Literacy Limps Into the Kill Zone

Ant writes to tell us that Wired has an interesting look at the current standards of writing and the general decline of spelling and grammar in today's "comic book generation." The author blames many of the problems on instant or near-instant communications stating that the slang developed is essentially eroding our ability to formulate coherent thoughts in writing when called upon to do so.

Comments

They don't realise language changes.

[Saven Marek]

What they don't realise is language changes. every generation gets this and when it happens someone will come up and say literacy is going down. George orwell even did it in 1940, said there were problems, said there were people writing bad english, said they wouldn't be able to communicate soon. Well look at what we have here, a world still functioning nearly 70 years later. Also, a roman once said the same thing or a greek. That the young people of today are a generation that look down on the world and are showing no moral principels or showing problems with language and spelling and all the hoo haa he could drag up. And this was BC.

I think these people are old thinkers stuck in a new world where communication has changed and any seventy year old would tell you they find it hard to communicate with youth but no 20 year old ever will, and it's the 20 year olds who are the future. Always.

Re:They don't realise language changes.

[lordsid]

You didn't really have to go and proove them right, did you?

Re:They don't realise language changes.

[ScriptedReplay]

Also, a roman once said the same thing or a greek. That the young people of today are a generation that look down on the world and are showing no moral principels or showing problems with language and spelling and all the hoo haa he could drag up. And this was BC.

Yeah, and what happened after that? look up Europe's history starting about the time when the Western Roman Empire collapsed. Feel free to go all the way up to the Middle Ages if you like.

Methinks you need to work up a better argument, sonny.

Re:They don't realise language changes.

[Pantero Blanco]

If the language used by a culture begins to be less capable of expressing intricate thoughts and emotions, it's not a change for the better. A simple language is the mark of a simple culture, which was Orwell's point.

Re:They don't realise language changes.

[gordo3000]

Just as you said, language is a form of communication. Therefore, there is a time and a place for any branch for a given language. I see the problem as having a great number of people who lack the ability to articulately communicate an idea. but I don't think that is anyway limited to this generation.

of course, this man just seems to be complaining about the new method of communication. It used to be if you wanted to write someone a letter, it would take days or weeks to arrive and therefore, you took appropriate caution in how you presented your ideas. Those days are over.

Email and blogs do not in anyway replace great and creative writing, but are an addition to the communication tools we have. Just because more people can now express themselves to a large audience through writing doesn't mean standards have dropped, it just means that anyone can particpate without having judgement first passed by an editor.

Most blogs I read are filled with mindless drivel. But I do not judge them on the same scale as a book or newspaper so I have no reason to believe those blogs are a fundamental attack on good writing skills. These people never had them and their euivalents 30 years ago just went unpublished.

Please forgive any errors in this post as I have hurt my left hand and find typing relatively difficult.

Re:They don't realise language changes.

[schon]

What they don't realise is language changes.

No, they realize it just fine.

What *you* don't realize is that they're not talking about the language changing, but that it's changing too quickly, and for the worse.

Re:They don't realise language changes.

[scot4875]

Interesting post, but completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

If any of those quotes noted a decrease in students' writing skill that accompanied use of a new technology, then it'd be close to relevant.

--Jeremy

Re:They don't realise language changes.

[shinma]

This doesn't actually mean anything relevant to the current conversation.

All this says is that the MEDIUM changes. The language itself, and the ability for a person to appropriately and effectively communicate concepts and ideas, has nothing to do with whether it is written on bark, slate, or paper, written with chalk, pencil, or pen.

Re:They don't realise language changes.

[drgonzo59]

The problem is that sms-speak and ebonics might not be acceptable for a thesis defense or a business proposal even 50 years from now. I suspect one would still need to know how to speak/write/understand English (or will it be Chinese...?) to function well.

It is quite interesting how I did a whole lot better in the English classes at an American university than most Americans, even though English is my third language. At first I thought they were smart but they just didn't care, but it turned out that they really didn't know to write and they didn't care.

I guess I expected everyone to do worse in science only, not in Enlish -- their own language! Oh, well, more jobs for immigrants like me, "Thanks! US primary educational system!"

Re:They don't realise language changes.

[CDLI]

So what, you know exactly what I meant anyway.

