.

But the point you're making has two flaws, as I see it. 1) People who spell 'lose' as 'loose' come across as never having read a book in their entire lives. This makes a bad impression even if the meaning of the sentence is successfully conveyed. 2) Some violations of grammar and word choice are so egregious, that I have difficulty parsing the sentences in which I find them. In some cases I can guess the meaning, as with sentences that don't respect basic parts of speech ("Fill smart! Think different! I'm doing good!"). However it takes additional effort on my part--I must rewrite the sentence mentally into something intelligible.

There are other cases, however, where I have no fucking idea what the speaker is trying to convey. For example, I recently worked at a bookstore, and when the employees there saw a shipping manifest, they inferred that "to manifest" meant "to ship" or "to move." As a result they would often say "Should we manifest this to another store" or "Please manifest this over there." Sometimes they would say such things to customers. The customers would just stare in confusion.

I was genuinely confused when Steve Jobs, a man I'd assume was educated, first said that one of his products was "Operating System agnostic." Since then, that weird usage has taken off. For example, applications can now be "database agnostic." Of course, applications can't really be agnostic. To a person who actually speaks the English language, those phrases are meaningless. Even if we were to use 'agnostic' as a metaphor, it still wouldn't work. Is the application in doubt about the existece of God? Is the application in doubt about the existence of the database? Can the application even harbor doubts? What happens if the application becomes an atheist? Perhaps it will be a "database atheist," meaning the app is not database-driven? In fact, my application is a "database pantheist." See if you can figure out what the fuck that means.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[bobcat7677]

While I agree with you in principle, I can't resist playing devil's advocate here for a moment...

It is possible for 100/3 = 33... Provided that the result is limited to being an integer (33 1/3 rounded to the nearest integer IS in fact 33).

I would equate this in some ways to the arguement that pi should always be calcuated to the 6th, 8th, 10th, 24th...ect decimal place when it's pretty well accepted that "3.14" works sufficiently well for most things. Obviously rocket scientists should be using the more precise numbers. But when I am estimating how fast my lawnmower could travel given a particular input shaft RPM of a gas turbine engine, 3.14 is sufficiently accurate (IE: accurate speed estimate or not, the driver still dies when the lawnmower goes airborn and crashes :) )

Bottom line: you just need to have good judgement about how much precision you should use in your math for a particular situation, or deciding what grammar/spelling standard you are going to hold yourself to.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

The workload of the readership? If it is that hard to read a few misspelled words and incorrect grammer, maybe you should stick to something less demanding. Coloring, music, or nap-time might be a good alternative. because participating in a "internet" discussion might be a real workout!

Moron!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who wants to wager whether or not an illogical change to English similar to this one has already occured in the past? I'd wager that someone can find a very similar example. It'd only be yet another "foo is a bar except..."

If i remember correctly, the very concept of a contraction was only recently accepted (in the last few hundred years?) and was improper prior to that.

Okay, but why does it happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

The majority of us do know the rules that apply to the most common errors "its" vs. "it's", "your" vs. "you're", and spelling mistakes. However, getting it right somehow doesn't seem to be as automatic as it once was. As a child I don't recall having to think about whether I had spelled "definitely" correctly. I read as much as I ever did but was able to get this sort of thing right with what seemed like much less caution and expenditure of thought. Has anyone else experienced this? Does anyone know why?

Whatever, indeed

[ScentCone]

whatever

Ah, the droning sarcasm. And that's the crux of the matter. It's not that most shabby writers don't know how to communicate clearly, or that they don't know the value of a system that's every bit as complex and nuanced as their pet programming language... it's that they know there is cultural inertia involved, and they choose - deliberately - to show contempt for what they (mistakenly) think of as some restraint on their unique geekiness.

This same behavior is found in the Goth crowd, for example, who in a rebellious fit of not wanting to be like everyone else, are instead exactly like a different large group of people. Or, the whole "sk8t3r" crowd, which isn't nearly as rebellious in their baggy pants uniform as they think they are. Basically, bad spelling and a fashionable disregard for useful grammer is the tongue stud in intelligent communication.

The elegance of a decently composed phrase, made the more readable through appropriate punctuation and a pleasingly wide vocabulary, means you actually give a damn about what you're trying to convey. People in IT frequently complain about the money they (don't) make, and can't understand why people don't take them any more seriously. In my experience, this is what it all comes down to: either laziness in communications, actual inability to communicate, or (and this is the worst) such poor critical thinking skills that the utility in clearly representing what one is thinking doesn't even register.

I'm not talking about abbreviations while IM-ing, either. This problem shows itself even when IT people are trying to compose a thoughtful memo asking for money to buy a router, or in trying to justify a raise or a impact a new policy. Language, and its precise use through the pen/keyboard, are not a chore, or some Corporate Shackle against which to rail. It's a device through which to show the clarity, and horsepower of your cognitive skills. You'd think that most geeks would go to a lot of trouble to be better communicators than the average person.

today's l33t speak is tomorrow's standard english spelling and pronunciation

Not if by using it less information is conveyed, or meaning becomes ambiguous, or the actual form of the language reinforces a culture of deliberate disrespect for the reader. Shakespeare took all sorts of liberty with spelling and form, but his output was more lyrical, and more densely meaningful than pretty much any string of 1334-speak you'll ever encounter.

Re:Whatever, indeed

[ScentCone]

And, yes, I know I spelled "grammar" "grammer." In a way, that actually makes my point all the more clearly. A typo (or even a habitual spelling mistake) isn't nearly as distracting in the context of an otherwise more careful effort at stringing together a sentence. I never bust on people for getting a word wrong. I bust on them for getting their thoughts wrong, or for thinking they're cool for having to make everyone work harder to read what they're saying. So, sorry for the typo! Carry on.

Writing and programming

[rumblin'rabbit]

I think the best programming manual out there is "The Elements of Style". No, not "The Elements of Programming Style" or "C Style" or whatever, but the original Strunk and White book on composition and grammar.

The attributes of good writing - elegance, clarity, brevity, precision, sound organization, and so forth - are precisely those of good programming. I suspect that by learning one you are learning the other.

If we want better programmers and engineers, perhaps we can begin by producing better writers.

William Strunk had attitude. He would have made a hell of a programmer.

C++ is a language too!

[firehawk2k]

If you can program perfect C++, with all the brackets properly placed and have it syntactically correct, then how come the comments for that code end up like this?

//This code makes sure their isn't an infinate loop

Maybe the compilers should come with spell checkers too.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

And you continue to prove the point, "sortof". And the possessive form if "it" is "its", WITHOUT THE APOSTROPHE.
</rant>

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Aeiri]

Look it up, 'rear' as a verb in this sense is used for bringing up children. 'raise' is used in this sense for growing crops and animals.

Humans are animals, too.

Also, "rear" as a verb in this situation is sort of strange. The phrase, "child rearing parents," sounds fine, but, "I was reared by my mother and father." doesn't.

It bothers me!

[starphish]

Bad grammar and spelling does bother me. My family is very bad at both spelling and grammar. I'm not sure how I ended up with good spelling and grammar skills. I don't harp on people too much about it though. However, when I can't understand someone's sentences, I am very bothered.

For example, a simple misplaced comma can change meaning.

Push this button to deactivate the system and sound the alarm.
Push this button to deactivate the system, and sound the alarm.

Those sentences have different meanings. The first sentence implies that pushing the button will sound the alarm. The second sentence implies that you need to also sound the alarm.

Sentences like the following are even more annoying.

hi john how are you doing im doing good do you want to go to a movie tonight

A sentence like the above one takes several scans for me to know what the hell it means.

I can handle small mistakes (I'm sure I even make a few), but when I can't understand the sentence, things have gone too far.

You're missing something

[Lord Bitman]

"definately" vs "definitely".
Now, which of those is harder to comprehend? which of those communicates less the idea which is trying to be conveyed? English has become a language: deal with it.

Re:You're missing something

[kalislashdot]

'definately' instead of 'definitely' is because of the spell checker. If I sound out "definitely", I mispsell it then the spell checker gets "definately" Many times this has nabbed me and I just recently noticed this.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[meregistered]

I am attempting to avoid an answer that is too strong to this. Do rules matter more than concepts? Writing is a form of communication. Communication is an interchange of ideas. In order for me to communicate most effectively with another person it is important that I do it in a manner which they understand. In order for me to understand someone else's communication it is most effective if I adjust to their method of communication. Language is a standardized way of communicating. If I know the standard for English then I can communicate well with others that know the standardization. If I can match the level the other person understands the standardization I can communicate even more effectively. If I am speaking to someone who doesn't understand English well I will likely have more success communicating with them if I use words that they are using. This will remain true even when those words are not 100% correct, so long as the words capture the meaning, or concept of the ideas they are communicating. If I am in a non English speaking country and I do not know the language well will communication be benefited if the person to whom I am speaking doesn't attempt to communicate at my level of understanding? Let us assume that I have enough of a vocabulary that I can communicate nouns and verbs but not tense. I will not understand them if they use tense, however it is very likely they will understand the concepts with which I am communicating. Therefore, I submit that the concepts behind communication are vastly more important than keeping track of the finer points of the rules of standardization. Additionally, I submit that some 'finer points' are arbitrary, illogical, and hinder communication because of the tendency we feel to focus on them instead of communication.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Hope Thelps]

* This appears to not be a word. However, I feel confidant that you know what I mean.

"Unambiguity" is a good word even if that was the first time it was ever used. "Mushification" is good too. Both convey their intended meaning.

However, although "confidant" is a word, I don't think it means what you wanted to mean.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[hiryuu]

I've known many techs that not only didn't care about the rules of the English language, they actually regarded their ignorance of such rules as a perverse badge of honor, as if mastering the intricacies of the language was somehow beneath them.

Do a minor substitution and you'll find that situation to be an example of any chunk of humanity when faced with someone who knows something they don't.

"I dunno the first damned thing about com-pew-terrz, 'cuz that's fer nerds. I don' need ta know 'bout nothin' them fancy boxes kin do."

People are incredibly insecure creatures who regard anything they don't understand as suspicious, and anyone who understands such things makes them feel inadequate and confused, on uncertain ground and not knowing where they stand (since knowledge of the subject at hand is a power they, themselves, do not have). This makes them feel threatened, and rather than look at what is actually to blame for the threat (their own ignorance), they attack the trigger (the person whose knowledge made them face their own ignorance).

It's really no different than the "dumb" kids in grade school who threw rocks at the smart kids.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Martin Blank]

There's a difference between the natural evolution of a language over time, and the massacre that has been happening in recent years. Things like '*ould of' that don't even make grammatical sense are far more problematic in my mind than misspellings like 'alot' or 'loosing.' I can even cut some slack to people who frequently use text messaging and get in the habit of using those abbreviations online, but there are plenty of scary errors that are commonplace, and 'evolving language' is a weak excuse for laziness.

If I see someone making an occasional mistake or using certain common colloquialisms or minor errors like split infinitives, I let it slide. If they continue making it and it seems like they think it's proper ('ludacris' seems to be a common one over the last year or so, and I blame that on the rapper), then I will often IM or PM them in a friendly way to let them know what is the correct spelling or grammatical construct. They generally take it well. Those that don't just don't get corrected in the future.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[DataPath]

Wow - that suddenly turns most of the slashdot crowd into closet language-Microsofties, doesn't it?

I'm glad I'm on the side of good (spelling).

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[redheaded_stepchild]

ditto

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean "e.g.," not "i.e.;" the former means "for example" while the latter is "that is."

Why spelling and grammar are important.

[Anonymous Coward]

Following those common rules does matter, for two reasons.

First, many standard rules of grammar and usage act as sort of "checksums" on communication. If you're listening to someone whose grammar is good and you hear them make a mistake, that's a signal for you to double check what they said. Did you hear them correctly? Might you have misinterpreted it? In many cases, those "checksums" are good enough that you can figure what the speaker actually meant without having to ask them for clarification. That kind of redundancy is valuable in any realistic communication.

Second, the process of interpreting language (written or spoken) is complicated, and we develop ways to do it efficiently (e.g., we learn to read whole words at a time rather than letter by letter). When someone departs from the usual conventions of spelling and grammar, many of those "optimizations" fail. That makes reading a lot of extra work! (I've found that writing with poor punctuation and capitalization takes me twice as long to read, and often leaves me with a headache to boot.) Resolving all of the "failed checksums" means extra work, too.

In the end, communication usually works out okay even when the speaker breaks the rules. But the effect is to transfer more of the effort involved from the speaker to the listener. That's just plain impolite! And it's also inefficient. The advantage for the speaker is minimal: conventional spelling and grammar quickly become second nature. And if there are multiple listeners (say, on Slashdot), every one of them has to expend that extra effort independently.

Communication alone just isn't good enough. Standards of grammar and usage are what make communication reliable and efficient.

Re:Why spelling and grammar are important.

[RobertLTux]

Keeping this short to cut down errors. im not sure which members of the gecko family can use it but i have a spell check extension called SpellBound installed and using this (or similar applet) would cut down on some of the spelling errors. Me, most of the time i don't use it but i do have it when i need it.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[lawpoop]

"It still stands that "of" is not a verb. "

So what? The whole thing is illogical in the first place. This doesn't make it any more or less logical.

"They have won the mach" will become, "They of won the match?"

I haven't heard anyone talk like this. Have you?

In English, modals like can, could, would, and should have special grammatical rules. For instance, they have no future tense. All that's happening here is that the phrase "Should have" is is being deprecated, and is being replace with "Should of".

Grammar rules change all the time in spoken language. This process is not wrong or incorrect. Please move along. Nothing to see here.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[d34thm0nk3y]

The main flaw in your argument is that math is constant, while language evolves. This is completely natural and more importantly, desirous. Rigid adherence to outdated grammatical constructs can only hinder communication. A perfect example would be the adoption of "google" as a verb; would you prefer to say "navigate to google's site and use it to search for widgets" or "google widgets"

Well, maybe some time in the future "should of" will be correct, but right now it's incorrect-ness (heh) is a constant.

communikation != spelling

[greymattr]

I think there is a major disconnect here, when people equate good spelling with good communication skills... very often the best and most usefull type of communication is fragmented and slang... such as if someone points a gun at you... it is far more effective for someone to yell "WATCH OUT!", that it would be to yell "There is someone pointing a gun at you, I beleive you should watch out!" but the first, is a sentance fragment. and then lets take a saying like "eschew obfuscation", one of my personal favorites... spelled correctly, but no one understands what the hell it means... as far as *effective communication* goes, it would be far more effective to write "dont be confuzing to ppl" communication is effective if the point you are trying to express gets across correctly, not because of spelling and grammer... Ever tried to read a document written by a lawyer who is skilled in legalese ??? I bet there are no spelling errors, and very few punctuation errors, but very often you will need another set of lawyers to interpret it... is that your idea of effective communication... I am not saying people should not spell correctly, or use puntuation... I am saying, spelling correctly, and using punctuation is in NO WAY synonomous with effective communication... "having knowlege does not make you smart, any more than having milk, makes you a cow" ~grey

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[panaceaa]

The problem with changing spellings is that the more we do it, the less the current generation can comprehend writings from the past. Isn't it nice that we can still read Shakespeare's works 400 years after they were published? But writings just 200 years before that, such as Chaucer's, are very difficult to read because there wasn't a yet standardized language. The reason there was no standardization during Chaucer's time, though, was because it was difficult for language to travel long distances. Hence it did not become standardized across regions. But now that we have television, and the Internet, it would be a shame if we changed our language. It would move us away from our cultural heritage linguistically.

Rolls On Floor Laughing

[greymond]

It baffles me that a culture so obsessed with technical knowledge and accuracy can demonstrate such little attention to detail when it comes to communicating that knowledge with others, and it baffles me even more that many people become enraged when you attempt to help them correct and learn from their mistakes.
- I could actually reverse this. Seems like most of the time (as far as online forums go) Person A will post a comment, and somewhere between Replies Person B will rave/rant about Person A's lack or use of grammer.

Do hackers and geeks just not care about communicating effectively?
- If I type Definately or Difiniately you still know what I am saying, therefore I am still "communicating effectively". However communicating effectively can take a lot more than just good english skills, just try explaining why you want to have a gaming night with your friends instead of going to her parents house for dinner.

Do they not realize that a mediocre command of written English makes them appear less intelligent?
- Only people who hold grammar and language skills in high esteem feel this way, well that or they are pretentious. I have never had anyone other than a teacher or Mr. Ianal on forums point out my spelling/grammar mistakes.

Am I missing something here?"
- Yup. Most people feel (wheather a geek or not) that getting the point across is more important than how it gets across - much like the "it's not what you say, it's how you say it" type of thinking.

*Note: I didn't proofread or spellcheck this post, because someone will agree, someone will disagree, and someone will tell me what I punctuated and spelled wrong; and in all 3 cases, I don't care.

Re:Rolls On Floor Laughing

[ewilts]

Do they not realize that a mediocre command of written English makes them appear less intelligent?
- Only people who hold grammar and language skills in high esteem feel this way, well that or they are pretentious. I have never had anyone other than a teacher or Mr. Ianal on forums point out my spelling/grammar mistakes.

Personally, I don't point out people's poor use of grammar or spelling mistakes. However, I have a tendency to ignore mailing list requests for help from people who refuse to do basic sanity checking on their posts. I have a lot of sympathy for people whose native language is not English but little patience or sympathy from English people who can't figure out if it's "its" or "it's". I almost always ignore people who think they're cool by referring to Microsoft Windows as Winblows or some other derogatory term.

Although your poor English may not result in correction, it may result in you not getting the help when you need it. I've seen procmail rules from other users who feel the same way.

For what it's worth, English is not my native tongue although it's the only language I know today.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[interiot]

I largely agree with you, but there are some slight problems with broadly saying "spell however you want!".

There are certain situations where people use a particular subset of a language. For example, instant-messaging is the only place you're likely to see "LOL" or "BRB". And the workplace is likely the only place you'll see "synergistic".

This "subset of language" is a good concept, because it turns out that the more proper/formal/academic language is much slower changing, almost frozen. The best example of this is the continued use of latin in law and in biological classification.

Generally, nobody is going to complain about someone mispelling things or saying things not-exactly-correctly in an instant message. On the other hand, they may (somewhat legitimately) complain about less-than-formal speech in the professional workplace.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[rlbond86]

I agree!! For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all. Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli. Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld. -Mark Twain

Elitist much?

[vsage3]

As long as the spelling/grammar is not too far off from what we're used to, I don't see what the big deal is. I think what the OP asks is absurd because well most of the rules and regulations of English are arbitrary standards that prominent people established as acceptable. It's the same reason why Latin was the accepted language of the upper tier of society all over until last century even though the republic it originated from had been defunct for over a thousand years. To me it's one of the most awkward-sounding, unstructured languages out there but it persisted (disregarding catholics) because of elitist people searching for a complicated standard that commoners would have trouble with. There's no board of English-speaking people that establishes these rules as far as I know, but some grammar books try to change the rules every couple years to make schools repurchase to keep current. The trend is generally toward simplicity though and well internet speak is pretty simple if you ask me, even if it does look a little crazy to those not acquainted with the web. Get off these peoples' backs. They should probably know what society expects of them as far as grammar goes, and ignorance shouldn't be a badge of honor, but languages are always diverging and being assimilated into others.

Re:Elitist much?

[vsage3]

Good thing I am disagreeing with proper english because /. definitely poofed my paragraphs :)

Re:Elitist much?

[greymond]

Well said. I concur.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[ccoakley]

Actually, in the US, it is quite common to pronounce "organize" with a 'z' sound (and we spell it as such). In fact, I don't think I've heard it pronounced with an 's'. It's hard to force myself to say it that way. But your point for houzez stands well.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[perblo-8]

Is really 100/3 != 33 wrong? Not if two significant digits is your desired accuracy.

Homonyms and Proper Use

[the Dragonweaver]

One of the primary reasons that spelling is so important in the English language (and why 'fonetik speling' keeps getting shot down) is the prevalence of homonyms, words that sound the same. A misspelling can drastically change the meaning of a sentence, and a constuction such as "They're playing with their dog over there" needs the distinct spellings to be intelligible.

More to the point, when a person uses the incorrect spelling of a common phrase, they indicate to the readers that they have no idea where the phrase came from, and that means that they may be using it incorrectly as well as misspelling it. That leads to a decrease in the amount of confidence a reader is willing to give the author of a text.

As an example, take "rein (or reining) in", often misspelled as "reign in." The first, evolving from people riding horses, means to pull back on the reins so as to slow the horse down. The second, having to do with ruling, means, what exactly? Reuling in person?

Another common misspelling is "loose" (as in untie) for "lose" (to misplace) and vice versa. Imagine what "lose the Dogs of War" would be like.

And, of course, there is the constant misuse of "literally", as in "happened exactly like", for "figuratively." If you've "literally had my heart torn out" I'm very disturbed that you're still around to write about it.

The poster's main point is that language is supposed to be an aid to communication, and as technical types, we should be exact in its usage. While the language is evolving, misuse acts as a damper on communication, and misspellings and bad grammar lead to lost time for interpretation.

No.

[nikkie]

I believe this is totally off base. *Hackers* tend to spell things correctly, and generally have an excellent sense of the English language, as explained by the jargon file. *Script kiddies*, however, are clearly guilty of the charges you laid out. They are yet young and foolish, though they may learn. But do not apply this to hackers, as they might feel inclined to respond and leave you long exacting diatribes in return.

Scale

[Anonymous Coward]

The amount it bothers some over-educated dumbass is in direct correlation and best indicator as to the size of the big stick up their butt.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[blibbler]

If you don't have enough respect for your argument to take the 5% extra effort it takes for correct grammar, then why should anyone else? For my job, I read tens of thousands of documents. I often come across spelling or grammatical mistakes. These not only make the author look immature or ignorant, but they can often change the meaning of the document. Generally I can tell what they meant to say, but frequently what they actually said is quite different.

I don't consider misplacing commas or semi-colons to be a large problem. I find it frustrating when people misuse apostrophes, or their sentence structure is completely broken.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[jrockway]

There exist 66,000 ideograms (maybe), but only 700 or so are in common use (in Simplified Chinese), compared to 2000 in Japanese.

The remaining characters are _based_ on other characters, so a native speaker or someone well-versed in the language can guess the pronunciation and meaning of one of these obscure characters.

Really, every language is complicated and most humans are smart enough to understand it. Personally, I like English how it is. I don't have problems with spelling OR grammar. (Although my slashdot posts obviously aren't edited and revised to the point that other things I write are. :)

its and it's

[thanjee]

I've almost gotten to the point where I consider a phrase like "makes its own gravy" to be written wrong because of the missing apostrophe, because it's so common -- even in advertising copy, for pete's sake.

its is correct.

reference: http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/ i/its.html

Q. What is the difference between its and it's?

A. Its is the possessive form of it.
It's is a contraction of it is or it has.

Examples:

It's a common mistake.
The boat has a hole in its hull.

The confusion arises from the dual function of the 's ending, which can indicate either possession or contraction, as in: Joe's hamburgers are the best (="The hamburgers which are Joe's -- that is, in that he makes them -- are the best"); Joe's going to have to buy some more patties soon (="Joe is going to have to buy some more patties soon"). However, 's is never used to indicate possession in pronouns. We do not write hi's (instead of his), for example.

Here is a test we can perform to determine whether to use it's or its: Replace it with his and see if the sentence still makes (grammatical) sense. His a common mistake does not make sense. The boat has a hole in his hull does make sense -- at least grammatically; of course boats are not boys, but we can pretend that they are for the sake of improving our spelling. The rule we shall apply, then, is this: If the sentence makes sense with his, which does not have an apostrophe, it is safe to replace it with its, which also does not have an apostrophe.

Re:its and it's

[burndive]

Yes he _knows_ that. That's his point: he is saying that his grammar-facism has led him to the point where he sees mistakes where they don't exist.

"I've almost gotten to the point where..."

You even quoted that part and you still didn't understand it.

The phrase "even in advertising copy, for pete's sake" might throw you off, but it means that he even goes into this mode when reading material that he knows has gone through rigorous editing before it meets his eyes.

Re:its and it's

[thanjee]

sorry.....I misunderstood the ramification of "because it's so common". Yes I agree it's is far too commonly used incorrectly.

Ooops, I forgot to turn of italics, and my bunny is broken......

Re:its and it's

[thanjee]

and then I made a typo - ofF - does this topic make everyone else feel under scrutiny just for responding?

Re:its and it's

[Anonymous Coward]

I have seen the misuse of its and it's so much on the Internet that it is driving me crazy.

The two web sites I read most often are slashdot and cnn.com. I would have thought that intelligent technical people posting to slashdot would have figured out that it's is a contraction and not a possessive pronoun. I would also have thought that reporters and editors for cnn.com would know the difference between it's and its.

But apparently I am naive in assuming that intelligent people would desire to use correct grammar.

Re:its and it's

[Anonymous Coward]

"its is correct"

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[anaesthetica]

...and even (shutter) l33tspeak...

That would be "shudder", parent.

My prediction? The grammar nazis will win every thread posted in response to this story.

Intelligence?

[kryptx]

If you gauge the intelligence of a comment by how well the grammar therein conforms to your understanding of grammar rules and not by its substance, then you've got serious issues.

How hard is it to read something and think about what it's saying? It's one thing if you literally can't decipher it. But if you know what they are trying to say, and you discount it simply because they aren't the best spellers or they have excess commas (as I often do), you might be missing out on a lot of useful information. (You are probably also racist.)

This is, of course, not to mention that the english language is a bastardization of a bastardization of a bastardization of (etc). And every time it's changed, elitists have been up in arms about the purity of their language insofar as they learned it when they were young. Go read some Old English and then come back here and tell me that hackers are the ones breaking the rules.

Language evolves. This is the nature of things. If you can't understand, ask for clarification. Otherwise, deal with it. Next article, please.

Linquistics

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people do not recognize the cognitive ability of the brain. Most peolpe are not actually reading the letters but are instead recognizes the length and shape of the words. I have seen things passed along e-mail that demonstrate this with mispelled words throughout but our minds will still recognize the words. In most cases specific attention is not given to spelling and grammar because the thought is still conveyed acurately.

English language itself is the cause...

[blahplusplus]

... of a lot of bad grammar and spelling, english itself is bastardized ever shifting and evolving language.

I don't personally think the grammar and spelling is horrible. I think the fact is commonly mispelled words and whatnot are inevitable, people spell things "unaware" that they are typing them or writing them how they SOUND instead of how they are SPELLED (definitely versus definAtely) or their versus there. English has plenty of fucked up words that do not spell the way they sound and the human minds when accessing memory sometimes combines phonetically sounding words with the most "hard" learned rules of spellings i.e. Fear would be FEER, or vice versa, their and there, and you could go on and on about how many words in english sound very similar in pronounciation versus their spellings and you end up with a lot of mispelled words then and THAN, I mean come on, english has to be one of the worst languages for word re-use with slightly different sounding vowels and they wonder why words are mispelled.

If you think people's command of the language today is bad, try reading some old stuff from 100 to 150 years ago, like Kant, etc. Almost impossible to comprehend what the hell he is saying even though he is speaking english he's expressing himself in an entirely different way then most "common" people would.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[MynockGuano]

It's amazing how so many people don't realize that. Since you brought it up, I scored 36 out of 36 on the English portion of the ACT (did not take the SAT), and it certainly isn't because I study it. Just like any other subject, if one learns the rules correctly, everything works itself out quite naturally. Just because the logic is many layers deep doesn't mean it isn't there.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[idontgno]

On this occasion, a quote from The Simpsons comes to mind:

"Inflammable means flammable? What a country!" -- Dr. Nick Riviera

A Few Points

[ndansmith]

I am a Greek major, and often my study leads me to investigate the nature of language, human communication in general, and meaning. I would like to offer a few points:

There are no rules, only patterns. Grammatical rules are misleading. Langauges evolve. They have evolved from the ground up and continue to change. The "rules" at the moment represent the normative usage at this time. So it seems sort of silly to teach English "rules," but it is the best way to express the common English code to English-language-learners. In other words, "You ought to follow these rules if you want to be understood."

Language is in the mouths of the people, not the pages of the dictionary and grammar book. Usage by English speakers defines the language. That is why new words and grammatical constructions and figures of speech and idioms pop up and fall away all the time.

The purpose of language is communication. The reason we talk is so that we can communicate with one another. When someone says "should of" instead of "should have," most seasoned English speakers understand exactly what that phrase means. Communication has happened, and the language has served its purpose. This happens all the time in common English. Example: Goodbye. I do not attack people who use this nonsensical grammatically poor word. You see, it originates from "God be with ye." Goodbye is an obvious grammatical distortion that has taken hold as a normative part of English language. So will "should of" as has "aint" as done as well.

It is silly to get mad at someone for not following the "rules" of English if you know exactly what they mean.

Re:A Few Points

[tedrlord]

These debates always seem to end up as arguments whether English grammatical rules are ought to be followed because they are inherently mutable. The problem I see with that point of view is that they are mutable over decades and centuries. For the present, there are clearly defined rules.

What the submitter mentions and what a lot of people miss is that speaking incorrectly tends to make a person seem less intelligent. Using "should of" is more or less understandable if you are used to English colloquialisms and such, but it makes the person sound less intelligent to those who are educated.

I think this is especially important on the internet, where text is the main form of communication. Incorrect spelling and grammar makes people think the writer is either uneducated or a child, and when you're trying to get a point across, that's not very helpful.

Sure, you can write however you want, using phonetic spelling and slapdash punctuation. You can also write code with no spacing or comments using random variable names. They both get the job done, more or less, but they're not going to make you look good in the eyes of the community.

To rebut your other point, "goodbye" is in every major English dictionary, and it evolved over quite some time. It's not "grammatically poor" at all. When not being used in a sentence, it has nothing to do with grammar at all.

"Should of" and "ain't" are colloquialisms that have been around for a good while themselves, and if they were to become an official part of the language they would have likely done so by now. The reason they have not is because they are known to be blatantly grammatically incorrect and are avoided by anyone using proper English.

Anyway, despite my little rant, I have to say that neither I nor the submitter are mad at people for not following the rules. We're just trying to goad people into realizing that the rules are there for a reason, and considering our community is supposedly known for being intelligent, we ought to use those rules correctly.

Re:A Few Points

[Sir Holo]

When someone says "should of" instead of "should have," most seasoned English speakers understand exactly what that phrase means. Yes, communication has happened, and the language has served its purpose.

Communication has indeed happened. In addition to what was said, the speaker has also communicated, "I can't be bothered to pay attention to details, therefore what I have to say is of little value."

Re:A Few Points

[brwski]

ndansmith writes: It is silly to get mad at someone for not following the "rules" of English if you know exactly what they mean.

Not always. There are levels of communication that must be taken into account. A grunt may most certainly do just as well as a finely-turned sentence for transmitting information. But what we are discussing is not simply the transference of ideas or facts; in fact, you should know this better than most as you are a Greek major. As a fellow Classics geek, I know that most of what you are reading (unless you are in a very odd program indeed) is made up of poets (Homer, Callimachus); historians (Xenophon); philosophers (Plato, Aristotle); rhetoricians (Isocrates); playwrights (Aeschylus); and much else. You also are familiar with the various levels of the Greek language represented in the various genres. The very same idea may be put across by a writer in one genre in the most basic fashion, while another writer in another genre may say it in flowery and grandiose terms. The same idea is embedded in each instance; its meaning may be quite different due the language in which it is expressed (and that is said while keeping in mind that we are not discussing context, rhetorical use of a fact, etc.). Now imagine taking expression 1 and dropping it into instance 2, in place of expression 2. It will be out of place, perhaps even appearing to be crass or overwrought, depending on its new surroundings --- causing all manner of difficulties for reader/hearer. Knowing exactly what someone means is often just the beginning of things.

brwski

Re:A Few Points

[diamondsw]

Certainly you wouldn't argue that "I ain't doin' that." and "I'm not doing that." convey exactly the same impression. Think for a moment if a client or business partner said the former versus the latter - which one would you give more weight to? Which would you regard as more intelligent?

Obviously they impart the same meaning, but the impression is a whole other matter.

(And as many have already pointed out, nobody says "should of" - they say "should've", even if they don't realize it.)

Re:A Few Points

[tedrlord]

Considering this is an argument for correct English, I probably should have proofread it. That's what I get for trying to post as my girlfriend was dragging me out the door.

Re:A Few Points

[Anonymous Coward]

Trivia: "Ain't" is not a grammatical distortion. It is merely an archaic contraction of "am not". It fell out of favor with careful speakers due to misuse as "are not," "is not," etc. (source: One of Mario Pei's books on language) Though it was still technically correct when used properly, it acquired an aura of illiteracy so that its use was discouraged and today it's seen as wrong for any usage.

Re:A Few Points

[Enonu]

To further illustrate your point, I doubt I read your post letter-by-letter, but instead word-by-word by recognizing by the shape of the word. Most worthless words, such as "the", "an", "to", etc., were probably skipped entirely and common phrases such as "I am" were probably interpretted as a single unit. In the end, my brain by its own subconscious devices, didn't so much care about the grammar you used, but the patterns it came across, and how interesting the resulting interpretation of your post was.

Re:A Few Points

[Anonymous Coward]

It is silly to get mad at someone for not following the "rules" of English if you know exactly what they mean.

This sentence is such a great example of why grammar is important in communicating a message. As the writer, I'm sure you believe the sentence above has only one meaning, but a person can actually read your sentence two different ways. Because of your agreement error, your sentence doesn't say what you believe it does. That is, "they" in your sentence refers to "rules," not to "someone." The meaning changes entirely.

Re:A Few Points

[Otto]

Which would you regard as more intelligent?

I would regard both of them as probably more intelligent than yourself, since they might not make value judgements based on irrelevancies.

How a person says a thing has no bearing whatsoever on what he is saying.

Re:A Few Points

[tgv]

I have a PhD in psycho-linguistics and majored in computer science, and I can tell you: there is syntax. The rules are complex, but their their.

You see? Did you immediately read: but they're there? No, you got confused, just like everybody else when confronted with a grammatical error. In the institute where I work, we put people in big fMRI scanners and watch EEG readings of language processing, and let me tell you: quite a few of the grammatical errors are spotted by readers/listeners.

Anyway, without syntax you wouldn't be able to distinguish between "The dog bit the man" and "the man bit the dog". So syntax aids communication.

Re:A Few Points

[PMoonlite]

sure, i might know exactly what the person means, but it's incredibly inconsiderate of non-native english speakers who can't successfully look up the mangled words in their dictionary or decipher the mangled grammatical structures. if people only ever talked to native speakers, bad grammar and spelling would present little practical difficulty. but we are living in an increasingly international setting, and carrying over these bad habits is increasingly a fundamental communication problem.

Re:A Few Points

[TheoMurpse]

most seasoned English speakers understand ...and therein lies the rub. First you quantified with "most", implying that there are some seasoned English speakers who wouldn't understand. That's strike one against the errors. What about younger English speakers (those who are not "seasoned")? They will fail as well to understand. That's strike two. What about foreigners who speak English as a second language. That is a huge population of people that you have just cast aside as not relevant.

Earlier in this discussion there were posts from a Mexican who could not understand his English-speaking friend because of the "should of" error. Simply stated, communication failed there. Moreover, Slashdot is a community where a large percentage do not speak English natively.

Re:A Few Points

[nbritton]

"have a PhD in psycho-linguistics and majored in computer science, and I can tell you: there is syntax. The rules are complex, but their their.

You see? Did you immediately read: but they're there? No, you got confused, just like everybody else when confronted with a grammatical error."

What's it mean if you where not confused? I didn't even notice it until you pointed it out, that's when I became confused.

Re:A Few Points

[tgv]

A common error you'll find (particularly in electronic texts) is confounding they're, their and there. What confused you?

Re:A Few Points

[nbritton]

"What confused you?"

When you started talking about "they're and there" in the second paragraph. I would have never noticed it was wrong and would have just keeped on reading had you not pointed it out.

"A common error you'll find (particularly in electronic texts) is confounding they're, their and there."

I do that, and more, all the time because of my dysgraphia. Writing is very laborious for me and I completely despise it... Do you know how frustrating it would be to have a 140 IQ but not remember the correct sequencing for a simple word such as taht, tath, that?

Re:A Few Points

[tgv]

But that's a rather special condition. People with written language disorders tend to see such words as homographs, i.e. words with the same spelling but different meaning. People with normal reading abilities do not. Consequently, when normal readers see the sentence "but their their", they get confused, since they are not used to interpreting "their" as "they are" or "there". Other readers are used to this, so do not necessarily see a problem, depending on the type of disorder.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[shutdown -p now]

It seems to be not limited to US. I was really shocked when I found out that many New Zealand IT students (I'm Russian, but study in NZ) have troubles with English grammar. And it's mostly basic things like understanding the difference between "its" and "it's", and in one hard case, between "to" and "too".

It all works in my head.

[NikG43]

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[kimgh]

The capper for me was yesterday. I live in the SF Bay Area, and I got behind a commercial step van with a list of South Bay Area cities it served, and 'Cupertino' was spelled 'Cuppertino'. For that matter, there used to be a street sign for Lafayette (a main street in the area) but the spelling was 'Laffayette'. I think that one's been fixed by now, but it was that way for several years.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[servognome]

I should of stayed" is a sentence without a verb, therefore without sense.

Easy answer, make "of" a verb.

What I mean is, if you want to add a fifth wheel to a car, why not, if it works, but don't take away one of the 4 original wheels, because the car won't work anymore on 3.

Or redesign the car to work with 3.

Excusing the fact that it is poetry, try reading the middle english version of Canterbury Tales. Language definately evolves, what may be "right" today may be painful to read tomorrow.

their .vs. there, etc

[Macka]

Sure, Slashdot is a conversational forum, and people write "from the hip" without absolute consideration to their spelling. But come on .. you've seen the all too frequent misuse of the words their .vs. there, and your .vs. you're. And the list goes on.

How am I supposed to take anything someone says seriously, when their text is riddled with grammatical errors that my 14 year old nephew mastered years ago.

Native English speakers who can't express themselves without making childish mistakes like that, just appear thick! And it devalues anything of real importance they may have to say.

Have you also considered that if you practice spelling correctly all the time, then you're less likely to screw up when it really matters?

Re:their .vs. there, etc

[Easy2RememberNick]

Have you also considered that if you practice spelling correctly all the time, then you're less likely to screw up when it really matters?

Bravo!

Re:their .vs. there, etc

[veritron]

I don't want to be a dick but your error per sentence rate is over 1.

Re:their .vs. there, etc

[Anonymous Coward]

In general, I agree with this. Errors like that distract from the content of what the person is trying to convey.

But, I have been embarassed to see those mistakes in my e-mails in the past. Of course I know damn well what the correct usage/meaning of those words are. But, apparently when I'm typing, my brain functions in more of a speaking / verbal / phonetic mode, and those obvious errors slip out past the filter.

Re:their .vs. there, etc

[Anonymous Coward]

So people speak or converse "from the hip" at slashdot? Mixing metaphors is just as bad as not spelling properly.

Re:their .vs. there, etc

[noidentity]

OK, you've established that people look like children when they make careless mistakes. Is this simple a shortcoming of the observer part, that he's not able to read such things without throwing a fit? I am interested in evidence that such mistakes cause an actual problem, apart from that caused by an inability to get beyond associations with childishness.

Re:their .vs. there, etc

[capn_pigiron]

I would be willing to bet that the majority of native English speakers do not know when to use "their" vs. "there" OR "your" vs. "you're" OR "sit" vs. "set" OR "lay" vs. "lie"....

They also probably don't know what those four dots in a row following my last sentence are called. They don't know when there should be three and when there should be four. They don't know that my four dots are not technically correct because the spacing is not correct.

But the reason they don't know all of these things, is not that they suffer from some mental defect. The reason that they don't know all those things is that they are simply not interested.

Hell, maybe they're on to something.

Re:their .vs. there, etc

[djs52]

How am I supposed to take anything someone says seriously, when their text is riddled with grammatical errors

And WTF is this ".vs."? We're not programming in Fortran, you know!

Re:their .vs. there, etc

[Jesus_666]

It's because of the limited information bandwidth of the medium. In normal conversations, we pick up informations about the partner on various levels: We analyze how he's dressed, how he moves, subtle changes in the way he expresses himself (like changes in pitch, volume or vocabulary). We have dozens of channels that all get processed simultaneously. We gather information about the topic the speaker is talikg about, but at the same time we also gather lost of meta-information; information about the speaker himself.

In discussion boards like /. we usually have much less information: We can anaylze the nickname, the writing style and the vocabulary and that's pretty much it. We can check whether or not the text contains smilies and what kinds of smilies were used - but a few ASCII characters can't convey nearly as much information as a subtle change in pitch at the right time.

So we try to gather as much information from what we read as possible. We pay attention to correct spelling and grammar because we have almost no other way of deriving meta-information from the text.
That's why speling misteks make you appear dumb - people try to derive as much information from one channel as they usually get from a half dozen ones. If you mess up your spelling and grammar it's like if you came to a scientific discussion wearing a beer-stained shirt, starting your first sentence with a huge belch - your groundbreaking hypothesis may have merit, but you're losing credibility because you're broadcasting the wrong meta-information.

Re:their .vs. there, etc

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Native English speakers who can't express themselves without making childish mistakes like that, just appear thick! And it devalues anything of real importance they may have to say.

I strongly disagree with your statement. If you understand what a person is trying to express with the text they have typed, then they have succeeded in effectively communicating. If they used the wrong there/their/they're, but you figured it out then yes, they've made a trivial mistake and you can assume that their English skills are not up to snuff. Maybe that is because they are simple. Maybe it is because they are uninterested in mastering more of the English language than they need to communicate effectively.

When I see trivial spelling and grammatical mistakes it indicates to me that a person is not good at spelling or grammar. That does not mean they are not the most brilliant mathematician or physicist on the planet. That does not mean there is no value in their statements. To discount the meaning of a statement because of errors in the delivery mechanism is foolhardy.

I have, upon occasion, pointed out errors in the postings of others, but only in instances where I was unsure of what that person was trying to express due to ambiguities or errors or because I was quoting them.

Re:their .vs. there, etc

[shaitand]

But your example as well as your point refer to minor flaws in the writer or speaker and severe flaws in the reader and/or listener.

Surely you can see that a scientist dressing inappropriately and belching before his speech is a minor cosmetic error. While someone judging content of material presented based upon the cosmetic characteristics of the speaker is a severe error. Especially someone who claims to be a scientist!

Re:their .vs. there, etc

[cobalty]

Once people have reached a certain mastery of the English language, spelling, grammatical and typographical errors no longer matter. I often tell my friends that I speak fluent typo in an effort to keep them from constantly correcting themselves and interrupting the flow of conversation when using instant messenger.

Re:their .vs. there, etc

[Anonymous Coward]

I just read your comment history. You're full of shit.

Re:their .vs. there, etc

[Macka]

Spot on! I completely agree with you.

Making an impression

[Shimmer]

These days much of the professional interaction betwen people is through e-mail. When I get an e-mail from someone who can't be bothered to write correctly, I tend not to bother to read it with much interest. If they don't care about what they're saying, why should I?

(Obviously, I make exceptions for non-native writers, and for some kinds of informal communication.)

I'm particularly bothered by executives who have this problem. One CEO I used to work for was so busy and so important that he just didn't have time to make his messages coherent. Getting an e-mail from him was like receiving a prophesy from the Oracle of Delphi, or like trying to interpret the cryptic mumbling of Mao Tse-Tung.

Reading between the lines, the attidute here is: "I'm more important than you. I'd rather you waste an hour trying to figure out what I'm talking about than spend sixty seconds myself editing this e-mail."

I think you can imagine just how inspiring this guy was as a leader.

-- Brian

Re:Making an impression

[exi7]

the attidute here

Score: 5, Ironic

Re:Making an impression

[Anonymous Coward]

When I get an e-mail from someone who can't be bothered to write correctly, I tend not to bother to read it with much interest. [..] Obviously, I make exceptions for non-native writers, and for some kinds of informal communication.

So you openly admit you're a self-centered intollerent biggot? I'm glad I don't have to regularly exchange email with you.

One of the smartest, most socially gracious people I know offline often writes messages that are terse and difficult to understand. The problem is not that they don't know how to spell or apply grammar - but that they're not used to using a computer and are a terrible hunt and peck typist. It takes them 30 minutes to write a short note that would take me 30 seconds.

The problem with your CEO person is not that he didn't care - depending on his background, it may have been that he was staring at the first computer to ever come into his posession. It's only in the past 10 years that computers have really taken hold in most people's lives - and it's easy to forget that some people still do not own or use a computer on a daily basis.

Until computers are as prevalent in a generation's education as the pencil and paper - computer illiteracy will always be widespread.

Re:Making an impression

[sgt-at-arms]

bryna i wish u stil wrkd heer so i cd fire u tmrw -yr old boss

Re:Making an impression

[Anonymous Coward]

obviously a typo, mr. numbnuts

Re:Making an impression

[Anonymous Coward]

"The proposal of the League of Nations and its International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation at Paris that I should invite a person, to be chosen by myself, to a frank exchange of views on any problem that I might select affords me a very welcome opportunity of conferring with you upon a question which, as things now are, seems the most insistent of all the problems civilization has to face. "

I'm not an English major but does anyway care to argue that this isn't poorly written?

I personally believe one hundred percent correct Engrish grammer/spelling/form is a pretty decoration and while its always a plus it certainly doesn't indicate much other than how trained the person is in English. Some people have either no interest or the luxury of time to pursue. If your a journalist or lawyer, this is not advisable. If your a techie it's not really that important is it? However it is often situational.

If your writing an amendment to the U.S. constitution than by all means review.

If your trying to impress people on Slashdot (or practically any internet forum) with your ability to press spell/grammer check and review a document for common English errors.... I doubt it will have much of an impact. It probably indicates your more concerned with impressing others rather than providing content.

Everything takes time to do and if we need to spend time checking our grammer meets university term paper standards every time we communicate... that's simply less time for us to fix code, eat our lunch, or think about a problem. Law of diminishing returns I think.

So the bottom line is... it depends.

I imagine that some arrogant knuckleheads might believe any ridiculously long choppy sentence like the opening paragraph of this post is proof of ignorance and retardation. ....written by Einstein to Freud in 1931.

Re:Making an impression

[stanmann]

Most likely from someone who types quickly enough that sometimes letters get ahead of each other. Usually its left ahnd ahead of right but sometimes it's the ohter way around.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[cduffy]

Let me draw a parallel here, using a quote from Steve Jobs:

"Well, let's say you can shave 10 seconds off of the boot time. Multiply that by five million users and thats 50 million seconds, every single day. Over a year, that's probably dozens of lifetimes. So if you make it boot ten seconds faster, you've saved a dozen lives. That's really worth it, don't you think?"

Even if the additional workload for a single reader is negligible, remember that you're writing for a crowd. (If that doesn't work, remember that you don't want to look like an idiot in public).

Why all the grammar and spelling errors?

[Simonetta]

There are two reasons for all the grammar and spelling errors. One is that computers and the internet have removed any difference between typing and publishing on the web, even posting a message to a popular website. With paper publishing, several people view the text before it is inked to paper. They are trained to catch spelling and grammar errors.

Secondly, there are no tools built in to text entry that catch spelling and grammar errors.
I make mistakes in every post I put on Slashdot and see them after they've been sent. I have to write a message in the Slashdot text buffer, open MS Word, cut-and-paste the message from Slashdot to Word, use Word's spelling tools, fix the obvious, then copy-and-paste it back. Even something a simple as a piece of code that capitalizes the letter 'i' between white space and other characters would be welcome.

I've always found it intriguing that a programmer who could master several arcane computer languages (especially since computers are notably intolerant of errors), could fail so utterly to master his own native human language.

Computers are absurdly tolerant of errors. It's the compiliers and assemblers that catch everything first in computer languages. Anyone learning C programming without a knowledgable tutor around would best be advised to take some 'soothing potion' before attempting to compile their first simple program. You're guaranteed to get many, many incomprehensible error messages that will leave you flopping on the floor in despair. There still is no compiler that explains all the errors that you get in simple, easy-to-understand language. Thirty years, a billion lines of code, and we're still left with the same deranged error handling messages inserted on the fly back in the 1970s.

And there is no way to tell if the text writer is a native speaker of English or has had years of study. English is a notoriously difficult language to master. My postings in non-English languages makes me appear retarded. I now funnel everything non-English into www.systransoft.com because it seems to be an accurate translation.

The real problem of bad English in web postings is that it chokes the machine language translators. And by the way, it's the 21st century, where's our speech-to-text?

Nonsense

[Vicissidude]

This quid-pro-quo nonsense regarding language skills is pure bullshit. Americans are not moving overseas in droves, so they don't need to learn other languages. Americans are not stealing jobs through offshoring companies, so they don't need to learn other languages. Americans are mostly staying right there in America.

There is no point in learning to speak a second language fluently if you're never going to use it. Most Americans aren't going to move out of country. And a good majority of Americans will never leave the country. America's so damn big, that few Americans will run into someone that they have to speak German or French.

However, if you actually do move to another country, then you should be able to speak the language fluently. If you do phone support for another country, then you should be able to speak their language fluently. You can not expect a society to make up for YOUR lack of communication skills.

English is the official language for all intents and purposes in America. If you can't speak English well and you want to live in or work for Americans, then you should learn how.

Re:Nonsense

[internic]

There's some logic to what you've said. Someone visiting an English speaking country should have no expectation that the people there will speak any other language. Second, if you were to feel compelled to speak a second language, it would make sense that you would speak "the international language". That used to be French, but these day's it's English. This is, in large part, why even very educated people often only speak English.

You said, "Americans are not stealing jobs through offshoring companies," but in fact it's mostly that Americans are giving away those jobs to off-shore companies. The Americans in question are the in management of those corporations, and they are the ones who rationally deserve the blame.

Finally, I will point out that Spanish is now spoken quite widely in the USA, especially in the southern portion of the country. If one is rational, it makes sense to learn that language, because it will make everyone's lives easier. However, if one is a subborn jackass, then it may be more natural to bitch and moan and try to declare an official language than to make the rational choice.

Re:Nonsense

[Vicissidude]

Indians are claiming to be "native" English speakers, when they are not. And it is very easy to manipulate the sales process that corporate executives go through. The best English speakers for these companies are not on the phones, they're in sales and talking to those executives.

The "rational" choice to learn Spanish because of the 10+ million illegal immigrants concentrated in the southwest states is still nonsense. I lived in California, New Mexico, and Texas and got along just fine without knowing any Spanish.

Because these workers are generally illegal, employers tend to hide them. So, the people serving customers in businesses speak English. The times you'd run into Spanish speakers are in your social life, ie not often. The illegal immigrants tend to stay within their own social circles.

Re:Nonsense

[damiam]

There is no point in learning to speak a second language fluently if you're never going to use it.

That's not entirely true. I took French in high school, and while I've never had any occasion to speak the language outside of school, I still got a lot out of it. Taking a foreign language makes you think more about linguistics and how we express ourselves, and I think I learned more about English in French class than in English class (though perhaps that's just because all my English teachers sucked). Before taking French, I'd never really learned about the different types of past and present tenses, or about what all these obscure grammar terms like "gerund" or "past participle" meant. It's the same reason schools still teach Latin today - it's useless, but it'll make you a better thinker.

Also, trying to learn another language makes you much more aware of English's quirks and more sympathetic to non-native English speakers, because you understand that new languages really are difficult to learn and speak, and English is worse than most.

Re:Nonsense

[Vicissidude]

I structured that sentence very carefully. Read it again. The key words there are "speak" and "fluently".

Learning the basics of a foreign language are one thing that I would say is valuable. But, this thread is focused on conversational language. A foreigner may be 100% grammatically correct in their English, yet still mangle the language.

If you're going to work for or live in the US, then you should speak the language so that it can be understood by the average American.

Re:Nonsense

[MochaMan]

Learning the basics of a foreign language are one thing that I would say is valuable.

Though one should, of course, consider learning the basics of one's own language first.

Re:Nonsense

[Celestial Navigation]

I took French in high school, and while I've never had any occasion to speak the language outside of school, I still got a lot out of it.

I agree. I graduated from high school two weeks ago, and took four years of Spanish. I seldom use the language to do anything but annoy my family, but it certainly showed me a lot about English that I never knew. As far as I was concerned, the only English tenses were past, present, and future. Spanish showed me many more verb tenses that we happen to have in English.

The sad part is, I probably understand Spanish syntax better than English syntax, and I think I have above-average spelling capabilities and decent grammatical skills. Part of this may be the curriculum. My English teachers cared more about the horrible stories we read, and whether or not we could use MLA citation. Spelling and grammar were pretty secondary. That's why I think it's a load of crap to call the class "English" because it's not a language arts class. It should be called "literature," which is what my university calls it. In my Spanish classes, many a paper was returned to me with red pen marks for using preterite where I should have used imperfect, or improper use of the subjunctive tense, and so on.

If some of that made sense, great. If none of it did, well, that's okay, too.

Re:Nonsense

[Vicissidude]

Did you not understand me? Looks like you just being snide.

Re:Nonsense

[Vicissidude]

Sorry, let me rephrase that.

Did you not understand me? It looks like you were just being snide.

Re:Nonsense

[Cro Magnon]

It depends. I have a job where I only need English, and an English speaking GF. Though there are quite a few Spanish speakers in my area, 90% of them also speak adequate English. There's really no strong reason for me to learn Spanish. OTOH, if I had a school age kid, I would encourage him to learn Spanish, simply because most of the local businesses advertise "Hablamos Espanol", and someone who speaks it would probably get a job over someone who didn't.

Re:Nonsense

[internic]

Oh, it's true, you can often get buy without learning Spanish even in places with a large latino population. I guess my point is that if it becomes an issue, it's far more rational to just learn Spanish than to bitch and moan and try to declare an official language.

Re:Nonsense

[MochaMan]

yes ;)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

It will if you previously added the fifth...

Hackers, Spelling *COMMA* and Grammar ???

[Anonymous Coward]

I, have, to, know - did, he, do, that, deliberately or, is, he, really, an, idiot ?

Re:Hackers, Spelling *COMMA* and Grammar ???

[angryLNX]

I remember wondering about the comma before the and in a list of items in third grade--my teacher wasn't exactly sure. The way I understand it, there has been a shift within the past ten years from including that final comma to not including it. e.g. 10 years ago-- apples, bananas, and oranges. now-- apples, bananas and oranges.

Re:Hackers, Spelling *COMMA* and Grammar ???

[villageidiot357]

As I recall from high school (2001 grad) the comma is optional, except for some goverement papers where it is required. This sounds crazy, but the teacher was quite the grammer nazi. By the way, the text we used stated that: "apples and oranges and peaches and grapes", was also correct.

Re:Hackers, Spelling *COMMA* and Grammar ???

[Hamster Of Death]

It's called a 'serial comma' and is used to introduce clarity into lists and groupings. So in this case you know for certian that the poster in fact was trying to specify three separate entities.

Hackers

Spelling

Grammar

With out the serial comma it could be construed that the poster was talking about only two entities

Hackers

Spelling and grammar

Legal documents love these things. For more info check out http://www.getitwriteonline.com/archive/020204.htm

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[shutdown -p now]

Why not throw out the grammar and the dictionary as well, and just learn Lojban?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[meregistered]

Do rules matter more than concepts? Writing is a form of communication. Communication is an interchange of ideas. In order for me to communicate most effectively with another person it is important that I do it in a manner which they understand. In order for me to understand someone else's communication it is most effective if I adjust to their method of communication. Language is a standardized way of communicating. If I know the standard for English then I can communicate well with others that know the standardization. If I can match the level the other person understands the standardization I can communicate even more effectively. If I am speaking to someone who doesn't understand English well I will likely have more success communicating with them if I use words that they are using. This will remain true even when those words are not 100% correct, so long as the words capture the meaning, or concept of the ideas they are communicating. If I am in a non English speaking country and I do not know the language well will communication be benefited if the person to whom I am speaking doesn't attempt to communicate at my level of understanding? Let us assume that I have enough of a vocabulary that I can communicate nouns and verbs but not tense. I will not understand them if they use tense, however it is very likely they will understand the concepts with which I am communicating. Therefore, I submit that the concepts behind communication are vastly more important than keeping track of the finer points of the rules of standardization. Additionally, some 'finer points' are arbitrary, illogical, and hinder communication because of the tendency we feel to focus on them instead of the ideas being communicated. It is important, however, to follow the standard so long as those with whom you are communicating know it, and as long as the standard does not hinder communication.

Re:You are so wrong, grammer is not important.

[Em Adespoton]

Your argument is well structured, but it belies the fact that it's often the people who lived in rich suburbs and had small classes who don't have a clue about grammar. This isn't about people being better or worse, it's about effective use of a tool.

Think of it this way -- imagine someone is running a business, and someone else comes in and shoplifts, walking away with some of their product. You could use your same argument to say that it's all racism and elitism, as the business owner had the money and was taught the skills to run their business, while the shoplifter obviously was poor and disenfranchised. Are you willing to judge the poor shoplifter on the same level as the greedy business owner even though he did not have the same advantages? What if I told you the shoplifter was the child of a millionaire, and was doing it because they were bored, and the business person was running a family business, and they'd immigrated from a third world country and had their entire extended family's life savings invested in the one shop, and had virtually no margin left on their product?

Anyone can learn grammar; some won't have been taught it correctly when they were young, and that's a shame. However, they're ignorant no matter what their race or social status; they are less effective at communicating, and will be judged based on how they handle themselves in a public situation. I know some highly educated people who speak four languages; while their Chinese, French, and German are top notch, their english is lacking, and people assume they aren't very intelligent, as they can't understand what they are saying. Snobbery exists, but it exists in all aspects of life. People thinking they are better than others does not depend on language use. When I wear an expensive suit, people treat me much differently than when I wear a sweat shirt, ball cap, baggy jeans and vans. Basicly, people respect success, and are snobbish toward people who seem to have a high opinion of themselves, but aren't displaying the cultural "success" symbols.

Spelling ability is not that important anymore...

[kouhoutek]

You might as well complain no one knows how many pecks are in a bushel.

As society moved away from agriculture, knowing these units of measure became less important.

Similarly, with ubiquitous spelling and grammar checking, you don't have to spend the neurons to memorize a bunch of byzantine rules. Formal writing (w/ spellchecking) comes out fine, but informal takes a hit. That's the price of progress.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Zone-MR]

Yeah, but 99% of people don't use their real name as an online alias. People can generally google for my full name, and will not find the 10000's of posts I made on various forums.

I generally try to keep my online aliases seperate from my real name and private contact details. Googling for my real name or work-related email address will not bring up posts such as this one.

Only a few people in real-life know the alias I go by online, and vice versa. Of course someone determined to stalk me could probably figure out a few links, but I doubt a few spelling mistakes on a forum or IRC channel will come back to haunt me in real life ;)

Language use in more than just forums

[Rob Kestler]

Most of the comments I've been reading are focused on forum talk. While I don't think that spelling and grammar are overly significant in forums, a lot of times that poor grasp on the language trickles over into work related writing. Whether it is e-mail, reports, letters, or resumes. The biggest trouble in hiring programmers and other tech savvy positions is finding someone who can effectively communicate using the English language. By not learning effective use of communication (which goes beyond spelling and grammar but starts there) we have made our own careers more difficult. I can't count how many times a fellow programmer had to tweak or completely recode something because of poor communication skills. Once I became a hiring manager, written communication has become a top priority because there is no end to the good programmers out there, but there's a very small number of programmers who everyone else can understand.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Delphiki]

After years of reading slashdot, I finally see a post I want to mod up and I don't have any mod points.

Re:You are so wrong, grammer is not important.

[who's got my nicknam]

I fail to see why it's racist and elitist. Did he say the problem is all those uneducated coloured folks' distortion of Proper American English? No. You are just tossing around -isms like candy on parade day - and being snobbish about it, to boot! (I am guessing, however, that your comment about people who think they are better than other people was actually tongue-in-cheek.) While it may be true that the message is more important than the grammar, what we are talking about here is the presentation of an argument or opinion. Frankly, if you can't be literate with your ideas, you will have a hard time convincing others. I see bad grammar and think "lazy bum", and move on. When I see signs in stores that use "quotation" marks incorrectly or excessively, it drives me crazy. Bloody idiots - throwing quotation marks around a word is not how you emphasise it. Use an underline, or italicise it. I once walked past a bookstore with a sign out front that said "Please bare with us during our renovations". Needless to say, the cute girl behind the counter was quite shocked when I asked her if we should get naked right there, or if they had a room in the back. Even her manager insisted I was wrong, and that "bear" was a "furry animal in the woods". Dumbasses.
I totally agree with you about France, though. There's a saying - "The French don't care what you say, as long as you pronounce it correctly."
I think your point about different educational backgrounds has some validity, although I didn't get that attitude from the original poster. I think the point in this thread has become that most of us on /. are at least somewhat educated, and should at least make an effort to use proper spelling and grammar. Those tight-asses who complain about "colour has a U in it!" or "it's spelled 'specialize', not 'specialise'" are morons, but there are some things in English that even Americans (with their self-defined version of the language) can agree on with the rest of the world that got its English from the English Colonisation days. Several people have made the point that English is a fluid language, and that is one of the things which makes it ideal as the language of technology and innovation. Personally, I still prefer to see the word spelled 'definitely'!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[c0d3h4x0r]

English is a living language, why do i care if "should have" is technically correct according to some english professor somewhere.

You should care because it makes you look like a careless jackass in the eyes of anyone who knows better. That was the original poster's point. It's all about the presentation and what it leads other people to think about you and what you've written.

If you repeatedly and blatantly butcher spelling and grammar then the reader will know that you don't care about how you come across. They will see that you don't put any care into your writing or take any pride in your own work. They won't respect your writing or pay any attention to it if you won't do that yourself in the first place when you're writing it.

Re: Hackers, Spelling, and Grammar?

[chmod 777 alexw]

It seems people fall into two categories on this subject: those who think that having a very strong grasp of your native language is the most important thing, and those who believe the content of what is said is the most important thing. The problem with the former is that if you become obsessed with the language of others, you will subconsciously form some kind of bias for or against that person instead of reasoning logically on their argument; conversely, those who believe content is the only important thing may not get their idea across as clearly as possible.

So what is my opinion? I think they are both important - think what you are going to say, then try to communicate that idea as clearly as possible.

On another note, I was somewhat surprised to see this article on /. since I always thought of hackers as having a very good grasp of the English language. Indeed, as Eric Raymond's famous article on how to become a hacker states, "If you don't have functional English, learn it."

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[MynockGuano]

All that's happening here is that the phrase "Should have" is is being deprecated, and is being replace with "Should of".

Since when does any person with any knowledge of the English language at all use the phrase "should of"? Things don't get deprecated because people are stupid; they get deprecated because the replacement is superior. Nobody with any sense at all will adopt "should of" just because it's what nonthinking people do when they don't know any better.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[raindrop#1]

Correct grammar and spelling is a courtesy to the reader. When you read a sentence containing errors, each error forces a pause as you decode the intended meaning. This is a confounded nuisance for the reader.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Krenath]

You say this:

"Minimizing a persons intellect on anything other than what they are actually attempting to communicate is the internet form of racism. Tieing two unrelated concepts to diminish a persons worth."

Yet you lead into the above with this:

"That's because you're a fool. Minimizing a persons intellect based on their ability to communicate shows that you have no understanding in what genius comes from."

According to your own argument , minimizing a person's intellect based on their tendency to minimize another person's intellect is therefore also a form of racism, and you too are guilty of tying two unrelated concepts together to diminish a person's worth.

So, either you're wrong, a racist, or a hypocrite.

Could you clarify for us by letting us know which?

Based on your numerous spelling and grammar errors, I'm gleefully jumping on your minimization bandwagon and am guessing that you're merely wrong (which means neither of us are therefore necessarily racist! yay!) though I haven't ruled out hypocrite yet.

Good hackers have excellent communication skills.

[cduffy]

The article is based on a flawed premise.

Look at Linus Torvalds, James Yonan, Guido van Rossum, Donald Knuth; all of these people have outstanding communication skills. It's merely the wannabes and hangers-on whose skills are inadequate -- and arguably, such individuals aren't really part of the community at all.

Indeed, I distinctly recall it having been noted decades ago that there was a disproportionate number of English majors in the computing community. Perhaps someone will have a source?

On point

[crimson_alligator]

This artical definately begs the question, is you're grammer more important that what you say with it?

I myself don't think grammer is more important then what you say. Its not that important at all, and all those grammer nazis, their just asshats.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what bothers me? Much of what you're seeing is the ability to type over 70 wpm due to hacking away @ code, simple typos! It REALLY burns me when some "human spellchecker" that couldn't code his way out of a wet paper bag to save his life comes into THESE forums, giving people guff about spelling...

Want my take on that? Here comes: It's THOSE kinds of people with the problem, because if they cannot handle a simple typo (or yes, possible misspelling) & draw the meaning of a word via its context in a sentence?

They're the ones with the problem... & need a "fuzzy logic" upgrade in their brains if that's the BEST 'attack' they have... I mean, give us a break!

(Besides, & I hate to tell you this (former spelling bee champ here too by the by and I still make a mistake once in awhile spelling because I am hauling A$$ typing it out & the "baud rate's TOO SLOW" vs. my thoughts & most others here I imagine): NOT EVERYONE HAS THE GIFT OF GOOD SPELLING OR EVEN READING RETENTION GOD-GIVEN TO THEM... but, they probably have strengths in other areas!)

Realize, above all: Nobody is "uber alles" perfect, ok?

And, if folks REALLY need a perfect document? There's always spellchecker programs, thanks to my peers, fellow programmers, who can help folks with difficulties here.

And, guys? It's only a forums... not legal correspondence, newspaper articles, or resumes we're talking about here!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was raised and educated to believe that spelling and grammar counted

But apparently not punctuation. What's with all the superfluous ellipes? Perhaps you could use the &emdash;, parenthesis, or simply a comma. An ellipsis is not appropriate here. After you perfect that, then you can get high and mighty about the writing style of others.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good example for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism lead at absurdum.

Re: Racist?

[Hercynium]

You're a troll, right? Pity I wasted my last mod point just a few minutes before your post. Bravo.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[grammar fascist]

An easy way to remember this:

i.e. - in explanation
e.g. - example given

The grammar fascist suggests you don't use these at all. They're part of the problem.

What bug me most are declarative question marks?

[Ponzu]

I can't tell if people are asking a question or telling me something? It is really annoying and I see it mostly from creative types? But sometimes other programmers do it also? I wish they would use properly mixed punctuation instead of mostly question marks?

hacker relpy

[Anonymous Coward]

although im very late to the topic, i just have to say maybe they dont care, when i interview or write an application for a tech job im make sure my spelling and grammer are correct, but when im talking to friends and other geeks i dont care, i usally use half words, half sentences ext. aslong as i get the point across im doing A ok.

MA BELL IS A CHEAP MOTHER

Looking for promotion

[Propaganda13]

I relly can't speak for the rest fo these people, but I'm just prepareing myself for a managment position. I've notice a lot of managers (even colege educated ones) half this skill so it must be an industry standard.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[vought]

As a technical writer and longtime geek, I'm disappointed by this trend, because it pulls the level of competency in the entire industry down.

I've noticed over the past eight years that the written language competency among native English speakers is actually dropping below the level of non-native English speakers.

Yes, those outsourced jobs everyone is complaining about are actually going to people on the other side of the planet who not only write code cheaper than you - they write English better than many younger engineers do, too.

Particularly on Slashdot, I've noticed that (perhaps in the rush to post), capitolization, punctuation, and quite often entire words and phrases are being left out of sentences.

Let me explain why this is a bad thing as simply as possible: your fellow English speakers cannot understand you when you fail to include basic cues about what you mean, like capitol letters, question marks, parenthesis, and other critical information.

Another contributing factor is Microsoft Word's mostly-brain dead grammar checker. It's stunning to me the number of people who blast out an incoherent string of sentences, relying on red and green squigglies to correct any mistakes. No one who uses this method of document proofreading and revision ever thinks about the suggestions Word makes, and subsequently there are huge numbers of problems with most corporate and technical documents I read.

Proofreading doesn't take long. Read what you've written back to yourself. If you "hear" something that would sound jarring in conversation, revise it! Here are some other tips:

-Brevity is important, but never sacrifice clarity to keep a document short.

-Clarity is an abstract notion, but perhaps the most important one in technical communication. I've seen the same competitive talking point restated six times on one page of a white paper about wireless technology. Any potential customer reading the white paper is wondering why they're being treated like a kindergarten-aged child by the third mention.

-Outline your work first. This is an easy way to get some structure in your document before you wade too far in, and it saves a lot of time in the long run by giving you a structure to refer to. You wouldn't test software without a test plan first - why do the same people insist on belting out an entire technical paper without writing an outline first?

Better yet, hire a professional technical writer, rather than an engineer who knows everything about the product, a little about marketing, and nothing about sentence structure, clarity or brevity. You'd be surprised how technical some of us liberal arts majors can be, and how eager to learn and adaptable we are.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Hannes Eriksson]

Additionally: don't miss the apostrophe in the colloquial contraction of 'do not'.

And while I'm at it: I find it both amusing and frightening that I, a non-native English speaker, not only notice the native English speakers spelling and grammar mistakes, but also in many cases manage to avoid them (the mistakes, not the people). And I generally appreciate constructive critique, especially when trying to communicate in Foreign languages but also when doing embarrassing mistakes in my own language.

By the way, 'Just becaus it's customary to do $action' what? :-)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[lartful_dodger]

Close your eyes, and imagine a world where people exaggerate for comic and dramatic effect. You live in the US? Close your eyes and imagine a place that isn't the US. Oh, forget it.

H.R. Moments

[Fish Heads]

I get in trouble at work just for correcting people on their incorrect word usage.

People in high-visibility positions (not high ranking, just their communications go out to several thousand employees a week) should know the difference between "do to" and "due to", or "que" and "queue", and seem to take offense when they are informed (nicely even) that the word they used was incorrect... really want to see them blow, include the definition or the link to dictionary.com... :-)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Farrside]

You meant to write: [you], "you're", "grammar", "technology", "etc.", "grammar", "don't", "embarrassed", "can't", "that's", "It's", "don't", "wasting", "English", and "criticise" or "criticize".

Since you have come to terms with your inability to spell, may I call you a lazy idiot without you getting offended?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[sk0pe]

With a non-specific statement like the one you are using as an example, saying "I'm not going to eat anything" would retain the correct meaning. If you were to say that to a Spanish listener, I'm faily certain they would understand.

High-tech culture .vs. Liberal Culture

[ElitistWhiner]

Liberal culture; its rules, etiquette, structure and laws rest on the almighty word. High-tech culture; values content over context, paradigm over convention, eschews belief systems in favor of science and is annoyed when forced to communicate in spite of words limitations.

That Liberal's are so frustrated by the appearance of broken grammer, rules and spelling is prima facia evidence to prejudices against their understanding anything *new* anyway.

Mispelled grammer, abbrev., butchered syntax and complete lack of legible handwriting are filters that screen the uninitiated.

Word is to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

A co-worker typed up the user manual for one of our products. It was about 30 pages. When I opened it in MS-Word, there was not one green line anywhere. As far as MS-Word's grammar checker was concerned, the paper was perfect.

And yet, it was riddled with grammar errors. There were capitalization errors, misused prepositional phrases, misplaced commas, and on and on. I was dumbfounded by just how bad it really was (while seeming to be perfect).

Worst. Punctuation. Ever. (sic)

I showed it to another co-worker (one who also cared about grammar) and her chin hit the floor.

We made corrections. They were extensive. Toes were stepped on. It was not a happy story. Someone should sue Microsoft for this.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Rorschach1]

"I think of it like a stuck pixel on an LCD around the edge of the screen."

Stuck pixel? STUCK PIXEL? My GOD, man! This is Slashdot! It's more like someone took a freaking 12 gauge shotgun to my poor 21" SyncMaster!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Mozk]

To me the English language really does not make sense. Almost every word is irregular, we have words taken from other languages without adapting them to our own, and pronunciation is different from word to word. Why is the preterite of run ran, yet the preterite of shun is shunned? Why is knight pronounced as it is today? I'm not even sure where to put the quotes around the words and puncuation in the previous sentences.

English has annoyed me so much that I've been reading about languages that actually make sense, such as Esperanto and Lojban (not as good as Esperanto in my opinion). While it may seem kind of nerdy to learn languages like those, I seriously think they are much more logical and easier to understand than most languages. They have none of the ambiguity of the English language. Words are formed how they should be formed.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[WiKKeSH]

Or you could just simplify things by using viz. as a replacement for both i.e. and e.g.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=viz

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[keesh]

An easier way is to learn Latin. Then you'll always use them correctly, because you'll know exactly what they really mean.

This is Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

If people here used correct spelling and grammar, you might be able to notice that they don't have any thoughts worth communicating.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[h4rm0ny]

That is true, but firstly, I am not unique in my knowledge. There are enough people out there who understand the precise meanings of words that I benefit from this. Secondly, even though many people cannot express why they use particular words, they often have an intuition as to their reason, having absorbed the meaning implicitly in their learning of the language and the usage they come across. Being able to consider this meaning conciously gives me additional insight. And likewise, this knowledge lets me express myself more effectively to others even if they cannot consciously define the differences between words that I've chosen from.

The knowledge gives you a feel for the underlying structure of meaning behind words and you can use it or not as you choose. Even in situations where it is "confined to my head" however, it remains useful as we think in words and a strong command over them, a large vocabulary and precision in meaning helps one to think well.

