Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Definately.
"Simplify, simplify, simplify!" Thoreau
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.
Yes, good humor, understanding, and basic people skills.The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
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.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Talk about your flamebate!
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
At georgia tech there is a road named Ferst street. Naturally the running joke is that they misspelled First Street.
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.
I once had a signature.
HuKt aWn FoNix WerKt fer mE.
They don't teach reading, writing and arithmetic in the schools anymore. I had to go to college for that.
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.
I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
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.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
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...
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
It is a damned poor mind indeed that can't think of at least two ways of spelling any word.
-- Andrew Jackson
Here
Infuriate left and right
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
Score:-1, Funny
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.
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..
Speak before you think
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.
Slashdot = ((Technology + Politics) / Trolls) % Grammar Nazis
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.
"Reality continues to ruin my life" - Calvin and Hobbes
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...
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
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.
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...
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.
There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
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?
un burrito me trampeó.
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.
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.
Democrats and Republicans only disagree about how to enslave you
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.
[% slash_sig_val.text %]
*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?
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.
Video Phone Blogs send video messages straight to the web.
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.
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
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
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
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.
-- I care not for your foolish signatures.
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.
Bet this
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.
--- witty signature
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.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
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 was raised and educated to believe...
:-D
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.
[move
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".
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
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.
I agree completely that English is a living language. However, the point remains that some things are correct and others are not. Ummm...right?
BenCurry.net
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.
What is this "grammer" you speak of?
"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.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
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.
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
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.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
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.
www.eFax.com are spammers
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.
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.
The Slashdot article is here. Snopes also has a page about the idea, with a few extra links about the validity of it.
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?
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.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
*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.
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.."
> a quick proofread
But... but if we proofread how will we get FP?!
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
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.
(i.e. A report for work)
;-) (Sorry to pick on you.)
e g.html, or http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/abbreviations/f /ievseg.htm. (Note the use of "e.g." for "for example.")
Here's another thing that bothers me about common usage.
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_
(Sorry, I go on this rant periodically. Don't take it personally.)
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.
An easy way to remember this:
i.e. - in explanation
e.g. - example given
So, like, right now?
How in the world is spelling properly oppressive to minorities?
Tin foil hat time, man.
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.
-------
Incite and flee.
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.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
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.
Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
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...
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?
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.
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.
What you reap is what you sow
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.
I think you meant "shudder".
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.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
... 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?
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
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.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
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?
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
shutter? like on a window? (Warning: if you're going to be a language nazi you need to proofread...)
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.
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?
ProofReading Markup Language - and yes, I find typos.
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.
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.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"Get back to finishing Perl 6.
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...
"I dislike the French because because they do not speak English, but I abhor the Americans because they speak English badly."
-Winston Churchill.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
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.
"The good reader is a rarer swan than the good writer."
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.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
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.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
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'...
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.
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.
Push the envelope. Watch it bend. -Tool
A lot of the comments here seem to say something along the lines of
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...)
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.
> 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.
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.
my blog
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
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/its.html
its is correct.
reference: http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language
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.
Saying your OS is the best because more people use it is like saying MacDonalds make the best food
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.
Sure, Slashdot is a conversational forum, and people write "from the hip" without absolute consideration to their spelling. But come 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?
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
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
Why not throw out the grammar and the dictionary as well, and just learn Lojban?
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.
After years of reading slashdot, I finally see a post I want to mod up and I don't have any mod points.
Feel free to mod me "-1 - Angry Jerk".
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.
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?
"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!
An easier way is to learn Latin. Then you'll always use them correctly, because you'll know exactly what they really mean.
Some of these drive me nuts. "Walla" when Voilá is meant, for example.
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?
Homme petit d'homme petit, s'attend, n'avale
Bullshit! That's short for "ergo"!
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
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.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
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.
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?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"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=
Even better is to never use them.
I have a website. It's about Macs.
The parent is Mark Twain's proposal for the improvement of english spelling. Link
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!
You forgot the apostrophe in "don't".
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
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.
This space intentionally left blank.
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?
moo.
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
--Idiots, Every single one of YOU, A flaming mass of conglomerated morons, hey wait a second, isnt that how RAID works?
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.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
blarg.
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.
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)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
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.
God,root what's the difference? I read slashdot, there for I errr... am stupid?
Pax tecum.
~Idarubicin
If you look back at the Proto Indo European it probably isn't the K sound in there.
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".
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:
So, "correct" English depends on:
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... :-)
“Our opponent is an alien starship packed with nuclear bombs. We have a protractor.” — Neal Stepnenso
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.
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.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
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!
That. Is. Awesome.
Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me
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.)
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
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.
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.
/g/ followed by an /I/. The sound no longer exists in English.
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
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.
/. where people use atrocious pseudo-English and your skills will atrophy after a time.
The reverse is true. Hang around sites like
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
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.
Sig matters not. Judge me by my sig, do you?
Which translates into printing school graduation certificates for everybody, which is why universities have their own entrance exams. Ancient American problem.
Oh well, what the hell...
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!
[sig]www.masterslate.org[/sig]
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.
I sig for world peace
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.
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.
- passion
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." -- Groucho Marx
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.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
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.
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.
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.
You sure 'bout dat?
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?)
If you're interested in that sort of thing, you may want to read more about semiotics, if you haven't already.
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.
/stupid / better / worse.
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
"And most of the poor people in this country happen to be guess what! NOT WHITE."
2 .html
From 2003 census data:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov
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.
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.
"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?
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.
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
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
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).
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.
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.
(||) Nehmo (||)
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.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
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.
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.
Hey ... you sound like you know what you're talking about. No fair.
The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
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
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
- 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
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
pithy comment
of who your English teacher was
whom
who is nominative case. of who simply does not work in the English language.
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.
-- SYS 64738 --
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.
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!!
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
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.
"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.
-- Hello_World.c: 17 Errors, 31 Warnings
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.
-illumina+us "I put on my robe and wizard hat..."
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.
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.
"Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries!"
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.
I've come for the woman, and your head.
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:
Then came PowerPoint.
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
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
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."
I'm a concientious
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.
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
"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.
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...
I'm a worshipper of Bacchus, you insensitive clod!
J.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
island
mod me up scottie!
- 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.
- 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.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."
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
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.
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-
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?"
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.
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.
:-) but IANAL (linguist)
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
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
This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
Live your life each day as if it was your last.
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.
http://www.google.com/profiles/malachid
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.
Move sig!
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.
See what I've been reading.