That's the problem, though. The entire point of writing (well, at least this form of writing; obviously, things like novels and poetry are a different story) is to express what you mean clearly and precisely so that people can understand you. The more you throw words that are sort of the ones you wanted out, with botched grammar that may be a little confusing but doesn't obfuscate everything, and rely on your reader to "know exactly what you mean," the more you're inviting frustrating and misinterpretation. Your reader shouldn't have to spend his or her time trying to figure out what you're saying; that time could be better spent *thinking* about what you're saying instead.

Re:They don't realise language changes.

[Literaphile]

Perhaps if you weren't so condescending you'd realize that your research is no better than the parent poster's. Speaking as someone who holds a PhD in classical studies, I can tell you that literacy did indeed survive, in a few good way, after the collapse of the Western Empire as you say. Where do you think most of our manuscripts for ancient texts come from? Monks, from this very time period. It's not called the "dark ages" because everyone was stupid, it's been called the "dark ages" for so long because we just haven't known a lot about the period. Beowulf, one of the great epic poems, was composing in this time period, and no doubt many other texts that we have yet to uncover (and probably will never uncover). "Dark" doesn't mean dumb, it means unknown.

Re:They don't realise language changes.

[uradu]

> So what, you know exactly what I meant anyway.

Does he? Perhaps in this case, because the thoughts you were trying to express were so simple. But given that sampling of your writing skills I have absolutely no doubt that you would crash and burn miserably when asked to write anything more complex, such as required in a business setting. Yes, the world does go on, but it goes on DESPITE people such as yourself, not BECAUSE of you. Thankfully there are still sufficient numbers of people who can express themselves to each other to carry on meaningful social and scientific interaction.

Re:They don't realise language changes.

[kamochan]

"Dark" doesn't mean dumb, it means unknown.

If only it were so. The period saw the rise of monotheistic cults, destruction of priceless scientific works from the antiquity, violence and bloodshed. It is true that less literary works remain of this period, because the said cults decided to burn and rape books, as well as severely censor (as in, flay, draw, quarter, burn at the stake) authors of new works.

Calling the Dark Ages "dumb" may not be right, but neither is it "unknown" particularly descriptive. We know well enough why literacy (and some argue, civilization) crumbled during the second half of the first millennia.

Re:They don't realise language changes.

[revery]

Accuracy of the quotes aside, you'd have made a much more interesting and relevant point had the progression gone more like this.

"Students today can't prepare bark to calculate their problems.
  They depend upon their slates which are more expensive. What will they do
  when their slate is dropped and it breaks? They will be unable to write!"
  -Teacher's Conference, 1790

"Students today use too much paper too much. They don't know how
  to write on slate without getting all dusty. They can't clean a slate.
  What will they do when they all run all out of paper?"
  -Principal's Association, 1815

"Students are loosing their mind. They don't know how to do the things
  that get them ink. When they run out of ink they will be unable to write
  all those curly letters and cute numbers until they're next trip to the
  place with shops and stores. I am crying."
  -The Rural Amercan Teecher, 1929

"Students 2day use spensive pens. They like, what the heck is a strait
  pin and nib(?) (dont' get me started on quills). They need to stop riting
  and facus on sports and singing so they can be rich."
  -PTA Paper,1941

"Pens ruin teachy-smarts in US. Kids use pens. Throw pens away.
  Good US goodness, not waste, gone. Shop-shop and save-save all gone.
  Me eat pens. Pens good food, not write-write."
  -a cave, 1950

The quotes above are real, btw, I got them using my time machine (thanks John T.), a Britney Spears album which I dropped off in the early 1800's, and Google Talk, so please no comments to the effect that I made these up. That kind of thing hurts. Seriously. Ouch.

Re:They don't realise language changes.

[baryon351]

It's OK, I knew what you meant anyway :)

Re:They don't realise language changes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a perfect example of why proper punctuation is important (not mine, I stole it from someone else, can't remember who though):

I helped my uncle jack off a horse

I'm either a very helpful, or a very sick person. Which one is anyone's guess.

wrong

[insertwackynamehere]

there is always paranoia about "declining communication skills." At the same time there are always contradicting studies showing how language skills are actually increasing. Langauge and usage is always being analyzed way too much.. language is what it is. It is a method of communicating thoughts and ideas with others. As long as we understand each other there is nothing "wrong" and we are devolving or whatever these people seem to think. language exists because we created it for our benefit. People who can't accept that language evolves and branches off for different purposes are close-minded and ignorant to reality.