Hopefully, some of that is apparent. ;)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[emlprime]

The interesting thing to me is that the correctness of grammar is not boolean. It's not [Perfect, Meaningless], it's a scale of meaningfullness. I believe that erring on the side of not learning language skills at all is unfortunate because one may have excellent ideas that people ignore because they're badly expressed.

On the other hand, the cost/gain of triple proofing every bit of written and spoken content begins to waste valuable time that could be spend communicating on dotting i's and crossing t's that could easily be taken as given. (That was probably a run on)

I find that it is useful to learn to write well to the point where most grammatic rules are automatic, so that I can be understood. I find that it is counter-productive to allow yourself to be so focused on the correctness of grammar that you demean others or lose access to their thoughts because of a trivial technicality.

As a postscript: Part of the reason programmers do better with computer languages (with the exception of maybe Perl) is that they are generally developed with a limited vocabulary, several predictable and consistant rules and a well documented structure over a period of a few years.

English is the bastard child of at least 3 languages which developed over centuries from disparate gramatical structures because of weird sociological pressures. In most languages, it's not even possible to split an infinitive.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[riots]

The word forum comes from the Latin and therefore has a plural 'fora', not 'forums'. Sorry to be picky.

The english language is horrible

[kalislashdot]

I think I misspelled the subject even. I am very technical savvy, but I scraped thru school wiht Ds in English. I just could not get it, still don't now in my 30s. They are so many lame rules and weird spellings. Everything just should be spelled the way it sounds. I do not know any other languages, just a little spanish since I am in Southern California, but from what I am told English makes no sense, the grammar rules, etc.

I do have a high attention to detail, but for a quick IM or e-mail I could care less about grammar or spelling. Did I mention I can't type either... and my Father owned a type writer store, I grew up around type writers. I just plucked this all out. I know where all the keys are so I can pluck out 10-15 words per minute. I program so that does not require typing skills since I am always doing weird characters and such anyways.

i before e except after c, blah blah

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[udoschuermann]

An occasional spelling error is one thing, pervasive and unabashed sloppiness is quite another.

In face-to-face communication body language (e.g. posture, facial expression, gesticulation) as well as personal appearance and tone are part of the communication. In writing all but the words are stripped away and the form alone must stand in for your appearance and delivery.

When written communication is replete with sloppiness and errors the impression is unavoidable that the writer is lacking in skill or care, perhaps both. The face-to-face equivalent might be of someone with ketchup down the front of his shirt, his zipper down, and shoes untied. That doesn't mean the person or the ideas are unworthy, but it does detract from and likely diminshes the impact of what the person wanted to convey.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[kimgh]

Some of these drive me nuts. "Walla" when Voilá is meant, for example.

What I find even more amazing...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

...is that the very same group of people will obsess over coding style conventions and whether or not their web browser implements every nook and cranny of the latest CSS spec.

Different brain function.

[Fuzzball963]

Wow I agree with that. I would have killed to have someone with that philosophy be my 3rd grade teacher:). I just learn in a different way, not the normal one :). Keeps life interesting

not here in the Philippines

[raeldc]

This is not the case here in the philippines. Here, when you see a good programmer, he/she's also very good in written english. Besides, here you can't get accepted to a decent job if you're not good or even excellent in English.

I remember in the first months of my job as a programmer, I also served as a proof reader. Imagine that! But of course I'm not as good as a professional proof reader.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[hosecoat]

I've always found it intriguing that a programmer who could master several arcane computer languages (especially since computers are notably intolerant of errors), could fail so utterly to master his own native human language.

One aspect is that the rules of the computer language are more formal, whereas the rules of english always have exceptions.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[shobadobs]

Certainly not; it's pronounced housez. ;-)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Deadstick]

New ideas need new names, and "to google" is a perfectly reasonable adaptation. Mixing up two perfectly good, related but non-synonymous words like "desirous" and "desirable" is not.

rj

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is similar to what I was going to say. I really don't mind spelling or grammatical errors most of the time. Like he says, as long as you can understand it, right? I consider forum writing to be conversational, and I don't alway speak in perfect English, so my forum language matches my speaking language.

That said, some things do bother me. I can no longer read the words "lose" or "loose". I have seen them used incorrectly so often, and by people who should know better, that they now pull up a red flag. I have to come to a full stop every time I see the word to interpret it. Since you generally are looking several words ahead of where your mind is, that means a rewind, interpret, and re-read. This happens to me every time, even when the word is used correctly. It's about the only error I feel the need to correct in a forum like this, because it has actually had a negative impact on my reading ability.

I don't mind so much if somebody corrects my grammar, as long as they do it politely. If I know better, but just didn't bother, I can ignore them. If I didn't know better, then I learn something new. You can't break the flow of conversation in a forum, because the time lags are usually long anyway.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree 100%. Only people looking to start something give a rats ass if someone mispells a few words. Unless you are half retarded and can't understand what the sentence is trying to convey without someone having to "spell it out for you" (sorry the pun was irresistable)

vocabulary and manners

[obtuse]

Mostly one learns to spell by reading. I didn't explicitly try to learn to spell most of my vocabulary any more than I looked up definitions for all those words. Misspelled words look wrong to me. They interrupt my flow of reading, and once that doesn't happen anymore, I've internalized the alternate spelling of the word. It doesn't seem like a matter of ambiguity, but in fact this helps me to recognize novel words and understand the language. I want things that don't make sense to jump out at me. That way I can learn. Spelling badly in public teaches bad spelling.

One assumption of the original query is flawed. Who says most geeks care about technical accuracy? Often "geeks" fake it, figuring things out as they go along or making a quick study of a subject because they're sharp enough to pull it off. Not that there isn't anything wrong with that. Besides, people tend to polarize their worldview around two alternatives: Stuff I care about vs. unimportant trivia. Spelling seems to fall very much into the latter group for most people. By definition geeks are poorly socialized with little respect for convention. How dare you correct my spelling! Acting out of respect for the feelings of others in spite of our own, and graciously accepting criticism, are social skills.

Misspellings bother me, but I don't correct errors that don't have direct impact on the subject at hand. With close friends I might trust that they'd like to know, and hope they can forgive me for correcting them. It's like a lot of manners. Spelling badly is a faux pas, or minor social error, but correcting it is just rude.

It's odd, but we're talking about the converse of the problem when people mispronounce a word that they know from reading but have never heard. It's fun, because it almost always means that person reads a lot, but suddenly I'm thinking about something besides the subject.

Re:vocabulary and manners

[Blakey Rat]

It's odd, but we're talking about the converse of the problem when people mispronounce a word that they know from reading but have never heard. It's fun, because it almost always means that person reads a lot, but suddenly I'm thinking about something besides the subject.

That happens to me. It took me years to finally nail the pronounciation of "array." (I always said it air-ray.) It's a good example; a word that appears very often in books, but not very often in casual speech. Then again, since I had the pronounciation wrong, maybe it occured in casual speech more than I was aware and my brain just filtered it out as an 'unknown word, figure it out from context.'

Re:vocabulary and manners

[mutterc]

As a kid, you could spot me easily as someone who read a lot (and not just by the geeky appearance), because I knew a lot of words' meanings without knowing the correct pronounciation.

My favorite example is "penis" (pronounced as though the first three letters referred to the ink-using writing instrument).

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[mrdaveb]

They are not saying "Should have", they are not saying "Should've". They are saying "Should of".

This is the same as people selling their "labtop" computers on eBay. It's completely wrong, but it's completely understandable - people just misheard the word when they learnt it. The audible different between "should've" and "should of" is pretty much zero... language hasn't evolved a new phrase - what you are saying sounds exactly like it did before, so why try to insist on spelling it differently when you come to write it down?

"Their impressive command of the English language"

[Anonymous Coward]

You said:
"[They] have very little to add ..., other than showing off their impressive command of the English language".

Ah, there's your problem! You don't have one of those!

Feels bad, doesn't it?

Gimme a break!

[c0rr0ded]

"Do hackers and geeks just not care about communicating effectively? Do they not realize that a mediocre command of written English makes them appear less intelligent?"

This question smacks with generalization and stereotype. (DISCLAIMER: I do not use proper english). I gather that this question is based on someones experience reading comments on slashdot or some chat room, basically totally informal areas of communication. But besides that, what about a comparison to other fields like Lawyers or Doctors? Who really has proper english. Using the same generalization technique of the question's author i gather that the only people who use proper english are editors for dictionaries. Furthermore, I am willing to bet that the majority of our language is compromized of many improper bastardizations from other languages or even from within English itself.

Anyway stop picking on programmers and other members of the technologically elite. Just cause you cant code doesnt mean you can put us down for not writing well.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or watch Get Shorty

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[redheaded_stepchild]

you have no understanding in what genius comes from.

I believe you meant "of where genius comes from"?
'Specially' should actually be 'especially', 'boundries' should be 'boundaries'.
Your use of 'persons' should be apostrophied.
"I would argue most" should be "I would argue that most".

Wow. By your arguments, you must be the next Einstein. Seriously, though, where do you get racism from someone trying to help you overcome your handicap? I'll forgive you, but if you are truly ingenious, you will learn from your mistakes.

Concise, grammatically correct statements allow me to communicate effectively to other members of my group, without having to repeat myself. They get the point the first time, sans rehashing.

ObGetShorty

[Tim Browse]

e.g. - example given

Bullshit! That's short for "ergo"!

Re:ObGetShorty

[Mr.Mustard]

Are you sure?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=e.g.

Re:ObGetShorty

[Anonymous Coward]

Joke
^
|
|
|
---> Little birdie, flying by
|
|
|
v
Your Head

Re:ObGetShorty

[Anonymous Coward]

Exemplia Gratia? For the sake of example, no?

Re:ObGetShorty

[Tim Browse]

To the best of my knowledge, "e.g." means "for example".

Re:ObGetShorty

[swe]

I think the parent was providing a method to help remember their meaning - using modern English - not trying to explain what they stood for.

"e.g." does not stand for "ergo", however. It stands for, "exempli gratia".

Re:ObGetShorty

[Tim Browse]

Whew, this slashdot posting business is tough. I might just have to go back to loan-sharking for a while to get some vacation.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

i like my 24" 2405FPW from Dell... 1920X1200 pixels about 2.3 million pixels of course, and well, not a single defective pixel that I am aware of. not to bad for $959 (hey i missed the good deals)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Iago515]

And in English, "I'm not going to eat something" sounds very strange, too. Try "I'm not going to eat anything." "Anything" is generally used for negative sentences and questions, while "something is used for positive sentences.

Re:Ob-Simpsons - Ralph Wiggum

[Anonymous Coward]

Your cromulence has embiggened us all!

Explanation:

[PureFiction]

It baffles me that a culture so obsessed with technical knowledge and accuracy can demonstrate such little attention to detail when it comes to communicating that knowledge with others

Human languages for person-person communication have a fair amount of redundancy to ensure reliable transmission. you "undrstnd wha im sying?"

languages designed for human-computer / computer-computer conversation are much less forgiving. flip a bit and the meaning is inverted! :)

Hackers, Spelling, and Grammar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Strom, people are not perfect.And that goes for you too.You can't spell every word in the dictionary correctly. You are nothing special because everyone makes mistakes when it comes to spelling and grammar.

What you need to realize is that people can form bad spelling habits at a young age and it can stick with them for the rest of their lives.That has nothing to do with appearing less intelligent, it's a bad habit or just not knowing.

Now if someone knows they cant spell and does nothing about it that person is lazy or has no time to study English(work, social life).I think calling someone "less intelligent" is a primitive observation.It's just a way to make yourself look superior to others.Plus telling anyone, even a geek to spell correctly you have to be a dork.lol.

I cant think of someone more irritating.And using the word baffles.....LMAO.What you said says a lot about you.It says to me that you are one uptight mother.And you need a surgery to remove whatever is up your ass lol.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Merk]

i todally agree with you. when your posting on slashdot your not writing a assay for you're schol, your writing to other geks stupid gramer natzis with there "semicolins" and "punkuashon", there probly wacking off wile they corect you, in fact I bet... no, I wont go their. anyhow noone should get there panties in a not becuz somon cant spel, its allabout the contint of the messig.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[KarMann]

Actually, that's present perfect (which, despite the name, is a past tense); the past perfect would be "you had got (or gotten) mail".

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[shitdrummer]

We should throw out the old spelling. Knight is spelled the way it is because it used to be pronounced kuh-nig-it (yes, just like monty python). All it does is confuse everyone.

Because it is just so difficult to differentiate between Knight and night isn't it. If that one's hard, how about to, two, and too?

Seriously, is it any harder to remember which night/knight to use than deciding to use a char or an int?

Laziness, pure laziness.

Shitdrummer

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[idsofmarch]

But, that's the whole point of grammar and punctuation, to make things more understandable. Granted we could all write wtht vwls or we could ignore punctuation all together, but why don't we just use the rules that work.

Think of it this way, what's the difference between hey, help your uncle Jack off a horse and hey, help your uncle jack off a horse.

There's a big difference in meaning from just a simple capitalization error, and you'll find dozens of example where poor punctuation, grammar, spelling entirely changes the meaning of a sentance.
Granted I can parse through mistakes, but why should I have to? In other words, if your writing is not important enough for you to take the time to make everything correct, why should I bother reading it?

ewe half god two bee kitten mi

[dotmax]

Is the doe-eyed self congratulatory drivel of the parent article sufficient to rise above the threshold for acceptance into Ask Slashdot? I am picking up a strong Therman Merman resonance here. Prescription: STFU, get a clue and rent a life. jeebus.

k0r3kt sp3ling sux0rs!

[Parity]

*cough* Yes, you're missing something. It's been a big part of young computer geek culture to tromp all over grammar and spelling. When I was a teenager, it was writing in all lower-case (and a continuous stream of crude words intermixed). Some people were actively proud of their inability to spell - 'real hackers can't spell'. Some time after that, it was 133+ 5p34k. To-day there's a whole set of IM slang, though maybe that's a bit more mainstream than just geeks, but still, it's a similar phenomenon.

Generally, people grow out of this and start writing reasonably normally.

Parallel to this is the acronym-speak of usenet, which has carried over to some extent to the web.
Generally people -don't- grow out of this, IMO, but YMMV.

Anyway, there has been a gap between those who care about correct spelling and language for its own sake (also known as liberal arts majors), and those who care about computers and networks for their own sake (also known as compsci and engineering majors).

Obviously, the increasing usability of computers and the internet is bringing people of all backgrounds together in cyberspace, but the core value of 'we're too cool for spelling' still exists. (There have also always been some people who do care about clear English language communication and computers at the same time, of course.)

(There's a whole other argument to be made about attention spans, long term memory, and the modern era, but I'm sure someone will cover that side of the story.)

We've a real jewel at work

[Lectrik]

Our general manager has both horrible grammar and spelling. There are two of us at work who make it a point to correct every new sign and notice he puts up. He tends toward dropping words and using them incorrectly, but there is also the matter of horrible run on sentences that look like paragraphs, incorrect/incomplete punctuation (nothing quite like forgetting to close a parenthetical), misuse of phrases, incorrcet capitolization and the ever dreaded capslock.
There's nothing like an important full page notice in 24 point all caps serif font to make you want to bust out the red (or green) pen to correct him.

I've been in the office while he writes these notices before and even though he uses MS word and his screen is covered in spelling/grammar squiggles he ignores them. I wish there was a word plug-in that could disable printing if there are error squiggles.

Note: Yes, I realize there may be grammar and spelling errors in this post, but it's not a notice to employees and this isn't a business. There also isn't something pointing out these errors, unless you count the grammar nazis that will show up later

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly, I really dont want your critique of my grammar and spelling skills. If the post is intelligible or the error changes the meaning of the post significantly, then there's your time to jump in with your corrections. Otherwise, it just seems arrogant that folks like you feel free to offer your unsolicited advice and expect me to appreciate it.

He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot. Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee. Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.

Proverbs 9:7-9

Case in point

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had demonstrated a knowledge of proper English grammar and usage just now, I might have been able to decipher your post.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[EvanED]

That doesn't help the issue at all.

If you use "viz" you are hardly better off than "i.e." because it's no more clear which you mean. It's just that with "viz" the ambiguity comes built into the correct definition, while with "i.e." the ambiguity comes from misuse.

The reason that using "i.e." as "for example" is bad isn't that there's some grammar god who will get mad and smite you if you don't follow the prescribed rules, it's because it increases the ambiguity of language. If I'm reading something that uses "i.e." it's usually possible to make a good guess if it's used as "that is" or "for example", but not always. And when writing, if it's important to make the distinction, "i.e." is out because too many people will misunderstand it.

The argument that always comes up against language pedants is "well, if I can get across what I mean unambiguously, what's the harm?" But the misuse of "i.e." makes it so that your statement is ambiguous, because I don't know if you're using it correctly or not. (Or, in the common case where it doesn't effect a particular sentence's ambiguity, it at least contributes to the belief that "i.e." = "for example" which helps propogate the ambiguous instances.)

But vis has the exact same problems.

Levels of effort

[SuperKendall]

Sorry man, spellchecking is for computers. That's what we made them for.

So now, if I'm on a Mac I generally spellcheck posts because it is easy.

But sometimes I don't because a post on Slashdot is, when you get right down to it, worthless. So no effort to verify spelling is warranted or really take any care with the message is warranted. After all, even with some mistakes people will pretty much be able to figure out what I am saying even with glaring errors present. So when the point of the message is only to put something up that others can read, lax spelling is OK.

Now sometimes when I care more about what I am saying - yes, then I will go to the effort of spellchecking (or at least re-reading my own text before I post) even if I'm posting from Windows or elsewhere. If I feel like I am trying to convince someone of something they might not otherwise go for, I make sure all the I's are dotted and so forth because any error can and does distract from the persuasiveness of a message. But again not all messages are world-changing missives and so do not warrant that degree of effort.

The fact is that the the amount of communication we engage in day-to-day has jumped tremendously, so it's only natural that engineering types would seek to optimize time spent on a task that can normally be highly automated - it's just not automated in all the tools people use for messages. For much of what we type the only goal is to transmit information and therefore any errors in the message that do not lead to error in understanding on the receiving end simply do not matter.

In fact I would go so far as to say that if you are not seeking optimization of time through caring less about spelling, well - what is wrong with you? :-)

Re:Levels of effort

[FurryFeet]

But sometimes I don't because a post on Slashdot is, when you get right down to it, worthless.

If you really believe that, why even post? Seriously. Think about it.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[KarMann]

There are 11 types of people in the world: those who can count in binary, and those who can't.

Kind of off topic but since this thread is about giving people unwanted criticism, shouldn't that be 10 types of people? :)

I dunno, one of my own favourite variations (that I came up with myself, though I sincerely doubt I was the first) is "There are three types of people in the world: those who can count, and those who can't," so his version seems a cute hybrid of the two to me. :)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[crabpeople]

tru dat

jargon file

[hosecoat]

this should answer your questions.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[poopdeville]

Nice example. "No voy a comer nada" would be translated literally as "I'm not going to eat nothing," but idiomatically means "I'm not going to eat anything."

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

the native English speakers'----

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

It would seem that you just offered your unsolicited advice. Furthermore, offering a correction is not handing out advice. It's arrogant to believe you simply don't need correcting. I offer corrections because I know there are a lot of non-native speakers that just don't know any better. Ironically, they're the most receptive to this criticism. The rest, such as yourself, say "I'm not an idiot, I'm just too lazy, so deal with it". Very good attitude to have . . .

Anyway, if I offer up a block of C code that doesn't compile, I know I can expect 10 posts on the matter, and they'll all get modded up. Why then is it wrong to correct your English?

Compounding all of this, we're complaining about spelling and grammar errors, not typos. Using "than" instead of "then" isn't a typo, it's just wrong. So, now we're supposed to parse what you mean by your words and judge your content that way? What if I just post a blatant lie, and then blame you for correcting me by saying, "you know what I meant"? Sounds pretty absurd, eh?

Linguistic Nits

[tsanth]

who pronounces "definitely" with a long a sound in place of the second i

Depending on the person, I hear that second 'i' pronounced as a schwa, as "ih," as "uhh," or various things in between.

According to the many (varied) people I've heard pronounce it, "definately" is usually a closer match than "definitely."

Re:Linguistic Nits

[Holly GoDarkly]

How do people pronounce its root, definite? How about definition? Or definite's root, finite? Words aren't isolated incidents. You'll have a bigger mess than you realize when we language police die out. Tower of Babel, anyone?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep.

KBLAME KDE!

[jvd]

Linux geeks suffer of this problem thanks to KDE! Konqueror, Konversation!, blame those kock suckers!

Good enough

[chord.wav]

Jus becuse, most of the time, it is good enough for the other party to unerstand it.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Fareq]

inflammable/inoperable - same prefix, but opposite meanings

That is because inflammable doesn't have a prefix. The root word is inflame.

As for You've mail, it might be correct, but I wouldn't... You surely could say "You have mail," but I wouldn't contract it there... and I'm not sure why not. I think it has to do with the fact that in this case you are using "have" to mean possession rather than using "have" as part of the past tense. The difference between "You have eaten" and "You have food."

Also, "You have got mail" isn't entirely correct, I don't think. I think proper English says that should be either "You have mail" or "You have gotten mail" -- the first meaning you currently possess mail, the other being you once received mail (that's one of those less-common tenses that I can't remember the name of.

its versus it's... the trouble is there are two rules that conflict:

Rule #1: Use an apostrophe to indicate where the chomped letters are in a contraction

Rule #2: For possessiveness, apply an apostrophe followed by an s for a singluar possessor.

In this case both would be "it's" -- and this is one of those cases where "someone" decided to just pick one. Maybe there's a fascinating story around why...

Let's be clear...

[Mike Markley]

I'm often accused of being a grammar nazi. With that said, I do it online amongst friends in the general spirit of giving each other shit. Even the most pedantic don't really care if your grammar sucks in an informal setting like Slashdot or IRC; we do, however, get bored sometimes.

Now, on to my point: Those who claim that they're ignoring the accepted conventions of English grammar and spelling simply because "it's just a forum" or "it's just chat" generally seem to screw it up in more formal settings, too. I've got a coworker who is consistently guilty of this. I don't think he's subhuman because he can't spell -- in fact, he's a great guy -- but when I see emails going to management with basic mistakes of grammar and spelling, it makes me cringe. We gave him crap about it until he started spellchecking every email he sends, but as often as not, his typos are bad enough that the spellchecker picks some other word entirely. Naturally, he blindly accepts the suggestion. Yes, he is a native English speaker -- monolingual, in fact.

I'm sure I'll catch flak for a generalization like this, but most of the "it doesn't matter under this circumstance" types (at least of those I've gotten to know) can't properly spell (or assemble a sentence) when it does matter, either. As a result, such proclamations usually ring hollow, at least to me. I suspect that I'm far from alone in this.

It can hurt you

[mschuyler]

The best hacker/geek I know once worked for me. He can program a Cisco router from his memory, which I still believe is photographic. I used to kid him that all her had to do was look at the cover of a book to know its contents. An amazing fellow, truly, who was into Linux when it came on a 5-1/4" floppy disk. Hard working when necessary, I think he has elements of genius.

However, his English skills were terrible. He could not put together a grammatical sentence. His punctuation was random at best. He couldn't spell the easiest words. His written work was a rambling mess and unpresentable.

As a result I could not allow him to originate any official written communication, on our letterhead or otherwise, to any decision-maker, supervisor, member of the public, customer, or anyone who might be adversely affected. Part of my job was to at least try to make my company sound literate.

This lack of English skill limits his advancement potential. He will always be a technical asset to the organization, but he will never rise above where he is. He's stuck where he is because he has never learned basic grammar, spelling, and punctuation.

Too bad, but that's the way it is in real life. By the way, "English" is not the issue here. You could say the same thing in any other language.

Re:It can hurt you

[The MESMERIC]

maybe he is very happy where he is?
hackers are best left managing code not people.
it requires social intelligence to do that, something most geek/hackers seriously lack.

Re:It can hurt you

[mschuyler]

That begs the question.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

not a single defective pixel that I am aware of.

Ignorance is bliss, just wait till you happen to see a stuck red pixel (difficult to notice), you'll just keep looking at it. Happened to me on my powerbook.

IANA Linguist (yet), but....

[aarcher]

"Correct english" is defined by one's environment of use, I believe. If in your environment, it is correct to say/write/type "should of" instead of "should have," then you will do so when communicating with English speakers of other environments. E.g., some Brits say "but-ah" when refering to what some USA-ians call "bud-er" and some Aussies will demand is "bud-ah" (you know, dairy product, usually yellowish, spread on toast, etc.). Extrapolate this to other languages, and, voila, you have one definition of dialects.

(Insert comment about global society here.)

Back to the question at hand, people spell the way they do and use the grammar they use because, in their most common linguistic environment, that is accepted, common, and expected. If a Texan spoke/wrote to a Minesotan (in his usual method of speech/writing), then the Minesotan would have to adjust his 'language-deciphering-skills' to account for the differences.

In summary, I believe that it is O.K. and even expected for new dialects to emerge and older ones to have difficulties when they come in contact. I believe that is the natural course of language.

However, IANAL. :)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[tiptone]

Don't worry, I've got points I'll mod him up....Doh!

Compooters and gramer

[AntibubbleAli]

Thahts wut spell chek es fer

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Hope Thelps]

You're half right.

Language evolves in a useful way both because people are constantly introducing changes AND because those changes are resisted. If it was a free for all then it would quickly collapse into gibberish.

In practice changes are happening all the time but many of these changes don't stick, precisely because they are resisted. Those that are useful, aesthetically pleasing, amusing or just fashionable have a good chance of thriving. That's how language develops, constant change AND constant resistance to change.

You're right that artificial constraints on language are ineffective. However, any plan to prevent having others correct our 'mistakes' and new usages is also doomed to failure.

Other languages suffer the same

[DegeneratePR]

You should see how people write here in Puerto Rico. Spanish is one of the toughest languages to learn, and I know people with college degrees, who are in their mid-to-late twenties, who have lived in Puerto Rico their entire lives, that have extremely poor grammar. Hell, even the C.E.O. of my company writes some horrible E-Mails that I have to read two or three times to understand what she wants.

Spelling matters, as does maths!

[Rexel99]

Make a mathematical error and the result doesn't work, make a gramatical error and the message still gets out, so for the most part it's easier to be slack and not to bother when writing. A compiler will spell check your programming gramatics for you. If they bothered to spell-check a text doc then it would improve a lot, but it's hard to do in a quick-reply text box. It is also of note that students are no longer told they are wrong in schools, they are told that they tried hard or did really well in a particular place so they dont take critisism very well. Dont tell them they are wrong cause they can't handle it. We must also be able to be a little flexible on this matter too, cause as an Australian I will insist on the spelling of 'Colour' and also use colourful, non-english words like 'barbie' for a BBQ (and not the doll).

Selection effect

[Anonymous Coward]

The "sudden appearance" of lots of poor grammar may have several causes:

1. The average person's command of grammar has gotten worse.
   
2. The average person's command of grammar has not changed; it is still poor. Now, however, the Internet has unleashed their writing upon the world.

Think about what you have read over the decades. In the 80s, newspapers and magazines---professionally edited. Novels. Handwritten letters, occasionally. Memos and reports at work, perhaps; the writers of such reports and memos are probably above average grammarians. On average, you only saw reasonably-good examples of written language. In the 90s, you started getting email from friends who would never have written a letter. You started reading the work of strangers on alt.fans.family.matters.urkel. You read amateur synopses of Simpsons episodes on the Web. Your overall exposure to language broadened---but the writers were still smarter-than-average people, perhaps, being the first 5% or 10% of Net users.
But this was your first exposure to lots of unpolished writing.

Nowadays, it's a free-for-all. The barrier to entry has vanished. You're reading first drafts, second drafts, hungover tirades, high school students, non-native speakers. The modern experience of bad grammar on the Net is probably very similar to the age-old experience of, e.g., high school history teachers suffering through their students' essays.

On the other hand, grammar is and should be descriptive, not prescriptive. A glance through the OED will give you a thousand examples of mistakes, misunderstandings, and "bad grammar" that slowly became acceptable usages. Someday "should of" will be acceptable in fine English; people will wonder where it came from ("odd usage of of, isn't it?"). The OED 2150 edition will say "should have; from misinterpretation of contraction should've, late 20th c". And that will be cool.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[falconwolf]

There exist 66,000 ideograms (maybe), but only 700 or so are in common use (in Simplified Chinese), compared to 2000 in Japanese.

Though a person may be able to get by with the 700 Simplified Chinese ideograms, Simplified Chinese is relatively new with the communists under Mao having instituted it. In both Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese, the only difference between them being oral or vocal in that a given ideogram though having the same meaning will be said compleatly differently in each dialect, the average person can get by with 2000 ideograms. A person can get by with Simplified Chinese in Mainland China but it's not used much elsewhere, for instance Formosa, er Taiwan, doesn't use it. The book I used when learning Chinese, Read and Write Chinese: A Simplified Guide to the Chinese Characters has about 3200 ideograms.

Gosh it's been too long since I've used Chinese.

Falcon

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Fareq]

Upon re-reading other's comments, I think the person who talked about "its" being like "his" , "her" , and "your" is more correct than I am with my two-rule thing...

Oh well... you can't always be right... especially if you aren't going to look it up first.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[GlassUser]

The bottom line (get it? line? ghoti?) is that I, personally, could care less which language you use as long as it is used properly. Enough of this econo-speak - how you say and spell things does make a difference in how what you are communicating.

Your own use of the language fails to support your stated position.

It baffles me...

[mtz206]

and it baffles me that this is a /. article......yawn....

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

No offense but: "5 minutes" is a measure of time and "fast" is an indication of speed, not a measure of it.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Smidge204]

"Should", "Could" and "Would" don't have ANY tense.

A: "What do you want to to do tonight?"
B: "We could go see a movie, but I think we should just rent something... that would be cheaper."

Also, "have" in "should have" is not a verb either. It's another modifier. Usually the verb follows after, with "(sh|c|w)ould have" suggesting a possible alternative to a past action.

"He would have left a bigger tip if he had change."
"You could have turned left on main street as a shortcut."
"You should have read the manual first."

The verb determines tense. There is only a handful of exceptions where the "have" is the acting verb, and is always used as a possessive for the subject.

"The jar should have holes in the lid."
"The car could have a larger engine if you want that option."
"He would have more time if he stopped surfing slashdot."

You are absolutely correct that language evolves. However, you can't honestly claim that substituting "of" for "have" in any of the above examples is sensible, readable english because 'of' is a preposition. It might be acceptable in speech from the slurring of "should've" but that does not make it grammatically correct.
=Smidge=

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Refrag]

Even better is to never use them.

Ignoring the rules shows you don't care.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't care enough about your message to make the minor effort required to follow the basic rules of grammar and usage, then why should I care enough to read it?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[fatalwall]

I hope you realize that you're showing your ignorance. The least you could do is insult me with class if you're so "educated." By the by I said I don't mind being corrected. Insulting some one is a totally different level. In the futcher you should be careful about who you insult. Calling some one who has a proven disability when it comes to processing of written language is something that shows the class of person you are. Could it be that people wish to not have grand grammar as they don't wish to turn out to be snobbish and looking down at people who could possible be smarter then yourself in many ways? A large number of programmers think in mathematics not English. Do us all a favor and learn to accept that not every one will be like you.

Well...

[ultramk]

This may very well be the worst possible venue for this sort of discussion. On the other hand, it is "ground zero" for linguistic crime, so perhaps some good will come of this.

I'm reading a lot of defensive, "how dare u insult my grammer! there's no such thing as correct language OMG" posts... this is unsurprising. It's a sensitive subject, especially for people who like to think of themselves as educated and intelligent.

To respond to a few of the ideas being mentioned:

1. "There's no such thing as correct language!"

True, but completely meaningless in this context. While the language does change and grow as the popular usage changes, mistakes are still possible. "Lose" is not properly spelled "loose," not now, not a hundred years ago, not a hundred years from now. It's a mistake. Likewise, lack of punctuation and capitalization just obscure the ideas behind the words.

2. "but but but! it's my words! i can say them any way i want"

True, but don't be surprised if the rest of us (poor, classically-educated fools that we are) judge you based on your apparently poor education or substandard intelligence.

On the other hand, some people (myself included) like to play with the language, purposefully tweaking things for effect. Don't mistake this for ignorance or apathy. One of the most skilled English speakers I know of is Salman Rushdie. His ability to use the language verges on the musical: he twists it, stretches it, pulls it, and makes it do things that it was never meant for. And yet... he keeps the ideas intact.

It reminds me of when I used to teach wheel-throwing in the ceramics department as an undergrad, where there would be a mixture of advanced students along with the freshmen. The advanced students would be doing all sorts of free-form, asymmetrical work, while the beginners had to produce a simple, straight-sided cylinder for their first piece. Invariably, one of the freshmen would complain that their work was being judged by a different standard. This difference is, I would explain to them, that the advanced students have already show that they know how to make a simple, straight-sided cylinder, while you have not. You have to learn the rules before you're allowed to break them.

m-

LANGUAGE IS CREATED BY USAGE

[johnjosephbachir]

natural (human) language is created by usage

natural language grammars and dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive

Source: Mark Twain

[SFalcon]

The parent is Mark Twain's proposal for the improvement of english spelling. Link

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[poopdeville]

Nobody cares what you scored. Get over yourself.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Winkhorst]

So why doesn't some 'twit with a bloody Anglish degree write a version with the proper damned modern spellings? Why do the bloody pedants make you try to read the blimy mythspeelinged version?

Re:You are so wrong, grammer is not important.

[idsofmarch]

This is racism and elitism.

Huh? You're telling me to expect that high school graduates don't have to know how to spell or understand the basic grammar of the English language? How is that racist? Oh, wait you're saying that non-whites (I'm guessing) don't have to learn proper English grammar because they have poor schools. Nope, its the other way around, poor schools should be fixed so kids do know proper English so they can communicate effectively and excel in their lives and not be held to some lower standard. We should up the standards for all our kids, poor and rich alike.

It is all about snobbery. People who think they are better than other people SUCK! I agree, snobbery is bad, but so is refusing to learn. A few Parisians will snear at your accent and mistakes, but lots of them will help you, just like the Italians. However, I don't think many of the Italians, patient as they are, would enjoy speaking with an American, who after years of living in Italy, couldn't speak well-enough to order a pizza. Thus, a kid, even in a poor school, should be expected to learn English in spite of being in a poor school.

I know it's not fair that some Yale-educated wanker gets everything so easily and some kid from Harlem, or some kid who crossed the border when he was five, has to struggle to learn English. But, them's the breaks, that's the thing in life. You struggle to attain success and you refuse to take the lower-standard.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Spock the Baptist]

|rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

I see now that you are a member of the Grammar Gestapo.

No doubt that you ware an adhesive tape button with an upside down lower case e on you lapel.

The Grammar Gestapo: By their schwa-stickers ye shall know them!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Language change is all well and good. But what we see on /. aren't as much language shifts as idiosyncracies. These are a hindrance to reading.

Human reading is pipelined, like the way a CPU works. Your eyes are scanning words while your brain is still lagging behind. When you hit a word whose meaning is unclear, even for a tiny fraction of a second, you don't just have to stop and think about that word - it essentially causes a pipeline stall. For a fraction of a second you may have to go back and rescan all of the words that were busy making their way through the pipeline. The net effect is that an idiosyncracy can disrupt the smooth flow of reading for a significant period of time. Not only does it slow down reading, it takes the pleasure out of reading too.

Of course if you don't read very fast then bad spelling probably has little impact on you.

lack of single valid usage doesn't mean no wrongs

[nothings]

Your argument would be a lot more convincing if you wrote it like this:

Uh,

Whut iz thiz 'Englesh currect' dat you speek of? Kan U mi sehnnnd uh cope fo da foficial Anglesh stinkage bookhand? Non. Hrm. Wellll be-may cud ya appointenmentin' me da fofishal bawdy fof het guvanin Anguish stinkage. U mean, won hash French hand dozen Angst?

Bugglemeister:

Dren woh wu we kro dat corked Angstrom does? Rimmin, 'kirk' Angles spy federation 'mockin'' Angry? N! Bt thn wht wll ll ths sm-ntllgnt pdnts wh hvnt cght n t th fct tht 'shld hv' s n mr mnngfl thn 'shld f', bt tht 'shld f' s mch mr cmmn n spkn nglsh d? Wh knws!

JIiowefojmn kwmefoij powkefke kweopk[qp[dl fokw keok glrke elgk pwoefko, weifj pkoqfkopkwep gekp[wqij ksflk pergl pl wrgoko ewf kplkwefok wefkokohgokpekrlgmlm wef'okkwef' owkokpwefnkn wepfojm lkwefpom lmlwefpojoj ,mweflm po 'omwefom' owjopnknaxp.

+Mpoitch

Indeed, you appear to be in support of Humpty-Dumpty:

`And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

-- Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll

Communication skills spelling and grammar

[Allison Geode]

I understand a lot of people have problems typing quickly, and take spelling and grammatical shortcuts, or are just careless in their haste. That said, I'm a fairly quick typer, and only use improper grammar in casual situations, and if I am doing something in a formal context, I make sure to use proper English and spelling.

The only time I am critical of someone's bad spelling or grammar, because, yes, it does take a bit more time for some people to work out proper English, is when its used in a formal setting (who do you hire, the guy who speaks well, or the guy who speaks "good"?), or if I can't figure out what someone is trying to say. There have been so many times, when instant messaging people, that they take shortcuts, or make mistakes, and it makes the meaning of the message incomprehensible.

so....

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck Spelling.

bastards, leave me alone!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[quoll]

This is actually a day-to-day problem for me.

I'm Australian, and officially we use British spelling. That means we use "gaol" instead of "jail", "colour" instead of "color", and (mostly) use the letter "s" in words where America uses "z". "license" is the verb, and "licence" is the noun, while America just has "license". But I write code (and documentation) for an exclusively American market. So I have to change to American standards throughout all of my work.

But what should I do when I blog about my work? It's a personal thing for me, and read by people in Australia, Europe and North-America. Do I talk about "synchronisation primitives"? Do I "serialise" data? Should I use a GPL "licence"? Or should I be using the American standards?

Idioms are another issue. They tend to migrate from America to Australia, but it sounds strange to adopt it too early. "Should of" is just one example of language changing. 10 years ago, no one in Australia said "Cool". Now we all do. 50 years ago "got" meant "received" and nothing else. Now it is used as a superfluous adjunct to "have" (I've got to speak correctly). Which of the changes in language are appropriate to use?

Maybe my blog shouldn't matter, but it turns out that most of my clients read it, and it has led to several offers of work. I don't want to appear illiterate in it!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[EvanED]

In order for me to communicate most effectively with another person it is important that I do it in a manner which they understand. In order for me to understand someone else's communication it is most effective if I adjust to their method of communication.

And herein lies the problem. How do you know what that method of communication is?

The more people follow the rules, the more you can be reasonably sure what I mean.

For instance, if I tell you, "Stay away from Bob, he's nauseous," what do I mean?

Am I warning you to stay away from Bob because he feels sick and might throw up on you (the common, "incorrect" use of the word), or am I warning you to stay away from Bob because he is, in the word's "correct" sense, actually nauseous and will cause you to throw up?

You don't know, do you? Even if I tell you beforehand that I'm careful with my word choice, you still don't know if I know or care about the correct definition of nauseous.

But if people used "nauseous" just in its correct sense -- inducing nausea -- then you'd have no idea.

If I am in a non English speaking country and I do not know the language well will communication be benefited if the person to whom I am speaking doesn't attempt to communicate at my level of understanding?

For foreign speakers, it's best if you follow the rules better, not try to dumb down your talk. As a sort of stupid example, if you send a new English speaker something with "should of" in it, they won't have any clue what the "of" is there for. If they have someone to turn to for questions, I would bet many would.

reading comprehension

[crabpeople]

"Reading a post, a report or an email from someone who you know is technically adept but suffers from poor English skills is like watching a flickering television set. You know the message is there but you have to view it several times before you get through the static to what it actually means."

maybe you grammar nazis have to work a bit more on your reading comprehension skills. I honestly think its a failing when people cannot see the forrest ( the message ) for the trees ( the spelling ). am I the only one who thinks that spelling is like 1/100th as important as the message that you are trying to get across?

Picking on someones spelling is basically, to me, like saying "yo mama" in response to what someone has to say. its a cop out. oh and BTW i spelled comprehension phonetically and my spell checker says its right so suck it

Re:reading comprehension

[throx]

Chip on your shoulder much? I don't correct people's spelling, I just don't bother with anyone who doesn't show the common courtesy to their fellow person to make it less work to read their message. If they don't respect me enough to make their post legible, why should I respect them enough to put the work in to decipher their gobbeldygook?

In any case, neither the article or my response was about picking on spelling or grammar. It was about being "strict on send and liberal on receive" - something any good technical person should know all about. If you are upset about having to show respect for others then perhaps introspection would be better than random aggression?

Cheers.

Re:reading comprehension

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, it's spelled "forest".

Re:reading comprehension

[1u3hr]

am I the only one who thinks that spelling is like 1/100th as important as the message that you are trying to get across?

What a straight line. Of course spelling and grammar is important. It shows you paid attention in primary school. I don't know anything about you aside from the words you type. So I'll judge you a idiot and won't waste my time puzzling through your text to see if you perhaps have a point. The same way I have to wear a suit and tie if I want people to take me seriously in a business context, though I'll actually do most of my work wearing shorts and sandals and no shirt in front of my PC.

Re:reading comprehension

[Drantin]

Somewhat ironically, you should have used an instead of a before idiot...

Re:reading comprehension

[1u3hr]

Somewhat ironically, you should have used an instead of a before idiot...

It's a natural law: make a grammar flame, hoist yourself petardwise.

Re:reading comprehension

[stanmann]

Mispelling comprehension is forgivable, mispelling forest is not.


Bonus points for finding the mispelling in my post.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Winkhorst]

Indeed! Twain hits the nail on the head again!

English is MUCH easier than other languages

[Anonymous Coward]

and english is only ambiguous if you want it to be, our large set of words in common use allows us flexiblity

I thought "amen" meant "I believe".

[falconwolf]

AmenThe word Amen (Tiberian Hebrew 'mn "So be it; truly", Standard Hebrew Amen, Arabic 'mn) is a declaration of affirmation found in the Hebrew Bible and in the Qur'an. It has always been in use within Judaism. It has been generally adopted in Christian worship as a concluding formula for prayers and hymns. In Islam, it is the standard ending to surat al-Fatiha. Common English translations of the word amen include: "Verily", "Truly", "So be it", and "Let it be".

Falcon

Re: I thought "amen" meant "I believe".

[topper24hours]

Thanks. define: amen in google found these two which are a little closer to what I thought - a Hebrew word meaning truly, it is true. As a concluding word of prayers, it expressed assent to and acceptance of God's will. www.archmil.org/ourfaith/glossary.asp Means "Yes, this is true!" or "Let it be so!" www.followtherabbi.com/Brix As a Catholic, we say this word as we receive communion. I was told that this was an affirmation that you believe in the solemnity of what you are receiving.

Re: I thought "amen" meant "I believe".

[falconwolf]

Thanks. define: amen in google found these two which are a little closer to what I thought - a Hebrew word meaning truly, it is true. As a concluding word of prayers, it expressed assent to and acceptance of God's will. www.archmil.org/ourfaith/glossary.asp Means "Yes, this is true!" or "Let it be so!" www.followtherabbi.com/Brix As a Catholic, we say this word as we receive communion. I was told that this was an affirmation that you believe in the solemnity of what you are receiving.

The link to Wiki I got from Define: amen which has links to dozens of online dictionaries.

Falcon

Re: I thought "amen" meant "I believe".

[wwest4]

It was stuck in my head in the first place because in French, amen is said as ainsi soit-il (literally: so be it)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Paradise Pete]

saying "I'm not going to eat anything" would retain the correct meaning.

Yes, I realize what you're saying, but the only way to really say it is No voy a comer nada, which literally translates to "I'm not going to eat nothing."

There is no Spanish word for "anything," because it's not particularly useful the way it is in English. The best you can do is say cualquier cosa, which translates to "whatever thing." So to avoid the double negative you have to say either "No voy a comer algo" (I'm not going to eat something) or "no voy a comer cualquier cosa" which is even worse.

So, that brings us back around to where it started with this double negative stuff, and I'm not going to write nothing more. ;-)

Spelling, Grammer, me? No!

[Zeussy]

Well I don't hide the fact that I have poor spelling and grammar. The problem is also hindered by that there is no real standard english. American, British, International, Australian etc. And when you talk to several nationalities a night, spelling just blurs. As well as the fact that everone have their own slang words and word order.

So I call all my weird sayings and such, New Engrish. The sky is many blue. So long as it reads and makes sense where is the harm? All languages change and evolve. Ye Old'e english had a totally different style today, its changed the civilisation hasn't fallen.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the United Kingdom wants its version of English to be the only correct way to use the language, it should have maintained its empire.

Dialects add character. Do you honestly believe that the Latin spoken through the Roman Empire was consistant?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[rednip]

And I always Google candidates (by name and email address) before hiring them. I believe that putting an illiterate consultant in front of my customers reflects poorly on my company and gives them little reason to choose my services over an offshore competitor.

Good thing my name is "John Smith", JK, really my name isn't that common, but a well published author shares it with me.

I used to use my 'real' email online, but it got so completely spam ridden, I stopped using it about 2001 and dropped the entire domain just last month, even after 4 years of inactivity, I still got like 50 messages a day on it (sometimes it'd peak at over 100). Now the only active account which even shows up is the one I use for this forum.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[crazyvas]

Actually, the accepted American way of pluralizing words with latin roots allows for adding an 's' at the end to pluralize: formula --> formulas etc.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[EvanED]

So dead pixels are like zits?

Re: Worms

[Anonymous Coward]

... "throughout just about every aspect of [what passes as] American culture"

Wow... What a statement. It is as if you mean to suggest that our use of language is all important and trumps any message, no matter how well it shines through the veneer of the miswritten word. Next you'll be telling me that politicians whose rhetorical skills excede their ability to reason should be elected for their eloquence and not their views on government, power or the legitimate uses of either.

I too would decry poor gramatical skill as a deficit but not enough to lose sight of the meaning behind a message. Which is, I suspect, the reason for a reaction to such public chastisement as you have offered in your comment.

Worms indeed...

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[SuperRob]

You're absolutely right, and quite frankly, I blame the educational system. College graduates are coming out of supposedly reputable four-year institutions, and still make mistakes such as "for all intensive purposes". I've seen CEOs that can't write a coherent e-mail, sales pitches riddled with mistakes, and otherwise bright people whom I laugh at whenever I read their written words.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Draigon]

The racism comment was a tounge-in-cheek metaphor. Also, calling someone a "fool" because they were saying they consider anyone who basically can't type or speak proper english must have no intelligence is not the same as the standard I put forward before. I was calling them a fool based on what they were communicating and not based on the actual words they used to communicate it. There is a difference. You missed the point.

Also, I do not consider myself a genius.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, then "of" goes from being a preposition to being a verb when used with "should".. context...

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

The forum should not dictate how seriously you take your writing style. Your writing is your representation here. If you take your words and grammar lightly, you will give the impression to others that you don't need to be taken seriously. It is ALWAYS important to write clearly; to utilise correct grammar; and to avoid Internet contractions and "1337".

C'mon folks, it's not rocket science. Give it your all, because you're supposed to be reasonably smart. Poor grammar and spelling makes the poster look less intelligent regardless of the content. If enough of us exercise poor grammar skills and spell badly enough, it creates the impression that we're all lazy idiots.

Hey Jake What's up

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously how ya' doin

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[angel'o'sphere]

and it baffles me even more that many people become enraged when you attempt to help them correct and learn from their mistakes.

So ... what to say? I think I'm probably notorious for bad spelling on /.

What I want to know: how do you expect me to learn spelling? If you say its called "lose" and not "loose" after a while I get it. I mean: if you tell it me litteraly 100 times, I get it.

But how do you asume one can "learn" spelling?

Frankly: I can't!

1) I write like it is spoken , and only in a small subset, and with help of spell checkers, I can figure spelling mistakes.

2) I don't see sreling errors. Some monthes ago there was an article about how misspelled words are read. E.g. that only the first and last leter need to fit and some in the middle and then it does not matter and you can read it. Like: srelling verus spelling.

For me its impossible to prove read anything. Because it contradicts the way I read.

I don't know how spelling was tought to my parents ... or how theory of teaching in spelling was 20 years before I went to school, or if there is a theory at all.

Point is: I only have a stupid grin if one tells me, this is not spelled like that! Especially if he assumes I would understand/agree. You could talk in chineese to me ... for me its NOT CLEAR, OBVIOUS or AGREEABLE or simple: ah, I got it, from now on I write it different.

Some people seem to write like a chiseler. Every letter they start writing, they reconsider: what do I want to write, how is it written correctly, where do I place my finger on the keyboard.

Sorry, I concatanate words, not letters. I dont realize, I CANT realize, if I ommit a letter or use the wrong one.
angel'o'sphere

No rules?

[Hope Thelps]

`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[JDevers]

I couldn't think of another way to differentiate words which are truly spelled wrong and typos. Obviously letter order is part of spelling, I should have specified letter CHOICE or something...

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

ObPython:

"What? Spell bolor with a "k"? ... kolor... I'd never thought of that. What a silly bunt!"

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[gilroy]

Frankly, I really dont want your critique of my grammar and spelling skills.

You forgot the apostrophe in "don't". :)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[kbielefe]

Good grammar, spelling, and punctuation is not only about communicating a message. It is about the quality of the link. Reading should be as pleasant as talking face to face with an old friend in a quiet room. Using bad grammar, spelling, and punctuation is more like yelling into a cell phone at a ballpark. There is no doubt that communication takes place, but it could be a lot better.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Paradise Pete]

Try "I'm not going to eat anything."

You're right, in English. Another guy wrote a similar reply, and here's what I said.

bias and ludicrous

[YesIAmAScript]

Those two kill me, and I see them a lot. People seem to think that "bias" is an adjective, instead of noun.

And I don't just mean the joking "HardOCP is bias" stuff, but people thinking that bias really is something a person can BE.

And I guess many people never saw ludicrous in print, so they think it is spelled ludacris, like the rapper. Maddening.

I don't see this as hackers, more internet message boards and IRC. And in re: the original poster, I saw "definately" a lot before the internet even became popular (like in 1990).

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

And the possessive form if "it" is "its",
</Conga Line>

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[poopdeville]

There's a difference between the natural evolution of a language over time, and the massacre that has been happening in recent years. Things like '*ould of' that don't even make grammatical sense are far more problematic in my mind than misspellings like 'alot' or 'loosing.' I can even cut some slack to people who frequently use text messaging and get in the habit of using those abbreviations online, but there are plenty of scary errors that are commonplace, and 'evolving language' is a weak excuse for laziness.

You're just old. So you haven't been able to keep up with the slang and are feeling left out. It happens to everybody at some point, though I've come to hope that more of you "fuddie duddies" realize this and lighten up. I'm sure your generation came up with lots of changes for the English language. Just check the OED, 1930-1959, and I bet you'll find thousands of words coined, thousands modified, and thousands put into disuse. Do you really think your changes didn't upset the old people then? Did that stop you from using them? Did it mean you were lazy?

Don't forget that

[jonesy16]

I suppose this can be viewed from a few different angles. The first being that "proper" English, as defined by your second-grade teacher is most prudent in professional publications, where your viewing audience is expected to fully grasp and comprehend every word that you have written. The second is the "common tongue" English, the one that is used on a daily basis to convey a possibly less important thought or idea to 50,000 monkeys at 50,000 keyboards.

I find it sad to say that the majority of the responses to this thread alone would fail if held up to the linguistic rubric cast down by the Board of Education. Improper capitalization of proper nouns, the use of ellipses to represent temporal pauses insted of absent verbage, etc. are just a few of the examples ever present on this page. It's not as though I expect everyone to have Webster's mastery over the proper spelling of all of the words they could every possibly wish to use. However, I think that simple errors such as "it's" as opposed to "its" is downright uncalled for and sloppy. Sentences such as "I'm not writing a fucking paper, it's an response in a damn forum" should be thrown right out for the poor wielding of the word "an".

But I digress: everything has a proper time and a proper place, and if you're stressed for time and decide to shorten words like "your" into "ur" then so be it. However, understand that like everything else that Americans are criticized for, you're making a mockery of your respect for your own culture. Furthermore, make a point not to be hypocritical the next time you hear the phrase "Can you show how get hotel" from someone doing their best to talk to you in your native language for which you have no respect.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because "should've" and "should of" are pronounced almost identically, but spelled quite differently. Duh. I'm not quite sure whether this is one of those agent provocateur comments that sets up a strawman or not, but the "asaulted" (sic) comment in there suggests to me that you really feel this way, even if you can't back it up with sound reasoning.

Next!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Winkhorst]

Like the man said, "of" is simply a mispronunciation of "'ve." As such it's just another case of "the idiots can't spell." It's not a new development of a constantly changing living language. It's just a bit more ignorance added to the huge mound already in place.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Spock the Baptist]

And since both of you brought it up before me...

I scored a 780 out of 800 or the verbal portion of the GRE, and a 760 out of 800 on the math portion of the GRE.

Every time I think about how wonderful I am, I could just kiss myself!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

I consider forum writing to be conversational, and I don't alway speak in perfect English, so my forum language matches my speaking language.

Except, in this case, you actually have the option to proofread and correct before you "speak" -- which should be a tremendous advantage to smooth communication. There's a difference between informal grammatical use and outright typos, misspellings, and bad vocabulary.

Language is fluid...

[vwjeff]

The English Language is not a static set of words. Like every language, English evolves over time.

The purpose of language is to allow communication between individuals. If I can understand what you are trying to say or write, I will not correct you.

eye hate langwage nazzees

Speed vs. grammar, maximizing our vocal bandwidth

[ElectusUnum]

I think it comes down to speed, it doesn't matter how I spell definitely, the message still comes across and I don't need to spend 1.001 seconds trying to determine the correct spelling. One might say I'm "maximizing" my "bandwidth" while "reducing" my "overhead."

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Fareq]

Just because I can...

I don't think it is particularly grammatically correct to say that X appears to not be a word. The preferred method would be to say that X appears not to be a word.

This is because, technically, you are not supposed to split your infinitives.

In most languages it is not possible to split infinitves because they are one-word. In english, however, all infinitives begin with "to", for example "to eat."

Oh, and I approve of both mushification and unambiguity, though I must say I disapprove of "completly" And I'm sure now that I've been an ass and picked nits out of your post, that someone will find truly pathetic typos in this...

Scum. Subhuman scum (a la Partridge)

[nanoakron]

It's because the vast majority of people are fucking morons. Fucking morons just so happen to take offence when someone points this fact out to them.

Hence inner-city scum (chavs or neds) in the UK using 'innit' and 'bruvva' a lot.

-Nano.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh what a crock! I once spoke to American education majors who had the opportunity to do their student teaching in Great Britain. They were livid that the regular teachers complained about the Americans' English when the regular teachers said things such as "I can't find me pencil."

So?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see what the big deal everybody has with spelling. At one time, English was phonetic. Then for some reason, some really uptight Brits decided to standardize the spelling of everyword, but not the sound and articulation of every word. Standardized spelling is a fairly recent development in the English language, and, in my opinion, it's rigidity has hindered the evolution of the language; for instance, silent letters, unusual sounds assigned to random letter combinations, etc. It just makes the written language more confusing.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Winkhorst]

It's irony you dolt!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Fareq]

Does that mean it offers prayer and worship to all databases, real and imagined?

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Brilliant post, thank you.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, mate. I couldn't agree more with you, mate. We was having a talk ourself about that, me and my mate, mate. Its not like people who have working class accents actualy are stupid, mate. Its just the way they speak, mate. Its like, mate, saying that all Americans are stupid because they have their funny accents, mate.

Alternatively

[NanoGator]

" Do they not realize that a mediocre command of written English makes them appear less intelligent?"

Frankly, I have no interest in impressing judgemental people. It's hard to want to spend time correcting spelling or grammar when one innocent little slip-up well result in a snide reply. I used to spend extra effort to make sure I used their, there, and they're properly. Then, one day, I goofed. Of course, that one particular time, I was colorfully judged as a half-wit. Why should I impress these over-zealous jerks?

To answer the question, no, I don't care about 'communicating effectively' when the grammar nazis don't have any tact. Meet me half way.

Cunning Linguists...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, those cunning linguists..

My Communications Teacher told me...

[3seas]

... and the rest of the clase that he was only goinbg to spend 5 minutes on english grammer. And that is all he spent on it. Summing it up to say that he is not going to teach something that is not used. Instead he taught Abstract Communication.

I recall At&T produced a program that ran on teh Amiga Computer that would analyze text and deal with spelling, grammer, punuation, etc.. And it ran on the A1000.

I wonder why they never moved it on up to current systems. Maybe because it just ain't popular.

If'n you have a problem with someone elses communication... try think'in in colorful vocabulary, metaphors, analogies, etc.

But how many didn't understood what I said?

Wanta hear only proper english, then move in with british snobs.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[ryanov]

How do you expect it to "become" correct? I cannot envision a case where someone will eventually decide "you know what, people use 'of' a lot instead of have, we will add an alternate definition of 'of' that means the same thing as have, but only in places where there could have (or shit, is it 'could of?') been a contraction instead?

There is no combination of rules that will EVER make that correct, and no evolution that could be any less archaic than the above example. Converting a word to a noun is wholly dissimilar.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[yellowstone]

I try to use the rules, but if I understand you, what else matters?

• You should regard the grammar and format of your writing as out-of-band information. Many will regard such errors as an indication the author is careless, immature, and an undisciplined thinker.

• Spelling and grammar errors distract from the flow of your prose. They make what is written harder to read. Assume you lose half your audience for each spelling and grammar error.

• Got, or want a job that requires any kind of writing? A reputation as a poor writer will cost you raises and promotions. And a spelling error on your resume? It's the kiss of death.

reasons for literacy decay...

[cryptocom]

I think part of the problem is that proper English has taken a back seat in the past decade (and perhaps before then) to slang. Many of my international friends have told me that Americans are so hard to understand, because they rarely use the proper English that is taught in the classes that immigrants take to learn the language. Everything is either shortened, or substituted with slang, or said too quickly to understand. Imagine being from, say Iraq, and hearing me say "hey, check out that chick! she's HOT!"...lol.----Then there's these abbreviations that we all use on a daily basis in email, IM, text msg's, etc. Besides, you don't have to be a spelling expert to yell at employees for downloading email attachments from an admin that hasn't worked there for 3 years...

Spelling

[Anonymous Coward]

1. It is well known that humans 'read words' hence occational errors are tollerable (you are albe to raed tihs wihtuot too mcuh diffcitly)

2. How about simplifying the english language. night = nite, knife = nife, etc. Other languages (eg Italian) do not have spelling as a subject as the language is fonetic (sic).

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

I try to use the rules, but if I understand you, what else matters?

Personal pride, perhaps?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[RabidOverYou]

I haven't had a hard time not using double negatives. It's not very difficult not to.

Sometimes it matters

[jmichaelg]

If someone's written work is devoid of some common rules of grammar and usage, does it matter if you completely and unambiguously understand what they are saying/writing?

Sometimes the answer is an unambiguous yes.

Just make sure you spell them .....

[3seas]

variables right...

Re:http://mambo.mamboforge.net/demo/index.php?opti

[Anonymous Coward]

huh?

My time has come...

[TheRealStubot]

Finally!

Recently, I was involved in an online "fight-to-the-death" with a young fellow, freshman in college, nice guy too. It was on a different discussion site, for my real passion in life, drag racing. A big event was being planned, a "shoot-out" where a bunch of us get together and race each other. Its loads of fun. Anyhow, this fellow stated that he couldn't show up because his "rents" were coming to town. I pondered this for several minutes before realizing that he meant his PARENTS!! Being a (grand)parent myself, I basically unloaded both barrels on this guy.

My argument was that the guy in question was being disrespectful in a major way. He was either too lazy or too much of a punk to even spell out parents, and by doing that he was throwing a dis at his mom and dad, who are putting him through college. The more I thought about it, the more angry I became.

Then a sort of civil war broke out, me with my faction of older, more proper types, and him with the younger, more cavalier types. The feuding went on for days.

Eventually, the moderator threatened physical violence toward both of us unless we knock off our grudge, and return to more civil ways.

In the end, it was nothing more than a difference of opinion. My opinion was he should have shown the proper respect for his parents by prefixing Pa to his rents statement. His opinion was that he could omit the Pa and still be showing proper respect. While I strongly disagree with his thought process, it was none of my business to contradict and correct, or attempt to correct his behavior. I was within my rights to call him out and disagree, but it should have ended there. I got emotionally involved because I imagined what my personal feelings would be if I had found out my own children were calling me a RENT, and how I'd amend my will to make sure they got a set of towels or maybe the couch that's in my garage, while the non-RENT children would get my house, cars, the AV center, the computers, etc... Respect is a 2 ways street.

I guess the point I'm belaboring is... Spelling and Grammar count. Maybe not to you, but it counts to someone. If you're trying to say something important, why muck up the message with typo's and blatantly obvious grammatical errors. People will notice, and will associate you with people too lazy to do things correctly. Even if it takes twice as long to write something, more people will read it. When I encounter a "problem" document, I give the writer 3 chances. If three blatant mistakes are found, I stop reading and move on to the next document. It's prudent to allow someone to have a mis-key, or a brain fart. But a trend is a sign that this person doesn't care what I think of them, so I assume they're full of crap. They can gain acceptance somewhere else, where mistakes are welcome, where ever that is.

I also have heard and understand "second language" problems. But in my experience, second language posters are very careful to check their spelling and grammar, so they are assured the correct point gets across. Why is it that first language posters feel they can skip the proof read and live with the errors? Beats me.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[ccoakley]

Exhaustive enumeration is a valid logical representation of a set of rules.

Think Unicode. For the majority of characters, there is no way to deduce the encoding other than to look it up. Sometimes there is no other way.

Given enough space, English rules can be presented with logic and order.

Oh, you also want concise? Shit.

Communication is Intelligence

[lousyd]

a mediocre command of written English makes them appear less intelligent

I think this is one of the problems. When a person says that crappy English makes you appear less intelligent, the natural response is, "Well, your bad!" It's not that mediocre English makes a person appear less intelligent. It makes a person be less intelligent. If a computer couldn't properly speak HTTP, you'd get a lot less web pages from it. But people somehow think that communication is somehow different if it's human brains doing it. There's a perception that minds have some intrinsic special-ness. The ability to properly conceptualize is key to intelligence, and language is the artifact that makes that conceptualization possible.

...hey as long as it's in a nice font..!

[comzen]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet,
consectetur adipisicing elit,
sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt
ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

It's Microsofts fault....

[3seas]

... 8.3 filenames cause it all...

That reminds me of a Dilbert strip.

[javaxman]

Everything else reminds me of a Dilbert strip, too, but back to my point :

That reminds me of a Dilbert strip in which someone ( I think it's Alice ) is ranting about the poor spelling, punctuation and lack of general business-letter formality in an email from an engineer.

Dilbert gives her a blank look, and asks "Did you not understand what he was saying? Did his lack of punctuation and capitalization cause his message to be confusing?" or something like that. There may have been something in there about the time wasted by ranting about the engineer's email, but my memory isn't so clear on that point.

A lot of this depends on context. In a quick little email telling a coworker what I'm up to, I'm going to keep it quick and may not even spellcheck. Really, that's OK. An email to a coworker is not normally an important business document.

In a cover letter or report or client communication, it's a much different matter. Such documents should typically be peer-reviewed and carefully constructed, and I would typically not leave the entire job up to someone specialized in computer programming.

Which form of communication is Strom talking about, and why are you having a computer programmer write a report ? I don't ask editors to write computer programs, do you? Yes, everyone should be well-rounded and have good communication skills. I should also be able to read the prescription hand-written by my doctor. However, the reality is that my doctor's handwriting is even worse than my own. He's still a good doctor.

Some programmers have excellent writing skills. Some do not. Hire the right one for the job, or recognize the weakness of the one you have and send them to a class or give them a writing coach. It's likely they are just not trying, because proper punctuation doesn't seem as important as their mad programming skills. In many situations, they may actually be correct in that assumption.

Spelling: Weapon of the guy who just got tr0wned

[Tilmitt]

Far too often, after becoming the victim of a brilliant post in an argument, the target of this post will resort to nit picking his opponents spelling in a pathetic attempt to "win" the argument. People who correct spelling usually have nothing insightful to add to a discussion, and so lash out at others spelling in order to cover their own inadequacy. Arbitrary rules are not as important as what is being said.

Wow! What a typical me-too response!

[xoboots]

Give it a rest. We aren't posting our messages here on Slashdot for the ages, after-all. These are one-offs, spur-of-the-moment things, not computer programs. If people were less anal and actually considered the reasons instead of trying to show how perfectly smart they are, it would be much more obvious to them.

If you judge a person's intelligence based on a random post at slashdot or some other forum/blog, you are severely underestimating them.

The moral of the story: don't take yourself too seriously.

no

[Anonymous Coward]

it dont mater

Needs psychology training

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand what Strom is feeling.

Do they not realize that a mediocre command of written English makes them appear less intelligent?

However, they don't see that there is anything wrong. They "know" that they are intelligent. They "know" that their English is good enough to be understood. Hence, anyone that corrects them is the person that is wrong and is the rightful target of anger and derision. Anyone that corrects them is the lazy, unintelligent moron for not trying hard enough or not being smart enough.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[rizzo420]

alumnus... alumnuses

Yeah, I get it now... That makes complete sense.

And for the record, "Latin" has a capital "L."

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[amliebsch]

Do americans pronounce it with the F anymore ?Definitely not, and not for a long time.

Re:A Few Points (more)

[collect0r]

long live the british language its already withstood major changes from the 13th to 15th century, i wonder what william the first would think of the way we pronounce things now.

britans have had something to do with every major technological advance since the start of the industrial revolution. see the computer, neuclear bombs, neuclear power, submarines, aircraft carriers, steam engines and manufacturing, it only seems right that the british language is the best suited medium to put ideas forward and impliment them.

how many computer users would we have if all basic operating systems and programming languages were written in dutch or chinese.

Grammar Police

[l'obscurit]

I always find these sorts of commentaries interesting because language and spelling are fluid things. In languages like English, and more so French, spelling rules were set in stone centuries ago, OFFICIALLY, hence the difficulty many people have today. Take languages like Spanish and German, these are true phonetic writing systems and I would guess that native kids of these languages have an easier time learning to read and write than most others.

OT: Sig

[Kinky Bass Junk]

While we're on the topic of spelling and grammar: I do believe there is a typo in your sig!
Instead of 'This sig as expired,' should it not read 'This sig has expired'?

Re:OT: Sig

[alexhs]

You're right, thanks.

I'm sure the 'h' was in place last week, I probably did a mistake since then ?..

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[mmarshall]

"...would take the same konsonant, wile..."

Hey, KDE is really ahead of the times.

Re:Source: Mark Twain

[Anonymous Coward]

Very good! You must have read all the way to the bottom of the post, where it was signed "-Mark Twain."

how about this?

[emilng]

I biveele it was pevron that as lnog as the fsrit and lsat lerttes do not cganhe, our binars can aloutocalamity regarnare tehm and we have full cishenpremoon.

It's more difficult because I broke up some letter combinations.

I think by posting a reply here, I can already expect your brain to be conditioned for the task of rearranging letters, thus any examples I post would be relatively easy to figure out. If you encountered scrambled text in the middle of unscrambled text without any warning, I bet it would slow down your reading speed much more significantly.

Re:how about this?

[ComputerSlicer23]

Oddly, I just started reading, unsure of which story the response was. It took me a second to realize what was going on.

Still not too bad. I got the concept of the sentence in one pass when read fairly slowly. I did not parse a couple of words until a second read. I think "binars" screwed me the the worst, because it's too close to "binary" (as a programmer, that's inside my daily vocabulary). "aloutocalamity" screwed me up, as I kept reading it as "a loud calamity". The odd part is the further they are form recognizable words, the easier it is for me to parse. "cishernpremoon", my brain keeps wanting to insert spaces to turn that into "cishern" "pre moon". Not sure what cishern unscrambles to, but "pre moon" makes sense to my brain. The spaces was the shortest path to fixing the misspelling, not re-arranging the letters. Not sure if that makes any sense.

I think a bit of how much it would screw me up depends a bit upon where I'm reading it. In an editted book, I'd agree with you. On slashdot, or in an e-mail. Probably not. I expect to have to read screwy language there.

Kirby

I disagree, geeks spell rather well.

[TorKlingberg]

I disagree with you. I claim that geeks spell quite well. Not compared to professional witers, but compared to the average non-geek.

Have you ever visited a non-technology forum, or read something written by non-geeks who are not professional writers?

Occational misspellings are nothing compared to texts with completely fucked up grammar and no punctuation.

Yes, and it's fscking irritating.

[Anonymous Coward]

And yes, I'm aware of the irony of posting "fscking" in response to an article on bad grammar and spelling.

Spelling gets to me. Caps, I can live without (usually, depends on the medium).

anal retentive?

[Anonymous Coward]

dude, maybe your just being anal.

language media

[The MESMERIC]

the craze of writing things in a "biZzAr3" fashion started pretty much with IRC.
text mobiles contributed to the "shortnin of wrds"

and then come forums:
often posts are are not capitalized.
that is acceptable, since the awkward placement of the shift button causes much discomfort.

so the media moulds the language
and some modes of writing and expressing are socially acceptable.

even web-writing has its own justified format, grammar and context.

should we ban the smiley? :)

so please no time for pendantism
we are just ur regular Star Treque fan ok/?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[mesach]

On the opposite end of the scale from "you must be new here" comes,

"It's been a while since you were last here huh?"

Trip Master Monkey pretty much gets all FP around here now.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[The_Wilschon]

I have rarely seen a grammar/spelling correction post that was in fact "couched in the tones of an insensitive clod..." here. And yet people flame away anyway. Perhaps I never see holier than thou grammar/spelling posts because they get modded into oblivion, but even on the occasions when I drop my threshold, I still don't see them...

IMHO the problem is that people don't respond well to correction. If you made a grammar or spelling mistake, and someone points it out, then either clarify (if the meaning was ambiguous), ignore it (if it was simply a typo), or learn a new rule of grammar (if it was a fine point of english mechanics which you didn't know of before). This is of course just a natural extension of the (sensible) idea that if you make any kind of mistake, and are corrected, then the best response is to quietly correct the mistake, or make note of it in order to avoid making it again. Or, if you really and honestly don't care, ignore it!

But then again, maybe my parents were just weird, bringing me up to be polite and civilized... I dunno.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[EvanED]

That won't help you when you're reading and the author used them.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooooh! "Walla" really sticks in my craw, too!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Afrosheen]

If you appreciate logic in a language, explore German sometime.

It's one of the few languages that, given the task of making up a word that doesn't exist to describe something new, you can actually build a valid, single word out of multiple words.

Take Volkswagen for example. Volks = family, wagen = wagon/car/whatever. Volkswagen, as a word, didn't exist before Hitler requested a cheap car for all of Germany to drive.

The most famous example is the longest German word on record. Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgaben- übertragungsgesetz

CODE needs perfect punctuation and spelling...

[johnny99]

I've often thought this myself, particularly about coders.

If you code with bad spelling or incorrect punctuation or even capitalisation, your code hopefully dies or signals that you have a major problem pretty much right away.

So, at first I thought, how weird is it that coders in particular seem to have such bad written English; then I thought, maybe it's because they have to write code so carefully that they relax when writing non-code; and then I thought that maybe it's because there's no "use warnings" or the like for English.

Spellcheckers and grammar checkers are pretty much useless, and the worst thing they do is give you a false sense of security.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[mesach]

but that begs the question, who dies when a bear shits on a fallen log in the woods if no one is around to smell it?

holy moly

[visionsofmcskill]

Well, i think im to late to join the party on this one, however i should lay out a couple of things, expecially in reflection of all the previous comments.

The obsession some people place upon what they consider to be the "proper" form of a language is often the source of an undo amount of grief and ironicly... confusion.

The English language has evolved greatly within the span of only a couple hundred years, and the predominent force behind it has been "slang". If your wondering what i mean, pick up a book of shakespeare. It is near to impossible to understand ANYHTING written in the old english that preceeded that, and shakespeare along with his contemporaries is also a task to go through.

Should you decide to fast foward a bit into 18th century texts, and then along to early 19th century, you'll find the language less grueling, yet still alien enough to make the task more daunting than today's literature. This isn't because they were smarter or more verbose in those times... it's because the language has changed, and along with the times it's change is an evolution.

This same evolution took latin into italian, french, spanish, portugese, etc... And is a constant process.

While a lot of people are confronted with the conflict between their learned notions of "correct" english and the newer forms of the same meanings, many others simply do not notice... and some don't care.

The essence of language is effective communication, that is taking the course of action which you hope will convey your meaning in the most percise and direct format possible givin your audience and the necesary words to accomplish the goal. If your speaking in the southern section of the US you'll likely convey your thoughts in a southern twang shuold you have any inclination or desire to reach people more effectively. The same applies through-out all the different regions of the english speaking world. Australians, Brits, Canadians, etc...

Secondarily, Short hand speech, and the various amorphisms that have entered popular culture are not to be discounted as simply "mangling" the language. Prominent words such as FUCK and GOLF were once simple slang words (acronyms both) along with a host of other words which we take for granted today.

So while you may see "cya" as nothing short of a terrible abreviation of "see you", if it is used long enough and widely enough it will likely enter the language as a new word many decades from now.