Not quite surprising!

[metlin]

Indeed. But why does this not surprise me?

Why go far, look right here on Slashdot. These are geeks, supposedly the folks who're "smarter" than the average population.

And even here, instead of accepting grammatical and spelling mistakes, people would rather flame you for correcting them. Not to mention the piss-poor quality of writing that most Slashdotters (and the editors) have. If you can follow the rules in a programming language, why is it so hard to do so for a natural language?

Personally, if folks do not communicate in good English, I'd simply not respond - be it IM, SMS or e-mail. And guess what? Most folks talk a lot better English when they're communicating with me, simply because they know that they'd not get a response - or that they'd get their English corrected.

I do not care if you are using e-mail, IM or SMS, use that period and use that apostrophe. Use appropriate and proper punctuation, capitalization, spelling and grammar, else I'm simply not talking to you.

That needs to be the general attitude, if we want to see any semblance of Good English (TM) exist in the next few generations.

Seriously, encourage your kids to look up that dictionary. Encourage them to read good literature, aside from the pop crap that exists today. Encourage them to write, to put down their thoughts. The only way you are going to develop writing skills is by writing.

The abuse of language

[Tet]

I couldn't agree more. However, it's not just a case of me getting frustrated at the apparent lack of schooling of the people with whom I'm interacting. Nor is it just a case of language evolving. No, it's reaching the point where I'm genuinely struggling to understand what people are saying. As an example, I see an increasing number of people writing "no" when they mean "know". Since my brain is conditioned to associate a completely different meaning to the word "no", I have to do a double take before I can work out what they meant. When combined with a total absence of punctuation, I'm left wondering how the generation of today manage to communicate with each other at all, let alone with others.

Re:The abuse of language

[TheRaven64]

Things changes.

Women used to not wear pants.

The aristocracy didn't. It was not too uncommon among the peasantry, since practicality often won out there. Ladies didn't wear trousers, but women most certainly did.

Men had short hair.

For some periods in history, yes. In many cultures, long hair was considered a sign of virility (not surprisingly, since hair growth is linked to testosterone). In the 18th century it was fashionable for men to have long braided hair. The idea that men should have short hair is a fairly modern one.

We were ranked by a persons pedigree and not by their job title or money.

Only among the aristocracy, who didn't have jobs. Among the lower aristocracy wealth was very important. I presume you've read Jane Austin, and therefor recall that Mr Bingley (who only had £5,000 a year) was 'nothing next to Mr Darcy' whose income was £10,000 a year.

Moving further down the social hierarchy, the job was important. Members of the professions (soldiers or priests, for example) were more respected than members of the trades. A professional might hope to marry the younger daughter of a junior aristocrat, while a tradesman would not.

Plus Ça Change, Plus C'est La Même Chose

1984

[McGiraf]

Goerge was wrong.
So instead of double speek in 1984, we get half speek in 2006.

What Comic Book Generation?

[Penguinoflight]

The generation of young people who are currently ruining spelling and grammar rules are children of the comic book generation, if not grandchildren. Slangs develop for a reason, but this reason must be with the communication of other people. A better explanation of forming slangs is the increasing disconnection between the older generation and younger generation. The disconnect stems from many things including broken families, fewer job opporutities for teenagers, and the increasing age of professionalism. Some people simply decide that the extra wait is not worthwhile, and adolecents work to communicate with their undereducated peers. You see this phenomenon in some of the most prominent hobbies, such as car repair/performance modification, and in video game console repair/modification.

Sometimes parents need to understand that they give their children advice, AND an environment. The child may listen to advice, but will not be able to avoid paying attention to their environment. The environment in this case has nothing to do with comic books however.

The problem is consistency

[Nichotin]

I do not have a problem with the language undergoing natural evolution. The issue is that some ways of speaking / writing gets allowed, which makes the language less consistent and full of things that mean the same. Being Norwegian, I have seen my language getting raped by youngsters who appearantly do not care that their sloppy use of the language gives their sentence two or three different interpretations. It is the old "Hang him not, wait until I come" vs. "Hang him, not wait until I come" (Ok, this thing does not sound that good in English, as it is a common Norwegian expamle.)

Re:The problem is consistency

[Lovejoy]

Too right. One of the words that has suffered from this linquistic drift is "unique," which in English means "one of a kind." Now, we Americans, (and possibly Brits, I don't know) often use this word to mean "unusual," "cool," or "neat-o." I actually heard a commercial the other day describing something as "unique and one-of-a-kind."