Someone commented that shortening a 5 letter word into 3 isnt saving any time. I beg to differ. In shortening a whole sentance of words down to significantly less letters, expecialy in the context of commonly spoken terms, and doing so on a longer term IM conversation... Your reducing a great deal of physical effort as well as conveying the meaning you want to send effectively.

For exmaple while programming, i get hit with IM's that need confirmation. "alt-tab" -- "k" -- "alt tab".

in about a second i have switched from my script to the IM, aknowledged the other persons comment, and returned to my work.

Should i have siwthced over and said "Okay"?... or maybe "Yes, i understand and agree".... or maybe i should eshew ever saying "OK" at all since it is not really a "word". While im at it i should probably drop Snafu and laser, and all those other lovely acronyms we use from my words and just spell em out.

Im sure most people will acknowledge that there are some "slang" or formerly "slang" words that have such a obiquotus (sp) use they're most certainly acceptable as "real" words. However they didn't just appear over-night, they were at first only known by those who were in the "in" crowd, and then slowly became popular in their region, until over time they had become universal.

Hackers, script kiddies, etc... have a propensity for shortening anything and everything they can into the simplest measures. This stems from several main components.
A: Programming. You learn that less letters is a LOT less wor

Re:holy moly

[pipingguy]

The same applies through-out all the different regions of the english speaking world. Australians, Brits, Canadians, etc...

I think you'll find that Canucks have less use for "pet" local words/terms than the Aussies and Brits. WTF are these following localisms foisted upon us supposed to mean?

"bap"
"pear-shaped"
"banjaxed"
"taking the piss"
"bumbershoot"
"give a toss"
"gob"
"put paid to"
"squiffy"
"tuck into"
"whinge"
"pukka"

I dare not trundle into Oz-speak.

Re:holy moly

[Frankie70]

Prominent words such as FUCK and GOLF were once simple slang words (acronyms both) along with a host of other words which we take for granted today.


Urban Legend - GOLF isn't an acronym
http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/golf.htm

Neither is FUCK
http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/fuck.htm

Re:holy moly

[Thad Boyd]

How in the hell has this been modded to 4 as insightful? It's full of so many spelling, grammatical, and factual errors that it can't possibly be anything but trolling.

Re:holy moly

[Anonymous Coward]

Should you decide to fast foward a bit into 18th century texts, and then along to early 19th century, you'll find the language less grueling, yet still alien enough to make the task more daunting than today's literature.

Surely you meant to write: "more daunting then today's literature".

Re:holy moly

[fracai]

>>Should you decide to fast foward a bit into 18th century texts, and then along
>>to early 19th century, you'll find the language less grueling, yet still alien
>>enough to make the task more daunting than today's literature.

>Surely you meant to write: "more daunting then today's literature".

Surely YOU meant to not write at all.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=than
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=then

Re:holy moly

[samdu]

And away we go!

Well, i think im to late to join the party on this one, however i should lay out a couple of things, expecially in reflection of all the previous comments.

Well, I think I'm late to join the party on this one. However, I should lay out a couple of things; especially in...

is often the source of an undo amount of grief and ironicly... confusion.

undue... ironically

If your wondering what i mean, pick up a book of shakespeare. It is near to impossible to understand ANYHTING written in the old english that preceeded that, and shakespeare along with his contemporaries is also a task to go through.

If you're wondering what I mean... ANYTHING... Old English... Shakespeare,

and along with the times it's change is an evolution.

its

This same evolution took latin into italian, french, spanish, portugese, etc... And is a constant process.

Latin, Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese

convey your meaning in the most percise and direct format possible givin your audience and the necesary words

most precise... possible given... and the necessary...

If your speaking in the southern section of the US you'll likely convey your thoughts in a southern twang shuold you have any inclination or desire to reach people more effectively.

If you're speaking... Southern section... - and, for what it's worth, we Southerners understand you people from the rest of the country just fine in the absence of any sort of "twang" thank you very much. In fact, if you try to affect a Southern drawl, you'll just end up sounding ridiculous.

Secondarily, Short hand speech, and the various amorphisms that have entered popular culture are not to be discounted as simply "mangling" the language. Prominent words such as FUCK and GOLF were once simple slang words (acronyms both) along with a host of other words which we take for granted today.

Yes, they should, because, yes, they are. And others have already pointed out your inaccuracies on the "Fuck" and "Golf" things.

Someone commented that shortening a 5 letter word into 3 isnt saving any time. I beg to differ. In shortening a whole sentance of words down to significantly less letters, expecialy in the context of commonly spoken terms, and doing so on a longer term IM conversation... Your reducing a great deal of physical effort as well as conveying the meaning you want to send effectively.

isn't saving... whole sentence... significantly fewer... especially in the context... You're reducing...

For exmaple while programming, i get hit with IM's that need confirmation.

example, while programming, I...

in about a second i have switched from my script to the IM, aknowledged the other persons comment, and returned to my work.

In about a second I... acknowledged the other person's...

Should i have siwthced over and said "Okay"?... or maybe "Yes, i understand and agree".... or maybe i should eshew ever saying "OK" at all since it is not really a "word". While im at it i should probably drop Snafu and laser, and all those other lovely acronyms we use from my words and just spell em out.

Should I have switched... "Yes, I... should eschew... "word." While I'm at it, I should... drop snafu, laser, and all... spell them out.

Im sure most people will acknowledge that there are some "slang" or formerly "slang" words that have such a obiquotus (sp) use they're most certainly acceptable as "real" words. However they didn't just appear over-night, they were at first only

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[taniwha]

actually I very deliberately used english forms of spelling in my post as part of my point - I've lived in places that use both, none is right - eventually over time one of them will win and become the only way to spell it (BTW I suspect the s vs. z thing is also tied up with the zee vs zed difference)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[WiKKeSH]

Context, my man. It's about the context.

Definitely

[cafebabe]

Amusing timing. I got an email yesterday that said a document I forwarded was "defiantly helpful". That complement I'll keep.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[kesuki]

When I first started on the internet I cared about my langauge usage, but as time went on I cared less and less. Eventually i didn't care at all, i had been spending almost 45 minutes per post on usenet on just editing them. course when i got to irc it was all about typing.
like this
cause
you know
we need
to get the newlines
in before you quit.

well, I could have said half or a quarter of what i've said online (some ~80 MB of text* since 1994) but then i'd have said so little, but it would have been capitialized and punctuated, and spelled, and even checked for grammar usage..

As far as mastering the english language goes -- I'm one of the few people who know how, and when to use the afore mentioned '--' punctuation. yeah, most of the time i type raw, there is no second throught about revising it. I can take a bit more time and think it out as I'm typing, without doing revision, but that nearly halves my KB/hour rate. Actuall single pass revision cuts my KB/h rate to 1/3 of it's original. And don't get me into how long duel pass revision takes man, I could type faster with a straw in my mouth to push the keys than do that ;)

And hey If I look like an idiot, what's so bad about that? Aren't smart people suppsoed to be able to blend in, so that noone realizes quite how smart they were, until they've already quaffed the poison that is ending their life? ;)

The dumber John Q Public thinks I am, the better, only my closest friends need to be able to see my intelligence.

*= estimated, I have the logs, please don't make be grep them and count the kb.

Spelling & Grammar

[Klein Fritzchen]

I would have thought that an author's profound disregard for form does not at all bode well for the level of care employed when it comes to determining the content...

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

i might be wrong - but i think the quality that you are discussing is less 'genius' and more 'savant'

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[The_Wilschon]

There are some things that would be more difficult to express without the two negatives make a positive rule.

As a simple example: "I can't not fall.". This means, of course, that "I can't avoid falling." or "I must fall.", which is not quite the same thing as "I can fall.". In this case, there is an alternative to the double negative which conveys the same meaning, but there do exist cases (I think!) for which there is not an alternative. If you allow double negatives to simply mean the same thing as a single negative, you lose nuances of meaning that are currently possible.

CLIFF!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Slashdot! What do you expect; maturity?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[spazzmo]

Yes, I was shocked that the atrocious spelling and grammar of my stepson was completely ignored by all of his teachers. A shame really as he is a very creative writer, but was almost incoherent at the time (intermediate & high school, sorry i don't know what that translates to, ages 11 - 18). He has corrected it by himself since leaving school. To my embarrassment, the so-called "whole word" method came from here: Aotearoa (New Zealand). Widespread adoption of it has lead to the current problems with spelling and grammar. There has been a backlash though, leading to a re-adoption of Phonics. Maybe the problem will be fixed by the next generation?

Spelling accuracy varies with context

[Senescent Nerd]

Here are the results from a study (some years
ago) of numbers of web pages containing
correct and incorrect spellings of
"supersede" as a function of other words
appearing in the same pages: ....... hits with .......
other word "supersede" "supercede" ratio

(none) 380,000 115,000 3.3
erudite 569 179 3.2
erudition 600 124 4.8
epistemological 1300 255 5.1
etruscan 147 25 5.9
murine 205 47 4.4
megahertz 549 340 1.6
virgil 1130 285 4.0
hellenic 892 154 5.8
morphogenesis 80 32 2.5
charybdis 260 21 12.4
accommodate 37,300 8,690 4.3
accomodate 1,200 626 1.9

The bias intended was not always
achieved. "Murine" was supposed to sample
zoologists, whom I think of as being
classical eggheads, but pulled in a lot of
molecular biologists, who are more like
engineers, whose devastating effect is shown
by the result with "megahertz". "Virgil" was
supposed to get classicists, but got a lot of
guys named that. The uncannily effective
"charybdis", for reasons obvious in
retrospect, produced a lot of legal
briefs. Maybe lawyers are good for something
after all.

The last two, "accommodate" and "accomodate",
pursued the thought that correct spellings of
"supersede" might be correlated with correct
spellings of another commonly misspelled
word. There is a correlation, but it's not
clear that this technique is worth the added
effort. Note, however, that someone who
*misspells* "accommodate" is still more
likely to get "supersede" right than is
someone who *correctly* spells "megahertz".

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Winston Churchill obviously never spent any time amongst his countrymen, lazy man that he was.

Think I'm just being a troll? Look it up. ;)

What makes me cry

[neoshroom]

is the sign of this restaurant, a deli, in Williamsburg, VA accross the street from The College of William and Mary.

http://www.visitwilliamsburg.com/college_delly_web site.htm

(Go Tribe!)

Re:What makes me cry

[aardwolf204]

Thats always pissed me off. You're probably better off going to the Green Leaf or Paul's across the street anyway.

Or how about the shopping center that J.M. Randall's is in; "Olde Towne Shopes".

It's good to see a fellow Williamsburger on Slashdot.

(Yay Tribe!)

Re:What makes me cry

[hdparm]

Delly might mean that this restaurant is Michael Dell's new venture, you never know. However, you should have been shocked even more by that web page:

Once you step into our doors, we're confident that you won't ever want to leave. From Greek Entrees to Specialty Pizzas, Deli Sandwiches to Vegetarian Delights, we'll have whatever it takes to fulfill even the pickiest appetites.

We server beer and wine

Bad.

Re:What makes me cry

[MysteriousPreacher]

Now that's piss-poor.

By the way, what does "ABC on and off" mean?

Re:What makes me cry

[rarity]

Why are resturants so prone to this sort of thing? There's one a few blocks from where I live that offers a wide selection of "panini's"...

Re:What makes me cry

[Anonymous Coward]

I concur. It seems that it would be more appropriate (following their spelling habits) as "delly & peetza"-

Ad'k'r

Re:What makes me cry

[sadtrev]

maybe it's deliberate - spelling it "delly" is suggestive of "belly" with connotations of hearty food and Falstaffian joviality.

Or maybe not.

It gets worse than that

[r_cerq]

Shorthand did have it's uses for the current teen generation... Back in the day (well... 5 or 6 years ago), when cell operators started charging for SMS (they used to be free here), people had to drop the habit of long conversations via SMS;
Phones used to (and still do, but nowadays it's mostly useless) break down long SMS messages into smaller (160 characters) parts, send them as separate messages, and the receiving phone would reassemble the message; when each message started to be billed, shorthand boomed, and eventually grew into a plague (believe it or not, we once had a cell phone ad where a couple was standing in an elevator when a two teens walks in. One of them immediately sends off "Nice (.)(.)" to the other one. The ad was basically for "learn shorthand. It's cool!".
Now... I'm portuguese, and the portuguese alphabet doesn't include the letters "k", "w", and "y". But many of our word include the pair "qu" (sounding like "kuh"), and suddenly everyone was typing "k" instead of "qu". The pair "ch" (sounds like "shhh") was being replaced by "x" (the letter's name in portuguese sounds like "she's", but in most words it _should_ sound like "kss"), and so on. And, of course, thanks to globalization, we get a lot of english shorthand as well.
The end result is that we get the common english shorthand (thx, u, ur, and friends) intermingled with bastardized versions of portuguese words, often shorthanded as well, and I frequently have to read a sentence 2 or 3 times before guessing what the writer meant...

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[erroneus]

I guess it hinges mostly on a key question:

Is it more important that you say what you want to say, or that what you want to say is accepted, understood and respected?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[spectre_240sx]

It's alright. I've got points too. I'll just... erm... damnit all.

"loose" vs. "lose"

[ASimPerson]

By far the most annoying thing online.

lose
v. lost, (lôst, lst) losing, loses
v. tr.
1. To be unsuccessful in retaining possession of; mislay

loose
Pronunciation Key (ls)
adj. looser, loosest

1. Not fastened, restrained, or contained

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Nefarious Wheel]

Oh... that hurts. The ribs.....

or maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

people are so busy concentrating on teh technical side that if they concentrated on grammer their head would explode.

or maybe people dont care

or they are just doing it to save time,

or maybe people just dont CARE

Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll

[FlatCatInASlatVat]

Couldn't agree with you more, but it's "try to" make sense, not "try and" make sense. If you try and make sense, then you have succeeded for sure. If you try to, then it's not clear whether you'll succeed, which the sense people are usually trying to give.

Abbreviations with "w"

[jeblucas]

Abbreviations and acronyms which sound out the letter "W" drive me nuts. Because "W" has THREE SYLLABLES! To wit:

• In hospitals, the abbreviation "GSW" is used for "Gun Shot Wound". That's a time sensitive environment--isn't "Wound" shorter than "Double-U"?
• How much time has collectively been lost saying "Double-U, Double-U, Double-U" for "World Wide Web"? Can we not figure this out?

Re:Abbreviations with "w"

[Alternate Interior]

I've relented to prouncing www "dub dub dub" in speech. I feel like a bloody fool for saying that, but when I compare it to "double u double u double u," there's little, if any, comparisor. dubdubdub is three times faster to say, and I've yet to speak with anyone who didn't know what I was talking about.

Re:Abbreviations with "w"

[Frogg]

After a Dutch guy told me they have it easier because they say 'vey vey vey', I considered the options -- disregarded (the somewhat silly, imho) 'dub dub dub' -- and eventually settled on saying 'wuh wuh wuh'. (I still think it's pretty stupid though.)

Re:Abbreviations with "w"

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know, but I have 24-inch "dubs" on my ride.

Re:Abbreviations with "w"

[e1en0r]

Ever since I read this comment I've been wanting to say "triple u" instead of "www".

(For those not interested in following the link, credit goes to Douglas Adams)

Re:Abbreviations with "w"

[iamplupp]

The abbreviations are useful in writing where "Gun shot wound" has five times the keystrokes of "GSW" And as to the collective time lost saying "Double-U" I belive the spanish pronounciation is something like "ouply-douply". Thats twelve syllables for "www"!

Re:Abbreviations with "w"

[niko9]

Abbreviations and acronyms which sound out the letter "W" drive me nuts. Because "W" has THREE SYLLABLES! To wit:

* In hospitals, the abbreviation "GSW" is used for "Gun Shot Wound". That's a time sensitive environment--isn't "Wound" shorter than "Double-U"?
* How much time has collectively been lost saying "Double-U, Double-U, Double-U" for "World Wide Web"? Can we not figure this out?

Ah, but this has noting to do with saying anything. GSW is used as medical shorthand to reduce the amount of writing one has to do on his/her medical chart.

When I write a report, and the patient has suffered a gun shot wound, I write GSW (instead of gun shot wound, because there is only so much space on the chart for medical notes.

Here are some other accepted medial abreviations:

HTN hypertension
SSCP sub sternal chest pain
LS lung sounds
PE pulmonary embolus

When I'm presenting a patient to the accepting ER facility, we don't say GSW, we just say gun shot wound.

Thanks,

Your local Paramedic

Re:Abbreviations with "w"

[Malacca]

No, it's *two syllables*: "DUB-YAH".

Re:Abbreviations with "w"

[Stankatz]

No, the Spanish is doble-ve, "DO-blay bay" (literally "double V"). I believe it also goes by other names in the Spanish-speaking world, but this is the one I learned.

Re:Abbreviations with "w"

[pipingguy]

How much time has collectively been lost saying "Double-U, Double-U, Double-U" for "World Wide Web"? Can we not figure this out?

Don't most browsers/hosts now assume the "www" part? I'm no web genius, but I instructed my hosting company to enable this years ago.

Re:Abbreviations with "w"

[loutr]

In French we just say "Trois double-Vs" ("Three double-Us"), which doesn't sound that dumb, and is shorter than "World Wide Web" (which is hard to say for most French people anyway).

Re:Abbreviations with "w"

[kavau]

We should rename the letter. In German language, it's called "vee". Many people already pronounce it "dub" in English. Who can think of better names?

Re:Abbreviations with "w"

[B.D.Mills]

We should rename the letter.

We could call the letter wynn. That's what the letter was in Old English before the Norman French scribes systematically stripped out all the wynns, thorns, eths, yoghs and macrons in the 11th century.

Re:Abbreviations with "w"

[Reziac]

This is why I perversely call the letter W "wuh". Why should W have three syllables, when all the other Latin letters have to make do with just one?

Though if you're using some other alphabet, your syllables may vary.

Re:Abbreviations with "w"

[gr8dude]

Should be "triple double-u"

Re:Abbreviations with "w"

[PMoonlite]

i'm one of a team of web guys, and some of us when talking to each other do say "triple double-u". i think it should be shortened to "trip-dub". then it would actually be shorter to say than "world wide web".

i feel for all those voice actors having to spell out web sites. web sites should just go ahead and strip the "www" from their announced name.

Re:Abbreviations with "w"

[Politburo]

Don't most browsers/hosts now assume the "www" part?

Sadly, no. About once a month, I encounter a site that does not work unless you go and put "www." at the start. It's probably the same site each time.. I just can't remember what it is right now.

Re:Abbreviations with "w"

[jeblucas]

HTN hypertension
SSCP sub sternal chest pain
LS lung sounds
PE pulmonary embolus

Thanks for enlightening me. I was getting my example from what the EMT's would yell on "ER". An item of your reply that I took note of was that things like "HTN" and "SSCP" merit shorthand, as they should given their extremely common use in your field. Is it a sad comment on US society that "GSW" merits shorthand as well? How often would British paramedics actually have to use "GSW" in their country?

Re:Abbreviations with "w"

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could introduce a double-meaning like in norwegian:
We properly read the letters as "ve" and "dobbelt-ve". They're pronounced identically. (In norwegian, "w" is mostly seen in posh-sounding surnames as a sort of fancy "v", and in old texts.)

So how do we rOr you could introduce a double-meaning like in norwegian: We properly read the letters as "ve" and "dobbelt-ve". They're pronounced identically. (In norwegian, "w" is mostly seen in posh-sounding surnames as a sort of fancy "v", and in old texts.) So how do we pronounce www..slashdot.org? Normaly you would hear "veveve slashdot org". Strictly speaking this should be written as "vvv slashdot org", but the context makes it perfectly clear. For clarification it's possible to use "enkelt-ve", "single-vee". Of course, there's also a more or less official and/or correct pronounciation: "trippel dobbelt-ve punktum slashdot punktum org", which translates as "triple double-vee dot slashdot dot org". I mostly hear this variant from national broadcasters. Just a note: A single 'e' in norwegian sounds like the 'e' in "when". ead www.slashdot.org? Normally you would hear "veveve slashdot org". Strictly speaking this should be written as "vvv slashdot org", but the context makes it perfectly clear. For clarification it's possible to use "enkelt-ve", "single-vee".

Of course, there's also a more or less official and/or correct pronounciation: "trippel dobbelt-ve punktum slashdot punktum org", which translates as "triple double-vee dot slashdot dot org". I mostly hear this variant from national broadcasters.

Just a note: A single 'e' in norwegian sounds like the 'e' in "when".

Re:Abbreviations with "w"

[r3m0t]

In thinking, the full form goes "hutatapeculuslaslawibwibwibdot (bla)". (mostly short vowels)

I haven't tried it in speech yet.

Re:Abbreviations with "w"

[Anonymous Coward]

The American army seems to like things like this. They call a "dog" an MWD (military working dog). As if any confusion between the doggie of the wife of some general and the pitbull of whatever they use to guard their bases would be possible.

As you say, you would think in an army, absolute, precise information-transfer is required. Does it make sense to start 10 or something like that abbreviations for "Air defence"? Isn't it just shorter to say it, instead of using

AA
AAA
AD
TAD
THAAD ... (several others)

Re:Abbreviations with "w"

[juan2074]

That is why I call my web server 'shitbox'. It seems to be easier for people to catch the URL. From time to time, I have to tell people not to include the 'www' in front.

Re:Abbreviations with "w"

[DerekLyons]

In hospitals, the abbreviation "GSW" is used for "Gun Shot Wound". That's a time sensitive environment--isn't "Wound" shorter than "Double-U"?

The problem is - you can't simply say "wound", as wounds can come from a variety of sources. Thus "GSW" rather than "gun shot wound".

Re:Abbreviations with "w"

[agraupe]

Well, "gun shot" could be included. It is only W that is longer than what it represents, as G and S both have only a single syllable.

Re:Abbreviations with "w"

[yet another coward]

Saying "WWW?" Do you mean out loud with voices? Isn't the point of the WWW that we do not have to talk anymore?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[CyclistOne]

Just as a computer program won't work correctly without correct spelling and syntax, so the meaning of a paragraph or document written in a natural language depends on the spelling, punctuation and syntax used in it.

Re: Racist?

[the_gain_card]

You're white right? it seems that you don't know about white privilege. here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege_(soci ology) see the thing about it is that white people deny that they are treated any differently because they don't notice it. why would they? they are white. I'm not exactly sure i understand your objection. You know that people of different income levels get better / worse education right? Poor people get a worse education that rich people. Or do you deny that? if you did well that's fine, but you'd be wrong. Why? because rich people can spend the money required to get their offspring a 'better' education. And most of the poor people in this country happen to be guess what! NOT WHITE. Coincedence that the "Proper" way to speak is the "white" way? I think not. That's why the question of racism was brought up. And no i am not a troll, thank you.

You're asking a false question.

[Toddlerbob]

When you complain about proper English grammar and/ or spelling and/or usage, and then compare it to programming a computer, you're really mixing apples and oranges.

Firstly, English spelling and grammar are several orders of magnitude more complex than a computer language. Secondly, the mental skills needed to program with correct syntax are different than the skills needed to express oneself with words. (In fact, one person responding to this topic put it pretty well when he expressed his annoyance at people criticizing his written form when his goal was clear expression of ideas. He noted that he could, if required, edit his writing to comform to "standards" but that was not his priority. You might differ in your opinion of his priorities, but it perfectly illustrates how the mental skills are different.)

So it really should be no surprise that, when dealing with a Slashdot crowd, you might see sloppy spelling. I mean spellling.

I mean, computer nerds are, if nothing else, known for their propensity for nonconformance in the face of arbitrary rules. Computer syntax is not arbitrary, but natural language rules often are.

Life Vs. Rules

[Ractive]

All languages are "living" hence they are susceptible of change. That's good and necessary to be able to communicate new things, nevertheless it's fundamentally wrong to simply add to the dictionary whichever sound, onomatopoeia or misheard word that starts being used by many people, because the main purpose of language is to communicate ideas and to do it accurately, if that fails is just like having a buggy script. Language is a form of code for people and we all know what happens when you write a program with mistakes in the code. In my native language (Spanish) there is an organization created to regulate the "accepted" words called "Real Academia Española de la Lengua" they tend to accept just about everything that starts going around (I'm personally against that) but the good thing is they compile all those words, and if you are interested at least you have reference material just like the W3C does to web related programming languages. I don't know if there's a similar organization for English but I guess standards are indeed necessary.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

You _ASSUME_ that the illiterate bozos have mastered arcane computer languages. They haven't. They use the compiler/linker for a spellchecker, instead of saying what they really mean in the first place. This is begging for trouble.

Does anyone want to go on record as to the observed quality of code written by those who are willful illiterates in their native language?

End of rant. Thank you.

Yes, we can understand you

[TheCrackRat]

My biggest problem with the terrible spelling and grammar on the internet isn't that I can't understand it. The problem is that you look like an idiot when you can't spell simple words or form a sentence properly.

Hmmm

[dghcasp]

The only theory I can think of is that you learn to spell when you are very young (elementary school, IIRC.) I know I used to be a lazy student, and didn't want to study. That's changed now.

So now I'm the kind of person who can quote grammar rules from the Chicago manual, yet still can't spell words like probably.

English is a mess.

[falconwolf]

Technical minds like logic and order.

Therefore, geeks hate English.

Aggh, enough of this, I'm grabbing my pole and going ghoti'n.

Nah, I love CRAZY ENGLISH. What other language has the plural of "tooth" as "teeth", and why isn't the plural of "booth" "beeth"? Why do feet smell and noses run?

Falcon

Re: English is a mess.

[Lillesvin]

What other language has the plural of "tooth" as "teeth", and why isn't the plural of "booth" "beeth"?

I'm sorry, but apparently you only know one language... Many languages have these irregular plurals - it's pretty common actually... Instead of making plurals by affixing morphemes you simply make a suprasegmental change, such as the change from "tooth" to "teeth"... Nothing unusual about it... Danish has it too: "fod" (foot.SG) "fødder" (foot.PL) (google for the Leipzig Glossing Rules if you don't get the notation).

And if I may just stray back to the topic for a while... First thing you learn as a linguist is NOT to be a grammar/spelling nazi. It's simply not constructive and trying to force something down peoples throats simply slows language development. I've recently written a paper (in pragmatics) on how minimal responses like "lol" and "rofl" slowly make their way into the spoken language... It's not a problem - it's evolution. Same goes for the spelling grammar... (Yeah, I know... Some of you Americans have a big problem with evolutionary theories...) How do you think we got from what the language sounded like 500 years ago and to what it sounds like now? I can tell you one thing, it wasn't grammar and spelling reforms...

I'm sorry, but this question is simply stupid and a lame excuse for grammar and spelling nazis to team up, pat themselves on the back and keep patronizing people who spell bad (or different) or use bad (or different) grammar.

I've said it a thousand times before... It's the language users that form a language - not grammars and dictionaries... Grammars and dictionaries are only intended as guides!

Two perfectly good examples of this are the words "nickname" and "apron".

• apron
  Was originally spelled/called napron, but since it was impossible to determine where the initial n belonged when uttered ("a napron" vs. "an apron") it eventually became apron.
• nickname
  This was originally spelled ekename but when people used it it was impossible to hear if it was "an ekename" or "a nekename" and thus it eventually became nickname.

Spotted a spelling error or grammatical curiousity in my post? Well, good for you. I don't really care...

Re: English is a mess.

[lav-chan]

I'm pretty sure English is the only language that has the plural of 'tooth' as 'teeth'... for fairly obvious reasons.

Re: English is a mess.

[Principal Skinner]

"It's the language users that form a language"

This statement pretty well encapsulates the "it's all good" attitude that seems to prevail in linguistics. It has always mystified me how so many linguists are so vehemently anti-prescriptivist. The field of linguistics is a science, so, yes, putting on the descriptivist hat is the proper approach when writing an academic paper. But that doesn't give them a license to say "thou shalt not set rules or try to put a brake on language change". Standards are good, and better if they're followed.

"How do you think we got from what the language sounded like 500 years ago ... to what it sounds like now?"

The tone and context of that question certainly seems to imply that our language is in a much better state than it was 500 years ago. Of course, 500 years ago we didn't have democracy, telephones or karaoke, so we'd be hard put to make do with pure Shakespearean English vocabulary today. A certain amount of language change is utterly necessary and good. But is our communication enhanced now that we prounounce "night" and "knight" the same? Can one objectively say that "nickname" really is better than "ekename"?

Frankly, your examples don't seem to demonstrate much. Is "nickname" a perfectly comprehensible word today? Of course. But at some point -- 500 years ago or whatnot -- there was a transition. Everyone started off saying "ekename", but then a few folks misunderstood. I bet there were a lot of people ticked off at the minority of people who couldn't figure out which was correct. Eventually, the balance shifted in favor of the ignoramuses, and "nickname" became preferred. Did it improve the language? I doubt it. Did it remove us yet another yet step from our ancestral languages and sister languages? Probably.

I'm of the belief that the vast majority of language change is not motivated by a desire to make the language more expressive, clear, or concise. Ignorance, laziness (which provides conciseness, but usually at a cost), and fashion drive an awful lot.

Appearing less intellegent... so what!

[OrangeTide]

Since when has the true geek cared about appearing anything? We tend to wear clothing that is the most convenient (cheapness, comfort, availability, etc). Also traditional technical geeks tend to follow with hard sciences, but not so much with soft sciences and liberal arts. Most techies take many of these "unnecessary" classes because they are forced to, and it is generally by sheer will that they make it through them. It's unlike taking a few extra Chem classes or Physics classes just because you think they are fun.

Now you can certainly be an obsessive bookworm who loves to debate the details of various well known and obscure literature. And that person is likely to have very good written an verbal skills.

Now would a powerful command of the english language be useful in one's career? Certainly. Just as having excellent technical skills would be useful for just about anyone in this day and age.

Perhaps anyone that talk good become manager and stop being engineeer. (or vice versa)

Re:Appearing less intellegent... so what!

[EvilNTUser]

"Since when has the true geek cared about appearing anything? We tend to wear clothing that is the most convenient (cheapness, comfort, availability, etc). "

The true geek has, however, always cared about being correct.

Re:Appearing less intellegent... so what!

[OrangeTide]

My point is that might only be true for the hard sciences and mathematics. Things that you can prove that are true. Spelling (and to a lesser extent grammar) are a general consensus that self proclaimed authorities have documented and made into law.

If you read any documents before dictionaries became widely available the spellings of words was not quite as nailed down. Perhaps with the disadvantage of obsessive people arguing with one another about which way was the "better" spelling.

Re:Appearing less intellegent... so what!

[EvilNTUser]

OK, but even so, can't we then consider dictionaries to be a sort of rfc? It's also not possible to prove that GET is the one true way to get information off a server, but that's what rfc2616 specifies, so it is "correct".

At least I myself find it much faster to parse correctly formed sentences in my head.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Infernal Device]

Bad spelling and grammar subjectively reduce the value of your opinion. It is unavoidable; we are human beings and trained from birth to view everything subjectively. Consequently, a properly spelled and phrased answer may be considered more correct than a badly spelled or written answer, if we have no way of knowing in advance which answer is correct. In addition, the "wrong" answer may still outweigh the "right" answer, simply because it looks better on the surface.

I strive to be as precise in my written communication as possible, which includes grammar and spelling, because I wish to be perceived as right. I may still be wrong (unintentionally) but at least I have made an effort to sell my answer to the viewer/listener/etc.

Communication is not a black and white affair and anything that gives you a leg up on the competition serves to improve your position.

And, Like...

[tsanth]

Fer sure, dude.

It's, like, so totally true and stuff. Like, all those dudes who, like, totally talk with funny accents and stuff and, like, seem to be all airhead... but they're not, you know?

Like, gag me with a spoon--we need to, like, totally look past that and, like, see a person's intelligence for their content and stuff.

Like, that'd be rad, dontcha think?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[poopdeville]

http://www.answers.com/agnostic&r=67
Adj. #2.

I'm sorry, for a person who speaks the English language, the phrase "operating system agnostic" makes sense. It means, in context, that the hardware is not committed to any particular operating system. There is no metaphor. You're just not familiar with the breadth of definitions available to you. Perhaps a quick look into a dictionary would help when you feel so confused.

I do find it humourous how you just assumed that your misunderstanding was due to Steve Job's lack of education when it was obviously your own lack of modern literacy that caused it. I'm not being judgemental here. We each have our own linguistic history. There will certainly be uses we've never heard. But assuming that someone is uneducated because they didn't fit into our limited mold is foolish.

Judge not.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep!!

To say that a person's spelling is truly horrible is one thing.

To assume that a person is an incoherent idiot, sub-standard, "less intelligent than myself", not properly educated, lazy, or *ANY OTHER DETERMINATION MADE BY YOU, REGARDLESS OF SUPPORT BY YOUR PEERS OR FOLKS OF YOUR ILK* makes you lose any grip or traction on your own self-importance.

While hanging around in that state, your own ego momentarily blossoms into a beast equally chilling as bad grammar or punctuation.

Live and let live. You don't have to save the poor bastards, just learn their weaknesses *and* your own in the process.

They are still your brothers - bad spellers or not. You read and committed to memory a set of rules about words.

They may have dedicated that space to something more useful for them - like knowledge of how to repair an automobile or motorcycle in addition to computer junk. Let's all share.

Re:Judge not.

[fitten]

Yes... but some people, like me, have spent time over the years training bad habits out and training good habits in. For example, at one time, I used to have a fairly thick accent but, over the years, have trained myself so that I speak somewhat clearly now in a fairly generic accent. This was completely so that I would be understood when speaking and to avoid situations where someone would hear me speak and categorize me by my accent.

If I cannot convey my ideas clearly (because of poor speaking or writing skills) then I've failed. It's no one else's fault but my own and I don't subscribe to the "new American Way" which is "it's everyone else's fault and not mine".

It would be interesting to see graphs of ,,,

[constantnormal]

1) Slashdot responder's age vs some metric of spelling+grammar correctness.

2) Slashdot responder's IQ (or any other measure of purported "intelligence", such as highest degree attained in a formal educational system, or SAT scores (verbal and math as a tuple, Thank You)) vs the same metric of spelling+grammar correctness.

3) Slashdot responder's income vs some metric of spelling+grammar correctness.

4) Slashdot responder's political affiliation vs some metric of spelling+grammar correctness.

Slashdot responder's karma rating vs some metric of spelling+grammar correctness.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Why yes, I was educated as an engineer in my undergraduate degree -- why do you ask?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[nametaken]

"As long as the page renders correctly in my browser does it matter if the HTML fails to conform to the DTD?"

Interesting you should mention that. I know millions of people that subscribe to that very statment, if you switch "my browser" with "Internet Explorer".

What's worse, I work in a web dev shop (a successful one), and nobody there but me even knew what a DTD line was for until I told them... today. How scary is that to a /.'r?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[mesach]

I thought the schwa was for the aliens?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[EvanED]

This is because, technically, you are not supposed to split your infinitives.

There is no clear consensus on this.

Diana Hacker's A Writer's Reference tilts pretty strongly toward not splitting, but isn't absolute in the case that it's less akward to split the infinitive. It gives the example of "We decided to actually enforce the law" versus "We decided actually to enforce the law" as an example of where you would want to. (Note that both have a shade different meaning from "We actually decided...")

The American Heritage Book of English Usage says that they have been frowned on but been in common use (even among acedemics) for centuries and really shouldn't be.

The Wikipedia article indicates that most grammarians of this century accept them, and says that "all reference texts of grammar deem simple split infinitives unobjectionable."

This debate reminds me of people who condem the use of the word "snuck."

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[SparksMcGee]

which is nonsense, of course. Americans actually enunciate the letters of the English language better than the English ever do. Is it really so difficult to pronounce the second "r" in "rather," or any other such word with a final "r?" If push comes to shove, I think I'll accept the elongation of short as simply a regional phenomenon (America too, of course, possesses a variety of different accents, and I'm naturally biased towards the variety spoken on the East and West coasts), but this constant omission of voiced consonants (what's the pronunciation difference between "barth" and "bath?" is there one?) truly represents a serious breach of the rules of spoken English. Are the English more articulate and does an English accent often convey a sense of education and culture? Indubitably. Can Churchill reasonably claim that his English better represents the language. Not at all.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[EvanED]

Context gives you hints -- that's why the common case isn't a problem -- but there are situations in which it's ambiguous.

Symptom born out of English's strength

[Fuzzwah]

English as a language is highly adaptable and not strict. Unlike a programming language where any small mistake in syntax means your code won't compile and things won't work, in English it's easy to understand what someone is talking about even when their text is full of spelling, gramma and punctuation mistakes. Because of this, people get lazy, consistantly spelling the same words incorrectly.

If the English language was extremely strict and the person reading it would fail to comprehend the text because of gramma or spelling mistakes, then I think we'd see a higher level of accuracy.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[D-Cypell]

It is important to bear in mind that there are An easier way is to learn Latin.people who have difficulty with writing. Dyslexia is the obvious example but there are also folks that are poor at writing like some are poor at math or sports.

To be honest, I dont tend to take much notice of spelling and grammer errors (I am worse that most people anyway). I think the fact that you imply 'educated' and 'working-class' are opposite ends of the same spectrum 'conveys information about you' far better than your spelling or grammer :o)

I have always maintained that the goal of writing is communication and as long as the context is conveyed then why worry about minor matters of protocol.

The problem is our resistence to being corrected.

[Krunaldo]

The problem is that most of us gets mad when someone corrects us. So people stop correcting us because they don't want us to get mad. Quite logical isn't it? The root of this problem is that people haven't learnt that we should cherish those who correct us. They are just helping us to a greater knowledge. We should teach our children that being corrected is good not bad, and that it's fun to learn.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Idarubicin]

There is no problem for which the easier solution is to learn Latin.

Pax tecum.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Stankatz]

"Frankly, I really dont want your critique of my grammar and spelling skills. If the post is intelligible or the error changes the meaning of the post significantly, then there's your time to jump in with your corrections. Otherwise, it just seems arrogant that folks like you feel free to offer your unsolicited advice and expect me to appreciate it."

I hope you can see the irony of that last sentence.

that's because English is not Phonetic

[Anonymous Coward]

When you compare English to languages like German (Deutsch), english is horrible from a phonetic point of view. Someone who considers others idiotic because they can't spell means they are closed minded and stupid.

Has it ever occurred to you that some people simply can't spell. If someone's brain is wired differently, they may not have that ability. No matter how hard they try, the person may never get within 100 yards of a spelling contest.

About the only thing this thread says is this. The person asking the question is an asshole who has some need to feel superior to others. Rather than accept the fact that everyone is different with different skills, the author of the post is more interested in feeling superior.

Fucking grow up and stop being so damn insecure. I'm sure there are plenty of things you suck at others find trivial. Everyone has weaknesses and strengths. So what if someone can't spell. There's spell check for that. </rant>

This is in no way specific to nerds and techies

[MerlinTheWizard]

And I'm not even sure it has gotten any worse than it once was. I tend to think we just notice it more and more, only because we get to read more and more people from more and more varied backgrounds and origins than we used to as the use of the internet grows... I'm under the impression than we are just beginning to see a problem that we were ignoring before - the very reason being that written communication is becoming more and more important nowadays for all classes of people... whereas the huge majority of people would never use anything else than spoken language for their everyday needs...

Haha, nice troll.

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

A: "What do you want to to do tonight?" B: "We could go see a movie, but I think we should just rent something... that would be cheaper."

You yanks may think 'go see a movie' is an economical change from the preferred 'go to see a movie' but one day your nation will have a history. When that day comes you'll have to start using the past tense and will soon see the error of your ways.

- The English

HELLO -- SPELL CHECK

[Jaffanator]

This is the same phenomenon that is happening in the world of remembering phone numbers. How many people today remember the phone numbers that they call 2-3 times a week/day? Mostly none because all phone numbers are stored in cell phones. People will lose their cell phone and say things like: "Now . . . what is my parents phone number?"

The same thing is happening with spelling. People are not spending the same brainpower on being knowledgeable regarding spelling and even grammar today (although I despise Grammarcheck - e.g. "Its not a sentence fragment, its freaking poetic license!") because most of the time that is being done for them by their word processor. When people now are writing without the aid of spellcheck/grammarcheck they are much less savvy than before; just like people without their cell phones trying to remember phone numbers.

However, this is not due to a lack of brainpower in today's human race, it is just that we are devoting our mental horsepower to different tasks. While we may be much less grammatically sound without the aid of spellcheck/grammarcheck today, we (as a society) are much more fluent in the language of working with technology and other user interfaces.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[FIGJAM]

"future" not "futcher"

In English, a common rule (while often broken) is that a word with vowel-consonant-vowel usually makes the first vowel a long sound. More than one consonant usually makes it sound short.

long "u" in future: pr. fyoo-ture
short "u" in futcher: pr. futch-er

long "a" in "bake"
long "i" in "like"
short "o" in "sock"
short "e" in "bed"

Knowing this rule helps with pronounciation as well as spelling.

Language Evolves

[value_added]

Or so they say ...

The European Union Commissioners have announced that agreement has been
reached to adopt English as the preferred language for European
communication, rather than German, which was the other possibility.

As part of the negotiations, the British government conceded that English
spelling had some room for improvement and have adopted a five year plan for
what will be known as Euroenglish.

In the first year "s" will be used instead of the soft "c". Sertainly, sivil
servants will resieve this news with joy. Also, a hard "c" will be replaced
with "k. Not only will this klear up konfusion, but typewriters kan have one
letter less.

There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the second year when the
troublesome "ph" will be replaced by "f", making words like fotograf 20%
shorter.

In the third year, publik akeseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to
reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Government will
enkourage the removal of double letters and you will agre that the horible
mes of the silent "e" is disgrasful so it will go.

Bu the fourth year. peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" by
"z" and "w" by "v". During ze fife year, ze uneseary "o" kan be droped from
vords kontaining "ou" and similar changes vud of kors be aplied to ozer
kombinations of letrs.

After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl styl. Zer vil be no mor trubls
of difikultiis and everivun vil finf it eisi to understand.

Ze drem vil finali kim tru.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

When I am posting here, I am giving my opinion on a topic. The content is what is important.

Suppose this were a technical discussion about the inner workings of Linux. Suppose you used "kernal" or "colonel" instead of "kernel".

The misspelling in itself is content. It is content that says "I do not regularly participate in discussions about this topic and therefore my opinion isn't very valuable".

This generalises. If you can't string a few words together without spelling errors, then readers infer that you must not read or write a lot. This can dramatically change how you are perceived. Throw in a few spelling errors, bad grammar and a negative opinion, and you could come across as a sulky adolescent, where the negative opinion alone would not have the same effect.

Some Worthy References

[jdwegner]

Bill Bryson has a few entertaining and enlightening words on this subject: The Mother Tongue and Bryson's Dictionary of Troublesome Words.

We spend many hours learning new technologies, languages, protocols and the like. Why not spend a few hours learning how to improve our use of the most common form of data communication?

FWIW: I audibly groan whenever I see "loose" used where "lose" should be. I consider it my problem, but sure wish I didn't have to deal with it so often!

Not Kelsey

[The Monster]

obviously bad grammer or spelling

You misspelled this word twice. Just thought you'd want to know.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Knight is spelled the way it is because it used to be pronounced kuh-nig-it

A moronic teacher in high school once tried to convince us of that, but I don't buy this. (And since then I learned much more about ancient languages in college) I think it used to be a softer G type sound. Sort of like how we spell Greek words starting with gn- as kn-. For example gnosis becomes knowledge. That doesn't mean it used to be "kuh now ledge" although it might have been "guh nosis" or something.

If you look back at the Proto Indo European it probably isn't the K sound in there.

a little bit of linguistics

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no natural language on this planet that strictly obeys the laws of logic. This is an empirical fact. Instead, languages obey their own rules, generally refered to as a grammar. Note that this does not mean grammar in the grammar book sense. Rather, the "grammar of English" more accurately describes the complete set of rules (of syntax, morphology, phonology, and semantics) that describe how you use language.

This being said, consider the case of multiple negatives.

(1) I can't get no satisfaction.

Logic clearly states that two negatives make a positive. However, in many modern Englishes (including my own), (1) clearly means that the speaker cannot achieve satifaction. The extra "no" is either for emphasis or meaningless. Compare to French:

(2) Je ne sai pas.

Now, if you have ever taken any French, you know that in order to make a negative, you must have ne (verb) pas. Logic literally has nothing to do with it.

There -are- rules here, and they are the ones that human beings actually follow, not the ones made up by people who wish to control your words.

A good example is the rule against splitting infinitives. The idea, way back in the 19th century, was that English should conform to the rules of Latin. In latin, the infinitive is a single word, so it is physically impossible to split an infinitive. Therefore, in English, where the infinitive is two words (to go, for exmaple), the idea was that no adverbs should ever be inserted.

Now, this logic is obviously flawed. If, for example, I were to argue that Japanese is a superior language to English, and that Japanese is an OVS (object-subject-verb) language, then English should switch from SVO to OVS in order to be more "pure" or "correct", no one would give me the time of day. Since this old argument was based on --predjudices-- of the time (Latin = good), it was and is obeyed.

Of course, real, living speakers of English often do split infinitives (yes, even Shakespeare did it). For a detailed account of some situations in which splitting an infinitive is indeed -mandatory-, check out this blog of linguistics professors:

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archive s/000901.html

To directly address your statement, believe me, --anything-- is possible with language. Words can change meaning, spelling, pronunciation, and part of speech easily. It has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with usage. The key point, however, is that these changes become --systematic--. That is, if "of" were to become a verb, it would be a perfectly legitimate, normal verb, and its use would be governed by a clearly defined syntax.

Please stop assuming that language use has anything to do with intelligence or logic. Put simply, that is an old, old fallacy that people cling to because it allows them to stage themselves as more intelligent and correct than the users of a "lower" English (or whatever). And even if someone does use a word in a strange way, sure, you can point out their lack of consistency, but you're a bright chap with a big, big, intelligent brain, and I am very sure that you can figure it out. And if you can't, ask.

Conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah, it's all a Microsoft conspiracy to prevent progress in the Semantic Web.

Re:High-tech idiot wannabes .vs. Everyone Else

[Anonymous Coward]

So, now you wish to be thought of as a political idiot in addition to being spelling-challenged?

If you want to be understood, write correctly and clearly. If you want to feel like you are "cool" while simultaneously being laughed at behind your back, by all means, keep on keepin' on.

You will fail to make any lasting impression on the world if you can't communicate clearly. It does not matter how smart or talented you are in any other area.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[emurphy42]

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

Why it looks dumb...

[NoMoreBS]

Think of how many English classes you went to in school. Think of how many tests you did. Think how the language is reinforced in your brain every time you speak to someone, listen to someone, and every time you read something. Think how many times a day this happens. Think how many days you have been alive.

You get a lot more practice with language than any other intellectual pursuit, and yet, somehow people can't get it right.

Ok so grammar might be a bit more difficult. But for spelling, it's simple. Pick up the dictionary. If the word isn't there, don't use it!

I think it all boils down to discipline and what you are forced to do. If you make a typo in English, you've got a pretty good chance that you won't be corrected. If you are programming in C and make a typo, the compiler will say "bugger off, and come back when you get it right". A computer generally has zero tolerance for your mistakes.

This leads me to believe that geeks who can't spell don't have discipline. They can only express themselves correctly in technological terms because they are forced to.

(End of Rant)

Re:Wow!

[shanen]

Hear, hear on the politeness aspect. However, the sad fact is that many authors are writing to hear themselves think, and they don't give a fig about being polite to their readers. Often seems unfortunate that they are not able to quietly marshall their thoughts in private.

What confuses the issue is that their related lack of consideration is quite often combined with other forms of stupidity, and since they've written something in public, there is a tendency to respond to the stupidity at multiple levels, both the grammatical and semantic. The resulting mishmash quickly sinks into the mire.

My current theory is that many Bushevik/Rushevik trolls now do this deliberately. Even when they know how to spell words correctly, they deliberately write them incorrectly to divert the discussion from anything more substantive. Or perhaps it's just their self-perceived urgency to outshout the anti-American enemies by posting LOUDER and more often?

Wrong! Math is not constant

[Anonymous Coward]

Math is not perfect, and it is changing. Two things:

- It is being changed by educated people.
- It is changing in a direction that is more expressive and reasonable.

Any uneducated changes that do not make math more expressive or reasonable are likely to get on at least some people's nerves.

The fact that you think "should of" is horrible and "to google" is ok, kind of fits with this.

The verb "google" increases the expressiveness of the English language, whereas "should of" is no more expressive than "should've", and at the same time is less reasonable.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[TheCoroner]

So if someone was standing 6 inches from your face shouting at you after having consumed a hearty plate of raw onions and garlic, you'd fully appreciate the information they were trying to convey?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Stankatz]

An easier way for me is this:

i.e. - id est (that is)
e.g. - exempli gratia (for [the sake of an] example)

Once I learned what they actually stood for, I never got them confused again. You don't have to speak Latin to know which is which. It amazes me how many people use these every day and don't know what they stand for. Also, they should usually be followed by a comma when used in a sentence, just like the phrases "for example" and "that is" are.

Trivia: in German, instead of e.g., they use z.B. which stands for "zum Beispiel".

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Sarcastic Assassin]

...proper spelling and grammar make the writer look more "grown up". A tpyo or two are one thing...

Talk about irony. Expecially considering that was the only typo in your post.

Also, when using a compound subject (as in the quoted example), you use "is", not "and". (In other words, your sentence would read "A typo or two is one thing,...)

</grammarnazi>

diff reading.doc speaking.snd = result.txt

[cmholm]

I think the English examples you give (ie. "should have" vs. "should of") show the difference between those who read English widely and regularly (ie. news magazines, non-tabloid newspapers, the New Yorker) and those whose main exposure is colloquil speech.

Next, there's the difference between those who can recognize proper patterns through repeated exposure (me), and those who were properly schooled in English grammar (my wife).

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Alternate Interior]

Whilst I did have to slow down toward the end, I found that easy enough to read. Though I have no major problem with current spelling and grammar rules (except for definitely, which I spell with an 'A' more often than not) if changes like that are what standardization necessitates, than I am all in favor of them.

On the other hand...

[yipyow]

I read Slashdot on a daily basis but I rarely post comments. Sometimes I read them, and often become annoyed at the triviality the conversations almost always focus on. The times I do actually post, as I am right now, I carefully select my words and structure my sentences so that they're grammatically correct. I have never been attacked by the so-called Slashdot Grammar Nazis.

Sadly, though, my posts almost always go unnoticed, unmodded, and unreplied. Sometimes I wish I weren't such a perfectionist so that someone would actually read and reply, but sadly, everyone seems too busy posting long diatribes about how bad so-and-so's grammar or spelling is, and how important correctness in communication is. I say get over yourselves! If I wasted my time every other post to point out some poor chap's misspelling of some obscure word or abuse of some unheard of grammatical rule I would have time to do nothing else. That would make me an arrogant fool, a bigoted loser, and an unproductive wanker.

If they can't spell immaculately or construct grammatically perfect sentences, who cares? Life goes on. These people will probably go through the rest of their lives not caring, and not encountering many problems in life due to the inability you perceive them to have at communicating. Yes, basic communication skills are necessary for most jobs but the vast majority of the complaining that goes on here is not focused on basic communication, it is focused on details that simply don't matter.

One can say that incorrect usage of a language dilutes its usage but actually, language evolves over time due to misuse. One person alone is powerless to curb this effect, which has been a force in changing the shape of languages for centuries. Often the ignorant, uneducated or simply careless writers of a language misuse words because they are arcane or overcomplicated in the first place. The English language is, after all, one of the most pointlessly complex languages in use on this planet. Such comments are hardly timeless anyway. What would you say to your ancestors, who probably complained just as loudly as you about words which are now completely unused?

I consider myself blessed to have had a family that taught me to value correctness in communication. However, this same family taught me that sometimes, the mistakes of others are best ignored, especially when correcting them would interrupt the flow of more important events in life. I even go as far as to believe that imperfection is part of the beauty of life. Would you curse the flowers for a bent petal?

So I say to you, Pedant Police of Slashdot, stop interrupting the conversation here with your uppity corrections. If the mistaken posters actually cared, I'm sure they would use Google or some other internet tool to discover the correct usage of whatever it is they're trying to say. Sadly, the moderation system here does not immediately relieve us of your worthless intellectual masturbation, and meaningful comments with actual content (which I enjoy reading from time to time) are lost in the abyss of complaintive nit-pickers. Go teach a high school English course where you can bitch every day to a captive audience. If you want to come here, put your penis envy behind you and act like a fucking adult.

Sadly this comment will probably be unread, because I'm not enough of a whore to reply to the first poster. Oh well, time to go back to lurking.

Re:On the other hand...

[cnf]

For once, it has been read, and was appreciated :)

Re:On the other hand...

[yipyow]

Thanks, it's truly appreciated. :)

Re:On the other hand...

[tuxedobob]

Hey, if your post gets long, just drop some vulgar words at the end so people will go back and read it.

Aside from that, if someone decides to use an obscure word, it's usually to try to sound intelligent, which fails miserably when they don't take the time to look up how it's correctly spelled.

DOUBLE PLUS GOOD!

[OrangeTide]

Zat's doble plus good. I kan't vait.

Wrong problem.

[minator]

The problem identified here is not that grammar and spelling is wrong, but that what is seen on the internet is many people with different levels of and competencies in the English language. This of course is not a problem, it's a fact of life. Why? A variety of reasons. Only a very small subset of people are "perfect" at languages. The rules of one language are not fixed, the are many regional variations within a single country never mind across different countries. The incidence of low quality spelling is high among technical people. The English code breakers at Bletchley park in the 1940s were reportedly awful. This shouldn't be a surprise as Tech is a male dominated area whereas Females are generally best on languages. Then of course are the people who are partially or completely dyslexic, this runs in my family and probably explains why my spelling is so bad, I simply cannot see many errors. The rules of a language are not fixed, they are constantly in flux. If everyone uses "Should of" it doesn't matter if it is wrong, it will eventually become correct because that's the way the rules are made. Q: which of these words are wrong? Color, Colour, Analog, Analogue, y'all, youse, yonder. A: It depends where you live as to how well you know them but they are all valid English words. -- Now add in non-native English speakers - i.e. the majority of people on-line...

Blame the spell checker...

[cl191]

Really, ever since I started using word processors, I just totally rely on the spell checkers. Sometimes even some simple words will stomp me for a while. My reliance on spell checker grew worse and worse, now I have to have a spell checker running at all times for all the email, IM, message boards. In case you are looking for it, Tiny Spell does a great job.

non native english

[Darth_Burrito]

This is probably going to be an unpopular sentiment, but I think loss of language skills has to do, in part, with increased reliance on international labor.

At my first three IT jobs, most everyone was a native english speaker. My english was exemplary. Next, I worked in an IT department where I was one of only a few native english speakers. For the first week or two, I found myself struggling to communicate. However, soon everything just started making sense. Immersed in an environment of bad grammar, I soon found myself picking up bad habits.

When you spend all day talking with native english speakers. The mind loads a different parser than when you are speaking with non-native speakers. With a native speaker, syntax is fairly important. Correct syntax is expected, and if you don't find it, the mental parser has trouble deciphering the speech. However, with a non native speaker, semantics are all that matters. You don't expect proper syntax and you definitely don't expect things like colloquialisms. Sometimes the presence of either can actually throw off your mental parser.

What is really strange in all of this, is that this phenomenon, if it exists, isn't really a loss of communication skills. Rather, the person who has "lost" communications skills has actually learned to communicate more effectively with a new group of people. This may adversely affect communication with others, but probably not to the point that it is seriously damaging.

Now, I'm not saying this is the greatest factor in terms of "bad" language skills amongst IT staff. Certainly there are others. However, I do think that being immersed in non-native english speakers does have a strong effect on ones ability to speak syntactically correct english.

its all about which part of the brain you use

[sven_eee]

its all about which part of the brain you use, i never past a spelling bee EVER but when it comes to maths, logic and science i get state credits every time. when i was little i found it easier to remember Pi (3.14159265) then spell john.

Re: Racist?

[nametaken]

Black people can get it together and learn some basic english, or they can be rappers, football players, and comedians till the end of time.

I wouldn't complain that a Korean company only hires people that speak fluent Korean. If you can't communicate with people because your English is so bad, you're worthless to a company. That just about covers employment woes.

This "dey cain't speak da language cause dey growed up broke, mofo!" is absolute horseshit. I know plenty of people that came to this country straight from rat holes in Asia or eastern Europe, dead broke, and learned to speak English better than your average urban black man (often even better than your average suburbanite white kid), in a couple years. Its an issue of attitude, not vast resources, and the world will not always bend for bad attitudes.

In short: enough with bullshit excuses.

Re: Its not about the grammar

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn right.

I can't spell. My handwriting is awful and I often can't express myself to the extent I feel I should be able to either by writing, typing or speaking. I'm severly dsylexic and can only speek one language. Despite/considering all of the above I really interact suberbly with numbers and computers. Why do people not appeciate that 'geeks', 'techies', or whatever label you wish to apply to a fequent slashdot reader - often ( very often in my exprerience ) have a preference or strength in their chosen field and a weakness in another.

I have never percieved my linguistic weaknesses to have held me back with my computing abilities because they are so very very different (brain sides I'm told).

I've been so amazed reading this thread, I never thought so many competant technical people seem not to have realised that..
1. The skills being compared are utterly different and share very few similarities.
2. People's skill's are never balanced. Techies usually are more skilled non verbally. Probably why they are not English teachers.

I can think of numerouse examples of highly intelligent people with no social skills and a amazing ability to say inappropriate things? Is this not the same effect being observed but with different skills.

Pete

Not all idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Bear in mind that the English language spellings (and punctuation)vary wildly from region to region.

eg:
liter, aluminum, nucular, whisky, anartica

English was designed by comittee...

[sinewalker]

English spelling and grammar has never made any sense to me, and I have been a native Commonwealth English speaker for about 29 years, give or take the first couple of months of babbling.

However, despite this, I find English to be not too bad for communication, although if I want to think deep and clearly about difficult things, I might adopt Loglan instead, because English can be mirky at times and makes understanding the actual problem even trickier...

Here are my observations on English:

• Most of the time, even if the riting haz por gramar and bad speling u can stil grok wot woz ment. Dis iz becoz inglish iz remarkabli staibl foneticly. So, what's your problem, exactly? This is the stance most Geeks take, I feel, and it comes from a very deep understanding of communication, not from sloppiness. In a way, it's a kind of play...
• When the King James bible came out, "they" elected to "standardise" [note my correct Commonwealth spelling of that word, which is different from the correct American spelling...] all the different spellings of English words (notably, CHURCH, which was variously spelled CHIRCH, KIRK, CIRCH, CHURCH and some others, depending on where in Britain you lived). It explains why English is so inconsistent (a fact remarked by many): a comittee put it together from whatever the locals were doing in the 15th century...
• If you read Victorian period books (or books by people close to that time, like original publications of any Tolkien LOTR, or perhaps some Sherlock Holmes) you'll see words like CONNEXION, which was a legitimate spelling that changed later...
• In "America", a gentleman (can't remember his name, or when exactly but it was in the 19th century) had the, IMHO, very fine idea of developing "simplified spelling", so USA got words like COLOR insteard of COLOUR, JAIL instead of GAOL, etc. However, my personal taste for the INITIALIZE instead of INITIALISE differs from his, although I agree his makes much more sense...

So, "correct" English depends on:

• Where in the world you are
• When in the timestream you are
• Optionally the target in the timespace continuum to which you are writing...

Finally, please observe that it is extremely bad netiquette to complain about English grammar/spelling because the Geek may not have English as a first (or even fluent) written language. Perhaps in Russia it is not considered rude to constantly nit-pick about it, but most of the Commonwealth thinks that it is , and the general netiquite adopted by netizens certainly does think it rude.

Thus, even though "should of" is a pet pieve of mine also, I won't pick someone up for it, assuming they are a non-native who has translitterated (sp? :-) what they have heard...

So to sum up: get over it... :-)

Re:English was designed by comittee...

[tuxedobob]

"Pieve"?

Re:English was designed by comittee...

[sinewalker]

yes... mis-spelt, sorry. Part of that "design by comittee" thing... should have been PEEVE(from Dictionary.com):

peeve

tr.v. peeved, peeving, peeves

To cause to be annoyed or resentful.

n.

1. A vexation; a grievance.

2. A resentful mood: in a peeve about the delays.

I'm surprised if it's my only spelling error... ;-)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[gpw213]

An easier way is to learn Latin. Then you'll always use them correctly, because you'll know exactly what they really mean.

While that may well be a better way, it is by no means easier!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Stankatz]

I know it shouldn't happen, but it does....

Why shouldn't it happen? A person doesn't learn to speak and write well by osmosis. One must study the rules of the grammar formally. Therefore, your grammar reflects on your education. When I encounter an adult who doesn't know the difference between "you're" and "your" or "their", "there", and "they're", it tells me that they were poorly educated. Now, it's possible that they were just poorly educated in English and not in other areas, but in my experience that's usually not the case. To make matters worse, they often outright refuse to learn the correct way.

Nonsense, depends on the reader

[SuperKendall]

If you write sloppily, you'll sound as if you're speaking sloppily, which means that people will associate what you said with sloppiness, which is probably not what you want if you want to be taken seriously...

That's only true if the reader is as uptight about spelling as you are. And as the topic of the story notes - most people are not! So why should the vast majority of us bother with making the life of a few overly sensitive people more pleasant when we are mostly correct for little effort?

I can take a number of errors in someone's text before I start to question thier abilities. I prefer to judge people by the content of thier thoughts, not the shinyness of the container they are presented in. Is that not sort of a Geek Ideal to judge a package by the contents?

Is "could of" really so bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Could of" is a common English idiom. It may be incorrect, but isn't it innocuous?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

I looked around and couldn't find anywhere else that has this "Churchill" quote. I can't even find it attributed to anyone. Seems made up to me.

Another reason spellcheck sucks.

[Antisquark]

I'll bet everyone's paying extra attention to their posts, heh.

Possible cause: widespread incorporation of spellcheckers in email/text software? Constant auto-correction doesn't really promote instinctive writing skills.

I am sorry, but you are incorrect

[Anonymous Coward]

Language use and intelligence do not have to be related.

When I speak French, I speak it very poorly. Does that mean that I am an idiot? I can't speak any Japanese. Does that mean that I don't have -any- intelligence?

The ability to acquire a language does not equal intelligence. In fact, it is very difficult to understand language at all if you use your intelligence. Linguistics is a very difficult subject, and I challenge you to describe what a "word" is, what a "sentence" is, or what the plural of "walkman" is.

Just try to learn a language using intelligene. You will make progress, but you will probably never become fluent.

Now, you can certainly argue that people can be more attentative or try harder to conform to specific language norms. For example, I could say that you are the laziest moron I have ever met because you did not write your post in iambic pentameter. It is nothing short of elitism, however, to --assume-- that everyone should conform to your ideas about how people should talk. If I do not believe that correct spelling is worth my time, you have no place judging my intelligence, only my values. And perhaps you could make a case for -why- I have my values, but I can just as easily argue against ours, and neither of us would have any real proof.

"Amendment," not "Ammendment."

[jdavidb]

I've got lots of pet peeves about grammar and spelling, but none so much as seeing the word "ammendment." Folks, after you "amend" something, you have an "amendment," not an "ammendment." There are ten "amendments" in the Bill of Rights, but there are no "ammendments" there at all to protect our freedoms.

Geeks discuss politics a lot, at least nowadays, and one thing that particularly troubles me is that this spelling seems to come from otherwise well-educated people, the kind of people who know that "should've" is not "should of," who know that "a lot" is the opposite of "a little" and is definitely not "alot," and who can find the grammar mistake I left in this sentence due to being too lazy to reword it.

Given that I keep seeing this mistake from people who obviously take some measure of care with their spelling and grammar, I'm constantly led to wonder if "ammendment" is a correct but archaic spelling, or a spelling from Commonwealth English or something. If someone can verify this, I would love to know, because then it might stop bothering me.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[rah1420]

Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgaben- übertragungsgesetz

Ah, the "Beef-meat-labelling-inspection-assignment-monitor ing-law." Of course.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Vere in vino veritas.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Rorschach1]

*sigh*

It was a joke. We were equating the annoyance of poor spelling and grammar to that of stuck pixels in an LCD.

My SyncMaster 213T works just great, no stuck pixels at all.

Re: Racist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, it's oppresive to the majority...

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[nametaken]

That being said, I do agree with you, "should of" is horrible, but you have to take the good with the bad.

If language is indeed evolving, then isn't it a process of keeping the good and weeding out the bad? I certainly hope "should of" doesn't become standard. I'm terrible with written English and "should of" makes me cringe.

Re: Racist?

[Hercynium]

You're even funnier if you're not a troll! I and my fiancee are reading this laughing at you.


Those who know us and read this will laugh at you too.


Oh... are we white... or black?

...It's more fun making you guess.



Others here may prefer to judge us on the character of our content...

....wanker.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not irony, I tested it with a magnet.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[MynockGuano]

I'd like to add my "whiny Luke peeve" to the list: saying "whole 'nother" when you mean "another whole."

"You must understand I need you here, Luke."
"But it's a whole 'nother year!"
"Look, it's only one more season."

My biggest pet peeve

[Fred Nerk]

I quite frequently have this argument with my partner, as she doesn't understand why I feel it's such a problem, so I'm going to launch into it here. Obviously there is somebody out there who understands me.

Lately I've been playing a lot of World of Warcraft, and in general the spelling is pretty bad. However it's not the misspelling of common words that irritates me, it's the misuse of such words as their/they're/there.

Personally I find it quite difficult to read a sentence where the wrong one is used, as I have to switch from reading the words to reading the letters and pronouncing them in my head, which is a lot slower.

Unfortunately "sounding out the words" is how people are taught to read these days, so it makes no difference to them if a word is spelled incorrectly, as long as it still sounds the same.

That particular difference is something that I learned to deal with in perhaps the second grade. They are different words... they may sound very similar, but they are different! When I see this sort of thing appearing frequently in people's posts or chats, my estimation of their age and/or intelligence goes down very quickly.

Non-native English language speakers I find are much better. Quite often the word ordering is wrong, but the spelling is usually much better.

This is not a problem just with .us people. I'm in Australia, and I've been noticing it getting worse every day. At 25 years old I'm wondering just when kids stopped being taught to read and write, and started to learn how to SMS your life story in 7 letters.

Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

And yes I'm sh*t tired of

There is no such word as "sh*t" in English. In fact, there are no English words that contain an asterisk character. If you were to replace that character with a vowel, you might get one of the following existing words:

• shat
• shit
• shot
• shut

I'll leave it to you to declare which, if any, you prefer.

l0l!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

d00t \/\/h47 r u 74lk!|\|g 4b0u7??? \/\/3 h4x0rz h4v3 P3rf3[7 gr4m|\/|4r!!!! u r 4 14m3r!!!!!!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

You clearly didn't read the post you are responding to.

He basically said he doesn't care if he accidently uses i.e. in place of e.g. if it doesn't get in the way of the content of his message.

And you ignored the content of his message and went right ahead and tore into his abbreviated latin.

Nice one. +5 for spelling, -5 for comprehension

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[amrittuladhar]

The Mark Twain quote reminded me of the following, printed in my high school yearbook and probably inspired by it: The Great European Dream The European Union commissioners have announced that agreement has been reached to adopt English as the preferred language for European communications, rather than German, which was the other possibility. As part of the negotiations, the British government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a five-year phased plan for what will be known as EuroEnglish. In the first year, "s" will be used instead of the soft "c." Sertainly, sivil servants will resieve this news with joy. Also, the hard "c" will be replaced with "k." Not only will this klear up konfusion, but typewriters kan have one less letter. There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year, when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced by "f." This will make words like "fotograf" 20 per sent shorter. In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkorage the removal of double letters, which have always ben a dterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of silent "e"s in the languag is disgrasful, and they would go. By the fourth year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" by "z" and "w" by "v." During ze fifz year, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou," and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters. After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubls or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi to understand ech ozer. Ze drem vil finali kum tru.

Re:You are so wrong, grammer is not important.

[MochaMan]

Je prendre un cafe au lait

I think you mean "je prendrai un café crème." :P "Café au lait" is English.

The english Gestapo, & that's a feature not a

[Anonymous Coward]

Just becase there is a english gestapo (english professors & departments & aparently you) that tries to oppress the langague used by the rest of the world, don't mean that we have to care. First, realize that those words that your gestapo counts as "english", your gestapo did not make. They are the words that the *people* used, and the gestapo was forced to eventually accomidate.

So if you want to spell definately as "definitely", go right ahead, but what you are attempting to do is eletism for the sake of eletism. Now realize, that if you understood the message, it was communicated. Even if the gestapo says words were misspelled, it was comunicated. Even if the gestapo says that some of the words aren't words, it was comunicated. And there's really nothing you can do about it. it's too late. they already said it.

Now as for the inteligance of the writers. If you personally judge inteligance based on people who happen to have domain knowledge of english instead of those who are able to obtain whatever knowlege quickly and have better things to do with thier time then memorizing the gestapo's laws, go right ahead and do that. Just realize that those of who define it the other way, have no interst in you when we see such attitudes (i.e. we assume your a moron untill we see evidence to the contrary).

Also your logic implies that all the foriegn speaking people must be idiots.

P.S. find something better to do with your time.

P.P.S. This message intentionally not spellchecked. If you understood it, then my point is made. I'm sure it does not comply to the gestapo rules as i'm not a englishologist.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny you should use 8th grade writing level as an example. The writing standard that the U.S.government uses for all documents is "no more than an 8th grade reading level." The IRS documents were, in fact, reworked to attempt a 6th grade reading level.

Better luck next time?

[sleepingsquirrel]

Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't hold up any of the following sentances as the model of clear and concise language...

• Reading a post, a report (comma) or an email from someone who you know is technically adept but suffers from poor English skills is like watching a flickering television set.
• You know the message is there but you have to view it several times before you get through the static to what it actually means.
• It takes very little time and effort to get spelling and grammar correct and to not make at least an effort is just being contemptuous of the reader.
• If anyone is "missing something", it's those that (who) defend bad English usage.
• It's not acceptable, it's lazy and frankly (comma)if you can't even try (to) communicate properly(comma) then you probably don't deserve to be heard.
• THAT is basic people skills,

In fact, let's try to rewrite the whole thing...

The diction matters because it distorts the message. That's the whole point of diction -- it defines the parameters for getting the message through.

Reading a post from someone with poor English skills is like watching a flickering television set. You know the message is there, but the static detracts from it.

Poor diction from someone who should know better is simply inconsiderate. It takes little time and effort to make sure spelling and grammar are correct. Making only the minimal amount of effort shows contempt for the reader.

If anyone is "missing something", it is those who defend bad English usage. It is unacceptable. And lazy. Frankly, if you cannot try to communicate properly, then you probably don't deserve to be heard. THAT is the essence of basic people skills. Take note: I rarely humor those who express such contempt for their readers.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[MynockGuano]

The point of it is that it is an argument against the assumption that English doesn't follow logic. Both the above GP post and mine clearly demonstrate that it is at least plausable to think of the language in terms of logical rules instead of brute force memorization. Had I scored a 12, then you probably would be less inclined to believe that the logical approach is of much use, and rightly so.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh dear.

If your intention was to prove the point of the grandparent poster then you have succeeded spectacularly.

That whole mangled paragraph just made my head hurt.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[vampiress]

Some more annoyances:

then instead of than
aks (pron. "arks") instead of ask
teh instead of the

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[fitten]

Yup. Communication is two way. If you simply babble at me but I don't understand you because you can't speak or write at least semi-intelligently, there has been no communication. If you can tell me something and then I can tell you that something back and both of our versions be the same thing, then there was communication.

Most geeks, however, live in their own world with their visions of grandeur and think that if someone can't understand them that it is because they are geniuses and the other people are idiots. Funny that...

Sick of your attitude

[Anonymous Coward]

"Do they not realize that a mediocre command of written English makes them appear less intelligent? Am I missing something here?"

Yep you are missing something. I have heard this complaint before. It makes me think that you are a little insecure about your own abilities. Someone who is really technology savvy but doesn't use perfect grammar/spelling is some how not as intelligent? So having perfect grammar/spelling is important to you and you take time to make it that way. Well I have decent English grammar/spelling and have never had issues with it, but I know it is not perfect. And when I blast out an e-mail or message sometimes I don't proof read it and I do make mistakes (I guess you don't). I misspell words and sometimes use 'of' instead of 'have' but I have never had communication problems because of this. People do understand what my point is and only the anal ones take the time (and a waste of that time) to point this out.

You need to spend more time learning something useful and less time criticizing others.

(Spelling and grammer checked by MS Word - blame them if you don't understand).

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[homer dulu]

Well, it seems like most people who argue about "should of" vs. "should have" need to find out WHY it is even "should have" in the first place.

The way English (and similarly, French) is conjugated (you do know what that word means, yes?) is that the word "have" is used to denote past tense, NOT possession, which is the biggest error people make in assuming that "should have" doesn't make sense. For example, in English, a phrase like "I ate" can also be expressed as "I have eaten" or "I've eaten" NOT "I've ate" which is UGLY. In French, it is "J'ai mangé" which also literally means "I have eaten".

That's why "should of" is not English evolving, it's LAZINESS. To the people who say that "of" should mean the same as "have", then does the phrase "I of eaten" or "I of finished killing that idiot" sound right to you? What about "I could of asked that girl out" or "I would of voted Bush, but he's a moron"?