It's very frustrating.

I don't care that language changes - I'm a descriptivist. I care that language becomes less useful and less precise. We already have lots of words to mean "unusual," but few that mean "unique." Now we have to say "one-of-a-kind," which the folks will probably start using to mean "unusual."

Now, if someone had even a passing familarity with Latin, she would know that the prefix "uni" means "one," and that "unique" probably means, "one-of-a-kind," not "cool." That's the argument the Classicists would make, at least.

Re:The problem is consistency

[cp.tar]

Ah, yes... the #1 pick-up line of all times:
Say, does this rag smell like clorophorm to you?

Re:The problem is consistency

[Thalagyrt]

Bash.org quote #367896

<Fashykekes> Capitalization is the difference between "I had to help my uncle Jack off a horse.." and "I had to help my uncle jack off a horse.."

:)

Re:The problem is consistency

[archen]

I think that's the nature of a language where general usage has a very limited vocabulary. My wife learned English as her second language and often relates about how difficult it is to learn because it has so many words, but admits that it's nice because you can say EXACTLY what you mean. As our education system declines, people find it harder and harder to express themselves. So they end up using words that are similar, but not necessarily the same. The result is a blurring of meanings, which directly leads to very vague ideas in the language. As people adapt this language it becomes difficult to really say what you mean, so you end up with ridiculous redundant concepts like "one-of-a-kind uniqueness", because people have lost the clarity in using the words correctly in the first place.

Orwell said it better

[Pavatius]

Orwell wrote this same essay with more style and more grace in 1946. He also wrote it with a point in mind. It's called 'Politics and the English Language'. Google it and read it instead of this lame Wired article.

This essay is just a rant and that the coming generation is doomed, doomed, doomed! People have been saying that about the coming generation since ancient times. Ironically for someone who criticizes the emptiness of writing in the modern age, the author also says very little. Some writing by some people sucks. There are a lot of some people. Duh.

The author also ignores the enormous quantity of written material produced on a daily basis. Just because his friends and acquaintences are semi-literate doesn't mean the rest of us travel in the same circles of bad grammar and poor diction. It's really a sort of pompous thing to say from a position of authority that 'the world' can't write, read MY article it will tell you so. Sigh. Noob.

Don't throw stones...

[gubbas]

Not to flame you or anything like that, but you should have used a semicolon instead of a comma after the word "grammar" in the fifth paragraph. ;-)

Comic Book Generation?

[monopole]

Um, comic book generation? Has this fellow just recieved "Seduction of the Innocent" via Pony Express? The average Generation Y kid has seldom seen a comic book, they don't show up on the news stand anymore. The average of the modern comic book reader is 34 and the level of the high end of the comic book market is considerably more literate than this fool. For example Warren Ellis'es issue of Planetary "Death Machine Telemetry" discusses the afterlife, nanotechnology, Richard Feynman, the Delphic oracle (and speculations on the biochemical nature of the fumes they inhaled) and the Kabbalah in one brilliant episode. Ellis probably used a shorter word count than this wanker used.

Of course he might mean manga, having been confused by the mysterious ways of the distant orient. Given that a huge percentage of the population read manga over in Japan, and use e-mail and texting, this must account for their horrific litteracy rates. Horrifically high that is.

Turning it off and on is the problem.

[Unknown Poltroon]

We all use slang, we all use abbreviations, jargon and impolite ways of speaking, especially with friends and family. The problem i run into is more and more people who cant "Turn it off" when they need to. People who use the same bad grammar when writing an office e-mail that they do when chatting with buddies online or at happy hour. Kids who cant write a coherent written sentence because they are so used to using slang. Its nothing that different from what I say when talking to friends, or get into a flamewar, but i DONT use it in the office, or when meeting someone for the first time, or when applying for a job. Thats the problem.

not to be flip, but isn't this natural?

[xeno]

Good. More jobs for me, and with a little work, my kids. (Ok, it's a lot of work, including reading to my kids 30-45 minutes a day, and the older one (6) is transitioning to reading to us. But I digress.)