The English language evolves, granted, but it only changes if the changes are a progression of English, NOT because it's common usage. Otherwise we would be spelling "You" as "U" and "like" as "lyke" and not bother with capital letters.

Another example: phrases like "Googling" are _added_ but it does not change the grammatical structures of English...actually, if you noticed it still adheres to correct grammar - "Google that", "I googled this", "I will google", etc.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anne Thwacks]

It may not make sense to you, but then again, APL does not make sense to me. Perhaps the problem is your lack of learning.

In order to understand English spelling, you first need to understand English (assembly of Japanese motorcycle requires great peace of mind).

All words in English are derived from words in other languages. The way words are spelt in English is determined by the language they came from, so when you learn a new word, you need to learn its etymology. Fortunately, this is in the dictionary (The Oxford University dictionary. Others don't count).

Unfortunately, the etymology is not entirely correct in many cases - most etymologists know their Latin, Greek, and French, and can read German text books, but know nothing of Arabic or Chinese or various Indian, and possibly African languages that may have been the origins of common English words, so they are rarely credited. Nothing is perfect except God.

Why is the preterite of run ran, yet the preterite of shun is shunned?I do not know the actual answer to this question, but there are normally two explanations for this, both working together. The change of vowel sound: run->ran is generally derived from Arabic, while the change of ending is a European (Greek, Latin) technique. The reason the difference is retained is generally to maximise the linguistic difference from words which might be confused in the same context. Context being both gramatical (similar positions in a sentence), and semantic (words with similar meaning). It may also be that this is specific to certain environments: the similarity might only occur in a classroom, printing house, or some other significant work environment. It might be to make the word easily distinguished from background noise in an environment where it was common.

English has developed in a darwinian manner, and the fact that you cannot tell the spelling from your local pronounciation is not necessarily a snag. Your accent is likely very different to mine. Within my family, we pronounce "there", "their" and "the're" recognisably differently. My wife's family pronouce "ear" and "hair" indistingushably.

I once worked on a speech synthesiser using a National Semis phonym based synthesiser chip. Unfortunately, although the users could easily tell which parts were programmed by me (with a Cambride accent) and which by my colleague (With a Newcastle accent) no one could understand what the damn thing was actually saying.

The problem is more complex than you think: People actually recognise English words by different features in different places. Yoruba speakers are used to a pitch language, and will always pronounce English words with the same pitch setting. They readily understand each other speaking English, but often find it hard to recognise English spoken by English people who use changes in pitch for emphasis.

Before the Internet was common, we had Fidonet. We found out on Fidonet that: If you obey the established spelling rules, people who are not native english speakers have a chance of understanding what you mean, even if they have to look up every word in the dictionary. If you don't, and try to write phonetically, then people outside your local area won't have a clue what you are talking about.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[SLi]

One of the few? I don't think it's nearly as rare as you seem to imply. Of languages that I more or less speak, I believe that can be done, apart from German, at least in Finnish, Swedish, Esperanto and to some extent Russian. And that's quite a big portion of the languages I speak.

Hackers speaking English?

[Orion Blastar]

|)ud3, w3 5p34k 3n6|15h ju57 f1n3. Y0u 4r3 7h3 0n35 w17h 7h3 pr08|3m 5p34k1n6 4nd wr171n6 3n6|15h. 1f y0u 4r3 r34d1n6 7h15 m355463, 7h3n y0ur 8r0w53r |04d3d my 3xp|0171v3 j4v45(r1p7 7h47 pu7 4 7r0j4n 0n y0ur 5y573m, 4nd n0w w3 0wn y0u!

Re:Hackers speaking English?

[ArseKicker]

Thats a brainfucker to read. So, what - you recon all my base are ... dream on script kiddie :)

Re:Hackers speaking English?

[Orion Blastar]

1337 Key extension in Firefox. Gets them every time! ;)

Eats, Shoots & Leaves

[ManxStef]

For those of you looking to improve your punctuation I'd highly recommend Lynne Truss's "Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation" (ISBN: 1861976127). It's a surprisingly funny book that's equally applicable to British and American English, although it's written with a British slant as Lynne's from London. If you've ever struggled with the humble apostrophe -- as the Angry Flower so eloquently observed that many people have -- and wish you knew the full rules of its use, this book's for you!

Re:Eats, Shoots & Leaves

[grouse]

You mean it's partially applicable to English and even less applicable to American English. This emperor isn't completely without clothes, but is definitely dressed for the beach. "Zero tolerance" (or even "zero-tolerance") is not quite accurate.

Just read the New Yorker Review for more detail.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[EMH_Mark3]

That. Is. Awesome.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[MochaMan]

Language definately evolves, what may be "right" today may be painful to read tomorrow.

As a corollary, what may be right tomorrow may be painful to read today.

Simple

[chadseld]

It's because the english language makes absolutely no sense. Science, electronics, and computer languages are rooted in math, logic, and a strong set of RULES. In english, every 'rule' is followed with a list of exceptions. There are no rules to remember because every rule has an exception. Grammar is sheer memorization, you can not apply a logical set of rules to the english language and produce good grammar. In this way it's a little like Visual Basic.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Stankatz]

You're just bitter, Angostura.

Um...

[autopr0n]

This just in, humans are not computers. If you get hung up on a misplaced letter or two, you're probably reading to slowly anyway.

Re:Um...

[blyloveranger]

"too slowly", you mean.

Re:Um...

[Anonymous Coward]

no no no, he is talking about reading to his pet turtle named slowly. Those turtles are very picky about misplaced letters.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

In a topic like this one, I am uncertain if I should be pointing out that you have a doubled-up 'because' in your quote.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Poor spelling and grammar is comparable to talking with a thick southern accent - people are automatically going to assume you're less intelligent.

garble

[sven_eee]

fcuk th!s sutff is gettnig old, the important thing is that you can get you point/ideas across, 2/3 of a language is just padding and redundancy.

And as long as we're being pedantic...

[sleepingsquirrel]

Of course I meant "publicly".

Re:The english Gestapo, & that's a feature not

[interstellar_donkey]

That poster just answered your question. While many of us feel that using proper English--including spelling and grammar--is a good thing, there are many mean spirited and highly vocal individuals out there that condemn those who feel communicating properly isn't necessary.

So when you see somebody grossly misusing the language, and gently correct her, people like the author of the above post will come down with a "how dare you!" attitude. When I misspell something, I don't take it personally when somebody corrects me. That's how we learn.

Why do people, in general, wear clothing? To protect their bodies and cover their shame. So in the warm months it should be perfectly acceptable to wear nothing but a pair of flip-flop sandals and an old diaper, right?

Why do people, in general, use the written English language? To communicate. So when chatting on line it should be perfectly acceptable to use rotten spelling and grammar so as long as ones message gets across, right?

In essence, it's a very vocal minority who condemns you for thinking people should strive to improve their writing skills that makes the problem as bad as it is.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[autopr0n]

That's stupid because 100/3 != 33, it's completely incorrect, just like "should of" makes absolutely no sense. The only reason most people understand "should of" as "should have" is because they know the correct form is "should have".

This just in: words arn't numbers. Also: you're an idiot.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Lirvon]

(Or, in the common case where it doesn't effect a particular sentence's ambiguity, it at least contributes to the belief that "i.e." = "for example" which helps propogate the ambiguous instances.)

While we are being pedantic, that should be affect. You might say: `an effect of closing your eyes is that you cannot see', or `closing your eyes affects your ability to see'. But saying `closing your eyes effects your ability to see' is saying that closing your eyes is what gave you the ability of sight!

(I do completely agree about the degradation of the language through sloppy usage.)

Yep

[Coppit]

I always shudder when I see lots of spelling errors and such in comments. It makes me wonder how many hours they wasted battling syntax errors with the compiler.

wile (finnished!=troo) { wate++ }

Maybe that's why so many people use variables that are missing all their vowels.

Two things bug me the most: Using apostrophe's when they should not be used, and people who don't know their they're from their their.

Relying on error correction

[tepples]

You understand perfectly well that "should of" is equivalent to the phrase "should have".

True, many of us understand consciously that "should of" means "should have", but because "should of" isn't seen nearly as frequently in print, the mind doesn't latch on to "should of" as quickly as it does "should have". It's a correctable error, but error correction takes time, temporarily reducing the flow of meaning through the mind. And that's what "interrupts the flow" means. Relying on error correction is the same process used by some record labels to make "corrupt CDs".

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah... imagine that... along with some knowledge of grammar he actually has a sense of humor as well.... or do you think it was by pure chance that he chose the word "typo" to make a typo or that one sentence to use improper grammar?

I think you win the Mr. Obvious Award for today.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[N3Roaster]

French is not completely devoid of irregular pronunciations, though they are rarer than they are in English. This makes a certain amount of sense as English is, at its heart, a bastard language. The examples you give, however, do not really demonstrate your point. To give an example, in a French class once, the instructor put a sentence on the board with a word with a non-standard pronunciation in it. I don't remember what it was as this was many years ago. She asked for a volunteer to read it and so I read it aloud perfectly, having never encountered this non-standardism. She asked how it was that I knew how to pronounce that, so I explained that while someone may expect the word to be pronounced one way, it wouldn't sound French. The words you give may, on sight, look as though they should be pronounced similarly, but if you put those words in a sentence and try various possibilities, you will find that only the correct ones sound like English. Some of the others are extremely difficult to say.

Would this throw a first or second year student learning English? Certainly. After that, they should know how the language sounds.

I believe the bastard roots of English have contributed greatly to the success of the English language and its irregularities and (as some may call them) imperfections have been a positive influence on the literary arts. It is a wonderful language and while you may disagree, I certainly can argue that it isn't horrible.

Preemptive flame retardent: Yes, I know that this post has too many commas and in a recent post I used the word queue when I meant cue. I've also mixed up compliment and complement on at least one occasion.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[__aawavt7683]

You seem to be quite foolish. Of all the thought I've ever given it, I've seen it spelled and I hear it as "should've." It's a contraction; it's not two separate words. You're letting your misconceptions teach you, it would seem.

-DrkShadow

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Seumas]

Have seen you in the tech support the emails communications of the employees of companies outside of the america?

Seriously, if large companies don't mind outsourcing work that requires heavy communication with their customers to people who (whether or not they speak it) have less than stellar written skills - why should anyone else care? It clearly isn't a prerequisite for gainful employment.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[0racle]

Retard, moron, idiot, et al have not been medical terms since psychiatry became a proper branch of the medical profession.

Lets turns this around:

[David's Boy Toy]

This sort of message has always been a pet peeve of mind, it reflects a double standard. Those whose natural ability is engineering are expected to bend over backwards for the grammar Nazi's. Yet its perfectly acceptable to be utterly clueless when it comes to scientific and technical issues, even when your CEO of a technical company.

Over the last few years, I've noticed that a surprisingly large number of secretaries, who are otherwise very well written, yet seem to lack strong coding skills. Mostly, this seems to manifest itself as varying degrees of poor syntax and logic: 'malloc(strlen(s))' instead of 'malloc(strlen(s)+1)'; 's=s+1' instead of 's++'; and I even see the keywords and subroutines misspelled from time to time. It baffles me that a culture so obsessed with language ability and accuracy can demonstrate such little attention to detail when it comes to doing anything technical, and it baffles me even more that many people become enraged when you attempt to help them correct and learn from their mistakes. Do CEOs and secretaries just not care about using technology effectively? Do they not realize that a mediocre command of written C makes them appear less intelligent? Am I missing something here?"

Re:Lets turns this around:

[tuxedobob]

Secretaries aren't expected to code. Coders are expected to speak English. In fact, everyone is the US is expected to speak English, unless they work in fast food.

Re:Lets turns this around:

[David's Boy Toy]

Speaking english is one thing, demanding perfection is another. Communicating is part of my job, having perfect spelling and grammar is not. So some grammar Nazi thinks I'm stupid, let me see them program, I'll tear there code to shreds if they want some constructive criticism.

Why do grammar Nazi's piss me off? Try having a mix of fairly severe dyslexia, and CAPD (hearing problem that makes it hard to hear and thus say words exactly right). If your in a wheel chair no one thinks its a moral fault, but god forbid you have have a neurological disability affecting language. You might as well have taken a piss on the graves of all the greats in the history of the humanities as far as the grammar Nazi's are concerned. And the 'constructive criticism' gets real old after a while.

Re:Lets turns this around:

[man_ls]

I'd bet you're the exception to the rule.

Most people are just lazy.

Re:Lets turns this around:

[tuxedobob]

And yet, your post was closer to correct than many people who don't share your disabilities.

So what's the excuse for the people who don't have the language handicaps that you do? The people whose online communication skills are nowhere near that of your post?

And just for those who would want to correct mp assessment....

Commas -> semicolons
Apostrophes
Homonyms

I have a pet peeve

[Anonymous Coward]

About people who think that spelling is inherently important.

Shakespeare didn't have a dictionary, and his spellings varied wildly. And the fact of the matter is that even after four hundred years, he is still readable. Yes, it is more difficult, but it isn't that hard (just try reading Chaucer).

Spelling a word correctly is nothing more than the ability to adhere to convention. Not everyone cares about your conventions. Deal with it.

Moreover, spelling is arbitrary and inherently meaningless. The "word" is the meaningful part, and unless you close your eyes and ears and wail to the contrary, the fact of the matter is that you know what word is being used.

Grow up and stop being a dick.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[fitten]

I'll play devil's advocate. The purpose of language is communication, and the standardization of such is to ensure against ambiguity, right? If someone's written work is devoid of some common rules of grammar and usage, does it matter if you completely and unambiguously understand what they are saying/writing?

No problem there, but if you have poor grammar and spelling then the situation you describe is less likely to happen.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[EvanED]

Damn it, and I'm usually good about that word pair too. Someone at IBM swapped those words (I forget which way) in the documentation for z/VM, and got a good chuckle out of it after it got done bugging me.

I still have to look up lie v. lay though, despite trying to learn it I don't know how many times...

They didn't start off as acronyms

[kyrina]

Secondarily, Short hand speech, and the various amorphisms that have entered popular culture are not to be discounted as simply "mangling" the language. Prominent words such as FUCK and GOLF were once simple slang words (acronyms both) along with a host of other words which we take for granted today.

Are you honestly claiming both of those words were actually acronyms? If so you've fallen for some very common, but incorrect, stories. While the origins of both words are a bit muddy they're certainly not what you're most likely claiming.

This is what the wise people at snopes.com have to say about golf and fuck

Re:They didn't start off as acronyms

[Anonymous Coward]

This from snopes.com on golf:

Our modern determination to have only one correct spelling for each word would have struck our ancestors as hilariously pedantic and priggish. The norm for them was any number of spellings for common terms, provided those written representations validly reflected the pronounciation of the word. When viewed from that angle, those odd-looking spellings begin to appear far less mysterious.)

Sort of sums up ~1300 /. comments. Nobody likes a priggish nerd, a grammar nazi.

Of mice and the places men live.

[r3jjs]

Actually, I think the plural of 'house' should be 'hice.'

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[homer dulu]

Well I believe excemption would be an exception to that. Or is it exemption?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Writeronwind]

I may be in the supreme minority here, but I'm a geek AND an English teacher. I remember having this same conversation with a student who was already far more geeky than I'd ever be and I made the argument, "If you code with improper syntax, then your code doesn't work. Language is like that too." Of course it isn't -- not entirely at least, but that doesn't mean that a certain accuracy with the language isn't meaningful or important. English is the language we use to communicate with; why shouldn't we use it well? The problem with writing mangled English is that it destroys nuance. Sure you can write in text messaging English but I submit there's a level of expression which it cannot achieve. Also, as a writer who's writing his way through a couple of novels, I know that an adherance to standard grammar rules makes me easier to understand. My grandfather was an old-time geek. He was a civilian who worked for the navy. His job was to sit in a lab and invent stuff like self-inflating life jackets and the material they use to coat aircraft carriers. He used to savage me whenever I used poor grammar and my speach improved as a result. He could also recite poetry from memory. HE certainly wouldn't consider incoherence a badge of honor.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[xigxag]

Unambiguity is a word. But completly isn't. And confidant does not mean what you think it means.

All in all, you're undoubtedly well-intentioned, but it might be good to consider glass houses before going on language "rants."

It's all true

[Bullfish]

It is all true, and not just in the states. I notice this in Canada as well. It is probably for a number of reasons, and one of the reasons it is most often noticed on the net (and through e-mail) is that more people are probably writing than in the days of pen and ink communication. In business, back in the day, they had secretaries and the like to do the grunt work of written communication. Now, secretaries are an oddity. The answer of course, is to use your spelling and grammar checker, but a lot of people can't be bothered (not to many many are not very accurate).
Boards like this one are also the victims, I think, of people doing five things at one on their computer and not paying much attention to any of them.

Add to this that we seem to be dumbing down education in the school system, especially in use of English and you have a real mess. Some of the handouts my kids bring home from school contain some of the goofiest errors. Now that makes me weep.

Vocabulary too, is shrinking. I have been stunned to find that many kids don't know the meaning of many common words. While the hallmark of good communication is the use of plain, simple language, the key to that is to use the right word, not a string of meaningless adjectives and adverbs.

Anyway, that's my take though I could go on.

Re:A Few Points (more)

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see Dutch as that big a problem for operating systems and programming languages, since the use of diacritics is practically nonexistent, like English, making input/output through conventional devices much easier.

Rather, I would be interested in known how many _computers_ there would be if operating systems and programming languages were written in chinese.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the spelling is NOT arbitrary. I don't know how many times I have to point this out in my life as a linguist. An arbitrary system is one like Japanese kanji, which have no phonetic component whatsoever. The fact that I can throw a word at you that you've never seen, like, for example, "orthography," and you can read it and pronounce it correctly is proof positive of this. The fact that the spoken==>written relationship is not as strong, however, is not proof of arbitrariness. It indicates something else--something people have already discussed here without realizing it (in discussions of the multitudinous influences on the development of English), and that is the concept of morphology.

Words usually do not exist all by themselves but are members of a "word family" (and yes that is the technical term). Word families are made up of forms of the same word which feature little to no extra learning burden to master given knowledge of one of the other forms. These relationships are best represented by fixed spelling of the morphemes, even when there are pronunciation differences.

Something like Japanese (kanji, not the hiragana and katakana syllabaries) or Chinese puts all their eggs in the morphology basket, and none in the phonetic. Words are comprised of morphemes which are represented by particular graphemes (kanji/hanzi). This is great once you learn all the morpheme/grapheme pairs, but at 15,000 for Chinese, the system requires a large initial investment of time and cognitive burden.

English splits the difference between a morpheme-centric and phonetic orthographic system, wherein spellings of morphemes are relatively regular, but they are also phonetic enough that anyone with a basic understanding of the phoneme-grapheme pairings of the English use of the Roman alphabet can at least make an excellent guess at the pronunciation.

And to the many lazy and weak-minded individuals who whine about how everything should be phonetic, I would like to point out that there is an entire alphabet designed for this: the International Phonetic Alphabet. Learn this and try reading some text in it. See if it's really easier. A morpheme-centered orthographic system allows for faster processing of text because it allows the reader to bypass the sound production phase entirely, linking written words directly to their meanings (resident in the brain).

So stop whining, whiners, and learn the system. It's just a system to aid in the transfer of information. It's there to help you, not keep you down, man.

And BTW, although Noah Webster gave birth to the modern science of lexicography, dictionaries did indeed exist before his tome. They were used as spelling lists, mostly. The phase in which the English didn't care about spelling to which you are referring was up to the introduction of the printing press. Once more reading material was available to the masses it was very rightly decided that spelling should be standardized throughout the industry (he wrote with the arguably NON-standard, American spelling of "standardised). Furthermore, the "gh" that's left over in many words, including "knight" was a voiced velar fricative, not a /g/ followed by an /I/. The sound no longer exists in English.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[negative3]

This reminds me of a comment brought up about HTML standards not being followed which led to flaws in some program, maybe the Google cache toolbar (I can't remember). The point is: improper use of HTML (i.e. not following the standards) by web designers caused flaws in other software, the latter of which was blamed although it followed the standards. It is the exact same principle with any language. If you do not follow the conventions then it is your fault if the person with whom you are trying to communicate does not understand. If they do, I guess it doesn't matter in that instant but can hardly be used as a case for generalization.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Minwee]

It's still an odd way to spell "Hizouze".

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Stankatz]

A perfect example would be the adoption of "google" as a verb; would you prefer to say "navigate to google's site and use it to search for widgets" or "google widgets"

This isn't a very good analogy. A better one that supports your argument is: if most people started spelling google as gogle, it would become the correct spelling.

But, this is all moot, because "should of" is not common usage. Just google "should of" and "should have" and look at the numbers of results. And the top result for "should of" is a site explaining why it's incorrect.

How to learn spelling

[Nimey]

Read books. Seriously. Read a lot of books that have been edited well, and you'll start picking up good grammar and spelling by osmosis.

The reverse is true. Hang around sites like /. where people use atrocious pseudo-English and your skills will atrophy after a time.

Re:How to learn spelling

[Trejkaz]

The first point isn't necessarily true. I know plenty a bookworm who still can't spell. ;-)

Re:How to learn spelling

[Cyberax]

That doesn't work very well if your native language is not English.

As a Russian speaker I don't understand what's the trouble with English spelling, it's not that difficult once you remember several hunderds of hard-to-spell words.

English is one of the simplest languages to write and read: nouns have only two forms (singular and plural) and there is no grammar cases or genders, verbs have three forms and you need to remember only irregular verbs.

For example, there are 12 forms of nouns in Russian (6 grammar cases in singular and plural forms), each noun has a gender (feminine, masculine or neuter) and belongs to one of the 3 declensions. Verbs have about 15 forms: there are 3 declensions in 5 tenses. And so on...

Re:How to learn spelling

[superflippy]

Hang around sites like /. where people use atrocious pseudo-English and your skills will atrophy after a time.

My mom used to teach junior high English. She said that by the end of each term, she had a harder time noticing errors in the students' papers because she'd been surrounded by bad grammar and misspelled words for so long.

Re:How to learn spelling

[purple jesus]

true, but osmosis will only occur if you read in the shower or underwater. in addition to spelling and mispronunciations, ill defined word phrases that become accepted colloquialisms bug me as well. no disrespect intended.

Re:How to learn spelling

[angel'o'sphere]

As I tried to explain: it does not work for me.

I don't copy spelling letter wise into my über writing brain. Probablky it works for you ... I don't know. And as I further pointed out: I cant proofread as I don't see typing errors.

So even if I would "learn" the correct spelling, I would not necessaryly write it correct.

Regarding grammar you are very right, though.

angel'o'sphere

Re:How to learn spelling

[yet another coward]

You are wrong. One friend who reads many times more books than I cannot spell a lick.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[JanneM]

To be honest, I dont tend to take much notice of spelling and grammer errors (I am worse that most people anyway).

As long as it's not egregarious, neither do I, or most people - conciously.

But we do (and it has been shown any number of times) that we will base our estimate of trustworthiness and relevance in part on these "superficial" aspects; not just the correct spelling or grammar, but also in the choice of words, turns of phrase and so on.

This effect diminishes as you get to know the person behind the words better, of course. But yes, it does mean that in this medium, dyslectics, non-native speakers (of whatever language is used) and people with impoverished vocabularies are at a disadvantage.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[0111 1110]

IMO, RP British (aka BBC British) is no more difficult to understand than RP American. Needless to say the difference between standard British and Cockney is huge. While most British that I have met do drop their 'r's at the end of many words, and, in anything but Queen's English even more consonants are dropped or replaced with glottal stops, the British do pronounce their vowels more 'correctly' than Americans.

I can vouch for the fact that many foreign speakers do find non-regional (RP) American accents (common in the midwest and California) easier to understand than most British accents they have heard. While this may have something to do with American media being all-pervasive, I think New World languages just sound more like they are spelled. New Worlders like to simplify things. Think of Canadian French or Columbian Spanish vs. the original European versions. Chilean Spanish, Cuban Spanish, and certain regional American accents are very difficult to understand. Of course these langauges started in Europe. So I think the European versions should be the only truly 'correct' ones.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Nimey]

ITYM "unintelligible". HTH HAND.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[ScuzzyTerminator]

How does 'have' indicate action in the past? Are you holding or posessing an action...

Yes. That is what it means. This is called the perfect tense and indicates an experience or a past action with a result in the present. In this sense it may still be "held."

For example, "I went to Egypt" and "I have gone to Egypt" say about the same thing, but the latter draws attention to the experience or accomplishment of going to Egypt, which I still have.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[mollymoo]

it's/its - it's is it is, its is possesive, exclusion to the rule

It's not an exclusion to the rule, you're just applying the wrong rule.

My rule.
Your rule.
Their rule.
His rule.
Her rule.
Its rule.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[diamondsw]

but you have to take the good with the bad

Why?

At least you can read

[nido]

My mom tells the story of baking something with my cousin reading the recipe. My cousin reads out "peanuts", and my mom thinks "that's not right..." She takes a look at the recipe, and it says "pecans". She mentions this to my cousin, and he says something about how they look similar and that they're both types of nuts.

Later my mom mentioned this incident to our common grandmother, who hooked my cousin up with a phonics-based reading program. He eventually learned to read just fine.

Spellcheckers can fix bad spelling, but there's little hope for you if words you've never seen before trip you up. See John Taylor Gatto's refutation of the "whole word" language-teaching methodology in his Underground History of American Education

Re:At least you can read

[donscarletti]

Phonics advocates forget about the most interesting dilemma in didactics: no two people learn in the same way. I'd say about 30% of people can't learn words as wholes and 30% can't learn words with phonics. I can read new words very well never being taught phonics and (as I see it) the whole point of phonics is being able to ditch it when you can otherwise nobody will have decent reading speed. I went to kindergarten in 1989, my younger brother went in 1997 and neither of us were taught phonics since it was thoroughly uncool in those days (or at least our our schools), however for some reason I can learn words I've never seen before, but he can't unless someone says it to him. My brother pronounced the word "terminal" (the adjective) as "timo" for many months, I can't even comprehend how crappy his understanding of sounds would have to be to read it like that. I've never had that problem, at all, whole word learning method worked perfectly for me, any work in phonics would have been a waste of time that would have been better used for other things. Yet we both had the same upbringing, the same family and similar genes.

Frankly, I think modern teaching theory is a bit of a joke. There is much debate about how is best to teach students without the acknowledgment that whatever is chosen, it will only be right for a small percentage of population. Personally, I think it would be most productive to try to map learning technique effectiveness onto some other metric (such as IQ, gender, cultural upbringing or an assessment of some psychological profile) and try to have classes that can all be taught in the same way using this mapping.

Interesting moderation on this thread.

[ladadadada]

It seems that the most highly moderated pots in this thread are those in support of good grammar and spelling and (mostly) those that contain good grammar and spelling.
One conclusion that I can draw from this is that moderators like good grammar and spelling.

Further on from this, I would conclude that moderators generally have to have good grammar and spelling in order to be able to recognise it and appreciate it.

Moderators get to be moderators by having their posts moderated up (having positive karma) and by meta moderating. Posts are moderated up by other moderators who like good spelling and grammar. Therefore the moderation system is a vicious cycle where those in power tend to promote people like themselves to positions of power.

Not that I mind however. I have done my share of moderating and I much prefer posts that are easy to read because I don't have to make sense of a garbled message.

No child left behind...

[HermanAB]

Which translates into printing school graduation certificates for everybody, which is why universities have their own entrance exams. Ancient American problem.

Re:No child left behind...

[DaveV1.0]

I find it amusing you use the name of a recent act which attempts to improve defeciencies in the current educational system.

In all actuality, this problem has been and continues to be caused by social promotion. For those who do not know, social promotion is the practice of promoting student to the next grade even though they have failed academically. This is done so the students will remain within there peer group.

This is a stupid policy and should never have been implemented. It was thought that being held back would hurt the student's feelings and lower their social standing. Education took a backseat to self-esteem.

Re:No child left behind...

[HermanAB]

Yup, one has to bear in mind that America (both US and Canada) absorbs enormous numbers of immigrants. These people come here with English as 3rd, 4th or 5th language and are not stupid at all, but their presence means that the school system has to somehow cater for them and since the school systems are huuuuuge beaurocracies, it skews the whole system. This has been going on for hundreds of years. One of the absurdities I encountered, was that my son was classified as an, 'English as Second Language' student, even though it is the only language he can speak and his English marks are top in his class, simply because English is my second language. I asked the aministrator if English is his second language, then what would his first language be? but she gave me a terrible Miss Grundy look...

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Xagent0024]

I personally deal with this on a daily basis. I am a network administrator at a small, private university and my immediate supervisor frustrates me to no end. He can configure a router with his eyes closed but cannot communicate anything to anyone without mutilating the english language. His emails are riddled with typos and misused words. Any spreadsheet he touches instantly becomes unreadable. The worst part about it is that, like a previous poster stated, he almost takes pride in his ignorance. I really wish science and engineering schools, like the one I work for, would put more of a focus on communication as a prerequisite for technology and not an elective.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[MasterSLATE]

Ebonics killed phonics. But seriously, I dropped online speak from my vocabulary years ago. I get pissed when people say lol, wtf, atm, brb, etc. u is especially bad. Come on, you can type 60 wpm or so but you can't hit 2 extra letters? You suck at life. Internet shorthand sucks. kthnx!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[mollymoo]

Computer languages have far less exceptions than English.

That's fewer, you cock-sucking whore.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Speare]

If I don't care recall the latin, id est, I mentally read "i.e." as "in essence." It's like a special case of "e.g.," except there is really only one possible example to give.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[EvanED]

Unambiguity is a word

Depends what dictionary you look in.

I only did a Google seach before (when I typed it), and it didn't give the link to definitions up in the upper right. Furthermore, there were under 20K hits, and almost all on the first page were links to comp sci things, e.g. unambiguity in XML syntax. From this I inferred (note: not "implied") that it was not a generally acceptable word.

Upon further investigation, it does not appear in the American Heritage Dictionary or Merriam-Webster's Abridged or Collegiate dictionaries. (I can't check M-W's unabridged.) It does appear in Webster's unabridged. Finally, the word has an entry in the OED, though it consists of no definition and only a single quote from 160 years ago, so I'm not sure what to make of it.

So if it is a mistake, I submit that it was an honest and very well founded one.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[__aailob1448]

all hail mark twain.

It shouldn't be an issue

[OK PC]

I tend to cut people some slack, because: a) he/she might not speak english as a first language b) english is not like a programming language, it is ambigious and was formed by the very things you complain about. For example, knight is now pronounced "night", but originally this was not the case.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[pluther]

Also, Spanish and Arabic. If you can say a word out loud, you can spell it. If you know the rules. Of course, Arabic has a *lot* of rules for varying the pronunciation of various letter-combinations...

Sloppiness, Tool Use, Evolution, Slang

[billstewart]

Anybody in the programming business deals with syntax and grammar for a living, using it to express complex ideas very precisely. Apparently a large fraction of the technical community does that using different skills or brain functions or something than the ones they use to process English. (I'm not talking about the people whose native languages aren't English or closely related languages - I'm talking about native English speakers.) I don't really understand that, because to me they appear to be tightly related functions, but the problem is sufficiently widespread that I don't think it's just due to the sloppy educations that kids get these days (which were probably just about as sloppy when I was a kid....)

I'm not talking about deliberate use of slang or 1337-sp3k3 or ghetto what-up-dog speak or overabuse of bad punning or even Ebonics and other dialects and pidgins. I'm talking about sloppiness, lack of differentiation between homonyms, bad spelling, and the like. English is sufficiently flexible and mushy and evolving that differentiations such as the one between "like" and "as" are going to evolve, if in fact the language was really ever as precise as your 9th grade English teacher told you it was (you remember her - the one who insisted on grading the class on a precise Bell Curve even if class tracking meant that the whole class was in the top 10% of students to start with?)

You're geeks, get some tools, and if correctness isn't instinctively wired into your fingers when you're typing, fix it by using spellcheckers and grammar checkers and whatever else you've got! (I hate to say it, but Microsoft Word does this really well...) There's no excuse for "definately" when it's not a correct spelling and your spell checker can find it for you. If you've got a grammar checker, use it too, and pay attention when it nags you about incorrect word choices (if it's bright enough to do that, which many of them aren't), though you'll also have to ignore more advice from the grammar checker than the spell checker. You may have to spend a while teaching your spell checker that "31337" is spelled just fine, thank you, but that's what the "Add" menu-item is for, as well as the "ignore words with numbers in them" features.

If you don't spell things correctly and use vaguely correct grammar and word choices, Babelfish is going to have a tough time translating them for non-English-speaking readers.

My mom used to really rant any time the "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should" commercial came on, because it should be "as", not "like" - but that's been part of language evolution.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[neonleonb]

I've seen a short story very much like that entitled "Meihem in ce Klasrum." I had no idea that the idea dated back to Mark Twain.

Of course, the problem with a proposal like this is that it destroys the backwards-compatibility of our language. If people complain because their Playstation 3 won't play PS2 games, how will they feel when their children need a historian to translate the Constitution (or their old PS2 game manual) for them?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[0111 1110]

English spelling is harder than some other European languages but the grammar is easier and more logical. This is why I think Spanglish is a good idea. Combine the simplest aspects of the two easiest langauges in the world.

But does it work in IE?

[tepples]

However, there are times when someone uses "i.e." and it's unclear if they are using it correctly or incorrectly.

The correct way to use i.e. is to download f.f.

Then when I'm writing something, I wonder -- can I use "i.e." and know that people will understand that I'm not referring to an example?

Likewise, can I use "i.e." and know that people will understand that I'm not referring to web browsing software?

And Let's Not Forget About "It's"

[Winjer2k]

Everybody loves to use "It's" like it's going out of style.

IT'S = a contraction of IT IS
Used in sentences like:
"It is a sunny day" = "It's a sunny day"
"It is really annoying" = "It's really annoying"
"Don't do that, it is stupid!" = "Don't do that, it's stupid!"

ITS is neuter possessive - as in his or hers, only it refers to a non-gendered object.
Used in sentences like:
"My laptop's battery lost its charge"
"Open Source Software has its drawbacks"
"The G5's strength is its vector processing abilities"

Many times you can save an extra keystroke by using "its" instead of "it's" - and you get the bonus of being grammatically correct.

Re:And Let's Not Forget About "It's"

[AdamTheBastard]

Strong Bad said it best with "If you want it to be possessive, it's just 'ITS.' But if it's supposed to be a contraction then it's I-T-apostrophe-S, 'scalawag."

Re:And Let's Not Forget About "It's"

[Anonymous Coward]

And here's why it seems to be an exception:

The possessive form of a pronoun does not take an apostrophe at all but instead is an entirely separate word

• Me - My/Mine
• You - Your/Yours
• He - His
• She - Her/Hers
• It - Its
• We - Our/Ours
• They - Their/Theirs
• Who - Whose

Its, It's and Its': The possessive form of the word it is its, without an apostrophe anywhere, because it is a pronoun and follows the special rules for possessive pronouns. It's can only mean it is, or it has following the rules for contractions, and depending on context, and its' doesn't exist at all, since the plural of it is they.

source

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Celestial Navigation]

The audible different between "should've" and "should of" is pretty much zero Audible difference? ::ducks flying objects:: That goes back to regions. I live in Rhode Island (most of us pronounce it "Rho Dylind"), and "should of" is distinguishable from "should've." "Should of" is "shood uv" and "should've" is "shoodv" -- it's almost as if there is no vowel at all in "should've." Also, "wh" is basically gone here. I read on a website about pronounciation that "whet" is pronounced "hwet," which boggled my mind because I had never heard it pronounced that way. Here, we say "wet." I don't think we should spell it that way because "wet" and "whet" are separate words, but that's how we say it. Of course, we use words like "bubblah" and "grindah," so what do I know?

"Capital" letters, not Capitol

[billstewart]

Spelling flames - how quaint...

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[shitdrummer]

Amazing. You're so fucking stupid you reinforce his point and don't even fucking realize it... English is a horrible language. You simply can't argue otherwise.

Why is it then that for centuries, countless people have had no problem with the nuances of the English language? Sure, it is a difficult language to learn in later life, but it is an extremely flexible and powerful communication tool.

How long did it take you all to learn Cobol, or C++ or other programming languages? Now, how long did it take to you master those same programming languages? An 8 to 10 year old child will (should?) know the difference between to, two, and too, but you wouldn't expect them to be able to write a paper worthy of publication. Similarly, just because I can write a "hello world" application doesn't mean I can call myself a programmer and not have to study the programming language any more.

Mastering the English language is something most people will never achieve in their lifetime. And by mastering the language, I mean knowing the spelling and use of every single word in the English language plus all grammar conventions. Like all languages (including programming languages) you are constantly learning new things. New words, new operations, new conventions.

Ever needed to refer to a dictionary? Ever needed to refer to a technical reference document?

So what's my point in all this? Well, if you've chosen to give up on the English language and decided that it's not worth your time to improve your language skills, don't blame the language itself. Your skills will only be as good as you make them.

English is a horrible language. You simply can't argue otherwise.

It seems I can.

Shitdrummer.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the Romance languages. They have changed immensely in both spelling and grammer from Latin. And yet, a modern native Romance speaker can get the gist of a classical Latin phrase. And really, if you know Spanish, Italian, or Portuguese, you can get the gist of something written in either of the other two, plus Latin, automatically.

This is evidence that changing the spelling does not change mutual intelligibility. For example Spanish speakers know verbs like "creer" or "ver" but don't get too confused when they see Italian/Latin "credere" or Italian "vedere" or Latin "videre". It does not take a genius to see that these are the same words, except that Spanish dropped a few letters and swapped a few vowels. "yo creo" vs "ego credo". "conocer" vs. "cognoscere". It's not very hard to see one, knowing the other, and understanding that it's the same phrase.

What does this have to do with what you're saying? Well, the Romance languages, especially Spanish and Italian, are a good example of changing the spelling frequently. Even Cervantes wrote "dixo" where modern Spanish would write "dijo". But the works of Cervantes, or Dante, or even far back as Cicero, still should be somewhat intelligible to the modern Romance speaker, even if somewhat archaic.

(And by the way: Shakespeare didn't spell everything the same way we do to begin with.)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[ErikTheRed]

"The IRS documents were, in fact, reworked to attempt a 6th grade reading level."

Yeah, but I still have to pay a tax attorney $300 an hour. Fuck, I'm in the wrong business.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't answer the larger question... as to why... so many people... are using ellipses... so liberaly... in this thread...

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Paradise Pete]

I haven't had a hard time not using double negatives.

In Spanish? Then you're not doing it right. You must be thinking in English.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[poopdeville]

There is no "logical approach" Your score only proves that you're a good test taker, not a competant communicator. Your "argument" here is, in fact, evidence against your abilities to communicate.

First, noting a high score on an exam might be evidence towards a point. One would have to argue that it is. But it certainly is not an argument. Moreover, as far as I recall, no one has assumed that "English doesn't follow logic." It has been claimed that English has no internal logic. There is a difference in function between a claim and an assumption. Knowing that they are syntactically similar is of no use without knowledge of their semantics. This is evidence that one cannot coherently think of language "in terms of logic."

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[passion]

Sometimes it's far more than a stuck pixel. Unfortunately, it can be every other word, or perhaps their grammar is so bad that I read something entirely different from what they meant.

Honestly, when I read someone's poor english (and I know they're a native speaker), I stop paying attention to what they've written, and I start dwelling on how stupid they must be.

Good grammar is nice, so is respect.

[Archimboldo]

I agree that spelling and grammar are all too neglected in America, and I do sometimes cringe when I see poorly constructed posts. In such cases, a kind parenthetical correction is fine.

But when a fine idea is expressed and the ONLY comment some anal retentive grammar nazi can make is about spelling or grammer, it is equally irritating. The intent is often just naked one-upmanship (if that's how you spell it ;).

If your ONLY comment is on grammer, think again about your reply.

Re:Good hackers have excellent communication skill

[rsidd]

I can't find the exact quote offhand, but Dijkstra said something like a necessary precondition for being a good computer scientist is absolute command over your native language.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, I always thought that i.e. meant internet explorer.

You have to love it...

[alfrin]

when there is such important news on the Slashdot frontpage

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[cavemanf16]

That reminds me of how J.R.R. Tolkien presents the same type of language dilemma in his seminal work, The Lord of the Rings. "Westron" or the common speech is pretty widely recognized as the defacto language to use between the peoples of Middle-Earth, but often-times the adventurers in the story will come across a more elegant or richer written or spoken language during their travels that is difficult to translate, or even impossible to understand. I equate Tolkien's "Westron" language with English, as "English" has become the defacto world standard of communication in many parts of the world. Unfortunately for us Americans, we're only required to learn English since our public school system thinks English is the shiznit.

What I wouldn't give to have been required to learn my own native tongue in Germany, France, India, Japan, etc. and then be required to also learn English as well, knowing that my educational, financial, and social future would rest on being able to communicate in more than one language for the rest of my life. As it stands, I only know English pretty well and wish that I knew German and/or French so that I could travel abroad and communicate with ease with those who spoke such languages.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[lawpoop]

"Should", "Could" and "Would" don't have ANY tense.

Incorrect. 'Should', 'could' and 'would' have a present and a present perfect tense.

Consider:

I visit the theater.
I would visit the theater.
I could visit the theater.
I should visit the theater.

I have visited the theater.
I would have visited the theater.
I could have visited the theater.
I should have visited the theater.

Would you visit the theater?
No, but I should.

Did you visit the theater?
No, but I should have.

Both "I should have" and "I should" are complete sentences. Both "should" and "should have" are complete verb phrases. The minimum requirements of a verb phrase are a verb. Since we know that "should" is a complete verb phrase, and there is only one word, then that word has to be a verb. You are confused by the fact that there is a main verb in the verb phrase -- that doesn't mean there aren't other verbs in the sentence.

You prove my point elsewhere.

"Also, 'have' in 'should have' is not a verb either. It's another modifier. "

If 'have' can act as a modifier, why can't 'of'?

You are absolutely correct that language evolves. However, you can't honestly claim that substituting "of" for "have" in any of the above examples is sensible, readable english because 'of' is a preposition. It might be acceptable in speech from the slurring of "should've" but that does not make it grammatically correct."

All I've shown is that some people are using 'of' for the modifier for modals. There is a new grammar rule operating.

Since we know that language evolves, how do we decide which rules of grammar are authoritative? How do we know when it is time to update those rules to reflect actual usage?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[ostermei]

A Russian coder that I used to work with once wrote some C code that would generate SQL queries dynamically. In his comments inside the code, he described this as "Building SQL queries on a fly" which had me giggling quite a bit when I first read it.

You must forgive him in that particular situation. You see, where he's from, flies build SQL queries on you!

making judgements...

[Anonymous Coward]

making judgements about the soundness of one's oppinion based on their grammer and spelling alone is pompass. content is what matters. It absolutely depends on what audience you are addressing, but in casual conversation or internet posts there is no need to be such a grammer nazi. This is a forum for ideas and oppinions; feel welcome to be bothered by poor grammer and spelling but it is inefficient. I save lots of tyme when i speak and type because of the nature of the way i do it. Spending a bunch of time to try to impress people with my english skills could be better spent on productive tasks. people who bother to concern themselves with the soundness of their enlish are really just dumb; shakespere invented some 400 words in his plays and people called him a genius. The enlish language is a very malable (pretty sure i spelled that wrong, this is where spelling actually matters because if i spelled it wrong i might not be conveying a word that describes the flexibility of a material or language) and it's ability to mold and fit situations in the vernacular should be praised and not looked down upon. flexibility is good, even in spelling. who cares if one were to spell the color grey or gray, wuts the difference if you know what the author is trying to say?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Stauf]

I can vouch for the fact that many foreign speakers do find non-regional (RP) American accents (common in the midwest and California) easier to understand than most British accents they have heard.

Strange. I can vouch for the opposite. I have travelled most of Europe and a fair bit of Asia, as well as to the Mid East. I think it's just a case of who your English teacher was.

In the UAE and Saudi, however, English speakers tend to speak with an American accent and I have been asked to repeat myself quite a few times (I have an Australian accent somewhat tainted by English parents).

Content organization vs. Grammar and Spelling

[billstewart]

Both types of skills are important, and they're radically different. I worked for Bell Labs just after college, and one of the most valuable things they did for new employees was make us take a writing course. Sure, my grammar and spelling were impeccable, and after enough years of studying English, Latin, German, Greek, Southerner, and Academe-speak, I could write in whatever kind of correct, precise, and complex sentence structure seemed entertaining or beautiful at the time, and spelling checkers were also helpful to make up for any typing mistakes. But organizing content for your audience, both to convey information and to clarify your own thinking are different skills than expressing each sentence. Writing for engineers and managers to read are two different problems, but both are much more like writing for newspapers than writing academic papers, and they spent a lot of time emphasizing NOT to write like a grad student. You want to hit the critical points up front, with more detail as your reader progresses farther (if he does), and especially for on-line use it's important to have some idea of your reader's attention span to know how deep an argument you can make and how often to repeat points. The more complex the subject matter, the more it's likely to be worthwhile simplifying the sentence structures, splitting things up into lists, or whatever it'll take so that the reader's attention can be focused on the content and not wasted on your subtle and precise use of the subjunctive mood. (That's still partly true in literature as well, but writing for someone who's going to take an afternoon reading your essay is much different from writing for someone who wants to pick up a manual and find out how to do something, or for someone who wants to know which projects to prioritize and which projects don't need a hardware budget until next quarter.)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[CherniyVolk]

Isn't it nice that we can still read Shakespeare's works 400 years after they were published?

Only a fool would simply notice familiarity in the written language of Shakespeare and ignore the fact he has no clue of it's original meaning and connotation or the probability that half of it is NOT original but transliteration from a completely bizarre and archaic form of English.

No, you CAN not "read" as in comprehend in full hardly any paragraph of an original peace from Shakespeare today. Some words like prepositions might be recognizable, some other words too but words routinely change meaning. Idioms change. Ideas are taken for granted. We see drapery atop a bed as a strong sophisticated and classical meaning, we might even see "rich". It's to keep insects, rodents and dirt and crude from dropping on you at night, long before electricity and when roofs weren't very clean or had insect infested straw/hay layers; how "rich" is that?! It's intended use is a most disgusting situation. So Shakespeare describes one in his works, and you get a totally different image.

Language has to evolve, otherwise it's not getting any better. And, for those who THINK they have authority over English--cough those Indians--a native English speaker is afforded the right of using the language the best way he see's fit regardless of what rules YOU were taught.

With all due respect, *you* are wrong...

[rootrot]

To begin with, he did not say that "grammer [is] more important than the message," he said, "the coherent presentation of your information [is] at least as important as the information." The later is a, frankly, true. I am not inclined to belabor the point if the truth of it is not clear, if you can not see the simple truth of the statement, I suggest you log off, step back and ponder the difference between, say, Lincoln delivering the Gettysburg Address and Tiny Tim delivering the same...

I would also suggest that your racist/elitist spin is deeply disingenuous and, in the end, serves little purpose but to evade cultural responsibility to learn the fundamental skills of language. I offer my grandfather as an insular example: He was born poor in Northern Ireland, was forced to drop out of school in the 8th grade to work in the shipyard in Belfast (mind you, already able to quote scene and line of any Shakespeare, etc.). He came to this country, at 21, with no money and an 8th grade education...but in 2 years, had a GED and a full scholarship to Colombia. He spent the rest of his life as principle and Joyce scholar.

I am saddened and slightly depressed by the race to mediocrity you seem to have so willingly embraced. Expecting kids (and adults) to learn and use proper language (be it English, Dutch, Maa, etc.) is not racist or elitist...it is simply what should be expected in civilized society. Apropos of nothing, I am so tired of interviewing young men and women who are functionally incapable of conducting an interview...can't make eye contact...can't coherently articulate their thoughts...can't cogently respond to questions. /rootrot
--
i-before-e rules are weird and unscientific.

Re:With all due respect, *you* are wrong...

[Reziac]

"i-before-e rules are weird and unscientific" ...except after C, or when sounded as A. ;)

[2nd grade phonics coming back to haunt me.]

I'd extend your good point somewhat, as your grandfather clearly did: it's not how much education a person has that counts. It's what *use* they make of whatever education they have. A lot of folks who had little opportunity for education intuitively understand this, and try their best to communicate effectively (they may get it wrong from simple ignorance, but they make the *effort* regardless). I forgive this, just as I forgive non-native speakers their mistakes.

But blowing off good communication methods, when someone clearly knows better, shows me that they don't really care if I understand them or not. (In parallel, one has to wonder if they care whether their compiler understands them or not, and whether some of the more pervasive bugs may have their root in a habit of sloppiness.)

But a lot of it is a kid thing -- kids like to sound "different" to brand themselves as being their own tribe, distinct from the adult tribe. Hence the perverse pride in sounding like morons (as discussed in the first post on the page, http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=154444&cid =12954073, by TripMasterMonkey).

The Jargon File States...

[FluffyArmada]

"Though hackers often have poor person-to-person communication skills, they are as a rule quite sensitive to nuances of language and very precise in their use of it."
-- The Jargon File (version 4.4.7)
[please note the difference between 'hacker' and 'cracker']

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that the most important thing is that I understand what you're trying to say, and vice versa.
However, the problems are several:

The more sloppily you express yourself, the harder I have to work to figure out what you were trying to say. This is inconsiderate on your part, and shows a lack of respect. I may even give up, if it's too hard to read.
I've sent several e-mails back to one idiot (a native English speaker from England, no less) and asked him to translate them into English for me, because they just made no sense.

The more loosely you express what you're saying, the more ambiguous your phrasing becomes, and the chances of me misinterpreting you increases.

I'm going to sound uptight here, but taking that stance is an excuse for carelessness, and leads to writing that's increasingly hard to understand.

The way I've explained it to one programmer with whom I work is this:
Consider people to be like compilers. You can get away with some variation and looseness, depending on the compiler, but at some point you're going to wind up with bugs in the end product (misunderstandings). At a further point, it's just going to idly wonder whether you wanted a haircut or a bowl of cereal.

Actually American's aren't mangling English

[bluGill]

American's generally speak the English of the old world as it was when they left. In the mean time the English mangled their language into something different. There are people in American who speak English nearly exactly like Shakesphere did when he was writing.

Every once in a while American gets on a reform kick, and does thing like drop the u from color. We can't claim to not mangle the language at all.

What is good and bad? Well that depends. So long as we communicate though don't worry about it.

Re:Actually American's aren't mangling English

[bar-agent]

Are you insane? That is totally not true! And it is "America," not "American"! And of course you know this already!

Resumes

[scarolan]

I wholeheartedly agree with the person who submitted this story. I sometimes conduct job interviews for my company, and when I have a stack of 200 resumes to go through one of the first things I look at is the spelling and grammar.

It never ceases to amaze me how many errors people put right on their resumes. The message I get is that if they can't give some attention to the detail s on their resume, how are we to expect them to pay attention to the details of their job?

My biggest pet peeve

[Goose3254]

A misspelled word in a marketing device like a flyer or a poster. Makes you wonder how many levels of management this thing went through.

Instant messaging mistakes are pretty easily overlooked, email mistake are a little understandable, but advertising copy....never.

And if I see a misspelled word in a magazine, book or newspaper I want to scream. I mean these people use the language for a living!

Fool....

[cartman]

Here is the entire definition of "agnostic" taken from m-w.com:

a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

The second definition which you cited from answers.com doesn't fit either:

#2: One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Sorry, but the application is neither doubtful nor noncommittal, since computer applications cannot harbor doubts or commitments.

Note that the second definition which you cited was recently added to certain dictionaries only because of persistent misuse of the term. I realize that words can be redefined because of persistent misuse, and that the new definition becomes as legitimate as the old. But that often causes an enormous loss of precision and exactitude in the language. If "agnostic" can mean any kind of uncertainty, do you still know what it means when I say "I'm an agnostic?" Perhaps I'm having trouble deciding where to go for lunch. Bear in mind, there's already a word in the dictionary for uncertainty (namely "uncertainty"), and another one for doubt ("doubt"). Steve Jobs could have used either term, or he could have said "This program is database independent." But he was trying to be clever (as you are, I'd imagine).

> There is no metaphor

You must be kidding. It's obviously a methaphor.

>I do find it humourous how you just assumed that your misunderstanding was due to Steve Job's lack of education when it was obviously your own lack of modern literacy that caused it.

I find it ridiculous that you would so completely misunderstand the issues of grammar and word choice, especially on a thread discussing precisely those issues. And I find it pathetic that you would invoke the perennial excuse of people who don't know the rules of English: "I have my own history, and my own rules." I (unlike you) am literate, which is why I stick to the "narrow dogma" that words have specific meanings.

We may "each have our own linguistic history" but that obviously doesn't imply that everything in that history is correct. Suppose I have a history of spelling "lose" as "loose?" Or "nuclear" as "nukyoolar?" According to your view, the second spelling is just as correct, right?

The difficulty is not my mistunderstanding, but Steve Job's lack of education (and yours).

> There will certainly be uses we've never heard. But assuming that someone is uneducated because they didn't fit into our limited mold is foolish.

True, it doesn't fit into my "limited mold." Neither does spelling "lose" as "loose," or "definitely" as "defunately." My mold is limited, because language must be conducted according to shared rules otherwise it will become impossible for us to understand one another. If language is conducted solely according to one's own rules, then it's not English but gibberish.

The difficulty here is one of excuses. People who have never learned to speak beyond the 4th grade level often invoke your absurd excuse: "I have my own history, and my own rules." When students invoked that excuse in one of my math classes, the teacher had an excellent response: "You can do math according to your own rules, when you're at home by yourself." Of course, English isn't math, because the rules of English aren't independent of everybody. But the rules of English are independent of you.

Indeed, the problem is worse than I've implied. Everyone knows there are rules to English. Everyone knows there's a definition of "agnostic" independent of "his own history." People who misuse words like "agnostic" are people who wish they knew the rules of English, so they try throwing around esoteric words to impress people. They could just have used "unsure," but they want to show people that they have a mastery of mo

Re:Fool....

[poopdeville]

Quite a long tirade. I would suggest you skip the presumption that I am uneducated. You're quite quick to jump on that claim, with absolutely no evidence. I made no claim about your level of education, and my "excuse" was made for your benefit. Anyone can claim to be literate, but your lack of linguistic sophistication betrays itself. If you really think there is an English language outside of its usage, you are deluded. There are no rules of English outside of how words are used by English speakers. Everything is fair game if it is understood. Even "manifest" -- the employees in your store have coined a new meaning for that symbol, and it is now a part of the language game played in your store. If you don't like it, tough. That's the way languages work.

Re:Fool....

[poopdeville]

By the way, the definition you gave me for "agnostic" is the definition for the noun, not the adjective. That boorish mistake doesn't make you look literate at all. And while software cannot harbor commitments, it can still be committed to a platform (by a designer). And if it is not committed, it is uncommitted. So the phrase "software agnostic" means "Uncommitted (by a designer) to any operating system." Of course, we both inferred that from his usage. You just had to raise a stink about it, out of ignorance.

Re:Fool....

[cartman]

Quite a long tirade. I would suggest you skip the presumption that I am uneducated. You're quite quick to jump on that claim, with absolutely no evidence. I made no claim about your level of education, and my "excuse" was made for your benefit. Anyone can claim to be literate, but your lack of linguistic sophistication betrays itself. If you really think there is an English language outside of its usage, you are deluded. There are no rules of English outside of how words are used by English speakers. Everything is fair game if it is understood. Even "manifest" -- the employees in your store have coined a new meaning for that symbol, and it is now a part of the language game played in your store. If you don't like it, tough. That's the way languages work.

I never suggested that there was an English language outside of its usage, or that there were rules of English outside of those used by English speakers. In fact, I repeatedly said just the opposite. What I did suggest, was that a person cannot make up his own rules just because he has his "own linguistic history."

I assume that when you speak of "language games" you're referring to Wittgenstein's later work. In Wittgenstein's later work, he claims that private language is impossible, and that speakers who make up their own usages will be unintelligible even to themselves. Furthermore, he claims that something isn't a rule unless someone can be wrong about it and be corrected. Those are much stronger claims than I was making. I simply claimed that people who make up their own rules aren't speaking English.

It's clearly not the case that everything is fair game if it's understood. That's not how language works. The acquisition of language takes the form of training, which is a point raised repeatedly by Wittgenstein. If a child asks his parent "what does the word 'atheist' mean," the parent doesn't reply "let's make up a definition between ourselves."

My friends who used the word "manifest" incorrectly would often use the term in that way with customers. "Should we manifest it to you?" The customer would respond with a confused, blank stare. I'd have to interject: "He means we can ship it to your house." Only then could the transaction proceed.

...Although I found your remarks ill-considered, I wouldn't have been indignant if your post had been more polite and appropriate.

another theory

[samhuinn]

i read most of the posts however not all of them, 1267 (at this time) is a lot. but i'm fairly smart and actually went to school as a writer and have been published. i do however get called out on my typing mistakes. for me it isn't an issue of not knowing the language, it is more an issue of proofreading. i make typos, i misplace words, use phrases incorrectly all those mistakes that make people cringe. the truth is i just type, i'll correct mistakes if i catch 'em as i'm going, but generally i don't proofread every message i send etc. i may seem like a jerk because of it, but really i'm just lazy. i'm a graphic artist/designer..i don't need to type *grin*

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[WolfWithoutAClause]

I don't know. You sound pretty facile to me. You don't care what people say unless people say it in the 'right' way, even when the meaning is clear.

So why should they care what facile people think about them?

At the end of the day, English is a pretty broken language. They actually hold competitions to see if anyone can spell the words! And essentially no one can!

Spell check

[brontus3927]

You want to improve the grammer and spelling of slashdot posts? White a spell/grammer checker and submit it for use in the slashcode.

It annoys me when people point out grammer and spelling mistakes because they are just that, MISTAKES. If I accidently use their insted of they're, your instead of you're, teh, or any of the other more common typing mistakes, if that's the worst mistake I make that day, I consider that to be a pretty damn good day.

I have some trouble with spelling, I admit that. It's genetic. I'm a poor speller, my mother is worse at spelling, and my grandfather's spelling is extremely bad.

But as bad as my typing may be, it's more intelligible than my speech. I have several speech impediments, including a lisp and a stutter. On top of that, when I take a breath while speaking, it comes out hard and jagged and is more or less universally noticed.

The point of all this is, for reasons both within and outside of a person's control, there will always be "transmission errrors" in communication.

Re:Good hackers have excellent communication skill

[Nigel Stepp]

I was going to say the same thing if no one else already had.

I think that the bad spelling and grammar in the "hacker and geek" community is not indicative of hackers and geeks being bad spellers, but rather that there are a large number of bad hackers and geeks around now.

This community is not as exclusive as it once was, and we are seeing the other parts of the natural human bell curve, as it were.

Maybe the answer is Jargon?

[SurturZ]

It's my observation that any organisation or community tends to develop its own jargon and modes of communication.
This is partly for better communication within its members. Constructs such as well-known abbreviations (e.g. CRM, OOP), or normal english words that are used in a specific way e.g. object, delegate.
At some point, this novel use of the language also becomes a way of distinguishing those inside the community and those outside. It can also become a form of innuendo, or even a dialect of its own designed to exclude muggles.
Some of the bad spelling and grammar is simply that, but I suspect much of it is also jargon used in this manner. I know this because I am teh 1337 h@xx0r & pwn u.

Terrorists!

[constantnormal]

1276 comments, and only 46 ranked at 4 or above.

Awash in incoherent rantings.

Probably evidence of heavy metal poisoning at a national level. Damn terrorists.

Re:You are so wrong, grammer is not important.

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, let's say you have those same two Americans. You could say the person that went to the school of poorer quality is "less educated". Thus, when he goes online (of course not bothering to search the plethora of grammar information that can be found on the internet) he appears less educated there, too. The same applies to everyone, though; when people write things that are rife with errors, they appear less educated than they may actually be.

Re:"Grammar Considered Harmful" by more than hacke

[Hexedian]

I can safely say that MOST programs are translated by people who speak English as a first language - meaning their grasp of whatever language the program is being translated to is less than perfect; and the results are embarrassing more often than amusing.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Martin Blank]

No, I'm not old. I just value clear communications. My vocabulary, grammar, and spelling are better than most, not as good as some, and I do keep up with the slang for the most part, though I generally choose to avoid using it myself.

There are words that move into use and disuse, true, but that's a far cry from systematically altering the spelling and basic grammatical structure of the language through ignorance and apathy.

Something about language...

[critical_v]

Language changes over time. Get over your standardization of language. Stop holding us back with your institutionalized language, taken from a snapshot of a language frozen in time and forced on future generations of children.

Re:Something about language...

[cranos]

It's one thing to have a language evolve, however it is another just to get it wrong and then complain when you get called over your mistakes.

Bad spelling and incorrect grammar do not equal evolution of language, instead it gives the impression that you weren't paying attention in kindergarden.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a liberal when it comes to usage and I've never been much of a speller - hence my delight at the invention of the spellchecker - but I earned my living for 40 years as a professional writer in the corporate and technical worlds and here, apropos this discussion, are two things I learned.

1. Good writing is hard work and, like good anything else, requires constant practice. People who excuse their own sloppy writing by saying the present forum is not important - but they can do better when they have to - are probably kidding themselves.

2. Your best idea, no matter how brilliant, is worth nothing if you can't describe it clearly and - if money's your thing - sell it.

TC

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe because of the fucking Indians?

my biggest irk

[WreckingCru]

the one i HATE the most is when people don't know the difference between "loose" and "lose".... "i don't want you to loose it" ..... another pet peeve is the more common 'there' v 'their'

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[ziggyboy]

"It most certainly occurs, evidenced by the fact that people write "Should of" when they write what they think they are saying". Let me repeat that. Those who write 'should of' think that that is what they are saying. They are not saying "Should have", they are not saying "Should've". They are saying "Should of"."

Can you give me an example?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[niko9]

i.e = id est . latin for that is

e.g. = exempli gratis, latin for free example

looked them up once in a dictionary, don't know why I still remember them, but it always helps me use the terms correctly.

n00b

[CMU_Ken]

U r teh nub @ teh intarweb, ain't u? Evary1 dont tipe write on teh intarweb. If u do typ ok on teh intarweb, u obveusly dont unnerstan wut teh intarweb iz 4. Its KNOT 4 englsh communic8n. Its 4 C0mPutR communic8n.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[pg110404]

That's funny, I read

i.e. as internet exploder, or AIIIIEEEEEEEE!!!!!

The whole point....

[RGTAsheron]

y0ur m1551n6 7h3 p01n7. 1 f33| 50 ub3r wh3n 1 c4n'7 74|k r16h7.

Poor Spelling/Bad Grammar Skills

[El Bigote]

I truly understand what you are speaking to. I am also painfully put off when I see such poor spelling or miserable grammar. But the reason goes deeper than just laziess. While visiting my wife at her school one day I happened to walk by the classroom that was used by the head of the English Department. The sign on her door stated, "Good Grammer Spoke Here." How can a student be expected to demonstrate proper language skills when the head of an English Department doesn't even know what those skills are?

Short Answer

[Arker]

Hackers and geeks do.

Script-kiddies and nerds don't.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

gorw up and let it go.......

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Stauf]

The easy way to think about it is to consider "his, hers, its". When using "it's" you should be able to replace it with "it is", "it has" or similar and the sentence should still make sense.

its == 1 word
it's == 2 words

If you're unsure about which to use, see if "it is" works in the same place. If it doesn't, you should probably be using "its".It's a fairly simple construct, but I've seen English teachers get it wrong, and worse, teach the exact opposite.

It does seem to break the general rule of "an apostrophe indicates possession", but it's easy to think of "its" as a more specific rule that should supersede the use of "it's", if you're so inclined.

On a completely different note, does anyone find themselves previewing maybe a dozen times when posting about spelling or grammar? (And probably missing a half-dozen errors?)

Re:Good hackers have excellent communication skill

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at Linus Torvalds [...] all of these people have outstanding communication skills.

Linus may present himself well in a digital format, but that doesn't mean that I (with English as my first language) can understand a god-damn thing that he says in spoken interviews with his heavy accent.

It's merely the wannabes and hangers-on whose skills are inadequate -- and arguably, such individuals aren't really part of the community at all.

[enthusiastic sarcasm] Hey! Maybe you're right. I've never seen you post before, in spite of your fancy 3 digit UID, so you should go ahead and cancel your slashdot account now because you, you know - aren't really part of the community. [/sarcasm]

Linus is only famous because of the community base that has rallied behind him. Any CS major with a compiler can get started at making an OS (which I did once apon a time) - but it took years and a community of thousands to make Linux what it is today.

Are you really trying to say that those who aren't the community figureheads - that aren't frequently in the limelight, that aren't likely to be questioned by industry journalists, who's names aren't widespread, and that actually do much of their work quietly behind the scenes - may put slightly less emphasis on their self-presentation?

Shock and awe, ladies and gentlemen. Shock and awe.

Grammer? Grammar!

[trime]

Isn't it interesting how often the text 'grammer' appears on a page complaining about the lack of spelling standards? As far as I can tell 'grammer' is not an Americanism (it's not in dictionary.com as a real word).

I don't even pronounce grammar gram-mer, I pronounce it gram-mah, which makes it all the more grating (granted, I don't live in the USA). Further still, grammar is a term that comes up a lot in computer oriented tasks, specifically parsing, so you could even say it was a technical computer term.

Vernacular should enter the discussion about now

[kninja]

Vernacular is:
"the vulgar tongue of the masses"
"the everyday speech of the people (as distinguished from literary language)"
(Source: "define:vernacular" on Google)

The parent here is partially correct. Now that we have boards of English professors to sit around and decide what to call something, the official language will only change if an expression or word can presumably be deemed more correct or better than another.

The vernacular language (what people actually say) does not work that way, and most of us do use some form of it, Ebonics is an extreme example of vernacular, as is whatever the hell Brad Pitt talks like in the film "Snatch."

My point is that the parent is correct when considering the high form of a language, and not at all correct when considering the vernacular. Chillax, awesometastic, and such phrases are happening, and while they are not correct in English, they do pass in and out of trends (daddy-o, far out, radical, gnarly, tubular, cowabunga - you don't hear these expressions so often anymore do you? = trends!)

"Should of" "alot", misuse of "They're, there, and their", "Your, you're, yore (just kidding, no one uses yore)" and "Two, too, and to" are much bigger problems, and these (in my humble opinion) do indicate a lack of linguistic intelligence and linguistic interest. The language could devolve this way (I'm sure it has in the past), but there are now too many people clinging to (or perhaps proudly bearing) degrees in English to let this happen at such a basic level.

One more thing, swearing is also an indicator of a limited vocabulary. I think this is especially true when people use swear words as an adjective - or for just about every other word.

Loosing vs losing

[Anonymous Coward]

"Loosing" is not the opposite of "finding". If you use "loosing" - YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[pipingguy]

This is a great topic and your last sentence is spot-on.

A few hundred posts ago I essentially wrote the same thing. I guess I should subscribe so I can see all my previous comments and cringe (not for the grammar or spelling, for the content).

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[lav-chan]

(I don't know a whole ton about French, so if i'm talking out of my ass here, somebody can feel free to call me on it, but this is the way i see it....)

French has letter combinations that may all be pronounced the same, but the letters individually have about eighty-bajillion different pronunciations. So does English, of course, but English is kind of a Frankenstein language, so at least it has an excuse.

So, while the French are completely hard-core about keeping their language intact, it doesn't seem to do much better than English in the phonetics department. Which is one of the minor reasons i'm not a big fan of it. (Well, it looks cool, in writing, but i'd never want to actually use it.)

Some of us do...

[SilentTristero]

I was 11th in the National Spelling Bee a few years ago (OK, more than a few now). I still love language, writing, and yes, even spelling. I'm a programmer by trade, and judging from the kids in the spelling bee with me, more of them were heading for the sciences than the liberal arts.

And yes, it has definitely helped my career. Communication skills become more and more valuable and in demand as you become more senior. So don't neglect that part of your brain!
- ST

Re:The english Gestapo, & that's a feature not

[Anonymous Coward]

quoted: So when you see somebody grossly misusing the language, and gently correct her, people like the author of the above post will come down with a "how dare you!" attitude. When I misspell something, I don't take it personally when somebody corrects me. That's how we learn.

This is not about people gently proposing corrections and getting a "how dare you!" back. this is about getting a "how dare you misspell that word!", and giving a "how dare you!" right back! Look at the original poster. He is defining inteligance based on domain knowledge, and the knowledge has to be english. The reason he gets enraged responces is due to his personality, not because of gentle proposed corrections.

Now, I don't really know anything about you, so perhaps your differnt. If I knew you and got a gentle "correction" you'd probably get a gentle "I'm not interested in 'corrections'" back, and possibly a discussion about why.

quoted: In essence, it's a very vocal minority who condemns you for thinking people should strive to improve their writing skills that makes the problem as bad as it is.

Make that "... who condemn you for condemning others."

P.S. interesting point about the clothes. Thanks. I changed it a bit to: "why would it not be ok for people to walk around naked in the summer?, yet ok to make typos?"

Don't violate standards!

[Thu25245]

A published standard exists for English. Members of the English-speaking community should strive to support this standard.

Of course, perfect standard-compliance is not always possible; however, users should strive to incorporate standards-compliant English whenever possible. Automated tools are available to enforce compliance, though such tools do have limitations. (Improving these tools is an area of ongoing research.)

English users should also appreciate the fact that English is an extensible standard. Many other languages are proprietary, and are rigidly controlled by a standards body.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

does it matter if you completely and unambiguously understand what they are saying/writing?

It's thinking like that, that led to all of the goddamn evil foibles the C programming language.

The expression c = b-- is easy to understand to someone used to it. But, in a less "convience"-prone language, it might have to be written c = b; b = b - 1. That latter form, though longer, does more to make clear that two assignments are happening, and that b is decremented after its value is assigned to c.

Both ways of writing that expression produce identical results and can't be parsed ambiguously. One of them more easily leads to clarity of understanding.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Apiakun]

If you're interested in that sort of thing, you may want to read more about semiotics, if you haven't already.

Darwininan extinction through bad spelling

[FelixLaPubelle]

One thing misspellers (both the defiant and the careless) fail to "get" is the diminished value of their opinions and contributions over time if their comments cannot be easily retrieved by a search engine. Little has irritated me more over the years than Googling (or using DejaNews before it) and having to anticipate all of the possible misspellings of a particular topic in order to get reasonably complete search results. The second-best way to take yourself out of the internet gene pool (or kill-filed, banned, etc.) is to be a troll; the best way is to be a troll who can't spell... (Any incidental misspellings here are the results of my advanced years and only serve to add flavor)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[lav-chan]

I don't think the United States 'altered' British spelling in this case. The British used to use z instead of s in a lot of those words just like the Americans do now; they only changed it after the fact. (I think they actually borrowed it from French spelling after the American colonies were established.) In other words, the British altered their own spelling later on, and the Americans (and some of the British, too, like Oxford) just kept using the old ones.

I personally think using s instead of z is more consistent, anyway. There seem to be more words in American spelling that keep the s than there are words in British spelling that keep the z.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

* Capitalize the first letter of every sentence.
* The word "totally" is misspelled as "todally".
* It's "their", not "there".
* It's "you're", not "your".
* It's "your", not "you're".
* It's not "geks", it's "Greco-Romans".
* It's not "somon", it's "Somalians". Or possibly "Solomons".
* "Counterintelligence" should never be shortened to "contint" unless your audience consists primarily of former CIA agents and Tom Clancy fans.
* Could someone pass me a roll of paper towels?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[black mariah]

So what's my point in all this? Well, if you've chosen to give up on the English language and decided that it's not worth your time to improve your language skills, don't blame the language itself. Your skills will only be as good as you make them.

It has nothing to do with MY skills. Or anyone's skills, actually. Skills don't change the amount of ambiguity in English. They don't change silent letters, contradictory pronounciations, or strange spellings. Spoken English isn't any more or less weird than any other language, but WRITTEN English is haphazard at best.

It seems I can.

Well apparently you CAN'T because all you did was come up with some kind of weird references to programming languages and made mention that languages are ever evolving.. Absolutely nothing you said is in any way contradictory to what I said.

Re:What does Snoop Dogg say when....?

[Anonymous Coward]

What would Snoop say if he saw a Kodiak bear?

How does Snoop describe a light, misting rainfall?

What would Snoop use to stir his cocktail?

When describing the appliance at the end of a garden hose, what word would he use?

How does Snoop feel when he gets off the merry-go-round?

Dangit. My soda has lost all of its carbonation. It's not fizzle-izzy anymore.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[pipingguy]

The problem with changing spellings is that the more we do it, the less the current generation can comprehend writings from the past

It also works the other way - "current generations" (say, 30-40 year-olds) not understanding the communications of the younger people. Language changes are a natural thing (especially now with metaphors needed to describe software behaviour/functions) but it's more and more my impression that changes are adopted due to pop culture - i.e., marketing, branding and the like.

And of course the coolness factor, that always works for those that want to differentiate themselves from the mainstream, boring people.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Apiakun]

Thank you!

Re: Racist?

[Anonymous Coward]

it seems that you don't know about white privilege. see the thing about it is that white people deny that they are treated any differently because they don't notice it. why would they?

This is also known as the "White Man's Burden," the idea that the lesser races have been opressed for so long, that they just can't help themselves anymore, and it's the responsibility of white folk to make allowances for the deeply engrained failing of Those People. This carries the implication that an individual can not possibly work himself out of the depths of that long opression, that blacks will remain, somehow tainted in performance, ethics, or ability for many generations to come, until finally, by the grace of enlightened white folk, they regain equality.

Now, if your issue is really that "poor folk" speak more poorly than "rich folk," that's another question. Calling it white privilege equates poverty and black, and I (at least) know both rich blacks and poor whites. Presumably, poor whites can be taught proper grammar; why not poor blacks?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[caller9]

I agree that poorly written text conveys stupidity. However, (see that a however,) in certain situations i.e. (that is) social typing who gives a crap?

The formation of the sentence may convey the mind-set of the speaker. It is like public speaking vs. written word. In a forum where you are speaking your mind, perhaps your grammar and "phraseology"(see my implied contempt for that word) should count in an effort to convey your ideas. e.g. "get 'er done" vs. "complete the objective."

Redneck, yes. Sounds dumb, yeah. Appeals to a certain, perhaps targeted audience... hell mafakin yeah dude.

Choose the rallying war cry that works best for the situation in which it is used. "Eliminate the enemy and secure proof." or "Kick ass and take names."

Think about your audience. They aren't typically 1800s British fops that abhor hyphenation and apostrophes.

If everything on this site was purified English and management-ese I would definitely stop visiting the site. fur sure man.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[elblanco]

I find it too bad to still see so many on the tracks of faulty and damaging prescriptive grammar proselytizing. It's like pushing a failed political ideology long after such an ideology has proven itself untenable (Communists, please raise your hands, yes you know who you are). Anecdotal experience has shown that most prescriptive grammarians don't even know the source of their beloved rules. Allow me to enlighten. Most rules of proper English usage and spelling were developed during the 1600s to 1700s. The need to do this stemmed partially from the understandable need for a consolidating influence on the many various dialects (yes I said dialects) of the English language. It is instructive to look at the roughly comparable example of the Chinese Empire. When the Chinese faced the problem of spreading official law and philosophy throughout polyglot masses, they realized they could never force every citizen to abandon their perfectly functional native tongue for the "Emperor's own". Instead they enforced what they could, writing. They codified and standardized their ideograms and learned people used the official imperial version of the script. Even if the local populace used words differently in their dialect from the written form, it was considered proper and correct to write one way and speak another. Because of China's vast influence throughout Asia, the remnants of this system of education and learning are still with us. The Japanese still use Kanji, Koreans have Hanja and until the French introduced a heavily modified Latin based system, the Vietnamese used Hantu. Now, this analogy is a bit loose, but more or less accurate. The solution was to thus model English grammar on the language of the West's version of China, the language of the Romans -- Latin! Yes, that is correct, Latin. A few language busybodies (such as Bishop Robert Lowth ) had the bright idea that we should take principles from Latin grammar and apply them to a largely Germanic language. This is why we have rules fraught with so many errors and awkward "sounding" results. Most people of decent linguistic education laugh at these rules when they are brought up under such flags as "correct English" or "proper usage". This aged and archaic Enlightenment linguistic philosophy has resulted in such preposterous and often humorous rules such as: "don't split an infinitive", "don't end a sentence with a preposition", etc. Creating rules for one language based on rules for another is akin to throwing a woman in a river to see if she is a witch. Due to the same group of ignorant prescriptivists (http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/magazine/writin g/grammar.html), spelling in turn became a complete disaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_spelling). I personally attribute much of the awkwardness of modern English spelling to the stubborn refusal of prescriptivists to introduce a letter for the schwa sound (which FYI is statistically the single most common vowel sound in the English language yet we do not have a single letter for it). Every vowel is at some point used as a placeholder for the schwa sound in unstressed syllables. Ask yourself sometime what the homophonic overlap is between any two vowels (I mean, common, the letter "o" in "women" has the same sound as "i" in "is" for goodness sake!). That's just for the vowels! English consonants are an absolute disaster. There are many reasons for this, most often attributed to the incredible number of loan words in the English lexicon and the representation the source languages uses for those sounds. Even more distressing are the wide variety of representations for common homophones. Take for example the common construct "ough". Let's play a game and see how many different sounds "ough" can represent: "cough", "rough", "through"

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Stauf]

"should of" is common usage

I think you'll find that "should've" is common, and correct, usage. If you are saying "should of" then you have probably picked it up from hearing someone saying "should've" and you mistakenly thought the "'ve" was "of". This is an error, not an evolution of language.

Re:You are so wrong, grammer is not important.

[Anonymous Coward]

you try to talk to him in French: "Je prendre un cafe au lait". He then looks at you with a snobby face and you know he is judging your French, the accent was off, perhaps you did match the noun gender agreement

Or maybe you said something stupid -- perhaps using the infinitive when a conjugated form of the verb was expected?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[pjpII]

Wow, amazingly, every poster on this subject has managed to completely miss the point.

Note that things in [] below are ASCII IPA. And if you don't know IPA, you probably shouldn't be commenting on a lot of this stuff anyway.

The parent, however, gets close- indeed, "should've" gets realized (in my dialect at least) as [S^d^f](or [S^d^v]) while instances of "of" are often like "heard of" [h3rd^f](or [h3rd^v]), so is not inconceivable to think that spelling them the same way is a good idea(like spelling "knight" "night", or more logically "nite" like "lite")

This whole article and thread are basically revolving around something very different than just matters of spelling. What is the issue is that the spoken English language is quickly evolving away from the written, with some dialects(Black English Vernacular) differing even more than others. This creates a diglossia, where what you speak is different from what you write, very much like the Arabic language, which is united by a single written language but has numerous, often non-mutually intelligible spoken dialects.

Also, what the article parent totally misses is that the internet is a very casual sphere, and the elevated writing needed in the work place, etc, is unnecessary here- even in Arabic, most people write in colloquial arabic on message boards, rather than the specifically more formal standard arabic you'd use on a job application, in an essay, etc.

So perhaps, indeed, the terrorists are winning. Soon our language will resemble theirs...
Alex

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think what you're mentioning is more a case of how you interpret an accent, than what strictly is and isn't correct. Being American, you're used to hearing American accents. I'm Australian, and down here (and probably in Britain, too) it's widely considered that Americans over-emphasise their r's. Maybe it sounds normal to you, but to us, it doesn't. The same goes for "rather". I can assure you that the ending r *is* very much there. It's not being dropped at all. Just because *you* can't hear it doesn't mean it's not there -- it is there, it's just not as distinct as how an American says it. If the words "barth" or "rathe" actually existed, there would be a difference in how they were pronounced, and the Brits would be able to easily distinguish it.

Notice my spelling of "emphasise" and my use of the word "spelt"? You probably aren't use to that either, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. It's just different. We spell according to the Queen's English, and therefore we don't change the 'ise' endings to 'ize'. Remember, Americans drop certain letters too. One example I can think of is that you don't seem pronounce the 'h' in herbs. I suppose in America you are taught that this is a silent h, but I don't believe that it's considered a silent h anywhere else in the English speaking world (I could be wrong).

Every country has their own unique ways of prnouncing and spelling certain words. Different != incorrect /stupid / better / worse.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you mean egregious.

Re: Racist?

[Anonymous Coward]

"And most of the poor people in this country happen to be guess what! NOT WHITE."

From 2003 census data:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov2 .html

Poverty percentages by race
white 10.5
black 24.5
hispanic 22.5
asian 10.2

And from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762156.html

Total Population 290,809,777
by race
White 234,196,357
Black 37,098,946
Hispanic 39,898,889
Asian 11,924,912

So the number in poverty by race:
White 24,590,617
Black 9,089,242
Hispanic 8,977,250
Asian 1,216,341

So, you are wrong. The majority of poor people in this country are without a doubt white.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[B.D.Mills]

We should throw out the old spelling.

Agreed. If the Chinese can convert from "Traditional" to "Simplified" characters, surely it's not so hard to do. On the other hand, the reason why it's possible for China to change its characters is because a Chinese language authority exists. (Taiwan still uses Traditional characters, however.) There's no such world standard for the English language, which is why the English language is becoming increasingly fragmented. (Is it called a "cell phone" or a "mobile phone"? Are they called "traffic lights" or "stoplights"?)

Sic transit gloria verbae.

OT: Re:Correct English?

[David Rolfe]

Oh, and to nitpick myself, before anyone else does...

not c.f., I should have written compare.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[layingMantis]

I agree with you. When I start reading a comment on /. or another forum (or anywhere), and the spelling/grammar is atrocious, I immediately skip that comment. I don't even *read* it - I do not take advice from idiots who can't (or won't) even bother to write coherently, and I don't have time to decipher nonsense.

~mantis

Spellin' for the rest of us

[longwalker]

Some of us just think faster than we type and keep the spellcheck turned off to speed things up even more. I guess I could use Voice Dictation, but I don't want everyone around me knowing what I am doing all of the time ;-) Of course, the logical thing to do would be to fix some of the spelling and grammer (are there actually more than 8 people in the US who care what Future Imperfect tense is?) problems. But then unemployment costs would go up for all of those Elementary English Teachers.

Don't use the "it's illogical" defense!

[BakaBaka]

Some of you feel that English syntax is illogical or that language should be allowed to evolve, but would you be required to express those opinions if you weren't defending your poor word choices? Yes, it's illogical, but millions of people manage to learn it. Yes, it can evolve, but allowing you to direct its evolution is like letting a monkey design a skyscraper. Master the rules before you flaunt them. Once you have an adult comprehension of the language and can speak and write properly, I'll listen to your anti-English rant. I'll roll my eyes but I'll listen. If you can't spell or pronounce simple English words, save me your "English is a bastardization of Low German" rant along with your ode to Common Usage as King. Learn the language. You should have been paying attention in 3rd grade and it's not my fault that you didn't. Speakers with a good grasp of the language can feel free to use slang and colorful idiom, secure in the knowledge that their audience understands them. The rest of you - zip it.

Someone should really chronicle this post ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... and post the results, just to see how many Slashdot readers are ... well, poorly versed in their own language.

I, personally, am very surprised by how many people reacted so ANGRILY to some of the threads in this post. Yes, it may be UPTIGHT seeming to criticize someone else's language skills, but I agree with a great many posters that a point made concisely is a point that is resepected. Likewise, the opposite is true.

Now, for the translation, in case you had a hard time with the above paragraph:

YO! Sum1 should add up all of the results of all of these posts 2 C just how many people are RETARDED in english.

I cant believe how many of U are so mad about this anywayz. It might seem all "IM BETTER" and stuff, but like alot of people have written, if u take the time to get it right, people take u more seriously. If U don't, ur just a DUMBASS!

-----------------
Case and point:

paragraph 1: 410 characters (including spaces and punctuation), 75 words
paragraph 2: 371 characters (including spaces and punctuation), 73 words

So, in characters and punctuation, I saved about 39 keystrokes, or almost an entire line of text in this little text entry window. However, I only saved 2 words.

For these savings, I have potentially (and probably) sacrificed credibility, and proof of experience. "Proof of experience" may enrage a few people, but let's analyze this: Paragraph one seems to be crafted by someone that has been reading and writing for a good number of years, while paragraph two would most likely be taken for a typical 15 year old's rant.

Just my .02, take it or piss on it, but I respect the language and take the time to ensure that I am understood, not to prove anything.

Well, except for this time. Guilty.

-JK

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

You stupid cunt shite from beyond the grave!!! "I can't find me pencil" is a colloquialism. Perfectly acceptable in informal speech. This is where the English have it over the Yanks. They know when it is acceptable to be a little inaccurate (informal speech) and when it is not (business/technical communication). Go back to Golgotha from whence ye came. Base bowel offender.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Apiakun]

Can I ever truly understand what you meant if I have to guess whether you meant there instead of their? If you're already making that mistake, perhaps you're leaving out what was theirs, or where whatever it was is.

"It's their..."

Does that mean it is over 'there', and the writer was too lazy to use the right word? Were they too lazy to say "It's their car"? Either way it's being left to me to determine which mistake they made and how to correct it. As a somewhat intelligent person I can make an educated guess, but what if I am wrong? What if they meant to tell me something else?

It's enough that we spend so much time reading what other people write without having to spend more time correcting their mistakes, even if we're only mentally correcting their mistakes.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[bensafrickingenius]

The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the EU rather than German which was the other possibility. As part of the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5 year phase-in plan that would be known as "Euro-English". In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of the"k". This should klear up konfusion and keyboards kan have 1 less letter. There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year, when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words like "fotograf" 20% shorter. In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be ekspekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkorage the removal of double letters, which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of the silent "e"s in the language is disgraseful, and they should go away. By the fourth year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v". During ze fifz year, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou" and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters. After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi to understand ech ozer. Ze drem vil finali kum tru! And zen ve vil tak over ze world!

The solution? The Decibet

[tzuriel]

Please read and confirm The Decibet

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[pipingguy]

An easy way to remember this:
i.e. - in explanation

Or,

"i.e." essentially means, "in other words"

People writing 'explanation' as 'explaination' is annoying, but understandable.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[DZR]

"me" in that context is a phonetic transcription of how people in that dialect of English pronounce the word "my". Are you suggesting that they also spelled it that way?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[after fallout]

or perl, "because the wordset is very small, and the ruleset is also quite small"

I thought I could never say that

Re:You are so wrong, grammer is not important.

[Anonymous Coward]

> People who think they are better than other people SUCK!

What socialist drivel. You must work for the government where you don't have to COMPETE (and be better than others).

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[NekoXP]

Since I was curious I googled and apparently a voiced velar fricative is exactly
like this, sound sample and all..

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Voiced_velar_ fricative

Amazing, this internet.

Begs the question.....

[capedgirardeau]

.... Does not mean, "leads to the question."

That is a much worse transgression than spelling or grammer. That is ignorance of basic argument.

Read and learn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begs_the_question

Regards.

Hackers have a great excuse

[Anonymous Coward]

I've noticed the unconventional spelling and grammar of hackers, but I've always thought that was to throw off search programs deployed by "the man."

2x3

[XanC]

Shouldn't that be "sextuple u"?

Re:2x3

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want something that sounds more elegant--though not being completely orthographically sound--try "hexle U."

"Fuck" and "Golf" are NOT acronyms.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yer perpetratin' and Urban Myth.

F*** is from the German.

http://golf.about.com/cs/historyofgolf/a/hist_golf word.htm

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl-s-word.ht m

aygabtu

[xsyberpunk]

all your grammar are belong to us.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[StrongAxe]

After years of reading slashdot, I finally see a post I want to mod up and I don't have any mod points

How does one get mod points? After I had been on Slashdot for a while, I used to get them regularly. Then, one day, I was asked to metamoderate (which I have now been doing almost continuously 2-3 times daily for 2+ years) and have never been offered mod points since.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[after fallout]

If you think about it logically, the sentence makes no sense because "5 minutes" is a measure of speed, and "fast" is a measure of time.

Re-read that, I think it is backwords.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[abrinton]

A lot of French people now do speak English, but won't unless you *try* to speak French first. After you try (and fail), many French people will say 'Why don't we speak English, it will be much easier' or something along those lines. This happened over and over while travelling with a marginal French speaker in Paris.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[ockegheim]

(and I know they're a native speaker)

Perhaps these days on the internet the millions on non-native English speakers are exerting some influence. I have enough German to get by in Germany and chat about things to non-English-speakers, but I'll never be able to appreciate poetry or read a novel in German, and enjoy the language at the high level that I enjoy English. And though I can usually be understood, my grammar will always sound wrong to German speakers.

If lazy English speakers see language as solely for communicating basic information, why should they aspire to a level higher than someone for whom English is a second language?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Arker]

You are utterly confused.

English spelling is not at all arbitrary. If you know Middle English it makes perfect sense, and if you have a passing acquaintance with early modern English 98% of it will still make sense.

Yes, knight is spelled the way it is because it used to be pronounced that way and because that spelling differentiates it from another word which is now pronounced the same but has a very different meaning.

English spelling is very conservative, and properly so because that allows us to preserve distinctions that a phonetic writing system would destroy. English spelling has followed this path from VERY early times, and it's far from the only language to do that.

'America' didn't obsess over spelling in post-colonial times, however certain sections of New England, particularly a certain Mr. Webster, did. He deliberately changed many well-established conventions in an attempt to create a distinctively yankee literary language. One which much of the country accepted only at bayonette point, and noticeable portions rejected even then.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[maxpublic]

I know it shouldn't happen, but it does

No, that's exactly the way it should be. A person who can't be bothered to learn the simple basics of their mother tongue is a person who's lazy and self-involved. This is especially true when it comes to communicating via the internet, as a plethora of spelling and grammar checkers are only a click away.

That isn't the sort of person I want working for me in my place of business. If you're so goddamned lazy you can't even be bothered to learn how to communicate properly then there's no reason in the world I should think that you won't be an equally lazy, egotistical ass when it comes to doing the job.

Act like an intellectual incompetent and you'll be treated like one. There's nothing 'unfair' about this. If you don't like it then learn how to speak and write the language you supposedly have the wit to master, seeing as how you grew up with it.

Or at least master left-clicking on the spell-checker before you post. But then we can safely assume that people who can't be bothered to learn how to spell or use a dictionary are also too fat-assed to use a spell-checker, so I guess that's probably asking too much of these fools.

Max

Re:Source: Mark Twain

[Anonymous Coward]

Very good! You must have read all the way to the bottom of the post, where it was signed "-Mark Twain."

Hmm... Didn't I hear that he'd died?

Re:Vernacular should enter the discussion about no

[lawpoop]

Your post is riddled with anachronistic, patronising ideas. I have no respect for this kind of elitism.

"Now that we have boards of English professors to sit around and decide what to call something, ..."

We have no such thing. We have only a loose collection of self-appointed experts who has no particular authority over any body else. See Pinker's chapter The Language Mavens in _The Language Instinct_.

Claiming that there are mistakes and misuse of language only seperates classes based on racial and ethnic groupings. A dialect belongs to a group (no one has their own dialect). There is always a dominant ethnicity, who were the oringal conquerers. Once they teach the conquered ethnicities to speak 'proper' language, meaning 'our' language, the immediately criticise the dialects that the other ethnicities use as degenerate and mistaken.

If you want to argue for common communication standards, I would agree with you. But you see to be couching it in racist terminology, with word and phrases like "high language", "not correct", "trend", "misuse", devolve", "limited" and so forth.

As far as trends -- no word or grammar construction lasts forever. What is the cutoff point for a trend?

"the official language will only change if an expression or word can presumably be deemed more correct or better than another.

"First off, there is no such thing as 'the official language'. Even the language mavens disagree amongst themselves. There is no standard. Secondly, commonly accepted language changes when the 'old guard' of professors die out, and the new school has no problem with common speech, because they've been hearing it all their life, and it doesn't sound wrong to them.

Claiming that there are mistakes and misuse of language only seperates classes based on racial and ethnic groupings. A dialect belongs to a group (no one has their own dialect). There is always a dominant ethnicity, who were the oringal conquerers. Once they teach the conquered ethnicities to speak 'proper' language, meaning 'our' language, the immediately criticise the dialects that the other ethnicities use as degenerate and mistaken.

If you want to argue for common communication standards, I would agree with you. But you see to be couching it in racist terminology, with word and phrases like "high language", "not correct", "trend", "misuse", devolve", "limited" and so forth.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Tracy Reed]

Always proofread carefully to make sure you haven't any words out.

Re: Racist?

[Anonymous Coward]

"My fiancee and I"

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Netsnipe]

Great, you just had to invoke one of my pet peeves: an improper use of English expression "begging the question" in modern day society. You only use it to point out that someone else's argument is fallaciously based upon circular reasoning! For the love of $DEITY, it does not mean "to raise the question".

Have a good day and thank you for contributing to the death of the English language as we know it.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Stauf]

By the same token, "for all intensive purposes" will not replace "for all intents and purposes", it's a symptom of our increasing move away from written language, not of our language evolving in any meaningful way.

See this site for a discussion of the phenomena.

ai dont undastand

[has2k1]

The human brian is the best compila I no of. If the sintax is not totaly different from wat it shood b, the mavalus brian compiles with no era. However, in sum cases, the programmar haz not oven da slitest crew of the lungwage they r uzing. Then the drain will caind ov mess singht pu. And then avri wan wheel stat 2 komplayn. bat sum krazy peepo komplain even wehn they undastand and intaprit da sintax korrectly.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Arren]

I feel this is the wrong forum for your 'corrections' and 'suggestions.' It breaks the flow of the discussion. It has nothing to do with the topic being discussed, and makes you sound like a show off intellectual.

Anyone who calls a pedant an intellectual has language issues far beyond the scope of spelling, grammar, and syntax.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Arker]

Because the zed is redundant.

There is no word with an unvoiced 's' in that position. There is no distinction that needs to be preserved. And it's horribly bad form, in English, to use a zed outside the handful of cases where it is actually necessary to distinguish a voiced from an unvoiced 's.'

Hawkings owns you even if he cant type properly.

[Anonymous Coward]

EOM.

My typing is my voice. So if I have dyslexia, and problem in spelling my thinking or my point is inferior to yours all of a sudden? You make me sick.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[RedBear]

The main flaw in your argument is that math is constant, while language evolves. This is completely natural and more importantly, desirous. Rigid adherence to outdated grammatical constructs can only hinder communication. A perfect example would be the adoption of "google" as a verb; would you prefer to say "navigate to google's site and use it to search for widgets" or "google widgets"

I disagree, vehemently. That means strongly, and hopefully it always will, so that a few hundred years from now someone reading this thread will still be able to understand most of what we were talking about.

The flaw in your own argument is that languages used to evolve back before written language was common. Someone above made the excellent point that Chaucer is almost impossible for many people to interpret today because the spelling and meanings were so different, whereas everything from about Shakespeare forward is merely a little awkward to read, but very easy to interpret with a little practice. What changed between Chaucer and Shakespeare?

A few hundred years ago the common person began to have greater access to written materials, and as the transfer of written materials got more and more efficient and inexpensive the "evolution" of the language slowed to a crawl. The language ceased changing because everyone collectively decided that a certain spelling for every word was the most popular or made the most sense, and they made it a standard. This has made it possible for people to wander the globe their entire lives and successfully communicate with anyone, anywhere who happens to speak the same language. Without this amazing ability the progress of civilization wouldn't be going nearly so well. Communication and trading barriers would be much higher.

This is why I vehemently disagree with your comment that languages evolve such that words and phrases change their spelling and meaning over a mere generation or two, and that this is a desirous thing. It's not desirous at all to be constantly morphing spellings and meanings so that one generation of people can barely understand the next. It certainly doesn't make any sense to applaud the 50% or more of any typical high school English class who decide that using random spellings is just as good as learning the standardized version. What they are doing to the language is a very negative thing.

Languages do continue to evolve in positive ways, such as the example you mentioned of new words being coined and coming into popular use. This is a good thing, because new concepts need new words, and the language needs to be able to adapt to keep contemporary communication efficient. But adopting new words and concepts is a far cry from letting the current meanings and spellings of words disappear because people are too lazy to use the words the way they've been defined for hundreds of years.

Mathematical language is indeed a constant, that's why it's such an efficient and effective way of communicating concepts. Modern language also needs to be as constant as possible with what has already been defined without locking out new concepts and words. It used to evolve much more than it does now, but that wasn't necessarily a good thing. It made for a lot of miscommunication. If you allow the language to morph "because that's what language does", you will end up with a broken, ineffective communication tool. We don't want to change the definition of the mathematical symbol "pi", so why allow the definition of the word "pie" to be changed? Bad idea. Yes, it will happen over a period of thousands of years, eventually, but there's no need to hurry the process.

nothing pure about English

[sudo]

Just read about the history of English to appreciate how messed up it is.

And then you will see why a lot of the spelling and grammatical rules seem to contradict themselves.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Computer languages are massively different from spoken languages. Code has more in common with logic than human languages - it is based on specific rules and protocols, whereas human languages are judged by other people. That is, human languages require subjective interpretation.

More significantly, logic and language are processed in completely different parts of the brain. Just because you can use one part of your brain well doesn't necessarily mean you can use all of your brain well. The expectation that a techie to be good at english is comparable to expecting Andre Agassi to be good at Ice Hockey.

In my personal opinion, grammar and spelling are not significant issues. They are arbitrary rules designed to prevent the real problem of ambiguity. For the most part, if communication is not ambiguous, then it serves its purpose.

Change is Good

[irefay]

The most well known language that does not change is latin (it is a dead language) English however is constantly changing and evolving. This is not to say that we still need certain standards but lets just say it would be quite difficult to describe how a computer functions if we still used english as it was known in the 1590's (Shakespeare's era).

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[imidan]

The cool thing about Chaucer is that with just a little bit of study of some of the characters that he uses that we don't anymore, and remembering that in English in his time one generally pronounced every letter in a word, you can read it pretty easily if you do it out loud:

Whan that Aprille with his shoores soote

Becomes, easily, "When that April with his showers sweet"

Beowulf, however, in its original language, is considerably more challenging, though still technically "English".

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[kaens]

I blame Perl.

I'm sorry, but apparently you only know one langua

[falconwolf]

While I don't know them well, not since I haven't used any of them in a long tyme, I have learned other languages. In college I had a year of German, 1 1/2 years of French, and had a private tutor teaching me Mandarin Chinese for several months. Though I didn't get very far I also tried to teach myself Italian and Russian. Next year I plan on taking classes in Portugese.

Falcon

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[baxissimo]

I think there are some not uncommon cases where double negatives make sense.

Dear Strom Carlson

[yaway_rerout]

Your Retarded

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha! Are you actually suggesting that a USian would read the constitution of the United States of America? Or that they would care if their children couldn't?

We as a nation seem to take pride in our complete ignorance of history and basic workings of our own government.

Re: Racist?

[bar-agent]

This is also known as the "White Man's Burden," ... it's the responsibility of white folk to make allowances for the deeply engrained failing of Those People.

Our burden is not merely to "make allowances." The White Man has the responsibility and the obligation to teach civilization to the uncivilized...for their own good.

You, the parent poster, understand this, but I want to clarify what the phrase means for others.

Note that I do not share this belief, but many do-gooders, social workers, and charities do.

University of Phoenix Masters Program

[FS]

I just started taking classes at the University of Phoenix in the MBA program (Technology Management). I am surprised and disgusted with how awful people spell. It is a struggle to understand many students because of the awful grammar and spelling. From what I've seen so far, these are people with a BS or BA already who will just as easily earn an MBA. If schools are not going to require accurate grammar and spelling, they need to at least require readable sentences. These are tomorrow's managers and executives, and they can't even write a comprehensible email.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[bar-agent]

As long as it's not egregarious, neither do I...

Actually, I think the GP used the right word: "e-gregarious," an adjective meaning "willing to participate on an on-line forum of some kind; to not lurk." And in those circumstances, people do routinely ignore spelling and grammatical errors. :-)

Can't touch this

[SEWilco]

Imagine what this conversation would be like if it included the people who can't even manage to spell "Slashdot". Fortunately, they aren't here.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[StikyPad]

If true, the irony would be that badly is the opposite of goodly. The word he should have used is poorly.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[bar-agent]

Because...umm...ellipses are cool?

Re:Problem in America... BUT - Spanish Chile

[RoundSparrow]

Here in Chile the Spanish is considered very bad... many people even admit it.

I live in a Rural area (Arica, Chile) and it is even worse.

A person from Rural Mexico could likely not understand a person from Rural Chile...

news:alt.usage.english

[Nehmo]

Composing code is significantly different form composing English. With code there usually is a clear-cut right way and a wrong way, and the syntax obeys a handful of rules. With English composition, the correctness of any given piece is much less clear-cut, and syntax is governed by a huge set of rules, many of which are so ambiguous they can't truly be called rules.

The debates in the English newsgroups, such as: news:alt.usage.english (or http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.usage.engl ish) illustrate the complexity of English composition.

Re:news:alt.usage.english

[^_^x]

However, not being in the dark ages anymore, spelling has VERY specific rules, just as it would if you were programming. DateTime() is not the same at dtim3(), but if you play online games with chat, like MMOs, people will walk up to you and say things like "UR dnt fz munx b 4 ppk lol" as if they expect you to comprehend their undefined, misspelled abbreviations of god-knows-what.

This goes beyond just interpreting the rules differently; a disturbing number of people you meet online won't even show grade 6 writing abilities anymore.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

I once worked on piece of code where 'nipple' had been used in comments and variable name instead of 'nibble'...

I met the guy responsible for this code a bit later (he had quit the company just as I was hired) and we had a good laugh once I explained it to him ;)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[bburton]

Well, you got me there. Thank you for the correction.

Re:Good hackers have excellent communication skill

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly right. You're not going to get into MIT, Berkeley, Stanford, CMU, etc. with a 400 verbal score on the SAT. My guess is that most of the people with poor spelling and grammar on /. are the stereotypical IT people who learned to configure networks at ITT Tech. In another time and another place, they might have become plumbers.

Thats Y i Wirte Pograms...

[Anonymous Coward]

I cant talk gud and i cant write so gud ether. But with a program i can wirte it first and then fix it til it wirks.

so finally i get it kurect and sell it to Mikroslut.

i had to wirte this 11 times bfore it took!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[DigiShaman]

Conveying a message correctly does not equate to being intellectual. If you think it does, then you're just an elitist prick. Take your post for example. While your grammar may be correct, you point exudes prejudice as opposed to intelligence.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[StikyPad]

I still use WTF out of semi-politeness when I'm concerned that the other party might find the full phrase vulgar, but not concerned enough that I'll avoid it altogether. Actually I don't have a problem with acronyms in general.. it's words replaced with character homonyms that irritates me. At any rate, I've found that unintelligible writing is generally indicitave of a cluttered thought process, and the writer is probably not someone I'd want to communicate with in the first place.

There are valid reasons...

[quarkscat]

for the atrocious English spelling and grammer of entries posted on /. (Really!) It is a combination of (1) generational issues pertaining to the quality of public education, and (2) of English as a second (or third) language. Very few problems arise from word usage (torch vs flashlight) or word spelling (colour vs color), as the true meaning readily becomes apparent, even to distant cousins of the English language like Americans.

Please practice patience, tolerance, and only gentle chiding in making corrections. Be nice.

Re:There are valid reasons...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's 'grammar' not 'grammer'.

Re:There are valid reasons...

[h4rm0ny]

Though I notice them all the time, I don't recall ever actually pointing out a poster's spelling and grammar mistakes.

I think this whole trollish article is just an open party for grammar nazis however. Anyone who walks into it should know what sort of company she'll find.

Re:There are valid reasons...

[Feztaa]

Anyone who walks into it should know what sort of company she'll find.

Out of curiosity, what made you think there were women on slashdot?

Re:There are valid reasons...

[cp.tar]

This is, actually, just a convention found in DND books.

Quasi-egalitarian stuff.

Re:There are valid reasons...

[h4rm0ny]

*ahem* What makes you think there aren't?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[damsa]

You failed to capitalize English, therefore your post is invalid. Unless you meant that you read someone's poor pool playing skills. I'm starting to dwell how stupid you are, as the topic is about grammar not playing pool.

Re:You are so wrong, grammer is not important.

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me that you believe that spelling is just as unimportant as grammer [sic].

Despite the advantages of going to a good school, there are people who went to underperforming schools but still learned to speak and write properly. Self motivation can go a long way, which is why people who can't communicate properly are considered lazy.

Oh, and you don't need to be a minority to be poor. To think that way is, in and of itself, rascist.

Hay! I spek grood engrish!

[zeketp]

No, seriously, I usually do, but a lot of the time it isn't worth the effort. I mean, it is the internet after all. Have you even looked around the place lately? Most of the people aren't exactly native speakers (or speak it at all, despite what they may say). The English language isn't exactly what I would speak if I had been given a choice. It is really a random blend of a ton of other languages, with so many dialects that we can barely understand each other. Like around here (note awesome phonetical spelling powers!) "Hey! d'ja-eet yet? Naw, d'jew? Y'ownt to? Aight." (Hey! Did you eat yet? No. Did you? [Do] you want to? [That is] All right [with me].) I'm not even getting started on the British. (I had a page marked with British slang, it took hours and hours to read it all, extremely entertaining.)

Re: Racist?

[lawpoop]

Black people can get it together and learn some basic english, or they can be rappers, football players, and comedians till the end of time. You're missing the point. Your dialect of English is not basic English.

Those immigrants you talk about learned to speak the white American dialect of English, thus have have done better amongst white Americans.

Some people just odon't care about doing well by white folks, so who are you to say that you set the standard?

Parent Post Too Dull To Read; Please Mod Down...

[Anonymous Coward]

into oblivion.

(S)He must work in the basement of the General Accounting Office. What a snoozer.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Digitalgoodtimes]

I think its pretty freakin simple while one typo or missed brackett can send my box into a endless loop of buffer decay, my lack of effort trying to sound like an over educated pompass ass that's not scrared to break a few mundane and irrelevant grammer rules express's my overall attitude towards being perfect or worse yet pollitically corrected... On a hapenstance I might even invent a word to suit the contextual value of my curent attitude

Why America doesn't care

[JimBobJoe]

The question that I've *never* heard asked...

Is America the only country where the native language is so disappointingly mangled by the vast majority of native citizens?

Probably, and for the very simple reason that America has a very weak historical attachment to class.

The idea of a "proper language" manifests through the concept that the language spoken by people higher in the social/financial hierarchies is better than that spoken by those who are less fortunate. People high up only want to deal with those of the same class, people in lower classes wish to emulate them and in time join their clique.

America was always less class oriented--judgements regarding an individual were made less on class indicators (like the ability to speak the language in a particular way.) The concept of an individual being able to transcend their birth was uniquely American for quite a long time.

While the French were fascinated by equality, they had a class system develop in time with the intellectuals looking down on everyone else--hence the Academie Francaise. The Spanish, and their theta pronounciation of Z, C, was done in emulation of a prince years ago who had a speech impediment. Today it sticks. Swear words developed from perfectly normal words that the upper social circles didn't want to talk about, so they started using euphemisms and in time the original words became vulgar (in both ways. :-) There is a post in the this thread about Russian, which can fill volumes with their expletives, whereas English has relatively few. I believe the class phenomenon has a role to play there.

And of course, the changes that occurred in American English, Latin American Spanish and Brazilian Portguese all reflect the fact that the people in the Americas just didn't give a rat's ass about impressing the British, Spanish or Portugese any more, and they let their language "flatten." (The higher social classes tended to remain back at home and people became less and less connected to them.) In comparison, Indians are still very very class oriented (I suspect this is a carry-over from the Hindu Caste system), and an Indian's use of English is taken very seriously. Amusingly, Indian English carries terms from British English that the British themselves no longer use.

Re:Why America doesn't care

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

And of course, the changes that occurred in American English, Latin American Spanish and Brazilian Portguese all reflect the fact that the people in the Americas just didn't give a rat's ass about impressing the British, Spanish or Portugese any more, and they let their language "flatten."

as a brasilian, let me add that another force driving changes in our dialect of portuguese is the presence of natives, africans and other immigrants. this probably happened in US and the spanish america too.

take as example the portuguese "pronoun" você (equivalent to the english "you").

it didnt exist before the american and african colonies were established by portugal in the XVI century. the term became as a form of respectfull treatment "Vossa Mercê" ("Your Mercy" in english). Since the african slaves couldnt speak it correctly, it became "voismecê", then "você".

today it replaced the singular second person noun "Tu" and the plural second person "Vós" and is used in the third person.

Other cases of indigenous and african influences exists, as well as anglicisms (terms from english). examples:

from natives:
Jururu (tupi language. means "sad")
Oi (means "Hi")
Saúva (a kind of ant)

from africa:

cafuné (from iorubá language. means "cudddles")
calango (iorubá. means a kind of lizzard)
macaco (same. means "monkey")
zangado (also iorubá. menas "angry")

some of those made it back to portugal thanks to the success brasilian soap operas enjoy in portugal and emigration of brasilians back to portugal.

BTW, grammar nazis. the official name of the country is "Brasil" with an "s", not with a "z", so my spelling with "s" is on purpose.

Re:Why America doesn't care

[JimBobJoe]

as a brasilian, let me add that another force driving changes in our dialect of portuguese is the presence of natives, africans and other immigrants. this probably happened in US and the spanish america too.

I wanted to thank you for your post. I took a Portugese class (an advanced one for Spanish speakers) about two years ago, and I was fascinated. Learning more about voce was on my list of things to do. I wanted to mention a bit more about Portugese, but didn't have enough background to feel confident about my connection (I was hypothesizing that Brasil was likely a lot like the US in being less class conscious. It was the only other country I could think of like the US in this respect.)

However, what happened in Brasil was unique. Certainly we have words of Native origen in English (especially placenames and foods native to the Americas) and some Native words penetrated Spanish (particularly in Mexico, and the placename phenomenon is there too)--but the interaction of that Native population was very different. The indigenous population of Brasil was much more integrated into what is now Brasilian culture. There were interconnections between slaves from Africa, indigenous Brasilians and Portugese that were just trying to get by, that we in the US really didn't have.

In this respect, Brasil is very different from the US or Latin America.

Re:Why America doesn't care

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW, grammar nazis. the official name of the country is "Brasil" with an "s", not with a "z", so my spelling with "s" is on purpose.

Y'know, when English speakers spell Bra[s|z]il with a 'z', it really isn't any different than how English speakers call Deutschland by the name "Germany"

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Dun Malg]

I'm sorry, for a person who speaks the English language, the phrase "operating system agnostic" makes sense.

Not really. Using the second variation in the second definition gives you "Operating System noncommittal", which gets you in the neighborhood, but it's still not right. Apps don't "commit"-- their original coders do when they compile them. Apps are OS dependent. All the definitions for "agnostic" mean "having a choice, but not making one". Apps don't make OS choices. Agnostic is the wrong word.

The GP poster clearly knew what Steve Jobs was getting at, but that his choice of words was incoherent-- and he's right.

Nice...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what I love about grammar nazi's:

Why shouldn't it happen? A person doesn't learn to speak and write well by osmosis. One must study the rules of the grammar formally. Therefore, your grammar reflects on your education.

tell me something, why did you use "Therefore" there? A therefore is SUPPOSED to indicate that what follows will be a conclusion based upon the preceding statements. Saying that grammar reflects your education is a poor conclusion from the statements preceded by it. You offered no evidence that poor grammar reflects on poor education, only that their study of the rules of grammar were poor.

The fact is, the examples you give "You're" and "your" and the rest, are examples of people who think in sounds. Normal people do not formulate ideas in their head by concentrating on the rules of grammar. People who communicate naturally let their words flow from them. Those types of spelling mistakes can be indicative of someone who pays more attention to content and less attention to irrelevancies.

My measure is this, if you can read what was typed up outloud and it makes sense, then a coherent communique was presented to you. If it does not make sense, then you should worry about the education level.

See that's the thing you grammar nazi's don't get on forums. These are conversational forums. I don't worry about spelling when I'm having a conversation with my friends. Get on a conversational forum and people expect you to take time out to go over your spelling? Who gives a fig? No one I care about.

If I have a report to write, then I go over it carefully to remove spelling errors. My job isn't to write reports all day though, so it's not something that comes as easy to me as someone who does write reports all day. My job is to provide software solutions to my customers and in that I excel. In that, the value of my education outshines my competitors.

A further note on grammar nazi's in the tech field, these are often people who are piss poor developers. The only way they can feel superior is if they catch you on some trivial grammar errors. They never excel, they do mediocre jobs, because they have no clue or concept on how to focus on what is important.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are [partially] incorrect in saying that "have" in "should have" is not a verb. It is part of a verb. in "should have ran," the verb is "have ran," -- the past perfect tense of the verb "run". The verb is actually two words in that tense.

But all of that is besides the point. I completely agree with you that "should of" makes absolutely no sense at all, especially since "of ran" is not a proper tense of the verb "run."

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[wayland]

Just to clear this up, the general rule is actually "When you leave a letter out, put in an apostrophe". This explains everything, including "it's", "won't", and the like.

The posessive is a leftover from the days when English had more noun declensions. For example, we still have "I", "me", and "my" as examples of the Nominative (Subject), Accusative (Object), and Genitive (Possessive) cases. Currently, a person's name would be represented as eg. "John", "John", "John's". But at one time, the Genitive case had an "i" in it, so it would've been "John", "John", "Johnis". You still occasionally see this in old place names. For example, the Spotswood hotel near here has embedded into its concrete "Spottiswoode".

People who prefer to avoid language history usually remember the apostrophe indication posessive as a secondary rule to the one about a letter being left out.

cAn YoU uNdErStAnD mE

[mschaffer]

?wHaT eLsE mAtTtErS

wat els mahturs?

doo yoo undurstand mee?

it mahkes sens tu mee

eye culled knot aghree moor with yoo.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[CaptainAvatar]

Interesting about the bed thing ... but even so, would peasants have been able to afford an elaborate four-poster bed with drapes on the top? I doubt it; they would have slept on their straw mattresses in the corner of their hovel. So it still may have signified wealth.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Icephreak1]

You use far too many commas.

- IP

Good read

[Hyronix]

There's a great book out there that I just got finished with. Eats, Shoots, and Leaves Here's a brief review ripped off Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/18619761 27/202-3943141-7985460) Book Description Everyone knows the basics of punctuation, surely? Aren't we all taught at school how to use full stops, commas and question marks? And yet we see ignorance and indifference everywhere. "Its Summer!" says a sign that cries out for an apostrophe. "ANTIQUE,S," says another, bizarrely. "Pansy's ready", we learn to our considerable interest ("Is she?"), as we browse among the bedding plants. In Eats, Shoots & Leaves, Lynne Truss dares to say that, with our system of punctuation patently endangered, it is time to look at our commas and semicolons and see them for the wonderful and necessary things they are. If there are only pedants left who care, then so be it. "Sticklers unite" is her rallying cry. "You have nothing to lose but your sense of proportion--and arguably you didn't have much of that to begin with." This is a book for people who love punctuation and get upset about it. From the invention of the question mark in the time of Charlemagne to Sir Roger Casement "hanged on a comma"; from George Orwell shunning the semicolon to Peter Cook saying Nevile Shute's three dots made him feel all funny", this book makes a powerful case for the preservation of a system of printing conventions that is much too subtle to be mucked about with. Make you want to buy it yet? ;)

Not Twain

[Frankie70]

This was actually by M.J. Shields, not Mark Twain.

http://www.ojohaven.com/fun/spelling.html

Re:Not Twain

[rlbond86]

Actually, they're not sure who wrote it. It was either Twain, or it was Shields in a letter to Twain. See note 1 here.

For added fun, see note 2 as well.

Re: Racist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people just odon't care about doing well by white folks, so who are you to say that you set the standard?

Well, they do have that choice. And I knew plenty of people in high school that pursued that path. They spent all their time in the bathrooms shooting dice and spending money on "bling bling" - typically gold chains with models of firearms. And running up and down the halls screaming about how much pussy they got. And yes, this is not heresay; this is what I've personally witnessed.

And today, the odds are that they are on welfare or in jail.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[egarland]

This is why web browsers need a tag.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[CaptainAvatar]

Hey ... you sound like you know what you're talking about. No fair.

but of curse

[etzel]

Mispelling denotes a lack of college education. Grammar errors denote real ignorance/stupidity. Ain't nobody messing with you, but you.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[RackinFrackin]

C isn't useless--it does the work of both s and k, so I say get rid of s and k instead. That way we still have the ch sound. Sure, we lose sh, but we can use t to get that sound, like in "ratio".

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[korielgraculus]

The problem is that spelling is completely arbitrary. America obsessed about spelling in post-colonial times and came up with standard dictionaries. Britain didn't care.

Unless of course you count Dr. Johnson's dictionary of 1755 (or 21 years before post-colonial times started).

You might be a redneck...

[Reziac]

... if when someone reads your post, their first thought is "Didn't Jeff Foxworthy once say that?"

Seriously, that's a good point. The "accent" someone writes with is indeed how we as readers will come to believe they'd sound in person, since that is the ONLY point of reference we have. (At least until text-to-speech software gets somewhat more sophisticated. Tho I'm not so sure I want to actually *hear* 1337speak... it's liable to make my ears bleed.)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Stauf]

Just to clear this up, the general rule is actually "When you leave a letter out, put in an apostrophe".

Yes, sorry, this is true.

Where I said 'It does seem to break the general rule of "an apostrophe indicates possession"', I should have written 'It does seem to break the general rule where possession is indicated with an apostrophe'.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Dun Malg]

If you appreciate logic in a language, explore German sometime.

HAH! exactly what is logical about the semi-random assignment of gender to nouns (die-das-der)?
The Tale of the Fishwife and its Sad Fate:(as literally translated into English)

"It is a bleak Day. Hear the Rain, how he pours, and the Hail, how he rattles; and see the Snow, how he drifts along, and of the Mud, how deep he is! Ah the poor Fishwife, it is stuck fast in the Mire; it has dropped its Basket of Fishes; and its Hands have been cut by the Scales as it seized some of the falling Creatures; and one Scale has even got into its Eye, and it cannot get her out. It opens its Mouth to cry for Help; but if any Sound comes out of him, alas he is drowned by the raging of the Storm. And now a Tomcat has got one of the Fishes and she will surely escape with him. No, she bites off a Fin, she holds her in her Mouth -- will she swallow her? No, the Fishwife's brave Mother-dog deserts his Puppies and rescues the Fin -- which he eats, himself, as his Reward. O, horror, the Lightning has struck the Fish-basket; he sets him on Fire; see the Flame, how she licks the doomed Utensil with her red and angry Tongue; now she attacks the helpless Fishwife's Foot -- she burns him up, all but the big Toe, and even she is partly consumed; and still she spreads, still she waves her fiery Tongues; she attacks the Fishwife's Leg and destroys it; she attacks its Hand and destroys her also; she attacks the Fishwife's Leg and destroys her also; she attacks its Body and consumes him; she wreathes herself about its Heart and it is consumed; next about its Breast, and in a Moment she is a Cinder; now she reaches its Neck -- he goes; now its Chin -- it goes; now its Nose -- she goes. In another Moment, except Help come, the Fishwife will be no more. Time presses -- is there none to succor and save? Yes! Joy, joy, with flying Feet the she-Englishwoman comes! But alas, the generous she-Female is too late: where now is the fated Fishwife? It has ceased from its Sufferings, it has gone to a better Land; all that is left of it for its loved Ones to lament over, is this poor smoldering Ash-heap. Ah, woeful, woeful Ash-heap! Let us take him up tenderly, reverently, upon the lowly Shovel, and bear him to his long Rest, with the Prayer that when he rises again it will be a Realm where he will have one good square responsible Sex, and have it all to himself, instead of having a mangy lot of assorted Sexes scattered all over him in Spots."
-Mark Twain

For the full laundry list of the difficulties of the German language see The Awful German Language, by Mark Twain

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Churchill really said "because because"?

Hmph.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[gnarlin]

English eh? Is that a compiled or interpreted language? Can it be compiled into bytecode? Who's the lead developer? Google gave me very mixed results. No HOWTO or sourceforge link. This can't be a very widespread thing.
Maybe I'll give english a go after it goes out of alpha. Then we'll see.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Tom Christiansen]

"Should", "Could" and "Would" don't have ANY tense.

That's not wholly accurate. Witness:

• Today, I can ride my bike to work, but won't.
• Yesterday, I could ride my bike to work, but didn't.

You can't use the defective verb can in the past, for could is the past of can. Therefore, could does indeed have tense. However, as a modal auxiliary, its defectiveness makes it behave differently than how normal verbs behave.

--tom

Slpenilg

[RazboiniKSS]

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad that made sense to you at whatever level it did, in spite of your total lack of common sense. Post when you've grown up.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[StikyPad]

...interesting than what you have to say now (that, after all, is why they have been preserved.)

Parenthetical parts of sentences should be avoided (when possible), but when used should be punctuated outside of the parentheses. (Only entirely parenthetical sentences are punctuated within the parentheses.)

...they have adopted the phrase, without understanding it, in hopes that by emulating better writing, their own will be more favourably received.

Exessive use of commas can actually cloud the intended meaning of the sentence. "Without understanding it," is correctly contained within commas as it is outside the main idea of the sentence, however the need for a comma between writing and their is debatable. Commas are not the punctuation equivelant of a pause and should generally be accompanied by a conjunction, although it is not necessary to use a comma with every conjunction.

Also contractions should only be used in dialog.

My point was not to actually correct your errors, but to demonstrate that it's possible to take anything too far. Even rules are not absolute. For example, using non-contracted forms of words tends to put extra emphasis on the unshortened words, which may not be the author's intent. I make a conscious effort to obey as many rules of grammar as I can remember. I try to spell words to the best of my knowledge and look them up when I'm uncertain, but at some point I have to strike a balance between the effort required for perfect writing and the importance of what I'm writing. Perfection is a good goal, but when the need for perfection becomes an interferance, it's probably time to reevaluate your priorities.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[syukton]

Everyone can totally bastardize the English language just as long as all the other English speakers can read it? What if the meaning isn't clear to others, though? What about the non-English speakers who make use of babelfish? How often do bad spelling and grammar prevent the exchange of information across language boundaries because those using the source language (English) just straight-up don't know how to use it?

I'll put it to you this way: you've got a programmer who can read Cobol and can code in straight ANSI C. You tell him "Port this app that no longer compiles and runs" and he can, as long as the Cobol is syntactically correct. If it isn't syntactically correct, then you don't get your app ported. Who do you blame? The eighth grader that wrote the Cobol app poorly in the first place.

In short: you can only translate one-for-one when your source material is syntactically valid. English is not the only language on the planet, but it can be translated to and from other languages, assuming that the source language is syntactically valid.

Doing English by the rules isn't just about making the person you're interacting with today understand you now. It's about language standing up to the test of time. It's about 20 years from now, some researcher with too much time on his hands, going through all the old slashdot archives to learn about the youth of the internet. He's going to think we're all idiots if all we're concerned with is understanding one another right now in this very moment. I mean, how narrow-minded and short-sighted is that, really? To think that these words we write which are recorded and unchangeable (slashdot's comment system doesn't allow editing) ... to think that these words have only meaning in the context of the current discussion and its current participants... Well, isn't that just the epitome of ignorance? Why would we preserve all of this if it were only pertinent to those participating in the discussion at that very instant? I guess this thought doesn't enter most peoples' minds.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[jonored]

Alternately, it seems reasonable to me to adopt a phenomic alphabet wherein the shape of a letter actually encodes the method of it's production during speech. As it is adopted, computers will become more capable of handling text (the majority of the features of a letter will be boolean in nature, lending themselves to expression as a five or six-bit word, padded out to eight to allow special characters), and there will be much rejoicing in the camps of the LOTR geeks as the new letters (which happens to be the translation of "tengwar") spread through the world and increase the general level of sanity.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[StikyPad]

...like missing the C in excessive. :)

Re:Source: Mark Twain

[the way, what're you]

Very good! You must have read all the way to the bottom of the post, where it was signed "-Mark Twain."

Hmm... Didn't I hear that he'd died?

When I was but a strapping young lad, I heard some sad news on talk radio - writer, humorist, journalist and lecturer Mark Twain was found dead in his Connecticut home one morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community misses him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[coopex]

Whoa..., you mean people in the future will *actually* read the Constitution?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

> All four are pronounced completely different.

Excuse me, but:
All four are pronounced completely differentLY.

Different is an adjective, and modifies nouns. The verb pronounce is not a noun, clearly. It is a verb. Therefore, one uses an adverb: DifferentLY .

The reason for grammer and spelling errors...

[Michael Snoswell]

It's important to determine why someone makes spelling, grammer and syntax errors. Indeed, their very choice of words and sentence construction (even if correct English) tells us a lot.

People make errors for many reasons, including:

1. They are in a rush and content is more important than correctness.
2. They do it on purpose in rebellion against perceived authoritarian figures (from their childhood etc).
3. They want to make a specific point or joke (eg referencing "pr0n").
4. They don't know any better.
5. They didn't notice the mistakes (for some reason at that time) though normally they would.
6. They don't really care about producing correct written English.

I'm sure there are other reasons. Without a doubt I'm sure most readers make value judgements regarding the writer based on their sentence structure, choice of words, punctuation etc.

I'm equally sure many readers of Slashdot feel they shouldn't be judged on their writing style. However, the truth in the world is the "face" you present to people really is all they have to go on to determine in some way what the writer is like as a person.

In a scientific journal one does not try to read between the lines (usually) to determine what sort of person the writer is like (unlike there is something unusual about the text).

On Slashdot, many of the posts are opinion related. Many are also purely about technical issues, though most, even if by relation to other posts, hold valuable content regarding the writer. For example, earlier posts regarding the 128k Apple Mac were gleefully given by people who used them. Readers would immediately think about how old that person was and that changes how we process the rest of a post - even if the content is technical. Or a technical point refuting an earlier technical point, depending on it's conciseness and thoroughness might cause the reader to decide the latter writer knew what he was talking about and is more experienced and is to be respected. If the second post has poor grammer and spelling errors then we might tend to question their authority in this area.

This is just human nature.

There are always times we wish we'd written things differently before hittimg "Submit". Likewise the world is full of so many different people it's hard to determine how you will be interpreted some times. However, it's a good general rule of thumb to assume you will be judged on how you write, just as you're likely to be judged in real life on how you dress, walk, speak, groom etc. It'd be nice at times if life wasn't like that but it is.

My own personal pet peeve is when people add "already" at the end of a sentence. This is a recent US trend that was spread largely by the scriptwriters of "Friends". In most cases it adds no extra meaning or content. It does however identify the writer as a fan of "Friends" or perhaps easily influenced by recent cultural trends. But then, that's my personal judgement and shouldn't influence what you write! Of course, I'm sure people reading this post will put make all sorts of value judgements about me - but then, that'll just prove my point :-)

Think grammar isn't important? Read this.

[Icephreak1]

Why grammar is important can be summed up in a sign I once saw attached to a shirt rack in a clothing store:

Today only $19.99

Most people would fail to see the syntactical subtlety in that sentence, but if I turned that comma-less sentence into this:

Today, only $19.99

Suddenly the sale I might have previously thought was supposed to last a single day, logically (and legally) becomes an everyday special. Even if you tried to sue the store for false advertisement, you couldn't.

How about this one?

Today only, $19.99

Rest assured, if that's what the sign said on Monday and you returned the following day and saw that shirt still advertised for $19.99, you'd have a mighty strong case in court. False advertising? Hell yes!

So, as you can see, the sign with no comma introduces a logical (temporal) ambiguity. The perceptive person immediately asks himself what the truth is -- will he lose out on a fantastic deal if he comes back tomorrow or not?

So there you have it. Grammar is important. It's so important in fact, that if you don't know your head from your ass regarding grammar, you could potentially get hoodwinked by someone that does.

- IP

--
This public announcement has been brought to you by a highschool dropout that failed every English course he ever took, because he was too damn smart to care.

Poor spelling is essential to poor communication.

[crovira]

If I couldn't use email and IM, people might know EXACTLY what I was saying and they might be able to focus on the problem at hand.

I am a consultant and I make a damn good piece of change on the fact that people don't realize that, while I do know exactly what I am about, they don't have a clue, nor do they the means to buy one.

Its the same old profitable problem of "I think you believe you understand what you heard but you can't know that what I said was not what I meant."

They are like babes in the woods; naked and helpless. People like that are easy to manipulate and deceive. They are unable to formulate thoughts and defenseless against blather.

The beauty of jargon, TLAs and obfuscating verbiage is that my billings DON'T STOP.

I worked with one man whose command of the written word was nil. He thought he was an 'inspiring, motivational speaker' because he couldn't formulate a thought that you didn't have to flesh out from your own experience. (He was an Israeli and at least had that as an excuse.) But he was a CEO.

I worked for one man who taught me everything I know about optimization. He would review code and could shift things around to shave off a millisecond. But his specification for a cost-of-gods-sold system was a sheet of paper covered with two crudely drawn file symbols and a box in the middle. (I quit after I kept coming up with totals that were off by $120,000 and he kept telling me that my system must be in error. I KNEW it wasn't. A week later I ran into the daughter of someone who turned out to be his bookie. He was into her father about 120 large. I laugh now but I was supremely pissed at the time. My system worked to the penny and had detected his fraud.) He ran an IT department.

I worked for another man who suffered from the same disease but different reasons. (For him putting a coherent sentence together on paper was a traumatic experience [Not quite as traumatic as my having to read it though.]) But he was a project manager.

I worked for one woman who believed in the Socratic model of education and NEVER whote ANYTHING DOWN. Then whenever something happened, it was never her fault. It was because her crew hadn't been listening. But she was a project manager.

When people of this caliber try to put together a spec, the resuts are hilarious, and very profitable for me.

The illescribate are fun to watch.

Oh, by the way, computers are extremely tolerant of bad ideas, poor designs, lousy analyses, buggy implementation and everything else that can 'compile cleanly' and yield utter crap.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Johnny Mnemonic]

I disagree, vehemently. That means strongly, and hopefully it always will, so that a few hundred years from now someone reading this thread will still be able to understand most of what we were talking about.

You may be interested to know that "literally" is shifting meaning--it no longer always means "exactly"; it can sometimes mean "I mean the statement intensely, although it is not an actual depiction." There is an interesting note on this phenomenon at dictionary.com

semicolon use

[bazabba]

'should have'; and I even see the names of products and companies misspelled from time to time.

Is the conjunction needed after the semicolon? I'm inclined to say no, but there might be some obscure rule of which I am unaware.

They don't understand the problem

[jcorno]

I'm seeing a pretty consistent pattern among the anti-English crowd. Most seem to think that as long as you can understand what the word was supposed be, they were close enough. The problem with that argument is that we don't read phonetically. In spite of what elementary school teachers and Hooked on Phonics comercials may tell you, we read by memorization. On top of that, we don't read one word at a time. When you come across a misspelled word, it trips you up; it's like slipping badly aligned frames into some animation. One mistake is probably not a big deal, but when there are several, it can completely throw your train of thought. That's when you start really paying attention and notice you're reading something written by an idiot. I remember the 'tards that couldn't pass the spelling tests, and they didn't have much to say that was worth listening to.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

They are not saying "Should have", they are not saying "Should've". They are saying "Should of".

I don't believe you, but then, I haven't heard everyone in the world speak.

I have never met a single person who says "shood ohv", only "shoodiv". The spelling "should of" only comes from basic ignorance of how to translate what they want to say into written form, not because they "really think" they are saying two words. It's like when someone tries to spell a word they've only heard and never read; they don't really THINK they're saying "rediculous", they're just lacking the basic information to write it correctly.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[SeventyBang]

of who your English teacher was

whom

who is nominative case. of who simply does not work in the English language.

Re:You are so wrong, grammer is not important.

[Dread_ed]

Racism and elitism are exemplified by saying that people of other races/classes cannot be expected to speak and write correct English.

It is saying they are too weak to help themselves, as we have to change the standards to accommodate them. You create a distinction where there is not one. I reject this notion, as it is the basis for the problems, IMHO, that you try to point out in your last paragraph.

Remember that language is the BASIS OF ALL THOUGHT. If your language skills suffer you will suffer from a dearth of thought ability. This means that without proper language mastery there are thoughts that you cannot have. Think about that and realize that this is the most effective and insidious form of oppression that is possible, essentially short-circuiting the ability of an individual to access whole realms of thought and therefore action.

Saying that it is elitist or racist to teach children to have coherent thoughts and be able to express them is such a malformed and abhorrent idea that I cannot comprehend how someone can think it. NOT expecting this from children, not enforcing this in children, is robbing them of the guidance that should help them in lieu of the mature volition that they will (hopefully) one day possess. Not teaching this respect for language and the proper expression of it sabotages their understanding of the importance of language and prepares them for a half-life where they are constantly pigeonholed, judged, and relegated to the nether regions of society.

Recently, Bill Cosby has castigated the black community for having just the kind of thought patterns that you have expressed here. He charges that thinking like this leads to the continued oppression of an entire culture/community of people in the USA, not from outside that community, but from within.

If you have ever seen the movie "Malcolm X" you might remember a scene where Malcolm is in prison and starts to study the dictionary under the tutelage of his Muslim mentor. This was the beginning of his self-education that was the basis of his liberation, not from the prison of walls around him, but from the prison of his mind that was constructed of his own ignorance. Furthermore, regardless of your views on his politics and methods, the results of his mental emancipation are clear and undeniable. He could not have even conceived of the things he did later in life without this clarity of thought engendered by his intellectual renaissance, much less developed the rationale, conviction, and motivation to lead others in the same path.

The language that you use is the hallmark of your mind and the only thing that most people in your life will be able to use to judge you. Your understanding, mastery, and expression of language is also the currency of thought, and the basis for building the mental constructs that allow an individual to liberate themselves from the trappings of their status quo and become the sole engineer their future.

To ignore one facet of language renders it worthless. In someone who ignores different aspects of language in the same way, it can enforce the worthlessness of that individual to society, regardless of his or her potential character and ability.

The fact that you do not think this is important and then try to blame the convenient scapegoat of those who you see as occupying a higher social class or specific racial background (even sinking so low as to compare them to the FRENCH! har har har) leads me to the conclusion that you have muddled the cognitive line between the authority of society to dictate its own norms and standards and the rare snobbery of base individuals. Whatever the reason for this, the result is that you look like someone who is, first and foremost, unimpressed with or antagonistic to a certain group of people and therefore rejects the characteristics that those people possess, regardless of the intrinsic value of those characteristics. Unfortunately this is also expressed in minority groups, some going so far as to reject

Two things:

[jcuervo]

One: some extremely talented programmers can't spell worth a damn. That "I'm a porgramer" shirt didn't just plop out of the eighth dimension. (You might want to read that last sentence twice.)

Two: I think it's hilariously ironic that this is coming from Slashdot. We aren't exactly /usr/share/dict/words around here. :P

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[brain159]

Alternatively, we could learn Chicken.

(link is to a plain, Safe For Work GIF - just in case the hosting server regards that link as being a leech-type deeplink you might need to copy+paste the URL)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to point out that it's generally confined to the American culture. The rest of the world uses correct grammar.

Re:Think grammar isn't important? Read this.

[bumptehjambox]

Don't forget how important it is to stress certain words in speech!

I didn't steal your money.
i DIDN'T steal your money.
i didn't STEAL your money.
i didn't steal YOUR money.
i didn't steal your MONEY.

There is a sign in a nearby boondock town that says, "GUN'S"
I really gotta get a picture, its a handpainted sign with 3 american flags surrounding it.
God bless the USA. =/

Spelling/grammar trolls

[flug]

Spelling/grammar trolls are always in bad taste.

The big reason we see so much more "bad" grammar/spelling now is because there is so much more informal writing now.

A lot of conversations that used to be held around the water cooler (a place not known as a font of High English Usage) are now held via email, IM, or bulletin boards.

In short, the problem may be more noticeable simply because we have more written record of it. But I'm not sure actual English usage is getting any worse. It's just that we are doing far, far more informal writing.

And is that necessarily a bad thing?

no...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do hackers and geeks just not care about communicating effectively? Do they not realize that a mediocre command of written English makes them appear less intelligent? Am I missing something here?"

No, it's cuz they're not as concerned with the delivery of the wording as they are the message. You get the point, what the hell does it matter how it's spelled?

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe. ceehiro.

See? You get the point.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[oscartheduck]

Are you honestly positing that language has to make sense?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[westendgirl]

I agree that "should've" is what most people mean. However, if you asked people how to spell this term, they'd repond with "should of". Having worked as a writer and editor for 12 years, I have seen countless documents with "should of". Since this still occurs in documents otherwise devoid of contractions, I believe most people think "should of" is the correct and common usage. I'm not sure they realize they have confused the term with the contraction.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since we're sharing, I want to add a problem I have with the English language.

Why the hell do we have these ridiculous names for groups of animals?

A gaggle of geese, a murder of crows, a flamewar of fanboys? Almost every animal gets its own collective noun, yet they're only ever used redundantly.
No-one says "Look at the gaggle!", they say "Look at the geese", or "look, a gaggle of geese". All the information you need is present when you use the name of the animal, the collective term is absolutely useless, but we spend hours educating children on these useless terms.
The one time it might be useful to distinguish between groups of animals (on a farm, to distinguish between cows, horses and sheep), we use the same fucking collective term of herd! It's insanity!

--
When did it become against the rules to post twice in fifteen fucking minutes?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Joska]

When I saw the correct usage of begging the question I nearly fell off my chair. If I'm not dreaming, then thank you for making my day with your very intelligent contribution.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[teece]

Oh, how cute. You don't buy it.

Knight was pronounced with a hard 'k' before the 'n,' and the 'gh' was a glottal sound like the 'ch' in German.

It is knicht of you know any German. And I don't care if you 'buy it', that's the way it was.

The original poster is pretty far off in his attempt at making a transliteration, but it is very well established fact that the word was pronounced with a hard 'k.' It was, at most, 2 syllables, though, and the 'g' was actually part of a digraph with 'gh' to make the equivalent noise that 'ch' makes in German.

(Hint: 'knight' is a germanic word. Knowledge is also, and according to the OED, does not share a root with gnosis. The etymology of 'knowledge' is complicated and the word is ancient (aryan), so several sound changes would have to be taken into account for the Greek-English relationship to be of use, if indeed there is a relationship)

I agree

[Andrevan]

I'm a bit of a spelling Nazi, and I can't stand it when people make errors like the ones you just pointed out.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Verity_Crux]

If only Mr. Twain would have tackled the problem of making the English language a parsable grammar.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[CDLI]

It does when "who" is not the object of "of." Hence, "I know nothing of who you are" but "I know nothing of whom you saw."

Re:Good hackers have excellent communication skill

[cduffy]

Are you really trying to say that those who aren't the community figureheads - that aren't frequently in the limelight, that aren't likely to be questioned by industry journalists, who's names aren't widespread, and that actually do much of their work quietly behind the scenes - may put slightly less emphasis on their self-presentation?

Why, no, I'm not.

I'm saying that the people who aren't the figureheads still tend to have excellent communication skills. Perhaps I should have left Linus out, thus giving more attention to James Yonan and Tom Lord -- or perhaps I should have named more of the folks (like Robert Collins) who are heavily involved in writing code for these projects without actually holding a maintainership role.

In any event, though, the people who are competant -- not only the maintainers themselves, but also the individuals who are trusted by them -- are people who think clearly and communicate clearly. The individuals who don't have those abilities tend not to be the ones who do important work behind the scenes, but merely the non-contributing userbase.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[teece]

Oops. 'gh' is not glottal but velar.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because in computer languages, rules are STRICT, no exceptions. In English, there are so many exceptions that if you were to make a rule book, the exceptions would be mojority of the "rule".

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Omerna]

Actually reminds me of a Mark Twain quote. I can't be bothered to look it up and see if that's true or not though. (And the English badly part was going the other way).

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

But then where is the komedy?
It's not to everyone's taste, but puns (vocalised) misspellings and misuses of grammer are (can be) funny and mentally interesting / enlightening.
BTW I'm (I'm not even going to try and spell this correctly) dislexic, and can still manage to read and write English and to enjoy the deep humour that accompanies it.
Don't get your knickers in a knot!

Have Fun
Jo

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Due to the nature of the conversation, I feel compelled to correct your otherwise very well-written and agreeable rant.

"Words are comprised of morphemes" should read either:
"Words are composed of morphemes"
or
"Words comprise morphemes."

This is one of the few errors that genuinely well-written and well-spoken individuals make.

(I [almost] ignore the tome mistake - that's clearly a typographical error).

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Stauf]

who is nominative case. of who simply does not work in the English language.

Bah, I know this - whom is ojective case and who should be used in cases where I or he would be appropriate. Therefore, "the man who cleaned my drains was at the house" (who is the subject of cleaned) and "of whom your English teacher was" (whom is the subject of was). Typo.

grammar and spelling doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

i am no native english speaker, but i know that 'i have no argument so i bash on your writing skills' people from german forums. me school days - and therefore my last german lessons - are over 'a few days' and i never was confronted with it as i am not a journalist or something.

i am really pissed off by people bashing on grammar and spelling, especially on people telling, that grammar and spelling makes someone appear less intelligent.

its not a matter of intelligence, its a matter of how much you had to do with it, to keep up your skills, or how long you are out of school (i bet that spelling bashers are still in school). grammar and spelling has nothing to do with intelligence. they are rules, made by mankind, without logic (especially the german rules: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/twain.german.h tml ;) ).

as long as the reader understands what i wanted to say, i would duyr ;lk eigh lkj a! ;)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[vettemph]

There in lies the problem. To many bending rules. make the friken rules and stick to 'em , otherwise don't ask me to stick to them. there are too many letter with the same sound, like f and ph, c and k. there are letters that sound different sometimes g (Jee) as in george can also sound the 'guh'as in gun. Not to mention A, E, I ,O, U "and sometimes y".
This is bullshit. put y in one category or the other AND LEAVE IT THERE. If English speaking folks are so smart and accurate then get rid of all the ambiguities. Stop with the bending rules, sometimes y, sometimes guh. AAHHHHHHH!!

Incomprehensible PHP Maintenance

[psychosystem]

I'm a perl hacker, and my first intro to PHP was in needing to maintain a very large and intricate system designed by an ex-employee of the company (never met her). Upon first glance at the code, the glaring mis-spellings were horrific! The most glaring was the use (in GET variables in the URL no less!!) of the word 'partician'.

The code she wrote was completely crazy. I've been going through the code and rewriting it bit by bit, and have been boggled by what I find. Things like if statements where all that's inclosed is a $var == 'something' statement (duh) followed by 10 more lines of code doing the same thing she was intending, but in a different way because the first way didn't do what she thought it would. The code is so spaghetti that I finally told my boss that the only real way to go was to tear it down and start from scratch.

As I stated I write perl, so I'm used to condensing things that in other languages might take 4 lines into 1 line of Perl and still having it be easily understood. In this case (and I'm not a good PHP coder quite yet) I usually take 50 lines of her code and make at most 5! It's really preposterous. Unfortunately I'm the only one that's masochistic enough to even touch the code...

And the most silly part of the story is that this person was the lead programmer at the company for a couple of years! We've since re-educated the boss that she was totally incompetant and to completely disregard anything she ever told him, since she would consistently blow smoke up his @$$ whenever she did not know how to accomplish a given task, and apparently the use of a search engine was beyond her grasp....

Enough venting.

Nerds / Grammar Nazis.

[serial_crusher]

It's always been my impression that geeks are the ones who tend to notice and point out these grammatical errors. I've seen a serious trend of less technical people making mistakes because they're not trained to discern the difference. If they say "should of" out loud, it sounds the same as "should have", so it's all good. WE, however, pay attention to details.

I've come up with a few theories to explain this:
1) Auto Correct: Word automatically changes recieved to received. People get used to typing the keys in that order and don't realize they're apelling it wrong.

2) Telephones: Long ago, written communication was much more crucial. With no telephones, the only way to communicate was to write letters. Once we hit the telephone, most communication was carried out orally for quite some time. People got used to hearing certain phrases through the noise of American accents. "Should have" and "should of" sound the same, so they made those same sounds. Once the internet took off, we were thrust back into a textual medium, and many people chose to assume things. (I could draw an interesting corrolary to the original development of written English.)

Hell, I used to think that "for all intents and purposes" was "for all intensive purposes." Just caught that one about a week ago.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[vettemph]

bell end.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[rolofft]

What a perfect response for the spelling bee protesters.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I should of stayed" is a sentence without a verb, therefore without sense.

????

stay
v.
stayed, staying, stays
v. intr.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[teece]

That's stupid because 100/3 != 33, it's completely incorrect

It never ceases to amaze me how many people don't understand linguistics at all, yet feel fully comfortable arguing what's "right" like this. (And they get modded up for it!)

You can make a logical proof as to why 100/3 = 33.33..., so you can make a very good case that anything else is wrong.

Here's a little thought exercise for you: make the same kind of proof to show that "should of" is wrong.

Guess what? You're going to have no choice but make the fallacy of argument by authority. You're going to have to say that "should of" is wrong because X says so, for whatever definition of X you want to use.

And that's the point you need to learn about language: it is arbitrary. Wholly arbitrary. It is not math. It is only an agreed upon convention. What you will find is that the convention that is agreed upon changes, and it changes by little mistakes like this being made.

That's language. It doesn't really matter whether you like it or not.

At the end of the day you are arguing over whether the whale is singing his song correctly.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[poopdeville]

Acutally, noncommittal has two definitions:

1 : giving no clear indication of attitude or feeling
2 : having no clear or distinctive character

the second of which applies to software. You're right when you say that apps don't "commit," but that doesn't mean they can't be committed by their designers. (Which is to say, "commit" is both a transitive and intransitive verb.) And if a software's designer does not commit it to something, it is uncommitted. Once all of this is understood, we can rephrase Steve Jobs' comment as saying that the software was not committed by design to a particular choice in operating system.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[LoztInSpace]

I agree and it's important when dealing in a strongly defined document such as a functional specification. In these cases it can make a huge difference as to which you use. MS Word's auto correction of i.e. to I.e. shits me too.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet he's never heard that one before.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[AyeRoxor!]

Have you fuckers ever heard of dictionary.com? Every time I see a post on the internet with "(sp? tee hee)" I just shake my head in awe. In chat, okay, don't pause to look it up. But you're about to make an indelible mark that says more about you than you apparently care to realize. If you OUTRIGHT KNOW that you're unsure of a spelling, LOOK IT UP!!!!! ITS FREE!!!!

Reminds me of how difficult it was to lear JAVA

[fyrie]

HEYOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[teece]

You are absolutely correct that language evolves. However, you can't honestly claim that substituting "of" for "have" in any of the above examples is sensible, readable english because 'of' is a preposition. It might be acceptable in speech from the slurring of "should've" but that does not make it grammatically correct.

You came so close! And then you shot yourself in the foot.

Language evolves. When it does so, what "grammatically correct" means also evolves. It is entirely possible, even probable, that at some point in the future "should of" will be grammatically correct.

After all, grammatically correct means whatever we want it to mean. One just has to decide that 'of' is now also an auxiliary verb, as well as a preposition. Once most people decide it is (which many already have), it becomes grammatically correct.

The importance of capitals

[Antonov]

First, if you find any spelling mistakes or grammatical errors, it's because English is not my native language (it's my third foreign language after German and French).
In German, I've noticed a tendency to write everything in lower case. Nouns, however, should always be wirtten in capitals. If you know a little bit of German, you'll enjoy the following examples:

Die Spinnen!
Die spinnen!

Warum sind füllige Frauen gut zu Vögeln?
Warum sind füllige Frauen gut zu vögeln?

Er hatte liebe Genossen.
Er hatte Liebe genossen.

Wäre er doch nur Dichter!
Wäre er doch nur dichter!

Sich brüsten und anderem zuwenden.
Sich Brüsten und anderem zuwenden.

Die nackte Sucht zu quälen.
Die Nackte sucht zu quälen.

Sie konnte geschickt Blasen und Glieder behandeln.
Sie konnte geschickt blasen und Glieder behandeln.

Der Gefangene floh.
Der gefangene Floh.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[mesach]

That's EXACTLY why I brought it up. I know it has long been a point of contention within the Slashdot crowd.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[teece]

"Common Usage"

You keep a saying that phrase. I no think it means what you think it means (in Inigo Montoya voice).

If a lot of people use "should of" it is common usage, it doesn't matter if its derivation is apocryphal or whether not you like it or whether or not it is accepted academic or professional usage.

Common usage means exactly what it sounds like it means: usage that is common.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're just old. So you haven't been able to keep up with the slang and are feeling left out.

Does that mean that you think "alot" is slang? Then does "awhile" fit into that category? And the apparently random interchange of there, their, they're -- is this also slang? The alternate spelling of "definite"; slang also? Am I failing to keep up with things if I insist on spelling "inifinite" rather than "infinate"?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[CDLI]

You're right, except that the verb to be doesn't actually take an object like that. This is why "I am he" is correct and "I am him" is incorrect. It is also why "of who your English teacher was" is correct. If that were almost any other verb, "whom" would be correct, but as it is, "who" is correct.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[vettemph]

> It breaks the flow of the discussion

After all, what's more important than "frist post!"

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Stauf]

There in lies the problem. To many bending rules. make the friken rules and stick to 'em , otherwise don't ask me to stick to them.

The rule is "an apostrophe indicates a contraction". The exception is "an apostrophe can also indicate possession".

On the specific subject of "it":

• We have three words; "he", "she" and "it".
• We use the words "his", "hers" and "its" to indicate things that "he", "she" or "it" has.
• We abbreviate "he is", "she is" and "it is" to "he's", "she's" and "it's"
• When we're talking about specific things, by name, we use the apostrophe to indicate possession - "Jack's arm", "The cow's leg"

So, the rule boils down to simply this: When dealing with something by name, use 's to indicate possession. When not dealing with by name use the words "his", "hers" or "its".

Obviously, I'm simplifying, but hopefully this clears it all up.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Capsaicin]

I've always found it intriguing that a programmer who could master several arcane computer languages (especially since computers are notably intolerant of errors), could fail so utterly to master his own native human language.

Might this not be the crux of the problem? If the immediate feedback a compiler supplies in response to such an error becomes your usual learning model, a lack proficiency in the use of human languages mjay not be all that surprising?

Unlike C...

[illumina us]

Unlike C, and various other languages, English does not appear to be a syntax whore. Ergo, I may say something to the tune of "can I use the restroom" instead of "may I use the restroom," and my message will still be clearly understood.

We spend enough time staring at computer screens and getting yelled at for improper syntax used on a daily basis. Why can't we have a break when communicating with human beings? Improper syntax usage still effectively communicates the message. After all, communicating is the only reason *any* language exists.

Re:Unlike C...

[cpghost]

Unlike C, and various other languages, English does not appear to be a syntax whore.

English is neither a compiled nor an interpreted language... If it were so, NLP (natural language processing) would've been a solved problem long time ago.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Stauf]

Heh, so you're saying I was correct by reason of typo?

I'm sure theres something deep, meaningful and on-topic to gain from this, but I'll be damned if I can think of anything.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Kafir]

A person who can't be bothered to learn the simple basics of their mother tongue is a person who's lazy and self-involved.

My spelling and grammar are excellent, and I'm still lazy and self-involved.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

With its odd mix of Latin and Anglo-Saxon words

By the same token, you can witness the rich history of the English language in its orthography. Many western languages have had some form of spelling reform or some sort of acadamy making sure "the language is pronounced just as it is spelled" (ie, a phonetic alphabet).

The printing press really slowed down language evolution. English itself was in the middle of a rather severe change at the time of Gutenberg. Because English standardised at that point, we are able to figure out how people spoke, say, in Chaucer's time, or just after William the Conqueror arrived in England. This understanding, in turn, helps us figure out how other languages, and language in general evolve (not to mention societies).

This, in turn, gives people like Chomsky something to do, which contributes to the evolution of computer languages.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[teece]

You need to be extremely careful about this kind of black-or-white thinking.

Some very bright people don't have the chance to learn 'academic' English. It doesn't mean they are stupid or lazy (it might, but it does not necessitate that). One's dialect will tell you something about that person's education. It most certainly will NOT tell you anything about their character.

Put it another way: the Latin you read today was not the 'vulgar' Latin, it was the elite Latin. One was a dialect for the intellectuals, and one was a dialect for the common folks. But the reality is, both were equally as expressive as a language.

That's reality. The ebonics dialect that so many people like to ridicule? It is 100% as expressive as Shakespeare's English. Picking one over the other as "good" is arbitrary and it's about things well beyond the scope of language.

Judging from the tone of your post, you will think I am full of shit, I suspect. But what I am telling you is reality, whether you like it or not. You'd understand if you lived in 13-14C England, when English was the talk of gutter trash, and French was the language of intellectuals, that's for sure. That's a more stark example, but the dynamic at work is exactly the same today.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Psycho_pr]

you have cut yourself off from the writings of earlier generations; writings that in many cases are more interesting than what you have to say now (that, after all, is why they have been preserved.)

Although your whole post makes an excellent argument, I can't say I agree with you on thatone.
I can give you numerous reasons why writings of earlier generations have been preserved. One is that in older generations fewer people knew how to read and write, and so the ones that did, got their work cannonized.
Second is that back then a culture of preservation prevaled where as today we disregard most of our writers.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[wolja]

And of course the difficulty in determining if Jack's is possessive or contractive is intransigent.

English is an expression of ones thoughts and desires . Grammar is the girdle that constrains but enhances understandability.

Lossening the girdle while retaining a modicum of inter-comprehension is not a bad thing.

ie, Their car is a ferraris is immediately understandable if grammatically incorrect.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you forget that associations made between intelligence and definitions of what "sloppy" speech is are just as informed by culture as they are by brain wiring. For example, avant-guard jazz is modal by nature, thus making it awkward by western ears. How ever, modal music's complexity comes from it's lack of establishment to western(tonal) rules. It appears more complex because it is not tied to our cultural ideas of what is the "correct" note. Not everyone is a relativist and that is fine, but it must be acknowledged that cultural changes bring about change in what is normal anything...including language. Language changes or stays the same, not because there is a best way to do it, but because it needs to change given the context.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Programming is easy, structured. English is confusing. It seems that in english you have to memorize a million individual cases, whereas in programming you get the basic syntax and everything else follows. Also, in programming there is also a compiler to tell you when you've messed up. I guess this is similar to a spell check for English, however, when you are finished writing your program you can run it to make sure it does what you want.

Also, as programmers, or maybe just in general, we spend too little time reading. Who knows the difference between 'could of' and 'could have' if you don't reat it. They sound more or less the same if you say it fast enough.

I've also heard from several more liberal university professors that spelling and grammar are irrelivant as long as your point is made. Maybe this is the prevailing attitude in our culture. The problem comes when inattention to the details leads to ambiguity.

Anyway, I suppose I'm not one to talk. My spelling and grammar are, generally, pretty terrible. It's definitely not something I'm proud of, but it is something I've yet had little motivation to change. Spell check has made me pretty lazy, and I've learned to catch at least my most prevelant gramatical errors. In addition, if I there is something in which I feel my grammar is especially important I can always get someone to proof read it for me.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[macjim]

maybe it's because people rush submissions, and don't have the spelling check turned on in Safari?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Stankatz]

You're just anonymous and cowardly, Anonymous Coward.

Re:You are so wrong, grammer is not important.

[Anonymous Coward]

Goddamn snob.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[robolemon]

Sounds like as good a time as any to advertise one of my favorite newsgroups:

alt.possessive.its.has.no.apostrophe

Or if you don't have a good newsreader and server try the Google Groups link

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Buck2]

And 'interference'. :)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Everyone can totally bastardize the English language just as long as all the other English speakers can read it?

Yes. That seems fair to me. English is about transfer of meaning, not some great-pie-in-the-sky perfect language structure. In fact, if you really think it is, I don't think you really understand English at all- it's a total mutt of a language.

What if the meaning isn't clear to others, though?

That's rarely the case in my experience. Usually it's poor structuring of material that impedes that; not grammar and spelling. Spelling is practically never a problem; misspellings are usually phonetically close anyway. Grammar can occasionally make it hard to read, or even change the meaning; but mostly not.

What about the non-English speakers who make use of babelfish? How often do bad spelling and grammar prevent the exchange of information across language boundaries because those using the source language (English) just straight-up don't know how to use it?

Yeah right. Like Babelfish gets to dictate valid grammar. Like Babelfish understands even correct English enough to translate it. What colour is the sky in your world?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Stauf]

I agree, in part. But I think that the "it's" vs "its" thing is simply as a result of people not knowing what the word "its" means. Nothing about grammatical restraint or anything like that, just a lack of education.

I also believe that as long as spelling or grammar doesn't get in the way (i.e. as long as I, as the reader, do not have to spend my time translating your grammar and spelling) it really doesn't matter all that much.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[doubledoh]

I hope I'm not the only one here that realizes that Mark Twain was being satirical when he wrote that piece. It was a joke people! Our language, even with its inconsistancies, is awesome. It is also known to be the language that boasts the most words (mostly because we borrow so many words from other languages), but still. I love English. And I know it's rather imperialistic of me, but I do hope it becomes ubiquitous in the future so we can all talk with each other.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[mt-biker]

I try to use the rules, but if I understand you, what else matters?

TO MAKE A POINT, I'M WRITING THIS IN ALL CAPS. SOMETHING YOU WRITE SHOULD BE NOT ONLY UNDERSTANDABLE, BUT ALSO EASY TO UNDERSTAND. WHENEVER YOU WRITE IN A STYLE WHERE THE READER HAS TO WORK HARDER TO UNDERSTAND YOUR TEXT, YOU ARE REDUCING THE CLARITY OF YOUR MESSAGE. CLEAR? :)

More importantly, making your message clear is work that you should be doing yourself. In forcing your reader to do that work for you, you're showing a lack of respect for your reader.
There are cases (e.g. when you're chatting with your friends) where you can make your text deliberately informal, but there's a fine line between "informal" and "bad manners".
I moved to Germany several years ago, and the culture here stresses this much more to me (don't know if this "respect" idea would have even occurred to me before I moved here). For example, in german there's an informal ("Du") and a formal form ("Sie") of each verb. Trying to work out which form to use with which people is more complicated than learning the forms in the first place. :)

Aside: The german language normally capitalises all nouns, but some people I've met type all lower-case Emails. I guess it's supposed to be more casual, but since my German's not so good anyway, it hinders my understanding of the message (those capitals are actually pretty helpful in seeing the structure of a sentence), and I find it really annoying.

It's just morons

[blankslate]

It's worth noticing that the really influential geeks who write books, develop languages, and have a strong impact on others don't fall into this camp.
Just the (sub) average morons - guys who generally don't have much of a grip on more "technical" items either.

Communication is merely a vehicle

[RadioactivePorpoise]

to convey thoughts and ideas - if you got the message, there's really no point in criticizing the delivery. Looks and appearance may be important... or they may just be the elevator shoes that some people need to wear to make them feel like they are bigger than you.

Re:Communication is merely a vehicle

[ArseKicker]

I knew if I read (scanned) enough of these threads I would find someone arguing my point of view. This one was at the bottom when I posted this - I am sure there are thousands of other threads saying the exact same thing.

As long as you communicate effectivly thats what matters - if you have typos that end users see then that is embarrasment.

If you are talking typos in code comments - forget about it, it's a comment not a book - as long as you the programmer get what he's trying to do. And besides, you shouldn't be relying on the comment to find out what is going on - the code reads itself remember :)

Webster, lexicography and standardization

[westendgirl]

I believe you are incorrect about Webster giving birth to lexicography, although he made many important contributions. Many of the dictionaries that preceded Webster's included definitions, examples and etymologies. Samuel Johnson's Dictionary is perhaps one of the most famous examples. And, while I agree that the printing press facilitated standardization of spelling, the rise of mercantilism played a large role, too. People wanted to be sure they were getting what they ordered. Also, some people became evangelical about spelling as a means of achieving godliness and reforming society.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

In reality, "google" makes a perfectly lousy verb. First, if people continue to use "google" as a verb, Google potentially stands to lose its trademark. If you don't believe me, pick up a copy of Writer's Digest and look at all the ads companies place in the magazine strongly defending their trademarks, which is one of the most important legal standards in keeping a trademark. Just as Xerox encourages people to use "photocopy" as the verb form, I'd imagine Google, not to mention other search providers, would prefer us to use a different verb. By extension, eventually "googling Yahoo! for widgets," using your example, could become common usage, just as blowing one's nose with Puffs kleenex or xeroxing with a Toshiba copier is. The usage is sloppy and confusing. Second, your example of the replacement phrase for "google widgets" is poorly constructed. (I hope you've slanted the writing to make your point and don't actually write that way.) We have a perfectly good verb already for using Google or Alta Vista or Ask Jeeves. That verb is "search." One can very simply write or say "search for widgets," and most people would automatically turn to Google for their search needs. The verb "google," then, is unnecessary.

I'm all for writing concisely, but not at the expense of using language in a sloppy way.

Modern and Ottoman Turkish

[rolofft]

A good case study on this is Ottoman versus modern Turkish. Since Turkish was "modernized" in 1928, spelling and grammar are very straightforward and consistent. But written works of just 80 years ago can be incomprehensible. Imagine if you tried to read Calvin Coolidge's inaugural address of 1925, and it was like reading an ancient foreign language!

An interesting book that talks about the dynamic nature of language is John McWhorter's Power of Babel.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Sebastopol]

Morpheme?

"Cure for Pain" was an awesome album!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[klept]

yes I hartly agree. We should all speak the King's English. Besides that I have taken the oath to drink 3 glasses of milk a day, obey my mommy and daddy, and be kind to dumb animals, especially the 2 legged ones that I have to deal with every day.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Mornelithe]

That's rubbish. Most of the people on the internet who spew out constant spelling mistakes and poor grammar aren't doing so because they're geniuses. They're doing it because they're too lazy to be bothered to learn their own language well.

I can overlook a few mistakes, and if an argument is particularly compelling, I can overlook many. But you know, when I see a post here in which every other word has typos, and there are missing words all over the place and so on, I'm going to quite rightly stop reading it. It's not worth my time to try and decode it, and I don't care if you're using text-to-speech or "multitasking" or whatever.

If you want to communicate with people, then you should make an effort to try and do it decently. First impressions do count when you're one voice in thousands. The fact that this is all written, and you can't see who you're speaking two puts more emphasis on the construction of your argument, not less.

If you speak like a 5th grader, I'm going to assume you are a 5th grader, because in a lot of cases that's right. And don't tell me that's "racist" (what a bullshit, buzzword argument that is), or that I'm denying the opinion of geniuses (that's a cop out).

Go look at some posts on Slashdot, some time. Do a big random sampling, and then come back and tell me that the ones that are written better aren't generally the same ones that have more cogent arguments. The fact of the matter is, when someone puts something on the internet, and the writing is crap, then most of the time, so is the content. I don't have time to search through all that crap to find the diamond in the rough, so if you want me to take you seriously, then polish things up a little.

The human brain automatically generalizes about things. Trying to deny that is silly, and, quite frankly, I think it's ridiculous to compare placing value on good writing to racism at all, and I wouldn't be surprised if people who've been through the real thing would be insulted if you tried to make that argument in front of them.

Smart people know their grammar

[yason]

According to my observations, there seems to be a correlation between smart people who are good programmers and knowing their grammar. If somebody doesn't know how to write my native language (or English) correctly, I've learned to suspect their ability to produce simple and elegant source code as well.

Maybe it's just about being good at spotting, learning and applying patterns, both in thinking and languages.

Colleges in the US don't seem to care

[grahamsz]

My wife is in her final year of a degree program at one of the best rated schools in the state, yet her A grade papers are fairly poor.

I don't consider myself particularly anal about spelling and grammar (especially when i post on slashdot), but i'm surprised by what will get you an A.

I've also seen other people's contributions to group projects that conffirm that my wife's work is well above average.

In the tech field it pays to be able to clearly articulate your ideas. It's not easy to describe complex technical problems, and it's hard to work in a team without good communication.

I was educated in the UK where the English language is rarely taught well. What really opened my eyes was learning French. I had to learn about all the different verb tenses, breaking down the sentence structure, and it gave me an appreciation for just how difficult it can be to comprehend poorly structured prose.

While I rarely use my French now, and have forgotten much of it, it taught me more about English than anything else.

I LOL, BUT I NO GET IT

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds funny, but i'll be damned if i understood

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[MonkeyOfRage]

Only a fool would simply notice familiarity in the written language of Shakespeare and ignore the fact he has no clue of it's original meaning and connotation or the probability that half of it is NOT original but transliteration from a completely bizarre and archaic form of English.

I am one, sir, that comes to tell you your daughter and the Moor are now making the beast with two backs.

Maybe so, but I'm betting that meant EXACTLY the same thing 400 years ago.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Singletoned]

The content is what is important. I feel this is the wrong forum for your 'corrections' and 'suggestions.' It breaks the flow of the discussion. It has nothing to do with the topic being discussed, and makes you sound like a show off intellectual.

I think you meant pedant rather than intellectual. An intellectual likes to think about thinks; a pedant just likes to correct everyone all the time.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[h4rm0ny]

I just thought it was a funny quote from Churchill. I'm not even English.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[AhtirTano]

As a linguist, I feel I have to publicly disagree.

The problem with changing spellings is that the more we do it, the less the current generation can comprehend writings from the past.

This is a valid concern, but not an insurmountable one. We already change the spelling of things written just a couple hundred years ago. Take a look at a reproduction of the US Constitution or the letters of the founding fathers. Furthermore, English is the only major language of Europe that has not had a significant spelling reform in the past few centuries, but Germans still read Goethe and Spaniards still read Cervantes.

Isn't it nice that we can still read Shakespeare's works 400 years after they were published?

Another poster already pointed out that we do change the spelling of Shakespeare's work. Go to your local library and find a copy of a quarto or folio -- they can be very hard to read without practice. Heck, Shakespeare spelled is own name in a half dozen different ways, to say nothing of variations on long o (oo, oa, o-e) for the same word.

But writings just 200 years before that, such as Chaucer's, are very difficult to read because there wasn't a yet standardized language.

The problem in reading Chaucer is not just one of spelling. The phonology (sound system) of English during Chaucer's time was very different from that of Modern English. English underwent what is called the Great Vowel Shift, along with other changes. Shakespeare was in the middle of this major restructuring of English pronunciation. It wasn't just pronunciation, the entire grammar was restructured in many ways: the pronouns (eg, replacing 'thou-thee-thy' with 'you-your'), verb marking (eg, eliminating a y- prefix on past tense verbs), etc.

The reason there was no standardization during Chaucer's time, though, was because it was difficult for language to travel long distances.

The reason there was no standardization was that it was a completely foreign idea. The concept of having a standard language is a relatively recent one, and one that is not even universally accepted around the world. I work with a tribe that has the same word spelled two different ways on the walls of their church--they know they are different, but in their culture this doesn't matter.

Putting that aside, Great Britain was not too large for language standardization (of the sort you seem to be thinking of) at that time. Monarchs made all kinds of proclamations that were carried out across the island. If one had decided that there would be a single consistent spelling system to be used by all scribes and teachers, it would have happened.

But now that we have television, and the Internet, it would be a shame if we changed our language.

I don't really understand your point here. English was never consistent across its many regions before the invention of TV and the internet. Achieving the kind of consistency you seem to want would require massive changes to the way the language has been for all of recorded history. There has never, ever been a "Standard English" that everyone spoke or learned--there have always been regional differences, even standardized ones. To make a single Standard English for everyone might now be possible with our new forms of communication (actually, I doubt it), but to do this would require massive changes.

e. It would move us away from our cultural heritage linguistically.

Impossible to avoid due to the fundamental natures of language and culture.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Vicissidude]

We had a little revolution to get rid of the monarchy, so excuse us if we don't speak the "Queen's" English.

Sorry... Just had to remind you who you were talking to.

soosons innie Kaap praat

[mrselfdestrukt]

Man!
Djulle weetie waavan djulle praat nie, bru!
Jou ma man!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[h4rm0ny]

Well, I wish you'd finished the job - over here, we've still got the bastards.

Re:You are so wrong, grammer is not important.

[the_duke_of_hazzard]

People who think they are better than other people SUCK!

I presume you're aware of the irony of this...?

The Final Undisputable Word

[trisweb]

In the interest of including my voice in one of the most active /. discussions in recent memory...

It all comes down to this: Regardless of what you think, or how confident you are about yourself, or how much you think your writing doesn't matter, or how much you don't care about it, or how the language changes over time, people KNOW you by the way you write. It's one of the most revealing ways to really get into a person's mind and see who they are without even meeting them. Even if you disagree with that, everyone will do it to you, so if you want to be seen as intelligent, interesting, or knowledgable about whatever you're talking about, then you have to write well. Anyone who says otherwise is just making excuses.

It's even more important on the web -- the only thing people have to go off of is your writing. It tells them who you are, so make it be you, or you will be how you write to the world. Learn to accept it, and learn to write. No excuses.

Simply more pet peeves twisted into rules

[xPsi]

Often what people call English "rules" are simply "style guidelines", nothing more. This style thing can be taken to an extreme, going beyond the usual games played by grammar and spelling Nazis. I call it "How Modern Editing Practices Destroyed Expressive Writing." This occurs when people come to obsessively enforce their own style pet peeves more than real English rules. For example, even though we are often trained otherwise, it is perfectly ok to start sentences with "And" and end sentences with prepositions. The English language allows for this. In literature, it is ok to have sentence fragments framed as sentences (if it helps with the pacing). Fnord. I had English teachers tell me things like "never use 'it' to start a sentence unless 'it' refers back to something in particular that isn't tautological." For example, the sentence "It is a sunny day" is bad. Why? What does "it" refer to? Well, "day" I guess. So what you are really saying is "the day is a sunny day." Tautology. Just eliminate "it" and write, "the day is sunny." Perhaps this guideline is good style and leads to crisper prose, but is it incorrect? No, not technically. But for some, starting a sentence with "it" becomes a form of Santanism akin to using "should of" to mean "should have".

This obsession with arbitrary style rules can get quite obscene. Modern fiction editors, upon receiving a fresh manuscript, will often flip to an author's first dialog. If the author uses verbs or adverbs to describe exchanges, the entire manuscript is placed in jeopardy. Using such a style apparently shows heightened levels of amateurism that will not be tolerated. For example, "'Hi,' Bob said glibly" (thanks to the adverb "glibly") is right out. "'You are a grammar Nazi!' Eunice retorted" is considered amateurish (because of the verb "retorted"). In fact, adverbs in general are considered passe. As is the passive voice. All of these little "violations" can mean the difference between getting published and not. Ironically, some modern writing books actually use classics (like The Great Gadsby and Moby Dick, to name a couple) to demonstrate how not to write.

Once you start collecting little "rules" like this in your head, you start noticing violations more and thus become more obsessive about enforcing them, even if they are only arbitrary style issues. My advice is to chill. The English language is such a crazy, beautiful, and malleable system. And the essential rules are basically pretty easy. It seems a shame to try and asphyxiate it with arbitrary constraints.

Re:Good hackers have excellent communication skill

[SmittyTheBold]

So, it's merely concidence that those that get attention and credibility are those who are able to clearly communicate?

I think you're missing the point. It's not self-presentation; it's the ability to communicate ideas. If you can't send a message clearly, consisely, and reliably, nobody's going to listen. Think of the difference between a group of lobbyists presenting hard numbers to a fact-finding committee versus a group of nude protesters at a storefront. Yes, the protesers will get the press, but the well-reasoned argument might actually change opinion.

If you can't communicate your ideas, then your ideas hold effectively zero clout. The merit is merely secondary.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Thad Boyd]

Where I said 'It does seem to break the general rule of "an apostrophe indicates possession"', I should have written 'It does seem to break the general rule where possession is indicated with an apostrophe'.

No, you shouldn't have, because that's passive voice.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[syukton]

What I am saying is that babelfish gives more accurate translations when you provide it with valid source material. The translations aren't perfect, but they're even LESS perfect when the source material "is teh sux0r."

And right now the sky is a dark blue, almost black, speckled with tiny dots of white and yellow.

Help. I've been brainwashed

[xPsi]

While I can't claim my grammar, punctuation, and spelling are always perfect, I actually find it personally difficult to not at least try and follow the rules to the best of my ability. I find this to be the case for virtually all levels of my writing from formal papers, prose, personal journals, Slashdot posts, and both friendly and formal emails.

For example, I was once on a list where the moderator encouraged us to abbreviate words (copiously) and avoid capital letters. This was in an effort to be "efficient" and succinct. Initially, this basically made sense to me, so I tried this method for a post or two -- and it just drove me nuts. For me, it took more effort to avoid the rules than to just follow them. Since I do quite a bit of writing, my typing-trained hands instinctively reached for the shift key at the beginning of sentences, for a space after commas, and for a double space after semicolons and periods. Perhaps it's a sign I've been well brainwashed.

Nevertheless, I certainly don't look down on people who use informal post or email style in the right context. I actually admire the efficiency (assuming I know what they are talking about). However, that same carefree "efficient" style in a more formal setting just looks awkward and unprofessional.

That...

[mikeyo86]

Have you ever felt that that that that that person used was wrong?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[B.D.Mills]

It's more like someone took a freaking 12 gauge shotgun to my poor 21" SyncMaster!

That is why the analogy in the grandparent post is so apt. For some people it doesn't matter much, and for others, well it's like someone used a 12-gauge shotgun on a dictionary and grammar text.

what you're missing is that you're a jackass

[floodo1]

what you on your soapbox call "communicating effectively" the rest of us call "enforcing lame ass tradition". while you can make the argument that not using "proper" english may cause us to forget what "proper" english is, that isnt really much for exposing the alleged effectives of communicating via said english.

in simple terms, since when cant people understand the intent of "definately" or "shoud of"????????? humans are capable of understanding those to mean "definitely" and "should have". so where is the loss of effectiveness? where is the gain by using "proper" english?

but even that goes back to you being a vein asshole. "you <i>appear</i> to be <b>LESS</B> intelligent..." "my cock is bigger than yours! yes, that is right, it is ENORMOUS in comparison! good day sir!
seriously if someone understands your intent via your communication, how can you argue that communication style to be less effective?????????

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Stauf]

No, you shouldn't have, because that's passive voice.

No, actually, I shouldv'e said exactly that. Because use of the passive voice moves attention from the action, i.e. "It does seem to break the...", to the subject acted upon, i.e. "...the general rule of..", which is what I intended to do. Feel free to argue it wasn't effective, but don't assume that just because the passive voice is generally to be avoided that it doesn't have its uses.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[floodo1]

too badd know one knows that

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Should", "Could" and "Would" don't have ANY tense.

Actually, you're wrong. "Should" is the past tense of "shall", "could" the past tense of "can" and "would", the past tense of "will". Change the past for the present in your first example, and you'll see that the meaning doesn't really change.

Admittedly, the tense aspect of these only exist for conservative (usually older) speakers. Technially, they are verbs, though in modern usage, they function only as modal verbs, meaning that they set the mode or mood of the sentence in English (mood doesn't really exist in English).

As for your "have left, have turned, have read" examples, "have" is carrying the tense. In the second half of each sentence, "have" becomes "had", indicating further distance in the past. The "left, turned, read" are the participles.... they remain the same if the auxilliary is "have" or "had".

You make some valid points, though.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[mcn]

What about in a conversation?

I am quite disturbed whenever someone uses "i.e." during a conversation and pronounce it literally as "i.e." (eye yee) rather than "that is", and worse, he uses many "eye yees" when talking. I have heard senior management staff doing that in opening addresses or in conversation with employees.

I think pronouncing "that is" in conversation is more correct.

Re: Racist?

[Anonymous Coward]

They spent all their time ... running up and down the halls screaming about how much pussy they got. ... And today, the odds are that they are on welfare or in jail.

And still, as much as I'm ashamed to admit it, I wish I'd had so much pussy as they have, even for the price of what they get now.

-- A typical Slashdot Reader.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Stauf]

too badd know one knows that

It doesn't matter who knows it, it works. Consider the difference between "John added a litre of water to the container" and "A litre of water was added to the container by John".

In the first sentence, the important part is "John added...", you are describing what John is doing. In the second sentence, the important part is "A litre of water was added...", you are describing what happened. You know, consciously or unconsciously, which part is important because it was the part that was first.

You don't need to be aware of every linguistical construct in order for them to be effective.

spelling

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi,

I am surprised that that the idea that you can be technically sciled but not good at English as not come up there are a number of learning disabilities such as dyslexia that could manifest them selves in this way.

I am very dyslexic I can not tell if a word is misspelt, or not. Maybe to every one else out there when you read something I have written you see it with all the incorrect words marked in red or something. I don't.

No the advent of spell checkers have helped a lot. However I don't always have aces to a pc that has a spell checker installed. Even when I do like now there are many words in my vocabulary that even with the help of a spellchecker I can not figure the spelling for.

I do not have very pore spelling and grammar to annoy you but simply because this is the best I am at the language in its written form. I have a degree from a well respected university (Edinburgh) but I still can not spell. This is not for lack of trying I have been trying to improve my English all my life and still attend a class a couple of times a weak with some 8 year olds (witch is a little embarrassing) trying to improve my spelling.

So feel free to correct my grammar and spelling and I will try to learn the rules but don't discount my feelings or technical abilities because I cant spell.

Whenever I reply to a post like this I leave the last paragraph uncorrected as I write naturally so you can see how much correction has already happened.

Maby if you now soe one or a have a chiled who has dylexia or one of the variatys of autisam you mite what to tal about the prolems with some one else who has them felk fre to cantact me.

Blake

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[docgnome]

"If you want it to be possessive, it's just i-t-s. But if its supposed to be a contraction, then it's i-t-apostrophe-s... scalawag." - Strong Bad

Hackers can't spell?

[snookums]

Don't be rediculous!

Re:Good hackers have excellent communication skill

[Animats]

I can't find the exact quote offhand, but Dijkstra said something like a necessary precondition for being a good computer scientist is absolute command over your native language.

That's from "Programming as a discipline of mathematical nature", in which Dikjstra writes "A programmer must be able to express himself extremely well, both in a natural language and in the formal systems."

In a ranting mood, Djykstra once wrote these one-liners:

• The problems of business administration in general and data base management in particular are much too difficult for people that think in IBMerese, compounded with sloppy English.
• About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead.
• Besides a mathematical inclination, an exceptionally good mastery of one's native tongue is the most vital asset of a competent programmer.

Then came PowerPoint.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[maxpublic]

While your grammar may be correct, you point exudes prejudice as opposed to intelligence.

No, it expresses a realistic expectation of the individual involved. If you can't be bothered to put forth the effort to master the basics of your own native tongue then I have no reason to believe that you aren't equally lazy when it comes to other endeavors. As an employer I won't hire you hire - plain and simple. Why should I? You've already proven that you're "too good" to bother with something as simple as correct spelling; why should I expect anything less egotistical from you on the job? This sort of pseudo-intellectual snobbishness that some of the geek set wear as a warped badge of honor tells me that you're just an asshole, when all is said and done - and proud of it. So much 'better' than your fellow man that even the use of a spell-checker is beneath you.

I don't have the time or energy to waste on little shits who seem to be eternally stuck in in some kind of pubescent "I'm such a cool rebel!" mode. They're no different than those idiots who think that ragging on Britney Spears while extolling the virtues of their shitty garage band somehow makes them counterculture, and therefore better than everyone around them. People like this need to grow the fuck up and start acting like adults.

Elitist prick I might be, but it beats being a pathetic little toad who takes pride in his deliberate intellectual incompetence.

Max

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's short for "spot his woody".

++5 FUNNAY!

[Anonymous Coward]

Quoth: The fact that I can throw a word at you that you've never seen, like, for example, "orthography," and you can read it and pronounce it correctly is proof positive of this.

English and Chinese equally difficult languages

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hilarious to hear an english speaker to complain about the difficulty of the chinese language. Must remember how to pronounce that chinese character! So much work!

Not realizing that it's the same with english words too. Pronounciation must be learned separately from the written form of the word.

Re:If you don't care enough to try to present it w

[mjkjedi]

Agreed.

Regarding 'u' and '4': People should simply learn to type. It would take me much longer to find the less-often-used '4' key than simply type 'for'. I never use the 'u' and '4' shit, but it wouldn't save me any time even if I did.

In my opinion, people who use egregious spelling shortcuts are simply poor typists who are too lazy to make themselves understood. Typing's a useful skill, and one that's not likely to become unnecessary any time soon...

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[lupin_sansei]

"'Whom' as an object form of that pronoun has been recessive for at least five hundred years, and is practically extinct (except as object of a preposition) in more or less any colloquial speech and in all except fairly formal writing. (2) There is a good linguistic explanation for this situation, which will long-term-predictably lead to the complete demise of 'whom'."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Who_(pronoun)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[gartogg]

Actually, it's really an Oscar Wilde quote. See Oscar Wilde Quotations, or, to quote; "It is easy to find Oscar Wilde quotes ... The more progressive and risque among Britain's social climbers may on occasion be tempted to ask for a quote by Winston Churchill, although the old money still views this as irredeemably gauche."

rigid gramar and spelling are SO passe

[child_of_mercy]

Rigid gramar and spelling were a temporary product of printing presses, they didn't exist before, and they won't exist after.

Get used to it.

People who understand grammar, however, will retain an advantage in being able to communicate clearly, and without ambiguity. Smoke it if you got it.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[timtactoker]

This should explain things a little clearer - http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

"English is just badly pronounced French."

-(A French friend of mine).

Computer geekdom is a secret club...

[jayegirl]

I'm of the opinion that the reason that proficiency in written English isn't really particularly fashionable in the computer geek world, is that computer geeks like things that make them feel both like experts, and like a breed apart from conventional humans. Hence English isn't fashionable as it's the language used by all of those GUI using, Windows running, dumb-question asking end users. Who wants to have *anything* in common with them? Tres uncool!

Jaye.

I'll tell you why

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll tell you why communication is not considered important by the technical community.

I'm an average (at best) computer science major at the University of California Irvine. I'm also a copy editor at the leading campus newspaper.

When I go to apply for a job at the end of the day, is Google going to choose me or the guy who got straight A's to fill a position? I suppose it depends on the position they want to fill, but the popular perception is that they will choose the most technically proficient person they can find - not the most rounded. America is a country built on specialization. Go figure.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[FlyingRobin13]

I've always found it intriguing that a programmer who could master several arcane computer languages (especially since computers are notably intolerant of errors), could fail so utterly to master his own native human language.

Maybe it's reflex, like children not tidying their rooms because they have to; in programming you are forced to be perfect is spelling and grammar, so when you have the option to write free-form... it's taken to the extreme.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

If Einstein submitted the theory of relativity and it had spelling/grammar errors and it was rejected who would lose?

The world, the reviewer or Einstein?

Thinking about spelling takes CPU resources and all the good people with ADD, dyslexia, etc, have obsoleted this function of the brain.

Offtopic?

[BlightThePower]

I agree with what you say to some extent and I don't mean to rude here, but this isn't whats at stake. The problem is precisely with people who make it hard for other people to understand them because they don't pay sufficient care to English. For example, substituting "loose" when you mean "lose" can cause all kinds of confusion. This has nothing to do with the imperatives you describe above and would appear to have everything do with not really caring. To revisit another point you make, sure, all kinds of groups have their special terms and abbreviations (geekdom's use of these is mild compared with what goes on in military circles for example). But again, most of these groups go to the trouble of unpacking their language when talking to the general population, geeks are either unable or unwilling to do this. Personally I suspect these issues are just more evidence of the geek's failure to acquire solid social skills and a mildly autistic tendency to believe if you can understand what you've written then why can't everyone else?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that you've seen how badly you get on without them I presume you will be asking for them back.

Alternative spelling vs laziness

[elgatozorbas]

Indeed, rules or patterns evolve from what _people_ do, they are not a law of nature. As such people should be able to change them one way or another.

And even though I am not a fan of alternative spellings (such as exist e.g. in my own mother tongue Dutch), I can live with them as long as they are more or less consistent. However, most people are just lazy: their vocabulary is not consistent (words can be written in a number of ways). They just don't care about spelling, most likely because they just cannot spell correctly. Or because they don't proofread stuff they make public which is imho a sign of lack of respect for those who have to read it.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Trivia: in German, instead of e.g., they use z.B. which stands for "zum Beispiel".

Trivia: in Poland, instead of e.g., they use np. which stands for "na przyklad".

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[WolfWithoutAClause]

What I am saying is that babelfish gives more accurate translations when you provide it with valid source material. The translations aren't perfect, but they're even LESS perfect when the source material "is teh sux0r."

Right. And you are seriously suggesting that people should be made to have better grammar to keep babelfish happy?

Didn't think so.

What taught me to spell definitely

[l3prador]

Actually, what taught me to spell "definitely" was registering a domain name with the word "definitely" in it to point to a server a friend and I were setting up. Enough ssh user@definitely... and www.definitely... and you'll learn how to spell it pretty quickly.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

What about apostrophes used for plurals?

Many people write plurals like
CD's
DVD's
etc.,

when clearly it is not about possession, but a simple plural: CDs, DVDs

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Feztaa]

Isn't it nice that we can still read Shakespeare's works 400 years after they were published?

Funny, I read some Shakespeare in highschool and couldn't understand a word of it.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[MidnightBrewer]

Good advice. Take everything gracefully, or at least with a grain of salt. :)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

I though knight in german was "Ritter." I've never heard the german word "Knicht" so I queried the wife (she's from Hamburg). She said the closest word she could think of was "knecht," which means something like "servant."

I found this interesting, so I looked around. Evidentally the middle english word for knight was "cniht" which was an evolution of the German "knecht." The german word, howewver, seemed to refer to the various servants of a "ritter" (knight).

It occurs to me that perhaps english "knights" were originally called "cniht" because there were "servants" to the invading military leaders. As the conquests of the british isles became more complete and military leaders became rulers, it would make sense that the status of their men-at-arms, the "cnicht" (I have no idea what the plural is), would have gone up, eventually attaining the status of "knights" as we think of them.

Of course this is all speculation and rather ill-informed speculation at that! I'm a programmer, damnit, not a linguist!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[mennucc1]

if 100$/3 = 33$, can I have that extra dollar?

This is nothing new

[rfc1394]

I can remember back 20, 25 years ago when I was learning programming back in college, and some of the brightest programmers I knew, including some of the people teaching programming, routinely made spelling errors.

I always thought of myself as a little bit strange because I was one of the few programmers I knew of who konsistently speld werds korrectlee. :)

Paul Robinson

Hackers, Spelling and Grammar?

[GavinW]

My theory is that many technically competent people have found refuge with machines because of their lack of social skills, not necessarily consciously. They will not bridle at precision in programming; but to be pulled up short for inarticulacy only reminds them of the sore place in their psyche, so of course they react angrily.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[pilgrim23]

We should learn the English of Chaucer, the spelling rules of Wycliff, of Dr John Dee. We should spell Shakspeare in at least as many ways has he did himself. Those worried over form, miss content.

Better a jackass than a US-centric

[Tirs]

> in simple terms, since when cant people
> understand the intent of "definately" or "shoud
> of"????????? humans are capable of understanding
> those to mean "definitely" and "should have". so
> where is the loss of effectiveness? where is the
> gain by using "proper" english?

As usual, somebody who does not think about non-native English speakers. We learned the rules of English language at a later stage of our life, so we lack the intuition to immediately grasp the meaning of a word through a grammar or spelling mistake. Of course we quickly do (most of the times), but we have to stop and think for a fraction of a second, thus losing efectiveness.

By the way, smalldick: "English", in English, requires upper case. Oh, and upper case is also required at the beginning of paragraphs, or after a question mark.

Re:Better a jackass than a US-centric

[floodo1]

well you have a valid reason to complain "i cant understand your crap dialect". so from you i'll take the abuse knowing that you have a point.

but from the jackass poster i wont. im sure he grew up here, took his english classes and liked them. which im also sure is unlike the vast majority of american students (or former students). he is just being elitest.

you are being practical.

Language is open-source.

[Circlotron]

Therefore everyone contributes to it's evolution as such, right or wrong. Anyway, who is authorised to specify what is wrong (besides the Queen of course)? Disclaimer - I agree wholeheartedly with the author of the thread. I can't stand the word "prolly" :-(

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[alexhs]

Ah, APL ! The problem with it is that you can't even write it on Slashdot.

Here is sample code for those who didn't know about this fantastic programming language.
Of course there is also the wikipedia article

About the pronouciation part, I would say that it isn't a real concern while spelling / grammar remains approximately the same. While it may be annoying, these remains shades of the same language. It is common to a variety of languages geographically / culturally widespread. Arab doesn't sound from country to country, German from North Germany to South Germany, French from North to South to Swiss to Québec...

What would be annoying is a shift between american and british english, to a point you couldn't read between dialects.

Re: Hackers, Spelling and Grammer?

[milby]

quote: "...demonstrate such little attention to detail when it comes to communicating that knowledge with others, and it baffles me even..."

If we're being so picky here Strom, I didn't think you could use 'and' after a comma.

Anyway, why learn to spell when you can just click a function key in word?

Freedom?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just foolish. The web/internet is about freedom of expression, you should be able to spell and word things how you like.

As long as people get the jist of what you are trying to get across what seriously is the difference between:

"ive just programd my first C# app!!"

and

"I have just programmed my first application in using the C# language."

x

Re: Hackers, Spelling and Grammer?

[nagora]

If we're being so picky here Strom, I didn't think you could use 'and' after a comma.

Yes you can. In fact there are many places where it has to be so used for clarity. The Compact OED has a secion outlining the use of the comma as well as being a generally great dictionary.

TWW

You can read Shakespeare?

[jawtheshark]

I surely can't, and I consider my English "Not Bad At All"(tm). I have no problems reading an English paper, nor reading English magazines (technical or other topics), nor reading English manuals (I actually always read manuals in English for technical stuff, because I think it is more natural)

I absolutely have no problem reading slashdot (Ignoring spelling errors but sometimes I shake my head when seeing gross errors). That said: I'm not a native English speaker. I do speak (and read and write) French and Dutch. I also speak and read German (but can't write it correctly) Still, you will never catch me reading Balzac, or Goethe. Comprehending those is equally challenging than comprehending Shakespeare. That said: I can read Dutch literary works, but it's my mother tongue.

So, in summary: being "good" in a language doesn't mean being able to read older literary works. At least that is my opinion.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[mennucc1]

The original posting about the scrambling of letters claims that there was a "university research" proving that "the brain does not use internal letters to recognize words".
Meanwhile this has become kind of a urban legend, and from time to time I receive an e-mail reporting this idea (usually, in Italian), by a friend who is, lets say, surprised by this amazing scientific discovery.

Me, I think that there is nothing "scientific" in this claim.

My two objections are:
1)At that time I wrote a python script where I could tune the amount of randomness injected in the text, vs keeping the letters in original order, vs putting them in reverse : it seemed that a combination of "putting the letters in reverse" and "randomize" was the hardest to read, and even English would sometimes become unreadable.
I have the script at home, I will post it in the afternoon.

2) the scrambling trick works well in English where most words are short: words with 2 or 3 letters are unaffected, and 4,5-letter words are hardly affected (as in the post above).

It is very different in languages with long words: if you know Italian, try reading this:

il peistndere del ciglnisoo dei msrtniii bnsucorlei ha fetnlnmaie
cstaefsnoo che il pttdooro itnreno cceresrà mtloo
mneo del petsivro ( e mtloo mneo dllea midea dllea cntuimoà eerpoua ) ;
per non armtaneue le istopme dtrteie ( e pdreree la fcicaa e le eoinezli )
pedroecrà stieamntdepe ad atearnmue i blllezai
( cmoe il blloo sui ctnoi certnroi ) e smeecatnaitsmtie
con il carelclnae i srizvei pcbilbui e ongi atrlo bicifeneo che la
rpbiclbuea ci ceecvdnoa in cbimao dlel ' eosrbso
fclasie ( stinaà slouca e qatnuo atrlo ) - alla fcicaa
dglei ereettli berhscii che lo hnnao
vttaoe alle uimtle enzoieli ; ctnereapnomatemnoe
piegruosrà con l ' asubo dllea poinszioe che opcuca ,
( dptttuooo , ltealnmgee ) per antrameue i porpri
bfcienei : pvtaore a mevtrtei nei pnnai di mcdoruk
che pgaa di tscaa sua ongi ddeocer che voi utase , mtrnee
i ddceoer per la tolnsivieee dlaitgie tsterrree li pgaa
lo stato ( ma i sldoi per le prtitae di clicao sul dtalgiie
trestrree li iscsana il clevriaae )

(if you dont know Italian, then trust me: it is unreadable)

Conclusion: it is amazing how easily people are gullible by what seems scientific and instead it is not.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

The "tome mistake" is not necessarily a mistake. If Webster came up with a single-volume dictionary which was something of a watershed, then "before Webster's tome" is a perfectly apposite thing to say.

I hasten to add that I am English and so know little of this Webster (though I do know he is the author of many of the ills of the Atlantic divide), as I have earlier authorities to whom I can look.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[nbritton]

"As long as the page renders correctly in my browser does it matter if the HTML fails to conform to the DTD?"

HTML 4.01, ANSI C, Mathematics, etc. = formal languages = hard facts and rules.
a^2b^3(xy-pq)^4(c+d) / ab^4z(xy-pq)^3 = a(xy-pq)(c+d) / bz

English = informal language = soft rules = I before E except after C, except for beige, cleidoic, codeine, conscience, deify, deity, deign, dreidel, eider, eight, either, feign, feint, feisty, foreign, forfeit, freight, gleization, gneiss, greige, greisen, heifer, heigh-ho, height, heinous, heir, heist, leitmotiv, neigh, neighbor, neither, peignoir, prescient, rein, science, seiche, seidel, seine, seismic, seize, sheik, society, sovereign, surfeit, teiid, veil, vein, weight, weir, weird = What the @$#%? English is a mutt.

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

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[TheRaven64]

I loath 1337-speak for the reading comprehension aspect. I have spent a great many years optimising the pathways in my brain that parse English. By now, they are very efficient and I can read at a high speed. When someone writes 1337 or TXT speak at me then this pathway just throws an error and I have to drop back to using the fall-back of phonetically spelling each letter, group of letters, and finally word that I haven't used since I was aged 3 and learning to read.

I first noticed this several years ago when I was reading a book by Iain Banks where some of the chapters were written in phonetic scots, and some in English. The ones written in English, I could read several times faster.

Poor language skills...

[TheWormThatFlies]

I don't think there is any direct correlation between being a hacker or computer programmer and having atrocious English skills. The scary incompetence in spelling and grammar that you're complaining about is also commonly found in the corporate world, and just about everywhere else.

I think its prevalence in current generations of English speakers is caused partially by poor language education in school, but mostly by lack of recreational reading. I've said this before; you learn good language skills by example.

Everyone who posts here is a computer geek to some degree. Some people have good language skills, some people are consistently awful, and some people (probably the majority) are OK, but constantly make the same basic mistakes. Of course, some people are just really bad at remembering spelling and some people are really good, but my theory is that the major distinguishing factor is how much [proofread, orthographically and grammatically correct material] a particular poster reads.

If all you ever read are internet posts full of mangled it's/its, they're/their/there and your/you're, dangling participles and other misuses of common phrases, you are likely to become desensitised to those mistakes, and stop noticing them.

I don't correct spelling on Slashdot, because I think spelling-correcting posts are just noise (unless the error is particularly hilarious). There isn't really any mechanism for criticising spelling on a forum without being an asshat and filling up the discussion with crap - which is a pity, because in principle I think it's a good idea to correct spelling mistakes.

Re:Poor language skills...

[La Camiseta]

If all you ever read are internet posts full of mangled it's/its, they're/their/there and your/you're, dangling participles and other misuses of common phrases, you are likely to become desensitised to those mistakes, and stop noticing them.

While I agree with you completely on the first three parts of the sentence, the simple fact is that "dangling" participles is a standard practice in the English Language, and has always been. It wasn't until it was popularized by John Dryden in the late 17th cent. that leaving participles at the end of sentences bacame taboo; to top it off, it was tought because prescriptivists of the time thought that English should represent Latin more, and has been kept around since then.

Quite frankly, when it comes to the really mundane and stupid stuff like that, I tend to follow a paraphrase of one of the lines I've read while perusing the internet, "ignore the prescriptivists, they're assholes."

Also, an interesting thing which I don't think many people are looking at right now is that with this almost complete ignoring of grammar rules is that the written language is almost showing some of the evolutionary changes that spoken languages tend to show.

Re:Poor language skills...

[TheWormThatFlies]

Er, I think you're confusing dangling participles with ending sentences with prepositions.

This is an example of a dangling participle:

Speeding towards the overturned truck, an accident seemed imminent.

What this sentence means to say is "As [person] was speeding towards the overturned truck, an accident seemed imminent." However, when the subject of the first part of the sentence is removed, together with the auxillary verb, the participle (speeding) is left "dangling", and attaches itself to the subject of the second sentence - and the resulting sentence is actually saying that the accident, which seemed imminent, was speeding towards the overturned truck. Which is silly. In this particular case, the error is grating, but the meaning can still be deduced because the literal meaning of the sentence is nonsensical. However, the literal meaning could parse to something meaningful and cause confusion. I definitely consider this to be a serious grammatical error.

On the other hand, I frequently end sentences with prepositions, because I am too lazy to think up elaborate alternatives. I don't think that's really a grammatical error; it's more of an inadvisable (by some people) writing style, like long, rambling elaborate sentences like this (or using nested brackets (like this (personally, I think nested brackets are great; they allow you to insert arbitrarily nested footnotes inline, and still leave the text reasonably legible. I wouldn't put something like this in a formal letter, but I used to do it in friendly emails all the time))).

This reminds me of archaic Polish grammar (from around the turn of the twentieth century), in which the favoured style convention appeared to be "put the subject first, then the direct object, then chuck in all the adverbial phrases and indirect objects you have, the more the better, then stick the verb right at the very end", which led to a very quirky and recognisable sentence structure. The fun thing about Polish is that just about every word is completely unambiguously conjugated to imply a particular role in the sentence, so you can reorder the words almost arbitrarily and the sentence will still be correct and retain the same meaning. Ths is very helpful when you are writing structured poetry.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[zdys]

Maybe it's because native human language is so inconsistent and illogical. The target systems mostly hinder clear problem solutions, mostly by being a problem themselve. Waiste of time, this all is.

Listen up Slashdot Owners/Coders!

[tezza]

just allowing the submitter to correct their own posts might go a long way toward making the Slashdot audience seem a bit more literate.

This is a brilliant idea. This will allow people to correct their language.

To prevent hit and run comments, people should be able to edit their posts and have the old version saved. The post should be clearly marked as editted, and the older versions available to all. So people could correct spelling mistakes, and not be able to engage in correctionism. There should be a limit, say of 3, corrections, which should keep the volume down.

See http://twiki.org/ for inspiration.

Say it in pseudo-Welsh

[Anonymous Coward]

"W" is a vowel in Welsh, sounding like a long "u" or "oo" (roughly).

If you make the middle "w" a Welsh one, you get "w-oo-w", pronounced "woo".

One syllable, no waiting.

Well, why not?

[Ztream]

Am I the only one who thinks that proposal makes sense? Maybe not in that exact form, but the idea of a spelling reform, at least. I guess it's supposed to be humouristic.
English not only has a weird, complicated and inconsistent spelling, it also has strange pronounciations of basic consonants and vowels. In most of the rest of Europe, "i" is pronounced as english "ee", and "e" is pronounced like the e in "enter".

My first language is Swedish, another language with completely inconsistent spelling. That brings another problem which I have not seen mentioned here yet: it makes it very hard for foreigners to learn. I guess the same goes for english.

My $0.02...

[Tom Veil]

I'd have to say that misspellings and grammatical errors eat away at the credibility of anything that I'm reading, Slashdot comments included. However, I do recognize that a lot of times people who know better will slip and either simply press the wrong key or transpose words in their mind, but will recognize the error when it is pointed out. (I've had more than one e-mail where someone has quoted my original message, and I'll cringe at an error that I made that they may not have even noticed.)

I do believe that it's important for people to be able to recognize their errors like this, and this means paying attention, and, as some others have suggested, reading. Not just reading on the Internet, where proofreading is often given low priority (sometimes even for respectable journals), but reading print, including books, magazines, etc.

One particularly great guide is Paul Brians' "Common Errors of English Usage", available online at http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/ or in print at Amazon.com. It shows, not only improper usage, but many instances of proper usage that are incorrectly assailed by would-be nitpickers.

Personally, I'm trying to fight a one-man war to restore the proper usage of "where're/where are" in plural items... ("Where're the kids" -- not "where's the kids".) Drives me crazy every time I hear this one, and twice as crazy every time I find myself using it.

Oh, and for anyone planing to nitpick my use of periods outside of quotation marks: It's British practice; I just happen to prefer it over the American practice. Don't worry: I'm sure an actual error slipped through somewhere. ;-)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Viol8]

"Language has to evolve, otherwise it's not getting any better"

You're confusing evolution with change. Languages change , they don't "evolve". Theres no natural selection going on with the most efficient word usage etc. If there were then english would never have come out of the far more logical (grammatically and with spelling) anglo-saxon tongue. They simply change by random drift depending on the prevailing societal conditions and fashions at any given time.

English != British

[rarity]

Is it really so difficult to pronounce the second "r" in "rather," or any other such word with a final "r?"

Hey! Don't tar us all with the same linguistic brush! I'm Scottish, and *my* final Rs are hard to avoid...

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's "honour" I think you'll find. :P

Language is not a reliable indicator...

[Otto]

What the submitter mentions and what a lot of people miss is that speaking incorrectly tends to make a person seem less intelligent. Using "should of" is more or less understandable if you are used to English colloquialisms and such, but it makes the person sound less intelligent to those who are educated.

Which is, of course, why I use such colloquialisms. I find that it weeds out the people who are only able to perceive the surface and unable to perceive the substance beneath.

If someone thinks the way I speak makes me seem less intelligent, and that affects their opinion about me, well, then, I'm not interested in their opinion anyway. What they think doesn't matter to me, because they are perceiving form instead of content. I don't care about form. Fuck form.

People who are biased in this respect are basically identical to racists, in my opinion. A racist perceives an unimportant difference, such as the color of someone's skin, and bases their judgements of the person on that. The "educated" person who has trouble with use of poor grammar is equally biased, as they're perceiving the form in which the content is delivered instead of the content itself.

If you prefer another example, my mother places a lot of her character judgement values on what kind of shoes a man is wearing, and continually berates me for wearing sneakers everywhere. Is her somewhat silly bias any more ridiculous than yours?

Perhaps it's time to shrug off your biases and revise your opinions, if you are capable of doing so.

"Should of" and "ain't" are colloquialisms that have been around for a good while themselves, and if they were to become an official part of the language they would have likely done so by now. The reason they have not is because they are known to be blatantly grammatically incorrect and are avoided by anyone using proper English.

"Ain't" is in every english dictionary in the world. Like it or not, it is an "offical" part of the language, depending on how you perceive "official". Contrary to the popular phrase, ain't *is* a word. :P

"Should of" is simply a phonetic misspelling of "should've", which is certainly official.

We're just trying to goad people into realizing that the rules are there for a reason, and considering our community is supposedly known for being intelligent, we ought to use those rules correctly.

See, this is where you are really wrong. These "rules" are not there for any reason. The language has evolved somewhat haphazardly at best, and these rules are simply a reflection of its current state.

Furthermore, the inherent bias in judging intelligence based on form instead of content is what we should really rebel against, considering that frequently, some of the deepest insights you will encounter will come from some of the most intelligent people you will ever know, and these are not "educated" men by any stretch of the imagination. Rejecting a person, or an idea, or whatever, simply because it's expressed poorly by the current standards of freakin' grammar is more than a little foolhardy, don't you think?

Re:Language is not a reliable indicator...

[Dan Hayes]

People who are biased in this respect are basically identical to racists, in my opinion.

You can change how you talk, you can't change the colour of your skin. The two aren't similar at all!

Re:Language is not a reliable indicator...

[Otto]

You can change how you talk, you can't change the colour of your skin. The two aren't similar at all!

The two are absolutely similar. They both judge a person on irrelevancies. The color of a person's skin says nothing about his intelligence, and neither does a person's speech patterns. Basing your assessment of intelligence on either one of those factors is just flawed.

Whether you can change how you talk or not is irrelevant. How you talk doesn't matter with respect to what it is that you are saying. And it has no bearing on intelligence, education, or anything else, really. It's mostly defined by geographic region in which a person grew up, in fact. Do you think people from one area are smarter than people from another? That's an equally stupid bias, really.

Re:Language is not a reliable indicator...

[tedrlord]

I have nothing ain't colloquialisms. In fact, I -love- colloquialisms. If I'm hanging out with friends, my speech style is such a confused jumble of strange and disparate slangs and styles of speech that many people wouldn't know what I'm talking about. The difference is that if I'm, say, writing a paper or formal letter, speaking to an official, or interviewing for a job, I can also present myself more seriously by using correct English.

Whether you feel it's fair or not, people do form opinions of you based on how you present yourself. It's called a first impression. Everyone does it. Unfortunately, people don't have the time or energy to get to know every person they meet to truly know their value. We base our decisions on available information, and when we meet someone, that information is all about how the person presents him or herself. Considering that people either consciously or subconsciously dress and act the way they do to express their personality, it's not really a bad indicator.

So, back to language, the way one speaks and writes says a lot about a person's educational background and personality. It has a lot to do with how well-read they might be. When you're out with peers or in a familiar situation, this isn't so important. It can be quite important when you're in a professional situation, presenting yourself as an expert, or find yourself in intellectual company. The problem is that in these situations, where you're expected to have a certain baseline of ability by those around you and you don't exhibit it, people can't help but notice and wonder what might be wrong.

One last example I'd like to make is that of your post. You use very good form in making your argument. You follow proper slashdot debate protocol quite well. I assume you recognise that it only helps you make your point, and convinces others that your post is worth taking seriously and responding to. That's all the submitter was talking about, and that's what I mean. Speaking well helps you along when others are judging you based on what you say.

Re:Language is not a reliable indicator...

[digitaldc]

why am I your foe?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually "Voilà".

english grammar

[chrisranjana.com]

Yes it looks unprofessional with wrong grammer !

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Ztream]

How do you know, on a forum such as this, or for that matter other in other contexts, if english is my mother tongue? Will you condemn me as 'lazy and self-involved' if I haven't learned your language perfectly?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[alexhs]

(I'm French)

Letters individually do not have a lot of different pronouciations, apart 'e' who has different pronouciation depending on where it is placed (there are rules for that). I would say that the main difficulty is to know if there is a "letter combination" or not. It's usually solved if you know where are prefixes / suffixes, but I suppose it isn't easy for a foreigner. The other main difficulty is about some unpronounced letters (usually a single p,d,t at the end of the word, preceded by a vowel, but I'm sure I'm missing a lot).

But that's considering reading. It's a lot harder to find the spelling of a word you've heard, because there are multiple ways to write the same sound (and there still are these letters you don't hear).

Italian is written like it is pronounced. But modern French (since 18th century) spellings have been chosen according to the latin / greek ethymology. Words that haven't latin or greek roots are written almost arbitrarily however ;) .

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't the English teach their children how to speak?
This verbal class distinction by now should be antique.

...

The Scots and the Irish bring me close to tears.
There even are places, where English completely disappears!

In America, they haven't used it for years!

--Professor Henry Higgins, My Fair Lady (Lerner & Lowe)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[bw_bur]

I'm not sure that the history of the apostrophe is so clear-cut.

This article (PDF) suggests that the genitive ending was -es in Old English, and -ies or -ys in Middle English, and that the apostrophe was introduced as a replacement for omitted vowels.

However, he also describes an alternative view: that the apostrophe was originally used because of the mistaken assumption that the genitive ending was already a contraction of "his". Apparently even Shakespeare made this mistake...

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[0a100b]

As wayland wrote:

(...) the general rule is actually "When you leave a letter out, put in an apostrophe".

So that would make the plurals:
C''''''D'''s
D''''''V''''''''D'''s
Etc '''''

or in short:
C'D's
D'V'D's
etc'

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Stauf]

Many people write plurals like
CD's
DVD's
etc.,

Yeah, that's wrong. The need to sometimes seperate the 's' from the word you're pluralising is usually remedied (at least in the few style guides I have on my desk) by putting the whole term in single or double quotes. Like 'CD's or "DVD"s. (Just assume that I've surrounded CD with single quotes and not a pair of apostrophes.)

This really only comes up with technical abbreviations where you don't want the 's' to be confused as part of the term, so usually CDs works fine, the caps giving away the abbreviation. Of course, you could write it C.D.s, which I believe is also correct - the fact the s doesn't have a trailing period giving away the plural.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[num42]

As german native speaker i was taught by my english teacher, that it's is just short for it is and that the former cannot be regarded as slang per se but is something you would only write when quoting someone for it is bad style in a letter.

Sure enough i have seen native english speakers use it any way they like. ;-)

Zap

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[aug24]

There is a simple pattern for possessive apostrophes: nouns take them, pronouns don't.

For example: the item is... his, hers, theirs, ours vs the item is John's, Britain's, my dog's etc

Admittedly these days (God, I'm only 34), I rarely meet anyone who knows what a pronoun is...

Justin.

DISLEXIA and geeks

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont know about the rest of the geeks out there, but for me being dislexic and a geek is a god send. No long papers to write for fluffy libral arts class's and all that wish wash.

Do i wish i had perfect grammer and spelling of corse but its not going to happen and there is no bloddy way i am going to cut and paste back and forward to Word to use the spelling and grammer check. Maybe on important work document or such but on message boards im quite happy for you lot to takeit as it comes.

even thogh i am still chicken and am posting annomimsly. What can i say ive been pickecd on enough by latin, english, history teachers etc that i dont want you spelling nazi nerds picking on me. So i will remain in a warm blacket of annimoty while people with much to much time crucify my spelling.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Feztaa]

Same thing happened to me. I got mod points a couple of times, then suddenly I started metamodding and haven't gotten any mod points since. I was metamodding pretty much every time I visited (at least once a day). Finally got sick of it, and marked "not willing to moderate" in the prefs.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Stauf]

Well, we have the period to indicate that we're creating an abbreviation of an entire word - so instead of 'Compact Discs' we would have 'C.D.s'. English has a lot of constructs designed to shortcut unweildy syntax.

This, of course, only applies when you're abbreviating an entire word from its first character onward. Hence, it's using a specific rule, not the general one wayland was talking about.

I'm a geek

[Anonymous Coward]

While I don't consider myself to be a hacker in any sense of the word, I do consider myself to be a geek. I find it extremely annoying when people makes mistakes in regard to grammar and spelling. But it still kills me when people confuse "their", "there", and "they're", or when people screw up THEIR tenses (i.e. "If I was you" instead of "If I were you").

With all that being said, I've found that it is indeed a BAD idea to correct people's grammar. The funny thing is that it's mostly Americans (I'm American btw) that make these mistakes! Even people learning English as a foreign language have a better command of the language. I suppose it's all testament to the poor quality of American education. And it isn't helped by the fact that all of these mistakes pervade popular culture. For example, "What if God was [sic] one of us..." Woe to the God who speaks as such! =)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[aug24]

a voiced velar fricative ... no longer exists in English.

I'm a worshipper of Bacchus, you insensitive clod!

J.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Stauf]

"it's" is informal, "it is" is formal. In fact, in most situations "it is" is very formal. You would very seldom say it in conversation (relative to "it's", which is very common). As to it being bad style, it really isn't, unless you're writing something formal. Of course, for a formal bit of writing, any abbreviation is usually considered bad form.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[rempelos]

I've always found it intriguing that a programmer who could master several arcane computer languages (especially since computers are notably intolerant of errors), could fail so utterly to master his own native human language.

That's because computer programming is more close to mathematical thought. There are no semantics, just very specific instructions that the CPU must follow to complete a task and solve a problem. If you mistype an instruction, or make a syntax error, the compiler will notice it for you. And of course the API reference is just in the next/side screen :)

Maybe you have noticed that students that are good at maths are rarely good at literature class too. The human brain is built in a way that some particular skills are exercised more easily and those are different from human to human.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[krahd]

island

Well, it's like this:

[Hosiah]

(1) Right out, no less an authority on hackerdom than Eric S Raymond charges hackers to write English correctly in his essay:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html
"How to be a Hacker"

(2) Hackers may be native English speakers, but they speak many languages...or rather, write them. When I've finished a hairy C coding session, put a Bash shell script wrapper around the C program, added a supporting feature in Python, all the while talking to my system and compiler in terse "gcc -o -Wall" and "ls -lh" syntax, and finally post the code to share online, which requires translating it into an HTML-friendly format, my English is shot to hell by then. Whose wouldn't be? Ever done this: "Why the hell won't it take a semi-colon at the end of this line? Oh, wait, I'm writing in Lisp!!!" ? After that, you're not prone to remember the twelve words that are an exception to "I before E".

(3) The internet environment. The internet kills spelling. Chats, emails, and other type-written communication lend themselves easily to abbreviation and jargon. Command-line environments especially strip the non-essential letters and syllables away, leaving you typing "man" for manual for instance. *nix users especially forget how to type in the "real world" because they're used to a system where you can just type in the first few letters of a word and hit "tab" and the computer completes it for you.

(4) Then there's the special circumstances of hacking itself. Hackers may be relieved when they type English, because when they type any other language (programming languages) they get errors and bugs every time they get a comma in the wrong place or leave out a closing brace. If the keyboard itself had an "English compiler" that said:
"Error 4085: Line 22: Dangling Participle"
Things might be different. Yes, I know, interactive spell-checkers in fancy Word-Office applications...but hackers compose in ed!

If /. had a spell-check button on this page I'm posting from, I'd use it...

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[DogDaySunrise]

Oh cool, I've been looking for a sig - thanks!

Obligatory Douglas Adames quote

[big ben bullet]

I find such language 'games' very amuzing :)

and as long as we're quoting, i might as well lighten up the discussion with a Douglas Adams quote

Ford: Making your first jump trough hyperspace is just like being drunk.
Arthur: What's so bad about being drunk?
Ford: You should ask a glass of water.

+1 Funny

[KlaymenDK]

*wiping tears from eyes* Thanks man, I needed a good laugh. I wish I had mod points for you.

English isn't their first language

[TheRealDamion]

These [cr|h]ackers/geeks would probably claim that their 1st language is perl/C/asm not English. :)

Yes you are missing something

[Martin Spamer]

Do hackers and geeks just not care about communicating effectively?

They care about the message not the protocol. In many cases obscure grammar rules hide that message, not enhance it. The smart people are even be enhancing that protocol on fly, for the purposes of speedy communication or clarity. for example I often break grammar rules on purpose, and other times I'm simply clueless as to understanding the rule. And I'm not going to waste any more time trying to learn/correct it. e.g. WTF is a passive sentence. Passive sentence are always clearer than the grammatically correct substitute.

Or consider the classic, split infinitive, example you people like to fall back on.

"To boldly go where no one has gone before."

Clear and lyrical, compared to the grammatically correct.

"To go boldly where nobody has previously been."

Do they not realize that a mediocre command of written English makes them appear less intelligent?

Your nit-picking at the 'mediocre English' is a substitute for thinking and understanding. When most people make the error correction automatically, and more on to the message, you're still consider the grammar. So it show up your lack of intelligence or laziness or speed of comprehension. Not theirs.

Am I missing something here?

Yes, the original message and likely the sighs of everybody else whenever you start up on one of your rants.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

English is just too, well not relly 'hard', but arbitrary and arcane. I can survive not knowing probablly from probably, but I must know how deep to plant a kernel of corn or I will starve. Plus, agriculture and computer syntax can be determined by experimentation with learning coming from positive feedback provided by nature. Learning its from it's is like learning croquet from an Englishman - they are making up rules as they go and once you get to the end there is nothing there.

hrm

[yaarg]

Practice what you preach surely. Chill with the commas!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

> (Sorry, I go on this rant periodically. Don't take it personally.)

I think YOU are a real messerschmitt, and i.e. meant personally !

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Trejkaz]

Jung n pebpx bs fuvg. Whfg orpnhfr fbzrbar xabjf ubj gb hafpnzoyr fbzrguvat qbrfa'g zrna vg'f bxnl gb jevgr guvatf fpenzoyrq nyy gur gvzr. V zlfrys xrrc n gvtug cbyvpl abg gb boshfpngr nalguvat V fnl va choyvp, rkprcg jura qbar va n uvtuyl vebavp snfuvba.

WTF? Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

>>You make a strong point. It's for that reason that >>I tend not to be too pedantic when criticizing >>others' grammar.

>People who spell 'lose' as 'loose' come across as >never having read a book in their entire lives.

That may be true - as a non-native speaker BTW that's a pitfall I fell in quite a lot of times.

However people who use words like "fuck" and "fucking" in ordinary written language without a proper reason come across like people who do not know what a book is.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[VVrath]

(Is it called a "cell phone" or a "mobile phone"? Are they called "traffic lights" or "stoplights"?)

It's "mobile phone" and "traffic lights" The other two suggestions are just menaingless!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Cyberax]

Well, maybe you should change alphabet to suit English pronunciation better?

I'm not a native English speaker so I sometimes get confused by English pronunciation. For example, I don't understand why "aw" is pronounced as "o", "ch" is sometimes pronounced as "k" (as in "chemistry") and sometimes as "ch" (as in "chair"), etc.

Such oddities appear because English uses Latin script, which doesn't contain enough letters for all sounds so combinations of two and three letters are used.

My native language is Russian and I can speak German and English. Russian and German spelling is almost phonetic, and English spelling is something counter-intuitive.

I think it has _nothing_ to do with nerds

[Moraelin]

Frankly, I think real nerds are the least guilty of this.

Now I'm not an american, nor a native English speaker, so my evidence is just anecdotal at best. But out of all americans I did talk to on bulletin boards, newsgroups, MUDs, MMOs, etc, frankly, the techies were the _least_ guilty of it. In fact, the techies were the most likely to show contempt or be annoyed by mangled writing, especially the l33t n3tsp33k kind.

Or compare Slashdot to an average CS clan board or some non-technical boards. Sure, we pick on the occasional mis-spelling here, but IMHO it' on the average head and shoulders above the spelling level in other segments of the population.

What IMHO we have here is more like the effect that any script kiddie can claim they're a l33t h4xxx0r, and some computer-illiterate out there will believe them.

There's a whole class of people who aren't anywhere near actually having any actual computer skills, but think they're oh-so-great because they can run someone else's script. (Be it a rootkit script, a compile script in Linux, or whatever.) Or because they can do the most basic text editing in Word. And by "the most basic", I mean they didn't even get to (still basic) parts like using paragraph styles, or generally everything above the level of the old MS Write.

To cut a long rant short, I think it's _those_ pseudo-nerds who take pride in writing like a retard. It won't be a programmer who writes like Something Awful's Jeff K. The programmer already makes a living with typing, and won't gain anything by typing some abhomination "ne1 wanna cum hear b4 lunch, plz?" instead of the correct sentence with complete words. It'll be one of those wannabe pseudo-nerds who thinks he's oh-so-cool and oh-so-tech-savvy for writing in l33t sp34k.

But again, the problem is that someone out there will be computer-illiterate enough to believe them to be TEH UBER-L33T TECH GOD. ("Whoa, he can turn on a computer! He's so smart!") A lot of someones, in fact. And those someones will then extrapolate it to mean "nerds/techies talk/write/whatever like complete retards", because they can't tell who's who.

Geeks

[robnauta]

It baffles me that a culture so obsessed with technical knowledge and accuracy can demonstrate such little attention to detail when it comes to communicating that knowledge with others, and it baffles me even more that many people become enraged when you attempt to help them correct and learn from their mistakes. Do hackers and geeks just not care about communicating effectively?

Many hackers are geeks or nerds, people who lack social skills and try to compensate for this by specializing in a very narrow skill, usually computer-related. This gives them a false superiority feeling to compensate for their own feeling of failure and worthlessness. This is also why they get angry when corrected, that hurts their illusion of superiority. But they don't realise this makes them undesirable people to talk to. Most hackers and good programmers are intolerable conceited assholes, see for example Bram Cohen who is such a smug bastard that it's hard to appreciate his bittorrent work because of his impossible arrogant attitude.

In reality a hacker/geek/nerd may be a coding god but they lack in so many other things. Think about hygiene, getting a decent haircut, wearing clean clothes, eating properly. Not to mention social skills with girls. That they are also seriously lacking in spelling is no surprise.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

i think you mean pon-ix

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Shaper_pmp]

"You still occasionally see this in old place names. For example, the Spotswood hotel near here has embedded into its concrete "Spottiswoode"."

Olde English? Wow - how old is that concrete? ;-p

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Bimo_Dude]

And of course the coolness factor, that always works for those that want to differentiate themselves from the mainstream, boring people.

Perhaps it's a sign of getting old (since I fit into the 30 - 40 year old demographic), but personally I see the pop culture of today very much lacking in culture, and I usually do not have a problem understanding the language of younger people. I do find that those who make such a massive effort to differentiate themselves from the mainstream, boring people are usually those who end up being the most mainstream, boring people. Maybe this is a function of the pervasive marketing in our society.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[wnorris]

> I've always found it intriguing that a programmer who could
> master several arcane computer languages (especially since
> computers are notably intolerant of errors), could fail so utterly
> to master his own native human language.

I believe it is precisely the fact that spoken or written languages ARE tolerant of errors that prevents people from mastering them. I'm reminded of an email that's floated around for a long time referring to some university study where a paragraph of text was still legible even though every single word was egregiously mispelled. It was close, and therefore "close enough" to effectively communicate a message.

You can see this same thing when comparing programming languages -- many of the more strict ones force you to write clearer and better code, while more lax languages allow you to write really bad code and get away it. (Of course, there are always exceptions to that)

Re:You are so wrong, grammer is not important.

[Anonymous Coward]

"How can you compare two Americans, one who lives in a rich suburb and has small classes to a person who attends in a poor urban school where his class size is double yours? Are you willing to judge his english grammer at the same level as yours even though he did not have your advantages?"

Yes

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[EvanED]

Who says I didn't comprehend? The reply I made wasn't so much directed at my parent as it was directed generally, since it's a widespread mistake.

Anyway, I have a couple other posts (that being the most relevant) explaining why such a distinction DOES get in the way of the content. So if you want a reply to the content of my parent, check that out.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[instarx]

Seriously though, I think being taught phonix(sp? lol) as a child really hendered my spelling capabilities because so many words are spelled in ways they shouldn't...

Baloney! I was taught to read using Phonics and it hasn't hindered my spelling at all. I suspect you just didn't pay attention during your spelling lessons and are now conveniently blaming it on Phonics.

Spelling: The problem is the Roman Alphabet.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a native Spanish speaker, I'd thought I'd drop my two cents. Spelling in English is overly complicated. There are two reasons for this in my opinion:

1. The Roman Alphabet is not designed for English: In Spanish we have about 30 phonemes (only 5 of them vowels) and we have a written alphabet with 29 letters (we consider rr, ll, and ~n separate letters). That's a really nice fit. It means we spell mostly everything phonetically. (No spelling bees for us, thank you very much). Things fit because the writing system was derived from Latin and Spanish is a direct decedent of that language. In contrast, English is way more complicated. There are are about 48 phonemes 22 of these are vowels. Yet, English has an alphabet with only 26 characters and only 5 of them are vowels. Thus, spelling is hard. This presents a huge problem, but not a unique one. The Japanese borrowed their writing system from China, but it didn't fit with them phonetically so they created their own writing systems to address this issue (hiragana, katakana). The same holds true for the Koreans. I remember reading somewhere that Abraham Lincoln tried to address this issue by extending the Roman language for English, but his alphabet didn't take (don't know if that's a myth though). Think of all of the time and effort spent in our schools teaching children how to spell, this time could be better spent on more important things like math and science. As a Spanish speaker, I taught myself to read as a child before I even entered school. It was really easy, you learn a couple of rules and that's it you're done. I don't understand why English has never come up with its own alphabet.
2. English has the nasty habit of maintaining foreign spelling when it adopts a new word: I don't understand why this is done at all. It makes no sense. In Spanish, as with other languages, we adopt foreign words into our writing system so that we know how to spell them. Why is it than in English we have to know where a word comes from to know how it should be spelled?

In my opinion, written English is a mess. The language in its written form is so complicated that it sets you up for failure. That's why people get upset when you correct them.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you prefer?

You knew it was coming...

It should be "which do you prefer?"

:)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Swedish, "t.ex." (till exempel) is used instead of "e.g.". In Norwegian, it's "f.eks." (för eksempel).

Glad you referenced something from 1880

[SerpentMage]

I am very glad you referenced a document from 1880!!! Because after the second world war German was massively changed. For example, German used the latin letter set after the second world war.

While I speak German, and my wife is learning German, there are issues. But when you critique German, at least critique modern German. It is sort of me saying, "Gee English easy? Look at Shakespear."

Re:Glad you referenced something from 1880

[legojenn]

What letter set did hey use before 1880? I'm confsed....I hought they always used latin characters.

Re:Glad you referenced something from 1880

[Uerige]

Sütterlin, Blackletter

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[jiawen]

Something like Japanese (kanji, not the hiragana and katakana syllabaries) or Chinese puts all their eggs in the morphology basket, and none in the phonetic. Words are comprised of morphemes which are represented by particular graphemes (kanji/hanzi). This is great once you learn all the morpheme/grapheme pairs, but at 15,000 for Chinese, the system requires a large initial investment of time and cognitive burden.

Your overall point is one I highly agree with, but I need to point out that you're actually slightly wrong about Chinese characters having no phonetic meaning.

Once you know enough Chinese characters, you can pretty reliably guess the pronunciations of other characters. This is because a majority of hanzi have one part that's morpheme/meaning based and one part that's phonetic.

I wish Slashdot allowed Chinese character encoding. I'd show you what I mean. But here's are some examples:

Jiao1: "To exchange" by itself.

Xiao4: A wood radical + the above-mentioned Jiao1. Meaning "school".

Lao3: "Old".

Lao3: The above Lao3 + a human radical, meaning "a person of a given descent", as in Mei3lao3 ("American, Yankee").

When a radical is added to a phonetic component, the sound will usually change a little, but some barely change at all, as with the second example.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm fairly certain that it should in fact be "who your English teacher was." One of the rules for deciding I was taught in school was to put a third-person preposition like he/she/him/her in the sentence, which would yield "depends on who he was," which sounds much better to me than "depends on who him was." I've personally always hated the who/whom bit in relative clauses.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Knight is spelled the way it is because it used to be pronounced kuh-nig-it (yes, just like monty python).

"Knight" was not likely ever pronounced kuh-nig-it. Most probably it was pronounced "cnect" ("connect" with a silent "o") like it is in Swedish, other nordic languages, and probably was in Old English as well, from where it comes.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[cyberphotographer]

I'm sure theres something deep, meaningful and on-topic to gain from this

Well spotted. It is an important subject in epistemology, i.e. you can be right, with good reasons, but the wrong reasons, and that ain't knowledge: Gettier counterexamples

It's good to conform on spelling, not because you avoid annoying pedants, but because the spelling of every word contains clues to its own long history of meanings. If you look up the etymology of 'filter' and 'philtre' you can see that the words have very different origins.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Finnish we write words just like they are pronounced. I believe it has many benefits over your system but there are still no excuses for lazy spelling.

Laziness is possible in Finnish too. We do not use the letter 'x' for anything but some people, mainly due SMS limitations, shorten words with 'x' instead of using 'ks'. It looks awful though there is no difference in how it should be pronounced. Yes, we do spell 'taksi'.

Previous Occurances of a Universal Language

[mirni]

Disclaimer: I am neither a linguist nor a native English speaker.

This discussion reminds me a lot of similar discussions held over the ages on the proper or not grammar, spelling and syntax of Greek (which is my native language). Long story made short: change is inevitable and will take the language to a direction that, collectively, most will not like. However, each small change will have been approved and, more significantly, adopted by a large majority.

Sticking to what is perceived at any time as 'correct' (which is, of course, debatable even at that time) may be the only weapon in the hands of those who do not like the directions their everyday expression tool is taken. They cannot, however, hold back the inevitable. This is true for every language, except for dead ones, but even more so for the universal language of each era. Ancient greek degenerated into common greek (the language in which the Gospels were written for those not familiar, which is pretty much the same with modern greek and not that bad, in any case), latin into vulgar latin (a term, I have nothing against it) and english into american english (I just could not resist the joke). I am sure this has happened many more times in other areas of the world.

This transition is neither good nor bad. What's more, it can definitely not be decided neither right nor wrong. What is striking, though, is the fact that, at least for the examples I have in mind, such change was brought by non-native speakers, while the native speakers held the flag of purity up high. I cannot base this on facts, but I feel that with English it is the other way round. Non-native speakers try hard to adhere to the rules and spirit of the language, while native speakers, especially those in the worlds of tech and cool, choose to differentiate themselves by straying away from the common path.

I have thought this may be due to the fact that English was an amalgam of languages almost from the very beginning and thus both open to and unprotected from drift (in the genetics meaning). But I am sure there are many a lot more qualified to express an opinion on this.

-m-

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[cornelius1729]

There are also languages that take the opposite stance to Kanji Japanese and Chinese - Sinhala (the predominent language in Sri Lanka) has completely phonetic spelling.

Of course, the alphabet is a little tricky if you are used to roman characters, but once learnt, spelling is much easier.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[PMoonlite]

wow, i've never seen a would-be linguist making so many mistakes. discounting the english vs. american differences and accidental typos, there's still:

Context being both gramatical (similar positions in a sentence),

that would be grammatical.

Your accent is likely very different to mine.

your use of adjectives is very different from mine!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[jazman]

An arbitrary system is one like Japanese kanji, which have no phonetic component whatsoever.

The third person singular of "to have" is "has", not "have." Now if you'd said "Arbitrary systems are those like Japanese kanji," that would have been third person plural and "have" would have been correct.

Woohoo! Finally a subject where Grammar Nazis are ON topic!

Another thing: Something like Japanese...or Chinese puts all their eggs...

The sense is singular, so that should be "puts all its eggs."

So stop whining, whiners, and learn the system.

Sounds like you need to learn the system as well.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[mvdw]

Clearly you have hit upon something there.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[gowen]

I'm Australian, and officially we use British spelling. That means we use "gaol" instead of "jail"

Funnily enough, "gaol" is now on the way out in Britain. I can't remember the last time I saw it used (except in reference to historical places).

Finally Someone Said IT!

[joecomputerdude]

I can't agree with you more! I am a help desk cubicle monkey, as well as a customer service representative (cashier) for a video rental store, and when i go from the highly educated world of information technology to the low brow world of video rental, I see udderly no difference in the way people speak. Sometimes its hard to understand what people want because if it. For example "d'ya'll got hitchin'" as opposed to " do you have the movie 'hitch'"
(btw... i live in ohio, nobody has a real southern accent, but for some reason they all talk like that)
I am glad i am not the only one who is noticing the downfall of english grammar and spelling.

The real question is, "is there anything we can do?"

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[mvdw]

I had the same problem reading a couple of Irvine Welsh books. Although I wouldn't consider my normal reading super-fast, I was slowed down noticeably by the Scottish dialogue in his novels. The upside, though, was that after a long time reading it, I had to consciously refrain from talking in a bad scottish accent...

There Are NO Grammar Nazis

[oldCoder]

The German National Socialists (Nazi's) were NOT a group of people famous for being right, correct, or truthful. They were infamous for being wrong, evil, distorted, perverted, murderous, incorrect, racist and dishonest.

Those obsessed with correct spelling and grammar may be sometimes pedantic or even nanny-ish, but they are not, by any stretch, Nazi's...

There are, as yet, no concentration camps for misspellers, malapropists or illiterates.

Re:There Are NO Grammar Nazis

[bhiestand]

Don't worry about that. We here at the International Grammarists Society will be implementing that solution very soon.

Re:There Are NO Grammar Nazis

[Pete]

BTW, you don't pluralise with an apostrophe. It's just Nazis, not Nazi's (note the subject line of your post).

Sieg Heil! :)

Re:There Are NO Grammar Nazis

[Asmodai]

In Dutch (I am starting to prefer to call it Netherlands to avoid mixing with Deutsch and since we call it Nederlands locally), plural is made with an 's. So we speak of Nazi's, in English one speaks of Nazis. Just so you know where it might come from.

Re:There Are NO Grammar Nazis

[Pete]

Wow. Thanks for that, that's very interesting (seriously). Is the plural always made with 's, or only in special cases?

For example, is the name "Nederlands" considered to be a plural? :)

I've often wondered where the name "Netherlands" originated, and if it was just accidental that the word makes up two valid English words: "nether" and "lands".

Re:There Are NO Grammar Nazis

[Anonymous Coward]

I've often wondered where the name "Netherlands" originated, and if it was just accidental that the word makes up two valid English words: "nether" and "lands".

"Neder" and "lands" are related to the English words "nether" and "lands", and have the same meaning. You may have heard the Netherlands referred to as "the Low Countries", which again means exactly the same thing.

Why are they called that? Because they have very few hills, and much of their land is actually below sea level. Hence "low" (or "nether" if you prefer).

Re:There Are NO Grammar Nazis

[unitron]

"There are, as yet, no concentration camps for misspellers, malapropists or illiterates."

We made the mistake of trying to save money by going with an inexpensive architect and are stuck waiting on the plans. :-)

Re:There Are NO Grammar Nazis

[SillyNickName4me]

First of all, the grantparent is a bit off.
In Dutch, plural is made either by adding a s or en to the end of a word. (for his information, the plural of huisje is huisjes, not huisje's, the plural of tafel is tafels, not tafel's etc.)

Which one of the two options you use is something you have to know, there is no strict rule for it.

's denotes possesive in Dutch just like it does in English.

Grammar tutorial

[Poromenos1]

See http://porocrom.poromenos.org/index.php/category/g uides/english-lessons/ and especially http://porocrom.poromenos.org/index.php/2004/08/19 /english-lessons/, and PLEEEEEASE start using them correctly :(

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[instarx]

We should throw out the old spelling. Knight is spelled the way it is because it used to be pronounced kuh-nig-it (yes, just like monty python). All it does is confuse everyone. With its odd mix of Latin and Anglo-Saxon words and grammar rules it's complicated enough as it is without weirdo spellings that are unrelated to pronunciation.

I disagree. Various spellings give a richness to the language that would be obliterated if everything was reduced to the fewest vowels and consonants. Besides, different spellings help make meaning clear in the written word. "I threw the spear into the knight" has a very different meaning than "I threw the spear into the night" (or 'into the nite' for both as you are proposing).

Also, because many English words are made up from roots of Latin or Greek, the "old" spellings of words often give clues to the meaning of unfamiliar words. This great advantage works for non-native speakers of the romance languages as well. I can go to any of the romance language countries and decipher about 30% of the written word even though I do not speak the language - because we share common roots and spellings. Change knight to nite and chevalier to shevaleeay and French, English, Spanish and Italian would become about as comprehensible to their non-speakers as Chinese.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[instarx]

Brilliant.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[capn_pigiron]

I disagree with the notion that the language skills of the average Joe are in decline. The real issue is that, 20 years ago, you never saw the writing of the average Joe. Most everything you read was filtered through an editor or some other "gatekeeper".

These days, practically anyone, including our friend average Joe, can publish a Weblog or post to Slashdot, without the approval of an editor.

Think of it like this: We used to have a client-server model of publishing written material. Proxies (editors) sat between the client and server and made sure that all the traffic complied with protocol specifications (spelling/grammar rules). Now, we have a more peer-to-peer model of publishing, where the proxy is bypassed. If we took all of the proxies (and other types of filters) away from our networks, the Internet would descend into utter chaos. So when you look at it this way, it is a miracle that people can still communicate at all.

Another example is that you buy your meat from a butcher (perhaps not directly, and maybe the butcher is actually a large corporation, but that's not the point). That butcher is, or at least claims to be, highly-skilled in the fine art of handling meat (NO, not in the same way that you are, I mean it in a different context). In addition to your butcher's meat-handling skill, his product is subject to inspection by "meat-lookers". Long story short: If we all freely traded meat from person to person, then we would all be much more likely to see ugly, discolored, stinky, repulsive meat more often.

On the issue of proofreading: No, I haven't proofread this garbage. Why would I? I have wasted enough time writing it in the first place.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[gsumio]

well, i'd agree, that there seems to be no logical pattern to the distribution/assignment of gender nouns. But nevertheless it's useful for writing longer, more complex logical statements, as it allows for references to be made to multiple different nouns in the same sentence.

Programmers and spelling mistakes.

[OhioJoe]

I thikn you are only noticing the hits, and ignoring the misses. Out of 100,000 programing course code examples, you might not notice how many are written well. But a few of them with mispelling and grammer erros will jump out at you. As a programmer, i resent your generalization.

Ohiojoe.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[fizbin]

See, now I just remember the simple equivalences:
i.e. == d.h.
e.g. == z.B.

But I'm one of those freak Americans who speak more than just one language...

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

> People writing 'explanation' as 'explaination' is
> annoying, but understandable.

Dude, that sentence is disgusting.

Spellcheck and Grammar check

[Ogre332]

I believe the reason grammar and spelling are so poor in writing anymore is that most people don't take the time to learn. The attitude is "Why bother when my word processing software will do it for me?"

IMHO, it's no worse than people unable to do simple math in their head (e.g. figuring out how much change to give someone without the cash register or how much tip to leave).

Re:Spellcheck and Grammar check

[jonoverdose]

I agree, spelling and grammar cheques are really grate.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Grab]

You missed Greek, French and German, plus a fair smattering of random Arabic, Indian and Chinese words picked up during the days of the British Empire.

You're wrong that "Britain didn't care". Ever heard of a guy called Samuel Johnson? Even though Johnson's dictionary was pretty arbitrary and missed tons of stuff, it was *the* essential book that every English-speaking home had (after the Bible). It wasn't until the Oxford English Dictionary that it was completely superseded in Britain. American dictionaries were significantly later than Johnson, although slightly earlier (by a few decades) than the OED.

You're also wrong that spelling and grammar are completely arbitrary. All these rules are based on their source languages. So if you learn some of the basic component parts of words (eg. "aqua-", "anti-", "ante-", "ex-") then you see these underlying rules in action. It helps if you know another language that does this - German is a really good example, bcos German hardly ever invents new words, it just smashes more of them together to get the overall meaning. Which is what was done in English, except English used Greek/Latin/Anglo-Saxon/French stems.

"Fernseher" as the German for "television" is a great example. "Fern"=far, "seher"=viewer/seer. What a funny way of expressing it, you think. But "television" comes from Greek roots: "tele"=far, "vision"=that which is seen. Ah-hah! Suddenly things fall into place, don't they?

The one good thing about English is that however tortured the grammar and spelling used, the meaning is almost always obvious. English is spoken in so many different ways, with so many different local versions, that English-speakers are used to inferring meaning on-the-fly, even if the phrases used are not familiar, and to following the most amazing variation in accents. Now compare and contrast to French, for example. French has its Academie which enforced French grammar rules and new words very strictly. Result? If you don't speak perfect French, you have one hell of a job making yourself understood. Some may say this is the French being snobbish, but I sincerely believe they're just not used to trying to follow the speech of people who don't talk the way they do.

Grab.

Potatoe!

[Larsing]

Dan Quayle we love you - NOT! ;-)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Grab]

English spelling is consistent, for a given value of "consistent"! ;-)

Most words with Greek roots will be pronounced the same way. Most words with Latin roots will be pronounced the same way. Ditto French, German, Anglo-Saxon roots. The problem is that each uses a different system of representing phonemes with letters of the Roman alphabet.

The trick is to work out the roots. So the same way as you'd look for prefixes "in/aus/vor" in German to figure out what words mean, you'd look for the roots of words in English. In English this doesn't just help you work out the meaning, but also how to pronounce it. (For example, consider the words "pronounce", "announce", "renounce": the root "-nounce" is clearly to do with saying something, which it is since it comes from the Old English for "message".)

Grab.

Here's my trick.

[krunchyfrog]

For many words, I just ask myself if there's a way to make that word more complicated to spell. Then I can spell challenging words like laugh, cough, delightful and so on.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[srussell]

The purpose of language is communication, and the standardization of such is to ensure against ambiguity, right? If someone's written work is devoid of some common rules of grammar and usage, does it matter if you completely and unambiguously understand what they are saying/writing?

Yes, it does matter.

First, misspellings and poor grammar are, at least, distracting. At worst, they can make the text difficult to read.

Second, -- and I'm using an IT example because that's what I'm most familiar with -- they make one look sloppy. Why would I trust a person who's exhibited obvious linguistic carelessness with any responsibility? You might as well have said, "if a program is devoid of code comments and optimization, does it matter if gives you the correct result?" It may do the job, but if I have a choice, I'm going to choose a programmer who can actually code properly.

That said, I do believe that Slashdot posts are special cases that deserve some leniency. Posting to Slashdot is less writing literature and more conversation, and conversation has always had looser rules (remember the old "a lot" rule)?

--- SER

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[WoodenRobot]

Churchill really said "because because"?

...because, because, because of the wonderful things he does!

Not quite...

[pab89]

"I sometimes wonder if I'm one of the last generations (I'm 34) who will have any solid grounding in grammar, spelling, and basic English constructs for the future."

Not quite the last generation. I, for one, would like to think I have good grammar (and I'm 16). There is a growing minority (yes, minority) of school-age kids who can spell correctly, who can write legible documents and who's work can be recognised as English. The majority are just lazy; mistakes like "should of" instead of "should have" are the most common - it's just a simple case of misunderstanding that can be remedied by good teaching. Standard English isn't dead just yet!

Spelling and grammar are different things

[mindpixel]

The brain does not naturally spell. It has to be forced to remember pedantic rules so that the people who have mastered rote learning can appear smarter than they actually are. The brain works phonetically as should spelling. Grammar on the other hand, has a much stronger claim to being an index to rational thought.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[tverbeek]

People learn to write from reading.

If people don't read much, they will write very poorly and spell almost randomly. If they read crappy writing (i.e. much of what is now published unedited on the net) they will learn to write and spell the same way. It's not specifically a hacker thing, but since folks online get exposed to a lot more no-standards reading material, it's probably a bit worse in that population than among, say, regular newspaper or book readers.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Dutch student of English I have learned the phonetic alphabet for both Dutch and English. It took me about two months to learn to read and write all the symbols and another six months to practice writing full sentences. Now I can say that I am fairly fluent in using the system, and I would recommend it to anyone. As with learning any new 'language' it takes some time and dedication, but once you can really use all the symbol, know all the rules of a language (allophonic rules, liaison, gemination, etc.) you can learn to speak a language perfectly. With a lot of practice, of course. Although I am technically not a geek or nerd, according to the standards of strom, because I am definitely not a 'tech'. (My boyfriend is, though, that's how I found the website) I am; however, a 'language-geek'. So my interest in everything having to do with languages made it easier for me to master the phonetic alphabet. Others might find it boring. But I have found it to be very useful. Nevertheless, I am very much opposed to the phonetic alphabet becoming the standardised spelling, for cultural and historical reasons mentioned above. I'd become sad if my children wouldn't be able to read any of the literature or poetry written today. For me, the phonetic alphbet is just a very very very useful addition to 'English'.
Alma Neijenhuis, the Netherlands (aaalma@gmail.com)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[dapprman]

> but is pervasive throughout just about every aspect of American culture.

As a limey I need to point out that we believe you colonials have already destroyed the Queen's english, and thus it is just a natural progression of the deformation of the mother tongue.

(and now I shall run away and hide)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[sm1979]

Why is the preterite of run ran, yet the preterite of shun is shunned?I do not know the actual answer to this question, but there are normally two explanations for this, both working together. The change of vowel sound: run->ran is generally derived from Arabic, while the change of ending is a European (Greek, Latin) technique.

Euh, sorry to correct you here, but the changing vowel is a typical feature of Germanic language. It's the difference between strong verbs and weak verbs, one of the two retains their vowel but changes the ending, the other changes the vowel.

In the above example: "I run, "I ran" would be in German "Ich renne", "Ich rannte". Pretty similar eh? "I can, I could" -> "Ich kann, Ich konnte". In some cases the English verbs have lost their irregularities (like English lost a lot of Germanic grammar): "I help, I helped" -> "Ich helfe, Ich half". Although the regularization of verbs is a general trend in German too.

Glad I could help :-) but IANAL (linguist)

Phonetic alphabet.

[Poromenos1]

It's not true that the a morpheme-centerd system allows for faster processing by the brain, it's just that you're used to it. Greek has a phonetic system and I don't have to pronounce the words mentally before I understand what they are, I've learnt to recognise them by sight, much like anyone does with any language, I assume.

Begs the question

[Poromenos1]

"Beg the question" means "avoid the question", and not "creates the question" :P

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone mentioned the maths police!

My God! I didn't think they existed outside the UK.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[MobileMrX]

Begging the question doesn't mean "requires the question to be asked." It is a logical fallacy in which an argument is proven by assuming the argument is true. e.g. "Downloading music online is taking something that doesn't belong to you without paying for it, which is stealing. Stealing is illegal. Therefore, downloading music online is illegal." This statement begs the question because the conclusion assumes that the first statement is true.

If people don't care what they write...

[pointbeing]

...why should I read it?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Dracolytch]

While on one hand it would be a shame to loose our heritage, I think it would be a greater shame to stop the language where it is just so that we can stay in touch with our heritage.

Languages change over time for a reason. Words are added to introduce new things, concepts, tools, and thoughts. Language is one part progression, one part evolution. To do that effectively, we can't stop ourselves in the present.

~D

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Mr Smidge]

if you asked people how to spell this term, they'd repond ..

"Repond" - Isn't that what frogs do when they jump of lily pads?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[legojenn]

I learned the difference when I was in grade 5. I had some English homework that my dad was checking. He came across a wrongly placed "it's". He wanted to know what it was, so I said "It's a contraction." His response was "If you do that again, I'll contract you!"

I'll never forget that and I have been careful with my use of the apostrophe ever since.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Mr Smidge]

Of course, that should be 'off'.

of which you speak?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this "grammer" you speak of?

Surely "this grammer" of which you speak?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Your overall point is one I highly agree with,

Er...shouldn't that be:
> Your overall point is one with which I highly agree,
?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Epistax]

Sorry, you lost me at orthography. While yes, I can read THAT word, you can throw plenty at me that I won't have a clue how to pronounce until someone tells me how the letters are pronounced in that particular word.

beer, cheer, neer? no, near!

Fine! near, wear/bear? err... just broke English

I can do at least 100 of this easily. No, you can't even be sure how to pronounce 'wear' the first time you see it, so no you are incorrect. Providing one example where I just happen to get it right because I am well versed in the phonetics-breaking "ph" sound (ironically in the word phonetics) cannot prove truth. However providing one counter example will prove it false. I'm sure you can find one word somewhere that even the most learned orthographist would not pronounce correctly. You might consider yourself an expert and you might be, but the fact of the matter is English pronunciation is completely arbitrary.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[KarmaOverDogma]

Previewing multiple times and still missing errors....

Yeah, i do that a lot.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[MrBuild]

I disagree about the lack of spelling proficiency among techies. All but one of my fellow developers are excellent writers. The exception is the one who cheerfully admits he hated grade-school and doesnt give a hoot about spelling. He is also the one with numerous typos in his applications.

The failure is not due to teaching 'phonics' spelling. Both my children learned phonics approaches to _reading_, not spelling. At 8 & 9 years old, they are learning spelling based on Greek and Latin root words, and they can spell almost anything correctly!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[mikej]

I agree with your general point; It's not just technical people, it's a general failure to train people in the proper use of the language.

I've always found it intriguing that a programmer who could master several arcane computer languages (especially since computers are notably intolerant of errors), could fail so utterly to master his own native human language.

I'd like to point out, though, that programmers are as exact as they have to be. We're forced by compilers and the rules of formal technical languages to be very precise in formulating what we say to the machine. Programmers' english if often atrocious because it simply doesn't have to be excellent to be understood. The human language parser's forgiving nature allows inexact formulations to succeed, but gcc does not; Hence when writing for humans, less rigor is required than when writing for the compiler.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[ampathee]

I beg your pardon, an *easier* way is to learn another WHOLE LANGUAGE? And this is insightful?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Cro Magnon]

Drapery over the bed DID indicate wealth. Imagine what happened to the poor slobs who DIDN'T have those drapes! Ewww!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[fshalor]

Just as seriously, I feel that language is a social construction of reality. For me, communicating is far more important than spelling everything correctly. When I write, spelling is in my last sweep. (I proof lots of mistakes as I'm reading, but I don't spell check until the end.)

I do dislike spelling errors. And hate grammatical blunders. I can read a published novel and pick out mistakes without even thinking about it.

I am a good writer. Getting a 7 on the International Baccalaureate english test (HL) is enough to verify that. I also write books and am about to have one published.

But do I seriously strive for spelling excelance and technical accuracy on every written communication? No. And it's not that there's no point to concern ourselves with such minutia on slashdot. But language is a social construction people. There is absolutly no rule that exists that's always been the way it is now. No spelling that has been static (well, maybe one or two) since the dawn of writ.

The difference is, now, we're writting a whole lot more general communication. The dynamics of communication have changed. But the underlaying structure of language as a social construction is prevalant.

I'm now going to go change my sig to "::this post not spellchecked. move along::

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[da]

What about apostrophes used for plurals?

Sorry, somebody's got to say it, so here goes - THAT'S JUST WRONG, Wrong, so wrong...

[ahem], thanks, I feel better now.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree with your statement!!! But remember us 'techies' are not English professors we are usually proficient in Math and problem solving. My English is awful and I want to cry anytime I have to write an RFP or a proposal. I think as you get higher in your IT career as in a manager or director you have to focus on your spelling a grammar especially on important e-mails going out company wide or to other professionals. Already in this little post I just misspelled 8 words. I have to type everything into Word 1st just to have an understanding on what I have typed wrong! Well for people like me out there take your time on writing because to walk the corporate ladder you really have to show that you have the grammar of at least a 10 year old;)

Sorry for the typo's!!

BBC Apostrophes Quiz

[Anonymous Coward]

Go on - have a go :)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/skillswise/words/grammar/punc tuation/apostrophes/quiz.shtml

Re:BBC Apostrophes Quiz

[Haeleth]

Tried it on level "C", the hardest. I got all ten questions right, although the stupid quiz only gave me 9/10. The one it thought I got wrong was this:

This sentence is [not] correct: I got married in '69 in my sisters' dress.
You said: [it was correct]
'69 is an informal way of writing the date 1969, it shows where the numbers are missing. Sisters', however, isn't correct. It should say sister's.

First, note the poor punctuation in the explanation (comma splice). The second sentence of the explanation is what's wrong, however. Both "sister's" and "sisters'" are correct forms of punctuation: the only way one can determine which is correct in any individual case is to know whether the dress in question belonged only to one sister, or was shared between several. In the absence of this information I judged the sentence according to whether it was well-formed (it was), and the bastards marked me down for not possessing the disambiguating information they had failed to give me.

I hate multiple-choice questions that do that.

Re:BBC Apostrophes Quiz

[syrion]

9/10 at level C. Missed "'phone." I have never seen 'phone. Phone, yes. 'Phone, no. Ahh well. :P

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[mw08820]

While phonetics may have "really hendered" [hindered] spelling capabilities, the use of the particular words and phrases has also deteriorated. My pet peeve: "try and" instead of "try to". The "proper" use should be evident to programmers AND other technical writers. Unfortunately, it appears that the "try and" usage is becoming mainstream.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[The-Bus]

But that's a perfectly cromulent sentence.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[BackInIraq]

As for sounding like an intellectual - spelling errors can make you look like a retard. What do you prefer?

An internet forum is not a place where 100% accuracy in spelling and grammar is expected. Granted, a reasonable attempt IS generally expected, assuming you're not discussing pre-teen topics. However, people that correct minor spelling mistakes rather than address the overall message written are annoying*.

That said, I find it sad that being an "intellectual" has become something to avoid in the U.S. Personally, I wish people would try harder to be intellectuals, whether they come off as arrogant or not. As you pointed out, it is better than retard.

I once acted as hiring manager at a store where I worked. I've seen some of the most horrible spelling you can imagine, some from people who actually made it into college. I had somebody who actually mispelled the name of their current employer, a local theater. The -only- reason his didn't go directly into the trash is because our policy is to keep applications on file for a specified time...but you can imagine how much consideration he recieved.

Granted, simply because he couldn't spell doesn't mean he would be a subpar worker. I would prefer, however, to hire somebody who would be a good worker AND has the ablity to spell.

* - There is an exception...making fun of somebody's spelling or grammar in a post where they were correcting somebody else's is amazingly funny.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[TheoMurpse]

I know this post is in jest, but I can't help but point out that I agreed completely up to this point:

Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of silent "e"s in the languag is disgrasful, and they would go.

By teaching English as a second language, I have learned some things about my native language that I never thought about before. I used to complain about the silent 'e' as well, but then I realized something that can best be pointed out by citing the above sentence.

"disgrasful"
Unfortunately, English has five vowel characters but upwards of 16 vowel sounds. The silent 'e' helps denote that the vowel preceding the 'e' by two characters should be the "long" vowel instead of the "short" vowel. When you post "disgrasful", it would be read by any native speaker with the short 'a' sound instead of the long 'a' sound (middle syllable as "grass"). Granted, I've never thought about the difference for the English, but for my fellow Americans, it makes a difference:
"rate" versus "rat" (note the difference in vowel sound denoted only because of the silent 'e'), "vane" versus "van", "cone" versus "con", "rune" versus "run", "name" versus "Nam", "meme" versus "mem", etc. The final 'e' serves to denote the elongation of the vowel. Without it, thousands upon thousands of words would run together in a way that I thank God English does not do already.

Now, you could alleviate this problem by adding about 10 more vowels to the English language, or adopt a more pure way of representing sounds (for example, choose Spanish vowel sounds a,e,i,o and u, then the 'a' in 'make' can become 'ei', etc.), or you can just leave the silent 'e' in English words. I think leaving it is better.

Don't even get me started on the other words in your post like
"horible" - I would read the first syllable as "ho" instead of the correct pronunciation
"agre" - I would read that as the English word "acre" but with a voiced consonant (g) instead of unvoiced (c)
"languag" - another thing silent e does is change the 'g' to a 'j' sound, so that really should be 'languaj' to be consistant
"al" I think men named Al everywhere would be pretty pissed at you assuming 'al' is free to be read as 'all'

In any case, I enjoyed your post, but I felt compelled to post my rather long-winded opinion about the "silent e issue".

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny part about this is that my computer's text-to-speech engine went through this all quite nicely until the very end.

The inly problem in the entire thing is the "e" removed from "deterent." This "e" is most certainly NOT silent. (Also, it was removed before the removal of silent "e"s was proposed, so it should be in in any case.)

Re:Vernacular should enter the discussion about no

[MynockGuano]

I don't believe it necessarily has to be elitist. The best measuring stick, I suppose, is this one that I just made up:

Disregarding stylistic dialogue, would you see this usage in a published narrative work?

There may be a day when we see "should of" in this context, but given the current meaning of the words, that day isn't anytime soon.

It just comes naturally

[freshBlueO2]

As a professional programmer, spelling has never been a strong of mine. My 8th grade IQ test gave me a 15 for spelling, with a 90+ in math and science skills. I make it a point to tell people, "I'm bad at spelling & grammer, don't take it personally." And I welcome spelling corrections in my programs any day.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[TheoMurpse]

Oh, Anonymous Coward, how I wish you had posted under your username so I could friend you and watch your other posts. I treasure the insightful posts of linguistic nature that occasionally pop up here.

This voiced velar fricative you speak of that used to exist in English, that wouldn't be the same voiced velar fricative that German uses in words like ich, would it?

English sucks as a language

[captainwasabi]

It's a mongrel with more idioms than idiots.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing unique about possessive 'its'. Pronouns do not take apostrophes in their possessive forms. None of them. His, hers, ours, mine, theirs, yours, its.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[chemistry]

I was required to take 2 years of foreign langage in High school...er...maybe it was only 1 year. But I also had to take it in college as well. The problem (for me at least) was not learning the language but never using the language. In Europe people are lucky to be surrounded by other languages while in this country (USA) we only hear English for the most part.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Cro Magnon]

Lose vs loose is one of my pet peeves. Whenever someone says he's "loosing" his mind, I always tell him to tighten it up!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[ishmaelflood]

should of, and bored of, are both bastardisations.

However, they are both very common, and to the average droog, sensible.

My guess is that in 20 years time both will be acceptable, and their alternates arachronistic.

One thing I'd like to know...

[Sierpinski]

I'd just like to know how many times the original poster re-read (previewed) his post to make sure there weren't any spelling or grammatical errors.

More than once I'd bet. ;)

Re:One thing I'd like to know...

[Mr Z]

re: your sig... check out today's Medium Large...

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ting, Tang, Walla Walla Bing Bang ...

We aren't the problem

[Raven_Stark]

English is the problem. Make English spelling phonetically based and consistent so that we don't have to waste valuable time learning all the inconsistencies and the poor spelling problem would be almost entirely fixed. Some people seem to enjoy learning pseudo-random letter sequences (Englishly spelled words (yes, I like to make new adverbs)) and then bitching at everyone else who doesn't share their fascination with boring minutia.

Grammar could also use improvement but not as desperately. Perhaps if we didn't have to waste so much time in school on spelling, we'd have more time to learn proper grammar.

I think it was Thomas Jefferson who proposed following the French system, where a group of intelligent people write ever improving standards for what is acceptable English. Several other languages have similar groups. I think it would make English a more powerful and clear language.

Re:We aren't the problem

[Beolach]

A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling
by Mark Twain

For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped
to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer
be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained
would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2
might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the
same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with
"i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.

Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear
with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12
or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants.
Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi
ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz
ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli.

Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud
hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.

redundancy - sometimes good, often bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back to Golgotha from whence ye came.

Whence contains the idea of movement from a place, and could be adequately substituted by from where whenever it is encountered.

(Hm. I just got that feeling that no one will say 'thank you' for this)

Re:redundancy - sometimes good, often bad

[eno2001]

I'll say thank you. I'll also say, "ya great bender"!!!! ;P

Re:redundancy - sometimes good, often bad

[eugene ts wong]

Thanks. I think that you are doing people a service when you help them to learn words.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[arensb]

It's not just a question of understanding what was written; it's also a question of how hard it is to reach that understanding.

Let's say that you're reading a data stream with enough checksums and such to correct any error. In the best case, you read the data, read the checksum, note that they match, and move on. But if there's a mismatch, then you need to do extra work to figure out whether the data or the checksum is corrupt, find the error, and correct it.

Likewise, with natural languages, if the word you've read is in fact the one that the writer intended, with a spelling and meaning that both of you can agree on, then that doesn't raise any flags; you just read, understand, and move on. If, on the other hand, a word is misspelled, you need to go back and try to figure out which word was meant. When the misspelled word is also a valid word, you may read several words past the mistake before realizing that there was an error, which forces you to backtrack to find the mistake (e.g., a sentence that begins with "I know its cold" implies that the sentence is something like "I know its cold embrace very well". If it actually says "I know its cold but I need to go outside anyway", you may get to "I" before noticing that "its" should be "it's").

OK. Who here wants to arbitrate?

[managerialslime]

Based on the almost 2,000 comments already posted on this topic; and based on the abysmal variety of spellings and grammar on the resumes of people I am interviewing right now for a customer support and consulting position, there should be no doubt this is a real problem.

In the second half of the twentieth century, frustration with English's complexity led some to try and standardize on Esperanto as a substitution for English. (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Esperanto) However, as most people ignored Esperanto, maybe it's time to take another look at improving English.

We have ISO, ANSI, and bazillion other standards organizations covering everything from the definition of a gram to the grading of meats and vegetables. But there is no standards organization (to the best of my knowledge) for the standardization and improvement of the English language.

If there was, there would be an organization to negotiate which words could be migrated to more phonetically-based spellings.

Instead what we have are many publications (mostly dictionaries, encyclopedias, and style manuals) that record the language as it is and not as it could be.

Imagine Linux without Linus or Java without Sun. (Sorry... couldn't ...resist... the... urge. Ignore the previous sentence.)

What would be needed would be the agreement of existing major publications and publishers to use new standards as they arose. Otherwise, the proposed changes will never happen and the language will continue to spiral in many directions.

As it is, the style manuals do little more than to get agreement as to whether new words like Web and Internet should or should not be capitalized. (Ho Hum.)

SOoo....... who wants to found the E.I.E.I.O? (English Improvement Eventually International Organization)

(I'm only partially kidding.)

Re:OK. Who here wants to arbitrate?

[the arbiter]

It's already been done.

For spelling and definitions, refer to either the Oxford English Dictionary (preferred) or the American Heritage Dictionary (a close second). Avoid Webster's (a crappy, poorly edited collection of modern slang and incorrect grammar)at all costs.

For grammar:

The Elements of Style, by William Strunk Jr., E.B. White and Roger Angell.

All these are updated periodically to reflect accepted changes in the language. That's all the standardization you need!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[eno2001]

Bender!

The real question is...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is interesting, since I was just discussing this with a friend yesterday....

What's the difference between an analogy and a metaphor? Are there instances where a situation can be both?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Stauf]

There's nothing unique about possessive 'its'. Pronouns do not take apostrophes in their possessive forms. None of them. His, hers, ours, mine, theirs, yours, its.

Yeah, that was sort of the point of using The easy way to think about it is to consider "his, hers, its" as my opening sentence.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[fa2k]

won't is won it?? wonXt?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

"For", not "för" (or even "før", but I guess that's more of a keymap-issue. )

This also a fairly neat example of how closely the germanic languages are related: I expect most english-speakers would understand "for eksempel" as "for example" -> "as an example" given a bit of time and some context.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to clear this up, the general rule is actually "When you leave a letter out, put in an apostrophe". This explains everything, including "it's", "won't", and the like.

Ah well, only partly, I think that "won't" really should be "wo'n't" by that rule as it is short for "would not". Ain't that true?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Italian is also a phonetic language, we read words as written
It's very easy to spell correctly even words unknown to you
It's easy even to guess the meaning , provided you know a lot of prefixes and suffixes and a bit off ethimology

Ax me, do I care!

[Anonymous Coward]

No boddah me, why boddah you?
F'real brah!
Enjoy the language, don't stick it in a fucking perspex cube and set(sit) it on a doily.

See my sig

[Daengbo]

NT

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[computational super]

I once worked with a foreign guy (no idea where from) who wrote accounting code that dealt with "debit units" and "credit units". He abbreviated the variable for "debit unit" as "DUNT". Any guesses how he abbreviated "credit unit"?

Oh Hail the Great Wisdom of /. Editors!

[Phoenix666]

Oh hail the subtlety! Really, really great. This TFA is like one big pressure valve for all the grammar/spelling nazis out there in /. land.

It's a collective venting of years of irritation built up over seeing posters write "loose" when they really mean to say "lose," as in, "He will lose his lunch." ("loose" means to untie something and let it go slack, not to no longer have possession of something)

Really brilliant. Truly /. editors are becoming Jedi masters of cat herding. Bravo!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Persay is one of my favourites. I've seen it so often on Slashdot I'm beginning to think it's correct American English.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

It has been ages since I took any form of grammar lessons, but I fail to see the difference. Maybe I'm wrong here, but this is the way I see it.

As you say, the object of "of" requires the use of "whom". Since the relative clause instantiated by "who/whom" is the object of the prepositional phrase, "whom" should be used in both cases.

If, instead, you used a relative clause that uses the relative pronoun as the subject, you would use "who," as follows:

"I know the people who you saw."

The relative clause is "who you saw" and the subject of that clause is "who." Since it's the subject of the clause, we should use "who" and not "whom.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Jesus_666]

You're just jealous because Englich doesn't allow for arbitrarily long composite words.

Kommissionsmitgliedswagenreinigungsunternehmensste uererklärungstermin. What a great word. 70 letters. And it stil makes sense (the translation would be something like "company for cleaning commission members' cars' tax declaration deadline").

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[TheoMurpse]

Mushification killing unambiguity

I figure you will be one who appreciates the word suggestion: I was thinking that "disambiguity" might be a word, so I searched for it -- "define:disambiguity" yields no word listings on Google. However, a normal search of the word on Google yields as the first link an academic paper of Homograph Disambiguity of Mandarin, so I am willing to trust that an academic linguistics paper would use actual words in the title of the paper.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[wayland]

In fact, in most situations "it is" is very formal.

It is not :). It depends on a lot of things, but normally, if someone says "it is", they are putting the emphasis on the "is", not on the "it" (or in my example, the "is not", rather than the "it").

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be nice if the rules of English or other languages were perfectly consistent. However, it would be difficult to modify the existing rules to make them consistent, and there would be enough backwards incompatibility that many people would simply ignore the new rules anyway.

Hallelujah!

[ectotropic]

Reading many of the responses to this question has made my day - so much so that despite it being so late in the discussion I'm going to past a response anyway!

For many years now I have been on this very bandwagon - trying to improve the use of the English language as much as I possibly can for two distinct reasons.

Firstly, and most importantly for me, I am dyslexic and so have trouble with language even when used correctly. If, however, language is used incorrectly then it becomes that much more difficult to read and understand.

Secondly, the misuse of language can be harmful. Take for instance the word "paranoid" often used in ways much like "I'm paranoid my head is going to explode!" or "I'm paranoid I've got bowel cancer" or similar, when what is really meant is I'm scared, worried, frightened, fearful, terrified, anxious or otherwise afraid. If, then, a person goes to a doctor complaining of paranoia - what do they really mean? How do you treat that individual? Although perhaps a poor example it demonstrates my point and I'm sure more quick minded people than I can come up with more serious examples.

Those are the main reasons I continue my crusade for better use of language, but let us not forget language is also an art form when used correctly. Bastardising language detracts from that beauty, which is a loss to us all.

Of course I make many mistakes myself, I am only human after all, but I encourage people to pick me up on them whenever I make them so I can continue to learn and improve my own use of language.

One further thing to note is that often words are spelt more like they sound than people think - the problem, in my uneducated view, is two fold, one of laziness on the part of the speaker (a problem we all succumb to at some time or other) and the other is the lack of the ear of the listener to pick up nuances in the sounds that can make all the difference (not a disability in any way but rather an indication of sounds not registered as important during early childhood - as can be shown by the oriental difficulty of distinguishing between the 'l' and 'r' sounds of the English language). However, these issues are to some extent the drive of language evolution - and without them we may have less rich language now.

Finally anyone with trouble with spelling and/or grammar may be well advised to use their favourite word processing package to write all their post, notes, comments, etc. At least that way you can be fairly certain you're correctly representing your thoughts and ideas!

My blog post on this very issue.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[wayland]

1. Considering this is Australia, not very old. 18-something I believe. But no doubt they were basing it on what they'd seen in the British Isles

2. Actually, that's Early Modern English. Old English is from the beginning of recorded English (I forget when this was, but I think maybe 400AD) and the time of William the Conqueror (1066). Middle English is from the time English resurfaced after the Norman invasion until around the time of the advent of the printing press (first commercial printing company was Caxton in the 1480s). Chaucer is classed as (late) Middle English. Shakespeare is classed as (early) Modern. Tolkien (yes, the famous one) was professor of Old English (aka Anglo-Saxon), and incorporated it into the Lord of the Rings as the language spoken by the Rohirrim.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[drafalski]

A tpyo or two are one thing

Wow, a typo typo.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Jesus_666]

Furthermore, the "gh" that's left over in many words, including "knight" was a voiced velar fricative, not a /g/ followed by an /I/. The sound no longer exists in English.

True. IIRC, "knight" is closely related to the German "Knecht" - which nowadays means "farm labourer".

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[BorgHunter]

"Who" is correct. Re-word it: "It's just a case of he being your English teacher." The part after "of" is a separate phrase, so the word immediately following "of" (which happens to be "who") is not necessarily an object of "of," but rather the whole phrase is. Oy. Grandparent, you just worded your sentence awkwardly. ;)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[samdu]

but you have to take the good with the bad.

While on the topic of grammar... This is a pet peve of mine. The correct phrase is, "take the bad with the good." And yes, it matters. The former implies that taking the "good" is a burden, while the latter implies, correctly, that taking the "bad" is the burden. :)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Jesus_666]

Oh, Anonymous Coward, how I wish you had posted under your username so I could friend you and watch your other posts. I treasure the insightful posts of linguistic nature that occasionally pop up here.

*agree* Although IANALinguist, I am interested in this kind of stuff and getting the occasional insight on /. would certainly be nice.
However, chances are that the grandparent's poster is simply not registered...


This voiced velar fricative you speak of that used to exist in English, that wouldn't be the same voiced velar fricative that German uses in words like ich, would it?

No. The German "Ich-Laut" ("Ich-sound") is a voiceless palatal fricative. The closest thing in the German language should be the voiceless velar or uvular fricative (the "Ach-Laut").

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[EdelFactor19]

One thing that I think is worth considering is that quite often the messages and communications that us "nerds" are trying to get across are quite rapid. The ideas and thoughts come faster than you can put them out. My intuition tell me that quite simply put, 'post-processing' everything I/we type is a bottleneck to productivity and effective communication. Afterall effective communication is that which can be understood, and I while I like to spell correctly, you would probably all understand me if I made an occasional spelling or grammatical error.... But if you really want to pick on nerds, you should probably be picking on current society as a whole; no one is immune..

examples? When people pick up a phone and are asked for themselves, i.e. bob picks up phone, other end says may I please speak to bob, what do they say 99% of the time? "This is him" guess what, this is grammatically incorrect (him is an objective pronoun, which is not appropriate for use with is, you need a subjective pronoun to refer to this. him is this? nope, He is this, this is he... that whole business of "am are is was were be being and been") But here's catch 22; does anyone give a monkey's left nut? I'd be willing to bet that unless you are an english teacher, (and even the one who taught me this hinted they probably don't answer it correctly because the answer would seem wrong to the other person...) you don't. I won't even mention the grammar that TV presents us with.

look at english/grammar grades across the country, there is no special rate of failure just for nerds. More likely you only see more of the nerds supposed error because they are typing and posting on the internet far more often than others.

Grammar like anything else has a time, a place, and levels of adherence to it. A parallel would be a compiling a C program. In some environments and configurations you can do things which are not grammatically correct in C, such as C++ style comments, and declaration of variables after the first non declaration statement in a scope. But this won't always generate warnings. Like many things you have to adjust the filter if you will to what it is being applied to.

This is so things can be accomplished, if you painstakingly checked over every IM comment you were to make and every single email of every day my guess is that your communication productivity level would drop to that of the United State Congress's. Or in other words you'd get nothing done and you'd get nothing done slowly.

I would agree with you highly that it is troubling that techs would regard the ignorance as a badge of honor. I find (orignally said "But for me at least that", but I shouldn't start a sentence with a preposition now should I? Would it inhibit understand? probably not therein lies a dillema to our society of fastfood / express service / speed is everything) this is self implying, anyone who regards their ignorance or apparent stupidity as honor is pretty stupid themselves in my book. (However well written that book may be) Much akin to the teenage punk who breaks rules/laws/gets into trouble and thinks he's cooler because of it.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[wayland]

:). Time to modify my general rule. "Don't" is pretty obvious. "Can't" can presumably be allowed for under one "n" absorbing another (these things happen :) ). In this case, it appears to be a contraction of a contraction; presumably the first contraction was pre-apostrophe. See:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=won't&s earchmode=none

(Google is my friend :) )

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[samdu]

And, yeah, I misspelled "peeve."

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Stauf]

It is not :). It depends on a lot of things, but normally, if someone says "it is", they are putting the emphasis on the "is", not on the "it" (or in my example, the "is not", rather than the "it").

Well, yes. I was over-generalising a bit, but I'm using very formal in the sense of "relating to or involving outward form or structure", not really in the "suit and tie" sense. It's more precise language, most commonly used, as you mentioned, to emphasise the is, and therefore the truth, of your statement.

Of course, the fact that I used the word formal to mean two different things in the one paragraph didn't help anything, it must be getting late.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[kniLnamiJ-neB]

we're only required to learn English since our public school system thinks English is the shiznit

I totally disagree. We're only required to learn English because we're unwilling to admit that some kids can't hack it at the top. "We're all winners" and crap. Rather than judging academics by true merit, we hold back the rest of the class so that the one moron can catch up. Been in a high-school class recently? There are kids in "honors" programs who can't solve a problem without someone holding their hands all the way through, can't write a decently constructed paper in their own native language, and can't divide 2 numbers without a calculator... (notice the choice of words, that's an AND...) It makes me sick to think about. I know I sat in classrooms while the teacher re-explained things to the one person in the front of the class who had a deer-in-the-headlights look while the rest of us whacked our heads on our desks in frustration because this person hadn't understood anything *yet* for the whole term. If we had a system that separated students out and wasn't afraid to say "you're not good at this," perhaps more of us would be able to speak several languages and perform as well as the rest of the world.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[hayh]

I'm a native english speaker and I was taught the same thing: contractions like "it's," "I'm," "isn't" etc... were ok for informal speech but not for more formal writing (letters, essays, etc). I don't think many people adhere to this in practice, however.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[circusboy]

Just try to remember, the only pronoun left is "dude."

I feel your pain.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Stauf]

My favourite is "for all intensive purposes" instead of "for all intents and purposes". It adds a dash of passion to something that's usually only adequate.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[ghjm]

You're wrong, actually - even though the original poster agrees with you. "Who" is used when it is the subject of a verb (the thing doing the action). "Whom" is used when it is the object (the thing being acted upon). The correct choice most certainly does not depend on any preceding conjunction. There are many cases where "of who" works perfectly well, and this is one of them.

To make this easier, re-write the sentence as "It is just a case of who your English teacher was." The main verb of this sentence is "is." The subject of "is" is "it." The rest of the sentence is a noun clause serving as the object of "is."

Within the noun clause, there is another verb, "was." The subject of "was" is "your English teacher," leaving "who" again in the role of an object.

So in this particular sentence, "who" is serving as an object in both contexts, and is therefore unambiguously correct.

-Graham

don't forget the slashdot favorite

[MemeRot]

Klingon.

Sadly, there are now more klingon speakers than there are for many native american languages.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[TheoMurpse]

The German "Ich-Laut" ("Ich-sound") is a voiceless palatal fricative.

*sigh* That's what I get for trying to wax linguistic about a language I don't speak. I had no idea that there was a difference between an ich-laut and ach-laut, and also assumed they were voiced (again, because I don't speak it).

I am wondering what fellow Slashdotters who have studied German think about the transition from English to German -- I'm thinking about studying German when I get back to the States.

laziness, plain and simple

[whitroth]

I remember some idiot a dozen years ago, on a non-computer-oriented newsgroup, who claimed he was working on his master's (in a non-computer field), and defending his disregard of spelling.

No, it's not "geeks and nerds", arrogant (and probably non-computer person) asshole, nor "lack of social skills", it's laziness, pure and simple.

"It's the message, not the details?" Try and compile with typos.

Laziness, and occasional bursts of l33t "cuteness" by kids.

mark

Re:laziness, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Try and compile with typos.

Try to compile with typos.

Language

[clawhound]

I have observed for years that our massively written culture finds English majors useless. The geek world falls down on communication. You see this in many place. For example, Linux proponents go on-and-on about how great the technology is, but fall down when considering usability and documentation. Meanwhile, Linux hackers need documentation for new hardware, but can't get it. Thus, poor communication has a profound impact on the development and usability of our favorite operating system. (Hell, there's a PhD thesis for you.) The one thing that I keep learning more and more is: good communication is hard. The better I get at writing and communication, the harder that it gets. Communication is a disciplin that's easy to underestimate and illusury in its master. I can not tell you how often I have been humbled by this. Writing clearly and by "the rules" is all part of communication. We are taught to "express" ourselves in writing. That's what most of us do. However, "expression" is not "communication." Each idea actually leads in a distinct direction. "Expression" is about me. "Communication" is about you. That focus leads to the poor English that we see. We also see this in our Linux leadership. Those who "express themselves" about Linux are easily cheered, but also alienate. They communicate what THEY find valuable about Linux, but if you don't share their values, you are left left. Those who "communicate" about linux don't leave us cheering, but they do broaden the circle because they couch Linux in a way that the HEARER will understand and find valuable. When you write, the first thing that you learn is "don't lose the reader's attention." You do this through poor grammer, bad spelling, poor formatting, etc. The reader looks at it, sees the ugliness, and stops reading. Before they even see your points, you have lost them. Good writing requires the lowering of all possible barriers and a presentation that is well expected. (Thus, we have style manuals.) Only with distractions out of the way can we get to the process of good writing, which is the process of explaining an idea in a way that the listener can understand, and thus acquire the meme for himself. If you do not transfer the meme, communication has not happened.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[cp.tar]

I think New World languages just sound more like they are spelled. New Worlders like to simplify things. Think of Canadian French or Columbian Spanish vs. the original European versions.

Actually, GenAm is - as funny as it may seem - an archaic version of the British pronunciation of English.

Some things, such as spelling, are simplified in comparison to the British English; however, the GenAm pronunciation is archaic, and RP is quite innovative.

Think about it: GenAm is the pronunciation of the people who had moved out from Britain, and generally not from the highest circles of society.

After the independence, Americans generally wanted to differ from the British as much as possible; therefore, when the British innovated and started talking differently, Americans replied with "won't do". There is a similar perversion going on with Croatian and Serbian tongues, with people trying to reconstruct the Croatian of the 19th century just so that it would be as different from Serbian as possible.

So while you are right that New Worlders like to simplify stuff, you're still a bit off... it is the spelling that was simplified to suit pronunciation better, and not vice versa (which reminds me: the way Americans pronounce Latin is just horrible).

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[MemeRot]

You think this makes sense:
"company for cleaning commission members' cars' tax declaration deadline"

What kind of freakin' tax structure do you have in your country?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[fearofcarpet]

Fo' sure this problem is more wide spread than just tech world. In Scienceland there is a push to start teaching "scientific writing" classes - not so much for spelling - but grammar, clarity, and style. I didn't realize just how bad it was until I had to teach one of these writing classes... Holy crap. I mean I really suck at all things English, but these kids... They had difficulty expressive basic ideas and thoughts. Even worse, they couldn't express themselves verbally either. I often wonder what factors have lead to this and if it is related to the "like syndrome" in which people insert words such as "like" into speech (and writing oddly enough) in an apparent effort to waste them. Perhaps it is because kids today never had to actually write anything. When I was a kid you didn't screw around with extra words because that was extra pencil sharpening time you could be playing Atari with.

Given that I'm one of 2 native English speakers in my lab (of about a dozen people) I also wonder if globalization is impacting grammar in the sciences. For example, in my first years of graduate school when I would turn a paper in, it was often graded by a prof. who spoke English as a second or even third language. The paper always came back very well scrutinized (read ass-handed-to), except for the grammar and spelling. That is, the content was understood and corrected, but it was not uncommon for me to catch horrific English related errors down the road. Sometimes I use this to my advantage and write horribly complicated emails packed full of colloquialisms that only a native American English speaker would understand, and send them to people I know full well aren't going to understand a word of it, simply because I don't want to work with them. What is sad is that I can lose a room full of (mostly) native English speakers by speaking in a similar manner (or talking about stuff from the homework, which they never do). Perhaps I live in the Twilight Zone and it is everyone else's English that is good and I'm really speaking with a series of clicks and whistles...

I don't see any sort of "badge of honor" mentality 'round here, more of a laze faire treatment of the English language; Almost a philosophical belief that English is just something you learn well enough to communicate with, but not well enough to express yourself with. Perhaps it is rooted in computer technology, the ease of so-called spell checkers (MS Word does not know that you can pluralize the word 'oxygen'), IM, or simply the result of the reprioritization of subject matter in primary school? Perhaps this is where the English language is headed? All I know is that most of my friends from college are English/literature/history people with a far better grasp of English (and other languages) than I'll ever have (which they constantly remind me of), but I'm Hemingway in Scienceland because I "write like [I] talk" - which I was taught was the mark of poor writer.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[jesup]

Like most programmers I tend to over-parenthesize (American spelling). Even worse, I embed one parenthetical remark within another.

An excellent early (ok, old) discussion of "hacker" english is in the Jargon File, aka The New Hacker's Dictionary. In particular, read chapter 5, "Hacker Writing Style". (And note that I follow said style, including aspects such as not pulling punctuation into quotes.)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[aug24]

Bastard! You may be right :(

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[slocan]

http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[llevity]

Or if you're hopelessly confused on whether or not to add an apostrophe, and the term "it is" works in your sentence, just use "it is" instead of "it's". Generally, formal written language just looks better if you eliminate the contractions.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

English were always my most bestest subject to!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[WPee]

I would not rely on the person with the best spelling & grammar to PACK MY PARACHUTE.

Communication is very important in all fields.
The work completed is MORE IMPORTANT than describing how it was done.

"E=MC2"

The nature of Slashdot

[wayland]

s/showing off/playing together/

s/showing off/seeking truths together/

(yeah, yeah, I know, "You must be new here", probably followed by "Imagine a beowulf cluster of truthseekers ... oh wait") :)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[zaddikim]

I just about spewed coffee all over my monitor. I've used 'ghoti' for years to demonstrate how messed up the english language is for those people learning it as a second language. Hell, There's some 'native' speakers of English that have significant difficulty.

Hackers, Spelling and Grammar

[Anonymous Coward]

I will have to say being an American that Americans are dumb, they are lazy people, hence the type-o's they make, and all of the resources that they consume. Many Americans don't know how to spell or pronounce half of the words that they use. It can't be helped. Now hackers on the other hand, they are always in a rush, getting things done, that is how they/we operate. We are indeed optimizing the language for online use. We are not English freaks, we don't care, it is a terrible language to start with. It is slowly becoming the lingua-franca of the hacker world, and we are making the best use of it as we see fit. Now we when write our english paper for our finals and what not, you better believe that we use the best grammar that we can.

Please excuse any type-o's/ mistakes on my part I am in a bit of a rush :)

Re:Hackers, Spelling and Grammar

[the arbiter]

type-o's? Is that some kind of cereal?

It's "typo".

Short for "typographical error".

So are you dumb, lazy, or do you use a lot of resources? Or all three? Another dumb American wants to know.

Obligatory Soviet Russia statement...

[PedroP35]

Trivia: in German, instead of e.g., they use z.B. which stands for "zum Beispiel".

Trivia: in Soviet Russia, example gives you! .

P.S. God, I hate myself for that...

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

You might be interested to know that many English words, especially ones from the germanic side of old English used to be pronounced much more closely to the way they are spelled, but the pronunciation has evolved over time (for whatever reason). "Knight" for example, while now pronounced "nite" used to have a hard "K" sound at the beginning.

OS X has a built in spell checking service... spell checking/correction on all native text, all the time is a life saver.

there are too many exceptions to the rule

[john_uy]

i am asian. i find it difficult at times to compose the proper sentence because of exceptions to the rule in grammar. sometimes, it sounds weird even though it is correct. it is confusing to do something recursive in your mind if this, it's like this, if this, it's like this, and so on. probably after reading this text there may be grammatical errors in it.

the subject verb agreement is an example that sometimes can be confusing. e.g. he is big but microsoft are bigger. (i'm not sure about this) - all is good but all are reading slashdot. it is sometimes the singular and plural forms. i mean like equipment is for both. why not use childs for plural for child instead of children. or why not alumnuses instead of alumni.

there are lots of other cases that i don't remember right now as i probably don't use them often. but when i encounter these, it's a hit or miss and unfortunately, i think it is more of miss.

anyway (or is it anyways?), i am setting my sight on chinese interested and i hope to study soon. :P

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Stand Ablaze]

Come on, man. I before E, except after C (or when it sounds like an A as in "neighbor" and "weigh"). Therefore, the word is "unwieldy." (Don't forget, always put the period/comma inside the end quotes.)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[computational super]

Yes, utterly ironic, isn't it? You'd think somebody posting in support of grammar nazis would spel check his post before hitting the submit button, wouldn't you?

I'm glad someone finally brought this up.

[NoRefill]

I thought I was the only one that thought that proper grammar and spelling were a thing of the past. Spelling is the easiest thing to fix; almost every editor has a spell checker. Grammar is another case. It seems some people don't feel like it is important enough for them to spend any time learning or retaining beyond their schooling years. Many of these people are tech people and they like to tell you how unimportant other things are too, like art, english, history, and basically anything that doesn't have to do with being a techie. What ever happened to being "well rounded"? There is so much that a person can learn outside of their techie life that can make life so much more enjoyable. Also, delving into areas that a person is not familiar with changes your perspective, maybe to the point where they can understand why something is more important than they thought it was. Sometimes this change in perspective can change the way they approach things in their area of interest, like in a techie's life, that gives them a new way of thing about something they thought they had understood thoroughly, but did not. Sometimes I think people just have to get older to understand this, too.

I think I have rambled too much already.

Re:I'm glad someone finally brought this up.

[EternityInterface]

linebreaks should be taught too.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[wayland]

What changed between Chaucer and Shakespeare?

Chaucer: 13-something (wrote a play c. 1387)
Shakespeare: 15-something (wrote plays in 1590 and 1612)

Now to answer your question: the first English publishing company (Caxton) was in the 1480s.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

actually it raises the question. This is a wonderful flame/troll, but surprisingly on topic. Unless you were trolling for someone to correct you, in which case, still on topic.

I forgot my pizzlewizzle.

Problem everywhere

[j0ris]

Some more anecdotal evidence that the US is not the only country where the native language gets mangled:
I'm Dutch, and the forums here in the Netherlands are full of poor spelling and grammar too.

It's hard for me to say if it is just as bad as in the US though, since I've never actually been in your country and obviously English isn't my native language.

One major source for spelling errors in the Dutch language is that Dutch verbs often end with either "d", "t" or "dt". The pronounciation is the same, but the spelling is different. The rules to derive the correct spelling really aren't very difficult, but I guess a lot of people just don't care.

You don't need to go to the US to be ridiculed for not being totally fluent in the country's language either. I've been to the UK quite a few times, and lacking English language skills certainly aren't appreciated here either. I'm used to American rather than British accents, and Brits on the streets often speak in a bit of a mumbled voice - when I can't understand some of what they say, their facial expression often says something like "stupid bloody tourist".

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[kwoff]

I think it's only a relatively recent idea that Americans speak English badly. I read a book on linguistics, written by a Brit, in which he explained how the British used to admire Americans for the quality of their English speaking. I mean, one normally assumes that British speakers are speaking proper English, but it could as well be that Americans are and the British deviated a lot from a couple hundred years ago, or more likely that all of our peoples (with Aussies, etc.) have significantly changed the way they speak.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Stauf]

Yeah, I know. And 'weird is weird'. But I call bullshit on your always put the period/comma inside the end quotes - it's an Americanism, doesn't make any sense, and I won't do it.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely an English language expert like yourself should know that AD comes before the year?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Dread_ed]

"Why is the preterite of run ran, yet the preterite of shun is shunned?"

What I have always wondered about was how "freeze" goes into "froze" and then "frozen."

Take that as a rule, then, how about: Squeeze, squoze....SQUOZEN?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[mutterc]

Some sex documentary or other talks about the old-time draperies on beds.

They were (also) for privacy - the notion of having bedrooms that nobody would need to walk through to get to another room is a relatively modern one.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Singletoned]

"That's stupid because 100/3 != 33"

It does in python...

thats a lot of comments

[eille-la]

I had to participate

Possibilities

[malachid69]

There are a few things that come to mind easily.

1) Many of us are very quick typers -- not hunting and pecking the specific letters needed
2) Many of us never use spell checkers -- unlike the average college student, secretary, or employee of days past
3) Many of us realize that it will have absolutely no impact on our job -- ie: we know our stuff and management will overlook certain things because of it
4) Many of us regularly skipped classes or left high school / college early
5) Many of us don't care
6) Many of us created the common netspeak because it was faster to type -- for example, 'dunno', 'wtf', 'rtfm', 'l8r', whatever -- thus, spelling became less important
7) I honestly believe that you would find that the same people making those spelling/grammar mistakes would provide much cleaner prose were it for a grant application, etc -- ie: where the text is being used is a lot less important

Well, that's just a few thoughts off the top of my head.

Emulating Speech

[jevring]

I've written a small thing on this very subject actually, a coupel of weeks back.
I've always wondered why it is that people write as poorly as they do, when it comes to writing online.
My guess is that it's because they want to express themselves in the same way, and at the same speed as they would if they were talking to you. This, of course, mostly applies to emails and IMs and irc and such.
I know I'm not a great speller, but I do tend to get my grammar correctly. Also, what my brain doesn't catch, the spellchecker usually does.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[floodo1]

which is exactly my point! joe blow knows to put the water first if its the important part.

still tho technically english is on crack, and you sir are on crack for knowing so much about crack :)

Interesting articles on English spelling

[bytesmythe]

For those interested in the link between spelling and pronunciation, Mark Rosenfelder, the maintainer of the sci.lang FAQ has a great article on his homepage:

Hou tu pranownse Inglish

You might also be interested in:
Writing English Chinese-style

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[drsquare]

Whan that Aprille with his shoores soote

Becomes, easily, "When that April with his showers sweet"

No it doesn't. If you read that pronouncing every letter, you get 'When that Aprilly with his shoe-res soo-ter.'

Beowulf, however, in its original language, is considerably more challenging, though still technically "English".

Technically 'Old English', which is a completely different language to modern English, and probably closer to German than English.

Good, you can help me

[elrous0]

I was raised and educated to believe that spelling and grammar counted.

Well, then you can help me. Does the phrase "pedantic, self-righteous asshole" really need the hyphen?

-Eric

Re:Good, you can help me

[the arbiter]

Yes, it does.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

from an otherwise obvious native English speaker

... or did you mean "from an otherwise obviously native English speaker"? :)

or perhaps you intended to talk about a native English speaker who was obvious?

The use of adjectives in place of adverbs seems to be so extensive in the US that perhaps it's going to have to be considered correct ("my car runs good"). It does cause a lot of minor ambiguity though.

Re:Vernacular should enter the discussion about no

[lawpoop]

You are right. It does not necessarily have to be elitist. But I think you should recognize that we are simply chosing one dialect to be the standard. To say that those who don't speak that dialect are misusing or abusing language is elitist, I think, because by definition, another dialect belongs to another group. So as long as we couch it in terms of 'standard' or 'agreed upon' instead of correct vs. incorrect, I'm happy.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Psyqlone]

If someone's written work is devoid of some common rules of grammar and usage, does it matter if you completely and unambiguously understand what they are saying/writing?

We teach by example whether or not we intend to.

We should decide to set a good example.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

...because really poor grammar (from an otherwise obvious native English speaker) tend to make me discount the opinion of the poster.

uhm... subject and predicate should agree, even in a subordinate clause... next time, try:

...because really poor grammar (from an otherwise obvious native English speaker) tends to make me discount the opinion of the poster.

-grammar_fascist

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[drsquare]

When you take out the ambiguities and subtleties of language, you turn it into a dry, mechanical thing. That would only be beneficial to lawyers and computer programmers. For everyone else it would be a terrible thing.

Words don't need to be regular, if you learn them. I have no problem remembering the preterite of 'run', or 'shun'. Nor the pronunciation of 'knight'. It might be hard for foreigners to learn, but language is there for its speakers, not its learners. You learn the inconsistencies as you use the language, you don't learn it by reading mechanical rules in a book. English isn't a weekend project.

Who vs. Whom-controversial issue

[elrous0]

Bah, I know this - whom is ojective case and who should be used in cases where I or he would be appropriate.

Actually, this is a somewhat controversial issue these days. Today there are many advocates of dropping "whom" altogether.

I don't know about the UK or Australia, but in the U.S., the word "whom" has taken on a bit of an artistocratic and pedantic connotation. It now stands out in common usage quite apart from its "who" counterpart. This reflects a change in common usage, which traditionally precedes a change in literary use as well.

In other words, don't get too attached to "whom" or the smug thrill you get showing off your formal English skills by correcting those misuing "who."

-Eric

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[elrous0]

So why doesn't some 'twit with a bloody Anglish degree write a version with the proper damned modern spellings?

E'll do it when he's bloody well ready, you bleeding tosser--won't he then!

-Eric

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[teece]

I though knight in german was "Ritter." I've never heard the german word "Knicht" so I queried the wife (she's from Hamburg). She said the closest word she could think of was "knecht," which means something like "servant."

Sorry, I just meant that it 'knight' would be pronounced like some imaginary German word spelled 'knicht,' not that 'knicht' was a German word. I said it poorly. The OED (Oxford English Dictionary, 20 vols.) has the whole history of words like this, all the way back to Old English when it is known. It's pretty cool for such things.

Did you even read the parent?

[sean.peters]

If you did, it's not obvious. Yes, you can find examples of words that do not follow the pattern. It does not follow that there IS no pattern.

Sean

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[elrous0]

English spelling is something counter-intuitive.

It comes from all those years of rolling in pig-shit and eating dirt after the Romans bailed on us.

-Eric

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[C0deM0nkey]

Though I have no major problem with current spelling and grammar rules (except for definitely, which I spell with an 'A' more often than not)

But, realistically, isn't that because you are probably not pronouncing the word correctly? If you enunciate, the word is definitely "def-i-nit-lee" and not "def-uh-nit-lee" or "def-i-nat-lee".

Personally, I think if we all took more time to enunciate while speaking and to reduce or eliminate slang from our daily conversations our ability to spell would improve dramatically.

I have issues with adverbs in speech - my wife is always correcting me (which has gradually improved my spoken use of adverbs). This usually crops up when correcting my young children: "Son, please sit nice." (versus "Son, please sit nicely."). When written, this phrase looks ridiculous to me...yet I say this type of thing all the time! :)

My wife has helped me to improve in this area tremendously just by paying attention to what I am saying; when I listen to my parents, who still live in the south suburb of Chicago in which I was raised, I can see where I picked up my speech habits. :P

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[japhmi]

Seriously though, I think being taught phonix(sp? lol) as a child really hendered my spelling capabilities because so many words are spelled in ways they shouldn't...

Then your teachers didn't use real phonics (don't worry, mine didn't either - so I have horrid spelling too).

A 2nd grade teacher I know uses old-fashioned, turn-of-the-century phonics (slightly updated for modern usage), and turns out kids who are spelling well above grade level (she also usually gets the students who were the worst spellers in 1st grade).

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[sbryant]

While the French are known for liking to keep things French, the Germans are generally looking for any opportunity to try out their English. Ask one if they speak English, and they'll tell you that they only speak a little, and then amaze you with a very high standard. What really astounds me is how many English phrases they know that you wouldn't expect a non-native to know, including lots of double meanings and so on.

-- Steve

Double Standards

[gidds]

You won't often find me quoting ESR, but here he says something particularly relevant:

"We've found by experience that people who are careless and sloppy writers are usually also careless and sloppy at thinking and coding (often enough to bet on, anyway)."

And it's true IME too.

I'm not really worried by the fact that many people these days weren't taught English very well. I wasn't taught it very well, and have had to discover many things myself and make my own corrections. School isn't the be-all and end-all of learning.

No, what really distresses me is that other people don't care -- they simply don't see it as important. Slashdotters who are perfectly happy spotting single-symbol mistakes in source code, shell commands, or whatever, and deride those who use the wrong words for technical concepts, simply don't apply the same standards to English.

And I have no idea why this should be. Do people care less about communicating with humans than they do with computers? Do they assume that people will always be able to understand their meaning? (I can tell you from experience that that's not true! It often doesn't take more than a couple of mistakes before you're having to guess between several contradictory meanings.) Do they care so little that they're genuinely unable to see their mistakes, or to use a spelling checker (which, while limited and hardly a full solution, is still a useful tool)?

For myself, I naturally apply the same sort of precision to human language as I do to computer language. (I even tend to use the same style where possible.) I care about expressing myself correctly and well; I'm going to the effort of typing or writing -- I want people to be able to understand the results!

I could go on at length about particular mistakes ('rediculous' is one which particularly irritates me: it always makes me wonder whether things would be worse if they were 'greeniculous' or 'blueiculous'), but I'm sure plenty of others will get mentioned. I could also go on about economies of scale (if a thousand people are reading something, it makes much more sense for the writer to take a bit longer fixing it than for every single reader to puzzle over it). But what I really what to know is why people don't care about English? And how can we get them to care? Once people care, then the rest will take care of itself. People will either learn to spot their own problems, or will accept constructive criticism without lashing out and using hateful terms like 'grammar Nazi'...

Re:Double Standards

[EternityInterface]

oh, isn't that a nice subject, you have to decide something though

1) it's hard to read
2) it's annoying

is #2 only because you're obsessed with perfection, and has nothing to with the readability of the subject?

let's read this again

(I can tell you from experience that that's not true! It often doesn't take more than a couple of mistakes before you're having to guess between several contradictory meanings.)

and let's check on that word

rediculous

i don't understand how "guessing" goes into the equation, there is no words that is like it written or spoken.

but again, when you talk of something being annoying the same as being hard to read, you destroy any credibility.

oh! this part is fun!

People will either learn to spot their own problems, or will accept constructive criticism [...].

strangely enough, this only happens when you disagree with the person. because as we know for 30 year old boys, their only meaning in life is winning.

Who really cares?

[AUDIOMIND]

Unless we all plan on becoming infamous writers in the near future why should it matter if some g33ks are prone to improper grammar and spelling errors?

Love in of itself is just a word, even though it directly implies a feeling, which is defined [confined?] by that word. [Remember, there is no spoon!]

If it so happens that someone treads off the beaten down 'English language' path, does it really matter, as long as that statements message gets across correctly to the reader?

Please bore me no more with such nonsense.....

Oops, too many [...]s!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[shaitand]

Watch your dangling modifiers there.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[shaitand]

No, yours is the first reference I have seen to an F sound in years and the first such reference to explain why the Leftenant thing made any sense at all. I have NEVER heard the word pronounced with an F sound by: anyone, anywhere, ever.

Misuse of You / Your

[sallgeud]

.... pounded into my head by my HS english teacher.... Also, it's the one that annoys me the most when I see it. Not that I'm not guilty of some of the others myself, but I can't stand this one.

Example:

I dislike you talking about this subject.

vs.

I dislike your talking about this subject.

Now, in most english classes today, I see the above one accepted... and maybe Americanized English allows for it... but I fear the whip when I see it.

Re:Misuse of You / Your

[Cyphertube]

Actually, both of those are grammatically ok, but they result in two different semantic meanings.

The first example of "I dislike you talking about this subject" means that the person dislikes you when you are talking about this subject.

The second example of "I dislike your talking about this subject" means that you dislike the action, not the person.

Most of use don't differentiate between people and their actions anyway, so in most circumstance it wouldn't make it a difference, but if you were talking to a loved one and used hate instead of dislike, the meaning might be taken quite differently between the two.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[tcgroat]

English is a living language...

That statement makes me shidder just as if the boss says "The specification is a living document." What it means today isn't what it means yesterday. If you trust what it says today, you'll be wrong tomorrow.

Precision and consistency are essential for the superset "language", just as they are for the subset "technical specification". Say exactly what you mean. Mean exactly what you say.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[computational super]

Well, thank you for the feedback. I'll pay closer attention to that.

See how easy that was, everybody else?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Seraph]

ie, Their car is a ferraris is immediately understandable if grammatically incorrect.

It actually is not immediately understandable; I had to read it 3 times. If an entire paper was littered with such as that, I'd give up reading it after the first paragraph.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[shaitand]

Only an idiot judges intelligence by grammar and spelling. You can get a partial gauge from the reader however.

You see a keen intellect will read a message with mistakes and will immediately interpret the correct intention without concious thought. It is only the slow witted that have to pause and think when they encounter a minor error.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[tcgroat]

I should have decided between "shiver" and "shudder" before submitting. I expect to be expelled from the grammar and spelling Gestapo...

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[h4rm0ny]

If, with the literate, I am
Impelled to try an epigram,
I never seek to take the credit;
We all assume that Oscar said it.

-Dorothy Parker

Actually, I think the wikipedia entry has been defaced as I couldn't find the "French" quote there, but only the following:
"I'm Oscar Wilde, BEOTCH! Keep yo' mitts offa ma bling-age!

He is also noted as a leading literary figure in the genre of "Really, Really, Gay."

I'll grant you, though, the latter statement is accurate.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[0xPTI]

Well, you'll be happy to know that some schools have tested the path of not teaching phonics.

The results are that I now have a good biologist friend who can't spell in college. Smart girl, can't spell.

But then, that's a private school for you.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[RealAlaskan]

We should spell Shakspeare in at least as many ways has he did himself.

In Shakespeare's day, nobody worried about English spelling in large part because serious people wrote serious things in Latin, where the spelling was thoroughly standardized. Because Latin was the language of the educated, nobody had bothered to standardize the spelling of the vernacular.

Since that time, English spelling has been standardized, and very few of us have reliance on Latin as an excuse today. English spelling isn't difficult: it follows two sets of simple rules. We have a set of rules for the words adopted from Latin (about half the language) and another set for the words derived from Anglo-Saxon. Foreign borrowings generally retain their foreign spellings. See my English spelling page for some pointers to resources for learning how simple it really is.

Those worried over form, miss content.

Those who don't worry over form obscure their content, and ensure that it will be missed or misconstrued. It's just plain rude to deliberately or carelessly use bad grammar and orthography: it shows contempt for your ideas and for your audience.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[PMuse]

I've always found it intriguing that a programmer who could master several arcane computer languages (especially since computers are notably intolerant of errors), could fail so utterly to master his own native human language.

You've identified the cause already: rules. In human languages, imperfect communication usually functions sufficiently for the purpose because the intelligent recipient reforms the communication to match the rules he was expecting. In computer languages, imperfect communication is often rejected outright by the recipient or produces an unusable result because the less-adapable computer recipient strictly interprets the rules.

The difference between human languages and computer languages isn't that the latter has rules and the former has none. Both have rules, but, believe it or not, the rule set of the computer language is shorter and simpler by far.

The problem with learning a human language is that they have no rules without caveats (even this one).

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[shaitand]

"There is no specific 'correct' forum for corrections and suggestions,"

There certainly is, an English class. Outside of a classroom or perhaps a copyedit room there is no place where it is appropriate to anally correct the spelling and grammar of others.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Shaper_pmp]

Pedant. ;-p

I suppose it depends on whether you're using "AD" to mean literally "Anno Domini" ("The Year Of Our Lord..."), or (seeing as how it's a foreign phrase co-opted into the English language as a single entity) whether you're using it as a general signifier in its own right. For example, many people consider it perfectly correct to write "CERN (European Centre for Nuclear Research)", also though it technically stands for "Centre European pour Researche Nucleare" (sp?).

It's just one of those "common usage" vs. "technically correct" things, and since I haven't seen a date represented as "AD$date" for years, one could make a persuasive argument that it was now the de-facto correct usage ;-)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[shaitand]

The slow wit that requires you to conciously think about these mistakes rather than subconciously correcting them without concious thought is hardly the problem of the poster.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[lelio98]

First, your information is very interesting. I must, however, make a point regarding "the spelling is NOT arbitrary". For a person who has learned the English language it seems that spelling is not all that important. Take the following as an example:

Frist, yuor ifmnatioron is vrey inretetsing. I msut, hewveor, mkae a ponit regadirnag "the spllieng is NOT artbirary". For a pseron who has lereand the Ensglih...

While not easy to read, you can read it (right?). I seems that the only important fact is that all of the letters are there, in the correct number, and that the first and last letters are correct. If the point of spelling correctly is to enhance communication, I would argue that incorrect spelling does not necessarily hamper effective communication and therefore should not have such a high emphasis placed on it. I feel that while spelling is important, goos content is a much more important.
Proper spelling is only absolutely important when a new word whose meaning can be derived by its individual components is encountered. Your example of 'orthographic' is one such word, for me at least. Even though I can't recall seeing the word and did not know the definition, I could determine the meaning by breaking the word into ortho (correct) and graphic (drawing). I was then able to infer that the word probably meant correct spelling or correct writing.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Pius II.]

That stuff is totally incomprehensible because it was a load of gibberish to begin with. Posting it without line breaks didn't help.
Also, the examples for composite nouns you see posted all over the net are just ridiculous, as are the run-on sentences: no actual German would talk (or write) like that. Basically, I find German and English to be very much alike, much more than, say, German and French (which has its own set of genders, totally different from the German ones).
Well, at least trees are female throughout middle Europe :-)

Ugh ugh ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

The most important rule is to avoid making a correction when you don't know what you're talking about. That's much worse than making the mistake in the first place -- not only do you clearly not know, but you don't know you don't know. You weren't too bad (and had an "I think" in there), but you should double-check! He spelled unintelligible correctly.

If you aren't sure, keep it to yourself....

(Posting AC since this post isn't very polite either)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[h4rm0ny]

ARFGHH! Must check URL! br

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are some things up with which I will not put!
-Winston Churchill

apparently there is

[MemeRot]

Several years ago, people stopped using periods in acronyms. I posted on several forums, including here, and was told unanimously that it was because the Chicago manual of style said to do it, and I should shut up about it. N.A.S.A. was no longer correct, instead we should pretend that NASA was a word. This has, IMHO, led to a total degneration in our language, where we now routinely use acronyms as nouns or verbs interchangeably. "Why don't you UPS it?" What? Why don't you united postal service it? What the hell does that mean?

Re:apparently there is

[pthisis]

Why don't you united postal service it? What the hell does that mean?

If you don't know, you could google it.

You sound like the people complaining about using videotape as a verb in the mid-1980s.

Neologisms are perfectly reasonable so that we don't wind up repeatedly using long constructions like "I'm going to record Firefly to my TiVo and watch it later" or "I'm going to send it to him via UPS". Language is fluid, and when particular ideas are used often it's natural to come up with shorter ways of expressing them.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[PMuse]

Mea culpa.

The problem with learning human languages is that they have no rules without caveats (even this one).

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[MemeRot]

I agree.

Here's my favorite totally conservative spellings:

Quik, Kwik, KwikE Mart
lo-carb
drive-thru
stop-n-go, stop-n-gulp
gas 'n shop, gas 4 less
get 'n go
han-dee mart

Clearly I am unable to read any of these phonetic spellings and find them totally confusing.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[MemeRot]

It's not that simple. England was occupied at various times by the French. The patois that came out of that sometimes applies french rules to anglo-saxon words, and vice versa.

There are actually at least 3 or 4 somewhat incompatible variations on french: france's french, canadian french, african french, and asian french. Far and away the most numerous in speakers are african french speakers, so i don't really care about the acadamie.

you convinced me

[MemeRot]

pwer 2 teh peeples, yo

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Jesus_666]

One that is not very friendly to car cleaning companies. ;)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[mutterc]

it's words replaced with character homonyms that irritates me

Using homonym-shorthand also makes the writing less accessible - it's going to puzzle the deaf until they've read about it or figured it out from context. It might also confuse non-native-speakers (you can't really tell "ur" should expand to "your" without knowledge of English pronounciation).

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[dolphinling]

Oops, yeah.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[MalaclypseTheYounger]

Just to be a jerk, what "letter" do you leave out with won't?

wo not? wo nit?

Guess for that word it's more of a 'lose a couple letters, and change a few others to something completely different'

And for that matter, is there any reason why we don't say "willn't" instead of "won't"?

(I'm too lazy to google for it).

Effective communication? Of course!

[Xepherys2]

I don't see how typos and spelling errors really constitute a lack of effective communication. If l337 sp34k can still offer effective communication, why does it matter if I type "definately" instead of "definitely"? What about "d3f1n4t3ly"? If the person reading it understand, via visual cues or context, does that not constitute effective communication?

I agree that it's a sad decline in the language overall, but language evolves. Apparently American English is in it's angsty teen age at the moment. *shrug*

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

and at the end of the day does it matter for most people...
i can honestly say i don't give a shit if there is some bad grammer or spelling?

I don't care as long as the message is reasonably clear. Content over form is my bag, sorry if you people are so uptight about some meaningless form issues and don't give the real thought to the content.

but hey, continue to shovel against the ocean, it willwork one day i bet :P

languages evolve

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that people can't spell for crap, but that doesn't mean that they haven't mastered the language. English is a language in a constant state of change as it embraces new words and new concepts. If you use non-word enough, it becomes a word. In the same fashion, 1337 speak is actually the vanguard of the written form. I cringed the first time I saw a government publication that said "a meeting @1300" but I c@n s33 7he wr1t1ng 0n 7he w@11

Re:Vernacular should enter the discussion about no

[MynockGuano]

Sounds good to me. Let's go inform the world that we've solved the question once and for all. >8)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[BaudKarma]

No, the fact of the matter is that while English pronunciation may not be 100% consistent, virtually all words do follow the same set of rules. You can't pronounce "Raymond Luxury Yacht" as "Throatwarbler Mangrove" no matter how hard you try. And its pretty rare for an English speaker to mangle the pronunciation of a word so badly that the listener can't understand what they're trying to say.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe won't actually translates to "will not"

I won't remind you again (correct)
I will not remind you again (correct)
I would not remind you again? (wrong)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[a7244270]

Second, your example of the replacement phrase for "google widgets" is poorly constructed. (I hope you've slanted the writing to make your point and don't actually write that way.) We have a perfectly good verb already for using Google or Alta Vista or Ask Jeeves. That verb is "search." One can very simply write or say "search for widgets," and most people would automatically turn to Google for their search needs. The verb "google," then, is unnecessary.

The verb is unnecessary only if you assume google = search, which is not true. The verb "google" means "go to the google website and search for".
Saying "google Yahoo! for widgets" would not only be incorrect, but more importantly the word "search", as you correctly point out, already exists.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[AvantLegion]

I bieelve it was proevn that as lnog as the frist and lsat lettres do not chnage, our brians can aoutomtacalily rearragne tehm and we have full comhenpresion.

hevewor, rnidaeg tihs pevors ellaitnessy ilbissopme dtipsee fniwollog yuor eelpmax's relus, bsuacee tehy are bihsllut.

...

....

(translation: However, reading this proves essentially impossible despite following your example's rules, because they are bullshit)

Programming in English

[sweganeer]

I think it's funny that some geeks fight the rules of English like they're taking a stand against The Man - but happily comply with compilers and interpreters everyday!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

the fact of the matter is English pronunciation is completely arbitrary

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Your logic is worse than your understanding of English. You make me so very, very sad.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Fareq]

This debate reminds me of people who condem the use of the word "snuck."

As opposed to what, sneaked?

I see nothing wrong with sneaking in a snuck here and there.

I know... its not that clever, or that funny... but I couldn't resist, and I've never heard of this debate...

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[a7244270]

While on the topic of grammar... This is a pet peve of mine. The correct phrase is, "take the bad with the good." And yes, it matters. The former implies that taking the "good" is a burden, while the latter implies, correctly, that taking the "bad" is the burden. :)

Very interesting point you make, never thought of it that way. If you google "take the good with the bad" and "take the bad with the good", you will find that usage of the former outnumbers the latter by more than 3:1. Can it not be argued that you are incorrectly constructing the phrase, and that your pet peve [sic] :) needs to be laid to rest?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[The Clockwork Troll]

Why did you leave out a space here: "its".It's

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[catfry]

But that's not really many mistakes is it? For a text 9 peragraphs long...

your personal native english copyeditor

[overbom]

Hola, amigo! Try some of these corrections, they should help you in your quest to be a grammar Nazi. As it stands currently, you're just a grammar ese.

"Finally! I'm tired" or "Finally, I'm tired" would both work.

Try a comma here: "And yes, I'm shit tired..."

Regarding the substitution of 'to' for 'too': this is a common error. Don't worry, I see it all the time on slashdot: "just because they're too lazy."

Your meaning here is ambiguous. You should rephrase this: "Maybe it's a coincidence, but the fact that I'm not a native english speaker answers why people have such weak grammar and spelling."

"But by reading." This is a sentence fragment. You need a verb! Try this instead: "I didn't learn english by hearing, but by reading." Also, your parenthetical quote could just as easily be a full sentence in its own right.

Here's another correction: "In fact, I had some trouble..."

This is the big daddy of your grammar issues in this post: "it's common the rumor that americans are oh god the cream of the crop and they're so superior to us in everything." You need to put some double-quotes in there, maybe a comma or two.

This isn't wrong, per se, but it's kind of funny "And then I come... and end up making a huge O face," especially if you've seen Office Space. :)

Here to help! My sister and mom are both english teachers. Mom's a spanish teacher as well.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[westendgirl]

You mean it should've been "off". ;-)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Corrections:

Any text is written just once. It is, however, likely to be read multiple times by multiple readers.

Also, your quote is broken. "Them" just before the comma can only refer to "common rules of grammar and usage." What you meant to say was:

As long as you understand her or him, does it matter if a person breaks common rules of grammar and usage?

Singular vs Plural

[Anonymous Coward]

Mostly correct. "e.g." can actually abbreviate exempli gratia, but then it means for the sake of several (as opposed to a single) examples.

More commonly, though, the singular is given as the expansion of "e.g", i.e. exemplum gratia, which has the translation you give.

Re:Singular vs Plural

[Stankatz]

Thanks for the clarification. I don't know Latin. However, all of the dictionaries I've looked in, including the Merriam-Webster dictionary, list "exempli gratia", and most translate it as simply "for example".

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[hankaholic]

The problem is that language is a tool for expression. To me, a lack of concern regarding the clarity of your communication shows two things:

• You don't consider your opinion to be worth the effort required to express it clearly.
• You don't care to show respect for those reading your opinions. By placing more burden upon those interpreting your statements you indicate that you aren't as concerned with their ability to easily understand your statements as you are with simply feeling like you're contributing in some way.

If you care about your opinion and whether readers can understand it well, it's reasonable to expect that you will make some effort to express it clearly. For instance, confusing "it's" with "its" actually does make it harder for skilled readers to focus on your content because of the backwards lookup required when they suddenly realize that "it is" doesn't make sense in context. By forcing them to back up and reinterpret you redirect the attention from the content to the presentation.

Listening to somebody speak is a different case -- when you hear "its" or "it's" you automatically recognize that you'll have to do additional contextual resolution in order to interpret meaning. However, when I see the word "it's" I automatically resolve the meaning as the same concept expressed by "it is". When you have to stop and interpret each word phonetically an extra layer is introduced -- word->meaning becomes word->audio->meaning -- and those who have enough reading skill to avoid this extra step when reading well-written text will take performance hits when reading poorly-written text.

This isn't to say that you should be anal about every expression you write. However, if you respect your opinion and your audience it is worth the time to consider their end of the transaction -- your statements are only worth the reader's ability to properly interpret what you've expressed.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[FurryFeet]

You might consider yourself an expert and you might be, but the fact of the matter is English pronunciation is completely arbitrary.

You obviously have no idea what "completely arbitrary" means.

near, wear/bear? Yeah, theres a small difference, mostly caused by uses. Buy you'd never see "bear" and pronounce "fish". Now, THAT would be completely arbitrary.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[bogado]

Just for fun, I tested it with my native language as If I were to reply you using it:

I costumo to use bablefish, but does not stop the English, who I know well. Use more for languages that I am learning as the Frenchman.

It should be :

I usually use bablefish, but not for English, that I know well. I use it more for languages that I am learning like French.

or in portuguese:

Eu costumo usar o bablefish, mas não para o inglês, que eu sei bem. Uso mais para línguas que estou aprendendo como o Francês.

One simple rule

[GnarlyNome]

Often people use hung when they mean hanged
simple rule
No man wishes to be hanged all men wish to be hung

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[DunbarTheInept]

Sure, if that was how it's pronounced. But it's not. It 's pronounced "houses".

One difference between British and American pronounciation is that the 'z' is harsher in American pronounciation so that the subtle slight harshness of the 's' in "houses" isn't quite enough to qualify it as a "z" to the American listener. To the American listener, that still sounds more like an 's' than a 'z'. (As opposed to "organization" which has a very harsh 'z' sound in it.)

It's like the fact that to an American listener, it sounds like British people don't pronounce the 'r' at the end of a word. To the American, the way British poeple pronounce "far" it sounds like it should be spelled "fah".

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[RedBear]

It was a rhetorical question but thanks for supporting what I was saying with some actual facts and figures that make it all make sense. I'm very bad at providing supporting evidence.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[FurryFeet]

If you need to proofread "FP", you have deeper, more troubling issues...

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[drewness]

Knight is spelled the way it is because it used to be pronounced kuh-nig-it

No. It was pronounced /knext/. Not like Monty Python.

You've added an epenthetical schwa after the k because /kn/ is not a possible consonant cluster in Modern English. And then you added another epenthetical vowel between the x (voiceless velar fricative; like the ch in 'Bach'.) and the t.

That being said, yes, English spelling is screwy because it's a Germanic language that then got a bunch of French loanwords thanks to an invasion, then some Scandinavian thanks to another invasion, then Greek and Latin via scholars. Plus spellings were often standardized on one dialect's pronunciation at one point in time. It gets to be a right mess.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[kerthwap]

The difference between 'being taught phonix' and you 'learning phonics' is whether or not you look like an idiot. The English language itself is particularly screwed up when compared to languages, but disregarding the rules of English makes an intelligent human being of any age look like a fourteen year old at best. I'm going to go ahead and disclose a big cheat for anyone who posts online. You can copy and paste to your word processor and then run spellchecker. It is spelled 'hindered.' 'Hendered' most likely has something to do with Jimi Hendrix.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[DCheesi]

Actually I agree with this. I was an exceptional speller right up until my class switched over to a phonics-based program. It totally screwed me up, and I still have issues with words that I probably could have spelled perfectly in fourth grade...

BTW, part of the problem for me was that I was forced to conform to their system for combining word-parts. I had already evolved my own informal systems for doing this, and the new methods just caused confusion. Eventually this process rendered me incapable of using either system reliably.

Academic Language Gap

[GnuTzu]

Unfortunately, there is an enormous academic gap between the undergraduate teaching of langauge and the teaching of technology. I have taken two technical writing courses: one taught by an English professor and the other by a professional technical writer. Surely the professor had a much broader grasp of the various aspects of language. However, the professor, quite naturally, taught in the fashion that is commonly used in liberal arts classes, and that is the method that has evolved to primarily benifit those students that are liberal arts majors. In that environment, technical and scientific majors are the neglected minority.

The professional technical writer, on the other hand, invariably taught directly from is own text. His text was, essentially, a well organized tutorial on techical writing. I became quite fond of his monotone reading since I knew that what I was being taught was going to be very usable.

This gap between the teaching methods of scientific and liberal arts communities alienates technical people. As such, techical people find themselves discouraged from maintain verbal skills.

As a technical person, I know that effort is needed to balance my verbal with my non-verbal skills. I avoid chat services; I would rather use email so that I can always be sure to write in complete sentences. Without this regular practice, my techical writing needs would be harmed.

Unfortunately, a posting of this sort only contributes to the alienation that most techical people feel. I would much rather see something hopeful said about the few language resources available that are suited to those who are more non-verbal.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[RedBear]

You may be interested to know that "literally" is shifting meaning--it no longer always means "exactly"; it can sometimes mean "I mean the statement intensely, although it is not an actual depiction." There is an interesting note on this phenomenon at dictionary.com

Yes, that is interesting. Without realizing it I have been using it in both the correct and incorrect way all my life. I will note a couple of things though, that support what I was saying. One, they say this change has been present for "over a hundred years", and two, it still retains the original and primary meaning to this day. If you use it correctly it will almost certainly be clearly understood which sense of the word you meant. By context, if nothing else. The incorrect usage is very strictly limited to "as an intensifier before a figurative expression". From a functional perspective even in the examples given the usage of the word almost fits the regular definition.

Languages will definitely change over time, but having an educated and literate society that cares about the rules of grammar will help to slow that change and make it possible for someone far in the future to read things we write today without too much struggle. If we do things right the average person will still be able to read Shakespeare another thousand years from now. I think that would be a good thing.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[deacon]

I know it shouldn't happen, but it does, in just the same way that people associated educated accents with intelligence and working-class accents with stupidity.

Here, I'll fix the error for you:

[I know it shouldn't happen, but it does, among the rarefied strata that we inhabit, in just the same way that elitist bigots associate educated accents with intelligence and working-class accents with stupidity.]

There. Makes more sense that way, and is a natural progression of how these sorts of people used to judge others based on sex or skin color, and still discriminate against the Irish.

Looking at your personal website, we see:

[David Given] was born in Scotland sometime in the 1970s. Details of his early life are somewhat unclear but he is believed to have gone to a series of mildly prestigious schools. After graduating from St.Andrews University, he was forced to leave Scotland and work in the barbaric wastes of Reading.

So really, your own bio is written in the style of the sort of British elitist crap that has been eradicated in the USA, with the exception of the intelligentsia of the ivy league coasts.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

What you're missing is thousands of years worth of evolution that the English language went through. Shakespeare's english wasn't English at the time, it was slang. The english we speak now is nothing like Olde English. Even contractions like "should've" were only invented in the last couple hundred years. So until you come up with an actual standard for the English language, I'm gonna continue to Capitalize HOWEVER the fuck I want. Why don't you go out and get yourself a good nitpicker's book about some retarded crap and sit around telling yourself "No no no I do it the right way and you're incorrect! woo! I am so better than you at thinking in one incredibly confined way!!!"

What makes you even think people are speaking english when they talk? Don't just assume that. I don't consider myself an english speaker. I make specific utterances that can be interpreted with a proper background in the english language, that's true. But I communicate with every resource I have available, not with some limited protocol that YOU think I'm choosing. So if you can't understand me, tough, and if you can, then you must love to bitch, you little bitch.

Cheers!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[DCheesi]

I've always found it intriguing that a programmer who could master several arcane computer languages (especially since computers are notably intolerant of errors), could fail so utterly to master his own native human language.

Perhaps because the English language is so arbitrary and imprecise? I know I for one used to hate English and/or writing classes, mainly because you could never be sure whether what you wrote was the "right answer". And I'm not just talking about the content or creative style of a paper; even basic grammar and sentence structure rules seemed to change with every new teacher or grader! And the rules which are written down are full of exceptions and contradictions.

At least with programming languages, the compiler lets you know right away whether your stuff "works" or not. And most of the time the rules don't change (unless you're porting code, of course). It's not perfect, but at least computer languages are designed with some attempt at logical consistency! (Ok, ok, except for Perl... ;-)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[ngrier]

That's not far off: contractions are viewed as informal and thus in a "formal communication" (letter, business e-mail, etc.) they should not be used. That, of course, does not stop many people from using them in this context.

They are pervasive in the vernacular and fully acceptable. Of course, incorrect usage of the apostrophe drives many of us insane (as the rules are really quite easy).

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[cthulhubob]

> I don't see any sort of "badge of honor" mentality 'round here, more of a laze faire treatment of the English language;

I was tired of reading comments and just scrolling toward the bottom of the page before closing the tab, but this leaped out of the screen at me and I had to post. I've seen this and similar mistakes very often recently, and I'm not sure what the problem is here; it's not Hooked on Phonics, because the spelling here has very little relation to the way in which the word is pronounced. Maybe it's people who have read the phrase but never heard it pronounced, who then forgot how it was spelled before committing it to a comment themselves.

Laissez-faire. Please.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Kent Recal]

That's cuz some of us germans spend all day in front of screens and, well, you don't get far on the intarweb without picking up your share of english slang.

I, personally, have once successfully pretended to be canadian to a girl from the US cuz my accent apparently sounds a bit like that. And because I was mumbling "eh, uh, uhmm" all the time while figuring out how to end the sentence i just started.

Wierd, eh? ;)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[pilgrim23]

an English Grammer is a novel written by comittee. as I said: Content...form. Try reading a scientific journal some time. Absolutly perfect and rigid in style and form, totally unreadable in content

Exactly!

[SuperKendall]

If you really believe that, why even post? Seriously. Think about it.

Posting on Slashdot is generally worthless - but so is playing games, or a lot of other things we do for entertainment. They have no instrinsic value except to amuse us... so perhaps "worthless" is not exactly the right term, but "lacking in impact" sounds too wonkish. So basically worthless in the long run.

Now I do think, that sometimes peoples opinions can be changed by a SLashdot post. But mostly I would say people who come here have strong opinions already and are not likley to change. So while sometimes it's worth a little effort crafting a message on the off chance it actually might take hold in a reader; generally it is not and your post is like the collapsing tree in the forest.

Here's a question to ponder yourself - does posting on Slashdot really provide more value than, say, watching TV? Is anyone really any better off if you do one or other other? Note I am not saying READING slashdot is not better, just the posting.

Re:Exactly!

[FurryFeet]

Generally speaking, I would tend to agree with you. I post on Slashdot mostly to vent or to joke, with no expectations or illusions as to who will read it. But mostly, I post for those rare, rare ocasions (such as, I shuld say, this one) when a post turns into intelligent dialog. I really get a kick out of that. And for that, I think, it is worth it to craft a nice post. And, based on yout literate response, I suspect that deep down you do too.

Mind you, I don't advocate spellchecking or agonizing over a post. But proofreading is not hard at all (just reread what you wrote before hitting submit), and will catch over 90 percent of mistakes. And I have nothing but contempt for those who make it a matter of pride to be incomprehensible.

As I said, I tend to joke a lot, and many jokes on Slashdot are a matter of finely tuned phrasing, where a typo can kill your joke. Maybe that's why I'm extra careful on my postings (the fact that I write for a living also has something to do with it).

The importance of a communication...

[Anonymous Coward]

..is determined by it's content - not by it's spelling or it's grammar. Also, it is extrememly rare that an error in spelling or grammer prevents the content of a message from being communicated. If you listen to "real" conversations by average people, they are rife with grammatical errors. "So what!", I say. Grammer and spelling are in a state of constant flux, and they are to be determined by common usage, not some dusty style guide sitting in your library. And what made the English in your textbook "better" than other forms of English? For example: in some ways AAVE (or "Ebonics") is more grammatically consistent than standard English. Is standard textbook English really better? Is it more expressive?

It's a rather narrow view which equates spelling and grammar habits as being indicative of general intellegence. Perhaps if the author were exposed to an introductory book on linguistics it would help him better evaluate the various permuations of language he might encounter in his readings.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[default luser]

It's not really necessary to know every intracacy of the engilsh language to speak and write it properly.

Pronouns, adverbs, participles and clauses are things I don't conciously think about while writing. Instead, my mind recalls real-world examples, and pieces them together to form unique expressions. My test for properness is simple: if I read it, and it doesn't sound right, then it cannot be correct. As crazy a language as English is, it has a certain flow to it you can't miss, provided you've been exposed enough to its proper forms.

My style isn't perfect by any means, but it's good enough to make people think what I have to say is important enough to be heard. Unfortunately, kids these days aren't getting such exposure to build on because the quality of ALL the language around them sucks.

I hate you all. [EOM]

[grammatikpolizei]

[EOM]

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[WolfWithoutAClause]

I think this proves my point, I didn't understand the English translation anyway, and that was presumably grammatically correct Portugese. So the idea that everyone has to use better grammar to help Babelfish out- it's so broken, it makes little difference anyway.

'learning as the frenchman' - LOL. Sounds vaguely obscene!

Re:Good hackers have excellent communication skill

[juan2074]

Unfortunately, not all English majors learn proper grammar and spelling.
Have you read essays written by today's college students?
How did they get accepted by the university?
Did anyone (teacher, TA, other student, etc.) help them to improve their English writing skills before graduation?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be "supercede," not "supersede."

But, to get to the point, I have always found the it's/its thing to be extremely easy to remember ever since I learned it in SECOND GRADE.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

yhbthand

prequel

[cybpunks3]

Prequal and sequal instead of prequel and sequel.

Sometimes I seven see prequil.

That's the biggest!!!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[crazyvas]

Thats like saying outside driving school, there's no place where it is appropriate to tell anyone that what they did was incorrect. No one should get traffic tickets then. And no one should ever be at fault in any accident.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[ZephyrXero]

Sorry if I don't take my Slashdot comments seriously enough to worry about things like that...lol

Re:A Few Points (more)

[Anonymous Coward]

If more Chinese people were geeks, there would be a lot fewer Chinese people. Remember, you have to have sex to make more kids.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[ahrenritter]

::shudder:: ::marks young Canadian girls off of my chat list:: ;)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[fearofcarpet]

Actually that is the spelling I was taught in reference to a psychological phenomenon, but the psychology department certainly doesn't make any claims to excel at spelling (nor do I) and that was a long-ass time ago... Not that I don't trust you, but I asked the French person sitting next to me and laisses-faire is in fact the correct French spelling, as well as the English dictionary spelling : ) I was also treated to a list of French words that we spell differently, such as connoisseur/connaisseur. Perhaps there is an "English spelling" (read: incorrect) of laissez-faire, probably arising from the phonetic attempted-French pronunciation, that will wind up next to "ain't" in the dictionary some day. In any event, I will use the proper spelling in the future. Though I will never make the claim to be even reasonably good at spelling.

BTW wouldn't I have to be a teenager to have been learning how to read when Hooked on Phonics came into being? Rest assured I learned (and unlearned) my grammar, spelling, and cursive the old fashion way.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[jiawen]

Nope. The "dangling preposition" thing is a shibboleth. As Winston Churchill supposedly said, "This is the sort of thing up with which I will not put."

How are you gentleman

[edsonmedina]

All your grammar are belong to us!

Bad spelling slows down reading?

[tonyl]

I don't think of bad spellers as less intelligent; some quite intelligent people just cannot spell.

It's perhaps less excusable with computer spell checking so easily available, but my real objection is that it impairs my reading speed: my brain recognizes the patterns of correctly spelled words but can come to a grinding halt when it scans some extreme aberration.

I don't like having to slow down.. but it does make me wonder: are poor spellers also slow readers?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[QuickFox]

My guess is you're too active. To get to moderate, you have to be somewhere midway between the very active users and the very inactive users. This is explained in the FAQ, in the part about moderating.

Good luck.

--
--

me fail english?

[Magius_AR]

That's unpossible!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[QuickFox]

See my reply to the grandparent post.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Magius_AR]

A tpyo or two are one thing

I'm going mad trying to figure out if the typo was accidental or a planted pun.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Mozk]

In order to understand English spelling, you first need to understand English
I understand English. I said that English takes words from other languages without adapting them. A language should not be a mish-mash of confusing spellings and pronunciation that don't match each other. When you take a word from another language, it makes sense to adapt it to the rules of your own, while still conveying the same meaning. I might as well take 20,000 words from Spanish, 20,000 from German, 100,000 from other languages, and put random prefixes and suffixes to change the meanings. It'd be the same as English.

Nothing is perfect except God.
Don't bring religion into it.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Natural selection" and "evolution" are not equal; neither is the first a subset of the second. The second can be a result of the first. It is the fact that these terms are not the same that lends relevance to their association. Evolution means gradual development or change. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evolution

Re: Racist?

[Hercynium]

Good catch there! And better yet... on topic!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[amrittuladhar]

It was indeed meant as a post in jest. In fact, I like English spelling. Ridiculous as it might sound, I think the efforts of learning to spell and gaining the ability to spell well are rewarding and worth doing, like the skill to write well or read efficiently. And because spelling in English (like so many other things in language) is so irregular, this task is challenging and fun.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Orwell, newspeak, kewl

You certainly are missing something.

[John Sokol]

The authors of dictionaries have learning a long time ago they don't dictate the language but they have keep up with it.

Language evolves with the group that uses it. In a sense many words and phrasing are changing to allow improved communication within that group, this is the natural way it's supposed to work. So in a sense "Proper English" is less clear, or more cumbersome then the new uses of the language. Just as Shakespeare's English, Beowulf, or the Queens English would be nearly impossible to have a simple technical conversion with.

Some how the English teacher set feels the opposite. Like they should dictate the language. This is why Esperanto worked so well (it's useless) since I didn't evolve on it's own. It is as if all the biologists were to dictate how organisms should be and attempt to exterminate any new species encountered, or attempt to keep alive the ones that no longer can survive on there own. Or how the church dictated the laws of physics and anyone who discovered something that didn't agree was rejected or worse, killed.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can not just revamp an entire language. Despite how much I agree with you, it can't be done that simply. Even if we wish it could be so.

The optimality of English Spelling

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Chomsky, in the book The Sound Pattern of English, argued that English spelling was in fact near optimal.

Briefly, the point is that English spelling is 'lexical' in the sense that it reflects the way the word has been constructed rather than how it is spoken. For example consider the words crumb and crumbly. The 'b' is silent in the former but not in the latter. The spelling is inconsistent from a phonetic standpoint. But both words are formed from the same stem, crumb-, so it makes perfect sense that they should be spelled the same. Another example is the past tense -ed. It's pronounced d or t or ed in different places. But the consistent spelling reflects a consistent meaning. So maybe the problem isn't with spelling, but the inconsistency of English speech.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[STrinity]

A) Chaucer's works are spelled phonetically. The "misspellings" indicate how the words would've been pronounced in Middle English. You could run them through spell-check and get something that looks like modern English, but the rhythm would be all wrong.

B) Despite that, if you go into Borders or Barnes and Noble, all you're likely to find are modern translations. You pretty much have to go to a college bookstore to find Chaucer in the original language.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[dublin]

The Great European Dream

Reminds me of a joke I heard Roger Moore tell on Johnny Carson one time (boy that dates me, and I'm not really all *that* old...), in the early days of Eurotegetherness:

In European Heaven, The English are the policemen, the French are the cooks, the Germans are the automakers, the Italians are the lovers, and the Swiss are the bankers.

In European Hell, The English are the cooks, the French are the automakers, the Germans are the policemen, the Italians are the bankers, and the Swiss are the lovers.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[STrinity]

No, you CAN not "read" as in comprehend in full hardly any paragraph of an original peace from Shakespeare today.

If you were talking about Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, you'd have a point. But Shakespeare, even in editions without the standardized spelling, should be comprehensible to anyone with the brain capacity to decipher 1337.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[vettemph]

.
So it would be incorrect to write:

"Stauf Jack's off." :)

My favorate example of capitalization:

"Stauf helped his Uncle Jack off a horse"
vs.
"Stauf helped his uncle jack off a horse"

(All in good fun, no offense intended.)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[StrongAxe]

My guess is you're too active. To get to moderate, you have to be somewhere midway between the very active users and the very inactive users. This is explained in the FAQ, in the part about moderating.

Please forgive me for seeming dense, but could you tell me which section title this is under?

I read the FAQ sections on "Comments and Moderation" and also "Meta-moderation" twice today, earlier this afternoon, and again after reading this post, and have been unable to find any mention of this. I also did a text search of both section and could not even find the word "active" anywhere.

I have heard one other person make a similar comment somewhere a while back, but seemed to be an educated guess becasue it did not refer to any specific "official" documentation)

I'm also not sure just what "active" means with regards to the software. I metamoderate 3 times daily, but otherwise rarely post (other than an occasional follow-up).

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[mabinogi]

>. Absolutly perfect and rigid in style and form

Take that journal to an editor of fiction, and you'll be lucky if the only thing without a red line through it by the end is the author's name.

there is no "Perfect" style, there are various styles suited to different purposes.
But all of them still rely on correct basic grammar.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[STrinity]

A moronic teacher in high school once tried to convince us of that, but I don't buy this. (And since then I learned much more about ancient languages in college) I think it used to be a softer G type sound.

Well you're wrong. "Gh" is a modern orthographical method for representing the Medieval English letter yogh. From Thomas Garbaty's Medieval English Literature:

The thrid letter, [yogh], is a peculiar chameleon which adapts itself to many situations. Initially, it has the sound of consonantal y (as in Mod. Eng. yacht), where in Modern English it is silent (for example, ME [yogh]if, Mod Eng. if) or hard (ME [yogh]ive, Mod. Eng. give). Medially it is pronounced like ME ch, where in modern English it is silent gh: for example, ME kni[yogh]t, o[yogh]t, Mod. Eng. knight, ought. It even has the sound of final s in some scribal peculiarities (wat[yogh]=was)! All in all, it seems best to play the letter by ear.

Garbaty notes elsewhere that all consonants in Medieval English are indeed pronounced, and kni[yogh]t is k+ni+ch+t.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Stauf]

I think that comes from a bash.org quote - I used it someplace else in this thread.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Stauf]

Cause I was tired, it was late, and the space bar was all the way down there. It's a simple typo.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Stauf]

It should be "supercede," not "supersede."

Bzzzt. Nope, "supersede" is spelt with '-sede', not '-cede' like 'precede'.

and the point is?

[crashelite]

i had one of those pull string toys and if u didnt let the sting go in on it it would sound possessed.... that was my learning tool on how to speak and spell... oh well... but does it really matter on the spelling and grammar if the people you are talking to get what your saying or what you mean?

English teachers on the computer

[jotux]

Over the last few years, I've noticed that a surprisingly large number of what should be technically savvy computer users seem to lack strong computer skills. Mostly, this seems to manifest itself in varying degrees of lost task-bars and the lack of understanding regarding the double and single clicks. It baffles me that a culture so obsessed with technical knowledge and accuracy can demonstrate such little attention to detail when it comes to properly and efficiently using their computer, and it baffles me even more that many people show apathy when you attempt to help them use their computer the right way. Do high school teachers and college professors just not care that elementary school children can use a computer with a higher degree of understanding than they can? Do they not realize that a mediocre command of their personal computer makes them appear less intelligent? Am I missing something here?

Seriously though. I've never met an English teacher that had computer skills you call anything other than moderate.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[shaitand]

These comments and corrections are not at all like traffic tickets. Rather, these are the grammar equivelents of backseat or passenger driving.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[WinterSolstice]

This is exactly why I like the French and Spanish words for the same soldier better :)

"Chevalier" and "Caballero". Where a horse is "cheval" and "caballo", respectively. No confusion there! Knights were "horsemen". Equestrians.

Actually, in a lot of respects I like French better, though I am not nearly fluent enough in it.

-WS

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[crazyvas]

Not that I completely agree with that, but when the driver is making obvious mistakes that continually compromise safety, comments from the passengers are perfectly warranted, and contribute to safety. BTW, the correct spelling is "equivalents".

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry... Just had to remind you who you were talking to.

A moron? Well done. You managed to do that perfectly.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[shaitand]

I realize you are fishing for it, so I will bite. Grammar on a slashdot post has no relation to public safety.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[The Clockwork Troll]

I love you, brother!

Re: Racist?

[nametaken]

Your dialect of English is not basic English.

Uh, yeah... actually it is here. If you can't communicate with people who speak my "dialect", then you basically don't speak english. You're unemployable, and that's what were ultimately talking about. Also, don't think I didn't notice you indirectly elevating ebonics to "dialect" status.

Those immigrants you talk about learned to speak the white American dialect of English, thus have have done better amongst white Americans.

Yes they did, and good for them. Now everyone else who bitches about not being able to compete can do the same. That goes for people who have constant learning devices for it MORE than the people who have to come here halfway through life and start new.

Some people just odon't care about doing well by white folks, so who are you to say that you set the standard?

Oh sure, I'm fine with that. If you want to live in a refrigerator box because you think that means you're somehow enlightened... by all means. Just don't do it in my neighborhood, we work hard here and buy homes. Oh, and stop taking a portion of MY paycheck so you can afford to "fight white culture", where we value hard work in exchange for a paycheck.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Dun Malg]

That stuff is totally incomprehensible because it was a load of gibberish to begin with.

It's not meant to be coherent. It's a humorous illustration of the randomness of German language gender assignment. I posted it because it rebuts the OP's statement that the German language is totally logical.

Posting it without line breaks didn't help.

Talk to Mr. Clemens. The original had no line breaks either.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Theres no natural selection going on with the most efficient word usage etc.

There is selection, but it's not on efficiency. For example, take the deliberate usage of "teh" instead of "the", of "u" instead of "you", the different meaning of "geek" when used by a geek... While "u" may be more efficient than "you", the other examples happen because some people think the new spelling or the new meaning makes them look cooler, or make them feel part of something bigger.

Sorry for not having better examples, but english is not my mother tongue. Maybe slang is a good example too: in a way, it's not efficient because it makes it harder for people to understand you if they're not part of the group. But it's not a bug, it's a feature.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Due to some changes in politics in France, I propose that we become the policemen, because Germans, being still subconsciously shamefull about WWII, aren't tough enough.

Since Germans can't be the automakers in European Hell, they probably would be the lovers (think dinner with candles and a german love song in the background). I'm not sure there is any Swiss company that makes cars, but if there isn't, we might as well buy bikes, and not care about the (lack of) oil.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[mvdw]

Let's ask google, shall we? Usage:

"should have": ~49,000,000

"should of": 741,000

Should have wins, as it should of .

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[DerekLyons]

The problem is that spelling is completely arbitrary.

*Was* completely arbitrary - but that stopped being true among educated speakers of English over a century and half ago.

America obsessed about spelling in post-colonial times and came up with standard dictionaries. Britain didn't care.

They may have started out not caring - but that rapidly changed across the 19th century. By the turn of the 20th, Britain was equally 'obsessed' about the value of education and clarity of communications.

With its odd mix of Latin and Anglo-Saxon words and grammar rules it's complicated enough as it is without weirdo spellings that are unrelated to pronunciation.

In other words - something a child could master a century ago is 'too complicated' for a child to master today?

Knight is spelled the way it is because it used to be pronounced kuh-nig-it (yes, just like monty python).

Do you have a cite for that?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[QuickFox]

Please forgive me for seeming dense,

Dense? No, it's a very large amount of information to sift through.

but could you tell me which section title this is under?

Under the title How did the moderation system develop? , scroll down to the smaller title Who, and below that, in the indented list, you'll find the following (all emphasis by italics is mine):

Regular Slashdot Readers The scripts track average accesses from each logged-in user. It then selects eligible users who read an average number of times. The homepage doesn't count either. It then picks users from the middle of the pack- no obsessive compulsive reloaders, and nobody who just happened to read an article this week.

This paragraph only mentions that the system checks how often you read, but I'm pretty sure several other factors are checked too. My guess is that a majority of users metamoderate only seldom, so if the scripts look for averages in that, three times a day is probably far from the average that they are looking for.

In a way this arrangement is unfair, because you have contributed a lot to Slashdot by metamoderating so much. But the moderation system isn't about fairness, it's only about keeping the site readable in spite of the massive crapflooding and trolling. (In fact from that point of view I find The World Forum and Kuro5hin much nicer and friendlier than Slashdot. (And both of them are well worth visiting for other reasons too!))

I think the periods when I get mod points most frequently on Slashdot are periods when I visit Slashdot maybe two to four times a week or so, reading only two or three articles-and-discussions on each visit, and metamoderate only once a fortnight or so. -- But that's only a very uncertain impression. I haven't kept track.

If you change your habits you'll probably need to allow several weeks to let the system get used to your new habits. Good luck.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[fbjon]

Not necessarily from the first character, you can abbrev. from the middle too.

Negatives

[NewStarRising]

My current peeve in this area is people saying the opposite of what they mean, with little clue that they are actually doing it.

"I could care less" means that the speaker does care more.
"I could not care less" means that the speaker does not care very much, in fact they could not care any less than they do.

In my experience, the phrases are used to mean the same thing, i.e. the speaker does not care very much. This is correctly done by using the second version.

The phrase has also been shortened to "I could care ..." as in "I could care about your problems, I have more important things to do". This could be considered more in keeping with the original intent e.g. "I could care (but I don't)..."

Unwittingly using the negative version of a sentence to try to comunicate the positive version leads to many errors and misunderstandings.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh that explains it... you're French?

Depends what you want...

[MythMoth]

When I read a posting (or article, or book, or indeed anything) in which the spelling or grammar are "incorrect", I discount a large percentage of the message. Good education and good spelling tend to correlate pretty closely.

Which is not to say that those without a good education never have an interesting message - but we all have to have filters, and this is where mine cuts in to keep the SNR high.

If you have poor spelling and grammar, and you don't care if people like me listen, then go right ahead. If you have good spelling and grammar, bully for you (but don't imagine it makes you a "better" person). But if you have poor spelling and grammar, and you want your message to get to the widest audience, you need to improve it.

There are two tiny snags. One which is exhaustively discussed here is that there's no clear cut definition of what constitutes "good" spelling and "good" grammar. The other which seems to be missed is that most people (yes, even the ones who do have good spelling and grammar) are not competent to judge their own competence in this area - you need external advice.

So my rather wordy message is: if you need or want to communicate well, to a broad range of people, you need to make sure your skills in this area have been objectively checked.

Those are my thoughts on this inevitably volatile subject.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Haeleth]

We spell according to the Queen's English, and therefore we don't change the 'ise' endings to 'ize'.

Note, however, that the Oxford University Press, which is most certainly British, being attached to England's oldest university (indeed, the oldest English-speaking university in the world), and, as the publisher of the Oxford English Dictionary, is widely regarded as an authority on the Queen's English -- changes "-ise" to "-ize" as a basic principle of house style.

Which just goes to show that language is never as simple as you thought. ;)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[teece]

Ooh, what a fun game.

Let's try this:

"analyze:" 44,300,000 hits
"analyse:" 22,800,000 hits.

So the Brits are just wrong, huh?

Methinks you missed my point. Common usage has nothing to do with "correct" in your way of thinking.

The reality is, common usage is what defines correct, it is not the other way around. There is no "correct" to begin with, only after a consensus of usage is reached, does correct even exist in language. That consensus changes, as it may change to accept "should of" whether you like it or not.

Indeed, Google is a really silly measure to use, as the spoken language is where you'd find "should of" the most, in all likelihood.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Vicissidude]

The moron is the person bringing up the "Queen's" English to a bunch of Americans on an American website. Not only did we have a revolution to get rid of the monarchy, but that was before Queen Victoria's reign. Of course we don't speak the "Queen's" English!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[pilgrim23]

My compliments on your nick. Lady Charlotte Guest or Lindsay's trans. or perhaps, speaking of novels: Virgin and the Swine? :-)
I would guess Lindsay as you did not include Guest's double negative of the "n" sufix. Indeed, Grammer is Important...even in Welsh ;)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Throw out the old spelling?

Fair enough, but what will you replace it with?

Just one example: Bob Dylan one rhymed the word 'mirror' with 'veneer'. This works in N America, it certainly wouldn't work in the UK, where 'mirror' always has two syllables.

English spelling may be idiosyncratic, but any attempt to 'rationalise' it would only make things worse.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Knight is spelled the way it is because it used to be pronounced kuh-nig-it (yes, just like monty python)

No, it wasn't.

The initial 'k' was pronounced as you suggest. The <gh> digraph as appearing in "knight" (and "night", "light", and any number of other common English words), however, developed during the Middle English period, most probably as the result of Norman spelling innovations. There is no evidence that ever represented the voiced dorsovelar stop /g/.

Current scholarship would suggest that in Old English, this sound was either a voiceless palatoalveolar fricative (something like the "h" in "hue") or a voiceless velar fricative (something like the "ch" in "Bach"). While this sound disappeared from most varieties of English during the Middle English period, the older spellings persisted. Chalk one up for the conservative English orthography.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

The change of vowel sound: run->ran is generally derived from Arabic, while the change of ending is a European (Greek, Latin) technique.

No, it isn't.

"Run - ran" is an example of what's left in English of the old system of verbal ablaut, which marked changes in verb aspect and tense by changing the quality of a word's vowels. Examples of verbal ablaut are still fairly common in English: "sing - sang - sung", "drink - drank - drunk", and the likes. The dominant pattern today, however, is the "-ed" ending that appears in and sets apart Germanic languages from their linguistic cousins.

Historical linguistics suggests that verbal ablaut was a characteristic of Proto-Indo-European, the proposed parent-language of languages such as Greek, Sanskrit, Latin, and others. Arabic and other Semitic languages are not part of this language family; some linguists have suggested an even earlier proto-language that links these two families, but the evidence to support this is still sketchy.

Without a common parent language, saying that "run - ran" derives from Arabic is just plain wrong. Saying that the pattern followed here bears some similarity to the aspect marking seen in Semitic languages would come closer to being accurate, but would likely still draw some criticism.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[unitron]

"ie, Their car is a ferraris is immediately understandable if grammatically incorrect."

Is there a spare ferraris wheel in the trunk of that car?

But seriously folks, the English language wasn't planned, it's a gigantic kludge, with stuff from most of the other languages added on according to no particular plan. There are reasons for the rules but there's nothing to keep the rules from contradicting each other. You just have to deal with it on a case by case basis, gently and politely correcting others and always being open to being corrected yourself.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[unitron]

"And for that matter, is there any reason why we don't say "willn't" instead of "won't"?"

Probably the same reason we say "ain't" instead of "amn't". In other words, I don't know, either. :-)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[LKM]

I've always found it intriguing that a programmer who could master several arcane computer languages (especially since computers are notably intolerant of errors), could fail so utterly to master his own native human language.

That's because programming languages have simple and mostly logical rules. English doesn't. Let me tell you this as a person who learned english only as his fourth language: English is a mess. The spelling rules are pretty much non-existant. You don't know how to pronounce words from how they're written and vice-versa. Names are particularly bad: Different people pronounce the same name differently, and names that are written entirely different are pronounced the same.

English seems to have been designed by a committee where every participant got to create one word's spelling, and they all tried their best to be creative.

German spelling rules, as a contrast, were pretty much put together by one person, Konrad Duden. They're mostly logical, and you can make an educated guess at the spelling of a word if you hear it. If you read a word, it's most often clear how to pronounce it. French and Spanish are similar, and Japanese is very easy in this regard, too.

English spelling rules, on the other hand, are bordering on insanity.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[LKM]

exactly what is logical about the semi-random assignment of gender to nouns

That is not logical, but other than that, German is way better than English. Especially spelling rules are very consistent and logical.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[mabinogi]

Actually, I was completely unaware of the existence of the Mabinogion when I first started using it.

Stephen Lawhead had co-opeted "mabinogi" to use as a title for apprentice bards in his Song of Albion series - I started using it as my nick online, as I figured it suited my amateur musician status (and wasn't an actual character name).
Only later did I find out about the Mabinogion.

I now have a copy of the Charlotte Guest translation, but I keep meaning to find a different one, as hers is more than a little obtuse ;)

WTF...?

[cr0sh]

Sometimes I seven see prequil.

???

Where is the CDC when you need them?

[cr0sh]

...I see udderly no difference in the way people speak.

Damn cows!

so what he say is we need a compiler

[BigGerman]

for brane wavez!
So when a geek need to express something in english we just run it thru it and it comes out just fine perfectly!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[eugene ts wong]

The easy way to think about it is to consider "his, hers, its".

That's an awesome rule to remember. Thanks! I never even noticed this till now.

On a completely different note, does anyone find themselves previewing maybe a dozen times when posting about spelling or grammar? (And probably missing a half-dozen errors?)

Yes, and yes. I put in a lot of effort and time to make sure that I write clearly and correctly, and yet I still make mistakes.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

More proof (as if it was ever needed) that you can't trust anything you read on slashdot, even if the poster sounds as if he knows what he's talking about.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[pthisis]

An arbitrary system is one like Japanese kanji, which have no phonetic component whatsoever.

The third person singular of "to have" is "has", not "have."

A fun toy is Lego building blocks, which have little interlocking male and female parts.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[koreaman]

Your English teacher was quite wrong.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[WorkEmail]

T3H 1337 H4X0RZ SP3LLZ G1V35 Y0U T3H ANG3|2????

Re:Change is Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think latin is the most well known not evolving language. Classical arabic is propably understood and spoken by far more people. Basically by everyone who got some religious education in an islamic country.

Of course it matters

[newsblaze]

That is how we communicate. The point is clear communication, so everyone immediately understands what is intended. There are rules to abide by. Try writing a program in perl, php, HTML or any other language. Then change the keywords and see the result. The strange thing about language is that the human brain can usually determine the intended meaning, unless Mrs Malaprop is speaking. As someone else said, language evolves over time, but that is no reason to destroy a system that works. There is beauty in language that many can't see.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you shouldn't have, because a) a non-foo can't break a rule regarding foos, so the contraction "it's" can't be break any rule about possessives, and b) there is no such rule for *pronouns*, as evidenced by "his", "her", "their", "my", and "our". Putting an apostrophe into "its" would obviously break the general rule. Sheesh. What you *should* have done is to
carefully think the issue through before posting.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Just to be a jerk"

Indeed.

> "what "letter" do you leave out with won't?

The same as for "can't".

> wo not? wo nit?

As you asked about what letters are left out of "won't", the above offering suggests a mental defect.

> Guess for that word it's more of a 'lose a couple letters, and change a few others to something completely different'

Or not.

> (I'm too lazy to google for it).

Here y' go, you lazy jerk:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=won't

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

> whom

So you would say "Whom was your English teacher?"

The only thing worse than an ignoramus is a smug ignoramus who "corrects" others when they are right and s/he is wrong.

"of who simply does not work in the English language."

It does when "who" and "of" are in different phrases, jackass.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Stauf]

Uhhh. That's exactly what I said.

I'm sorry that I didn't just yell at everyone and say 'its is a pronoun you idiots'. I tried to explain things in terms of the general it's mistake. Instead of saying that 'its is a pronoun, use the rules for pronouns', I tried to explain how to use its without having to resort to phrases like 'You should remember this from 5th grade English...'.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gettier, Quine, et. al. notwithstanding, any true belief is knowledge, whether the knower can offer valid justification or not.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

> It's good to conform on spelling, not because you avoid annoying pedants, but because the spelling of every word contains clues to its own long history of meanings.

I don't see how that provides justification; if it did, then we should recite the history of meaning of every word every time we use it.

The reason to conform on spelling is to *maximize communication of intent*. Misspellings create unnecessary ambiguity and doubt.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[SillyNickName4me]

the Germans are generally looking for any opportunity to try out their English. Ask one if they speak English, and they'll tell you that they only speak a little, and then amaze you with a very high standard. What really astounds me is how many English phrases they know that you wouldn't expect a non-native to know, including lots of double meanings and so on.

I disagree.

I live in Berlin for about 50% of the time (other half I spend in Utrecht, the Netherlands).

I have learnned to expect people here (Berlin) to understand English somewhat, and barely speak it. Those who do better are the exception really.

You are right about them mixing in quite a few English words annd phrases intto their language, something which results in what is called 'Denglish' overhere. Usually they end up using words incorrectly (ie: the word 'handy' for a mobile phone)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[SillyNickName4me]

"English is just badly pronounced French."

You might want to point out something to your French friend...

France, French etc, are named after a famous Germanic tribe, that of the Franks.

The Franks spoke a language extremely similar to Flamish, which is a Germanic language.

In the time since the late 800s, more and more Latin got mixed in, but it is in the days of Louis XVI that French similar to what we have now appeared.

All ancient (pre 1400s) "French" literature is a lot easier to read for a German or Dutch speaking person then for any Frenchman.

English has quite a bit of a language in it tthat was spoken in a specific area of France, but was not French at all. It was Normandic.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Majik Sznak]

I disagree. I care greatly about spelling and grammar, but only a fool would ignore meaning.

Sometimes, poor grammar and spelling can destroy meaning, though.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[jazman]

No. The subject of the sentence is "blocks", so although the second part (usage of have) is correct, the first part is incorrect. "A fun toy is" sets up the sentence to have a singular subject, so you can't say "a fun toy is blocks". Lego is a collective noun, so you can say "a fun toy is Lego", but the bit about "blocks...have" would have to be in a separate clause. "A fun toy is Lego, which comprises blocks which have interlocking M/F parts" is a bit stilted but grammatically, if not technically on the grounds that Lego isn't just about the blocks, correct ("with" would be better than "which have").

Re: Racist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people just odon't care about doing well by white folks, so who are you to say that you set the standard?

Well, if some people "don't care about doing well by white folks" as you say, and do not learn from the success of Asian immigrants to the USA, then they have no right to turn around and whine about "da man" holding them down and ask for "Affirmative Action" to compensate for their lack of desire to succeed.

Inaccurate

[Anonymous Coward]

Context being both gramatical (similar positions in a sentence), and semantic (words with similar meaning).

Uhh, no. Syntax deals with the positioning of words in a sentence.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[geminidomino]

Unless I'm mistaken (and I may well be. Any UK citizen in the know should feel free to correct me) the ownership of things like "The Queen's English" is in relation to the current monarch, i.e. it's "The Queen's English" because the current monarch is "The Queen," and when a king ascends to the throne, it will be "The King's English" again.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[cthulhubob]

Weird, my dictionary says "laissez-faire." Google define confirms it (checked in case my antiquated New American Heritage was behind the times):

Definitions of laissez-faire on the Web:

* The doctrine or system of government non-interference in the economy except as necessary to maintain economic freedom. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were great believers in laissez-faire economics.
www.guardian.co.uk/business/glossary/page/0,13866, 1052826,00.html

* The term "laissez-faire" is used to describe an economic system where the government intervene as little as possible and leave the private sector to organise most economic activity through markets. Classical economists were great advocates of a laissez-faire system with minimal government intervention. They believed free markets were the best organisers of economic activity.
www.bized.ac.uk/virtual/economy/library/glossary/g lossarygl.htm

* A policy of (governmental) non-intervention. In the field of economics, laissez-faire policies such as free trade were persuasively advocated by Adam Smith in his book Wealth of Nations (1776).
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/g lossary.htm

* the theory that government should have as little influence as possible in the nation's economy.
www.ots.treas.gov/glossary/gloss-l.html

etc. etc. etc.

No definitions were found for laisses-faire.

By the way, laisses-faire would be the informal second person form in French, as in "I am not restricting your free trade, my friend." The proper formal second person or second person plural form in French is actually "laissez-faire." So it's the right spelling in both languages. :)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[cthulhubob]

To nitpick myself, "laisses-faire" would be better translated as "Leave [it] alone, my friend." Literally: To make [you] leave [object] (informal)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course that's true most of the time, but I think we should allow that a language is like a living thing and must be allowed to change. It does change; let it change, however slowly. We all have our ideosyncracies. Mine is that it would be justified to respell "enough" with four letters; it would be sortof onomotopoetic; four letters would be enuf.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Even better is to never use them.

No, even better is never to use them.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not fishing for it, and no, I didn't claim anything about a relation between grammar on /. and public safety. "Analogy" is a word you might want to look up.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Orinthe]

Good point--I don't know about most languages in the world, but Latinate and Germanic languages certainly aren't the way to go for logical grammar. I've studied Japanese for a number of years, and it not only does away with gendered nouns, it does away with articles entirely, which are mostly superfluous (especially in Latinate languages where they are often required for no apparent reason other than to make you look stupid when you don't know a noun's gender). And as far as plurality goes, it turns out you don't really need that, either. You can explicitly pluralize or number nouns in Japanese, but 99% of the time you don't, and don't need to. Et voilà, all your agreement problems are solved!

Also, the Japanese syllabary allows you to correctly write any word no matter what--if you can say it, you know how to write it (assuming you are not analphabetic). Forget about capitalization and spacing, too--it doesn't exist!

Of course, there are those pesky several thousand Chinese characters with at least 2 and often more ways to pronounce that you have to learn to write and read above the level of a 3-year-old, which essentially makes Japanese give up all the ground it's gained in sensible grammar. Well, nobody's perfect, eh? But then again, English is /particularly/ nasty in many respects...

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[braindead]

I stopped reading at the first line of your post, so I don't know if that proves or disproves your point.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Webz]

Actually, while the link to the original story was provided, I think there was something after that which clarified the results.

As other posters have recognized, simply following just this rule isn't sufficient. From what I remember of the original topic/article/meme that followed after the article, it's more the "shape" of the word that you recognize.

There are usually three types of letters (can't really think of any others). Square, tall, and hanging. Square letters would be like xmenau, tall letters would be like lbdh, and hanging letters would be like jqy.

So, combined with sentence context, keeping in the general shape, and spelling (first and last letters), the brain seems to be very tolerant of spelling mistakes and able to interpret whole phrases.

slashdot :: salhsodt :: slsadhot

I think the third one is (barely) easier to ready, because it matches the shape of the original word.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[4v4l0n42]

It's a fairly simple construct, but I've seen English teachers get it wrong, and worse, teach the exact opposite.

I myself, am not an English native speaker. Even so, I never found it difficult to use this particular type of sentence in its correct form, though I realize that the mistakes I make are not sporadic or only driven by not enough accuracy in writing, I do realize that often the periphrasis that I formulate do not make real sense in the English language. That is mainly because I occasionally still reason in my mother language and then translate the concept into English.

But a part from that, I try to make myself understandable, especially when I am writing documentation or technical texts.

One of the rules of hacking is, if I recall correctly, to master your mother language, as well as at least a programming language, so I think we should all try to do so.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Stauf]

I would guess the root of the problem is that when learning your first language you simply learn to speak it by trial and error. Very seldom are you exposed to the concept of 'noun', 'pronoun', 'verb' or similar until you are much older and the habits have already formed. As a result, people who have English as a second language tend to speak more 'correctly' then native speakers, of course, I'd be willing to say that of almost any language.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[shaitand]

Any instance involving the potential for physical harm to yourself and others is NOT a valid analogy for a grammar discussion.

A driver who is driving improperly is endangering your life. In what way does that validly equate to someone using carefree grammar in informal discussion?

Without the element of danger to one party, then my analogy relates well. Annoying grammar troll corrections are similar to the annoying corrections of a backseat or passenger driver. It is only with a safety concern that the passenger or backseat driver could ever be considered justified (regardless of whether their suggestions are valid or not) in harassing a driver.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[4v4l0n42]

That is indeed true for most of the people.

However, I noticed that for some elite (like my sister) are habituated to use the correct form in their proper way since they are chilndren, so that it becomes natural to ameliorate their skills as writers and as orators.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the possessive form of the indefinite pronoun "one?" Could there be a possessive plural form of "one?"

[As an added attraction "won't" is a contraction for "woll not"; "woll" is an obsolete form of "will."]

Hackers, Spelling, Grammar ... and Logic

[Morven]

I think most respondents to this thread have MISSED A KEY POINT.

That is: if you can't express yourself logically, concisely, correctly and unambiguously in English then why would I trust you to write logically, concisely, correctly and unambiguously in an artificial language?

Your credibility is at stake when I read a note from you that is poorly structured, ambiguous, and riddled with grammatical and typographical errors: sloppy writing equals sloppy thinking equals sloppy code?

Your article on grammar

[Nastavnya]

It is always amazing to me when I find an article such as the one my friend linked me to in your site on 7/04/05. It was in reference to Americas inability to spell yet graduating from High School. Even though it was only a single paragraph it did spend MY time engaging in trivialities that are only fit for the English teachers at campus. It is beyond contemptuous to find any reason to insult any group of people for whatever reason. In fact it is not short of prejudicial just as any other form might take. The color of ones skin or nationality is less than relevant to what a person thinks or who they are.

When did we become a nation of elitist that always seek reason to separate ourselves from one another with trivialities? How is it that Literacy is confused with excellent spelling and grammar? I submit that if you invalidate one person for a challenge in spelling then you are most probably illiterate and just attempting to hide behind excellent spelling and grammar to cover your inadequacies. It is clear from reading the article that the person whom wrote it is the kind of soul that would mistake eloquence for poorly written.

Generic writing as was exhibited, in the monochromatic fashion that article portrayed is common among my peers who assume they write well. Indeed they write exactly like the fellow sitting next to them. No style, no flare, and little worthy intellect. Purely, sad displays of hostility with little to no real rational. I challenge the writer this; In writing that article you have assumed to place yourself in a most unfavorable position of never being able to misspell a word again. You are in error for that and time will expose that to you. I would be glad to point out some writings from people who spelled incorrectly and used others to edit them. I think it would be over your head though. No writers in the current world ever spelled everything correctly all the time. You are most assuredly no exception.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[cyberphotographer]

...any true belief is knowledge, whether the knower can offer valid justification or not.

No, that's just luck and belief. And that is Plato's point, and subsequently Gettier's. Knowledge, if it is possible, should reliably reflect the truth of the proposed belief.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

It works if you are trying to divy up a dollar with two of your friends.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[jacksonj04]

Surely the capitals indicate an abbreviation, so the lowercase s is fine?

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Grail]

You blame it on the Internet, I blame it on the "no child left behind" policy. Teachers have to pass a certain number of students - in order to do so you invariably have to lower the standard for passing. When that doesn't work, you lower the standard of teaching so that the slowest and least motivated students can "keep up". "No child left behind" really means, "everyone dragged down to the same level".

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[naiv]

psst. chinese does have phonetic elements. cf. qing(3) meaning to invite. blue-speak? i think not. blue is for phonetic reasons. sorry i could only get a simplified hanzi: http://www.chinesecorner.org/hanzi/qing3_10_a.gif

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[Stauf]

Yeah, as I wrote above - usually CDs works fine, the caps giving away the abbreviation.

Basically, they're style choices, but you've got to be aware of the style having impact on the meaning. If you didn't know what a CD was and you saw CD's, you may assume the text is referring to a person whose initials are CD - that's the sort of thing you want to avoid.

No.

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Command of Language is a Gift

[SluttyButt]

A gift of God. It does not matter much for some who think as long as the message gets through, then language sans grammar is fine. That for you mere mortal, is what sets God and man apart.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[It'sYerMam]

FYI, can't is a contraction of cannot. I just thought it was obvious from usage though that won't was a contraction of will not, even if it's not derived immediately from that phrase.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[It'sYerMam]

"If you want it to be possessive, it's just i-t-s. But if its supposed to be a contraction, then it's i-t-apostrophe-s... scalawag." - Strong Bad

What can I say but, "ahem."

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[It'sYerMam]

I damn well hope you first sentence was ironic...

But you're absolutely correct. If kids read enough well-written texts, then grammar is almost automatic. I guess the problem then occurs when they read someone else's stuff and they kick off because, to them, it is nigh on unreadable, or at least, very odd looking.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[It'sYerMam]

I before E except after C or before silent G

People never remember the last part; it leaves very few exceptions.

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[sandalle]

I've found the opposite. Most of my technical friends adore pointing out the grammatical mistakes of others. Perhaps I just hang out with the 'wrong' crowd. ;)

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[sleepingsquirrel]

I before E except after C or before silent G People never remember the last part; it leaves very few exceptions.

That's weird, I thought an efficient scientific society would rein those lazy bags of protein who couldn't follow the rules. Seeing how the threats to grammar aren't too thinly veiled. Our collective conscience shouldn't stop us from sufficiently censoring those deficient members of our species. Either we have too much leisure, or too much caffeine in our veins. Our feisty, omniscient ancients are probably very dissappointed in their heirs. Seize the day, or forfeit tomorrow!

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[It'sYerMam]

Well, I appreciate the sentiment, although the content was odd.

In the end, I suppose that the rule was designed for primary school (that's the time we were taught it) wherein children wouldn't know many of not most of the exceptions.
After a small amount of research, though, it becomes painfully obvious that whoever came up with the guideline was either batty or living with different spellings, not least because of the numerous bolt-ons one finds.

Incidentally, a sufficiency of the exceptions are caused by quirks of conjugation and inflection - seeing and apparently many of the -ient/ce words, which are derived from something latin.

yes

[unkokue]

they don't give a shit how intelligent they appear to be to the likes of you, newerb

Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot...

[k96822]

Couldn't have said that better myself. Clear communication is a sign of intelligence and respect.