Seriously, not everyone can be a rocket scientist. Some folks have to take less mentally-strenuous jobs, and the upside to that is that it takes less education and effort to get a job that focuses on rote process or repetitive simple problem-solving. Of course, there's the whole unfairness issue relating to people who work in jobs that are physically or emotionally draining for shit pay, but that's not the issue here. It used to be that motivated people could rise to hit the maximum vocation that their formal or self education allowed. Now it seems that educated people sink to the vocational level that their self motivation and application of that education allows. Same effect, no?

My brother, for example, is an overeducated undermotivated weenie who's dumbed himself down with IM-speak, and wonders why he's not an appealing job candidate. But that brings up an interesting issue: I don't think that the deterioration of language skills can be examined in a vacuum. What about the deterioration of social skills that seems to accompany the IM-speak txting crap? IM/TXT communciations involve effects from reduced level of effort, lack of persistence, reduced affect, and perceived levels of anonymity.

All I have is anecdotal evidence, but the idea of sending thank-you letters, participating in professional societies, and writing articles for review by your peers seems totally alien to that crowd. And I don't mean to be stuck-up about that. An article for your peers might be a well-written blog entry or a political rant in email, not necessarily an academic paper. >>>> My point is that if you notice that people are sharing soundbites instead of whole ideas, then it makes sense to take a look at the mode of sharing, not just the sound-bite vs whole-idea issue.

Jon

Re:English != Programming

[B3ryllium]

So you're saying that English is like Perl?

anachrolicious

[macsox]

comic book generation? was this written in 1950? what kid reads comic books today? and, incidentally, my memory is that comic books have fairly good grammar and spelling, with the exceptions of your 'pow's and 'biff's.

Re:No..

[pomo monster]

So you say, but from whence the pudding? As language gets more freeform--that is, while remaining cognizant of the rules and informed by convention, likelier and likelier nevertheless to flaunt them, to deliberately ignore them for purposes not apparently so much in evidence to you--does that not make it more expressive, not less? Dashing off a text message replete with abbreviations and symbol mash might indicate thoughtlessness, if sent to someone you barely know. The same thing might indicate a shared sense of privacy, if to a friend or close associate. Either way, the literal interpretation of your message is given color and additional meaning by your chosen form of expression, much pithier for having avoided the verbosity of conventional (read: stodgy) English, and correspondingly so more piercing and direct.

Communication is nothing if not contextual in essence and expression, and to declare that it is robbed of meaning by our contemporary canvas, wide at the margins, is to mistake grammar for literary intent.

Re:Sometimes writing really does change for the wo

[TheRaven64]

I, too, am 23 and completely concur. When I write things, it is on the assumption that other people will read them. To write them in a way that makes this difficult is nothing short of impolite. Since the circulation for my published articles can be in the hundred thousands (thanks OSNews / Slashdot), that is a lot of people for me to be impolite to at once. Generally, I prefer to only be rude to people one at a time.

I learned to read when I was three. Over the last twenty years, my brain has gradually optimised the paths used to recognise words and parse phrases and sentences until the point where I can do it very quickly. If you write in a way that is ambiguous, then I have to pause and try both ways of interpreting your sentence. If you spell things incorrectly, then I will have to backtrack and re-parse. If you use 'you're' instead of 'your' (for example) then I will get to the end of your sentence, realise it doesn't make sense, and spend a second re-parsing it. Over the length of an article, then a number of mistakes like this may waste a minute or two of my time[1]. Now, imagine you have 100,000 readers. You have just wasted 100,000 person-minutes. That works out at just under seventy person-days. If you are willing to waste that much time out of laziness then you are no better than a spammer.

[1] Actually, it won't. I will simply decide that if your ideas are not important enough to express well, then they are not important enough for me to read, and move on.

Technology Exposes Reality

[xdroop]

I disagree -- the technology is not leading to an inability to communicate. Technology is making it possible to circulate written items far more widely and easily than before. This merely exposes a reality long hidden: the vast majority of people have never been able to communicate in the written form.

WTF?

[serutan]

Our literacy is eroding? WTF? OMG! ROFL!
BRB

Finally!

[DeafByBeheading]

A thread where spelling and grammar nazis won't be modded off-topic! Yes!

Language and the Speed of Change

[Sw0rdfiche]

The observation that language is in a constant state of change is true. What is so interesting about the way language is changing today is the speed and the direction. Language is a direct reflection of how fast things change. Language is, in part, the way we describe that change.

Change, as noted by "Future Shock" and several more reputable sources, has accelerated in the past fifty years at breakneck speed. Discussions of our inability as people to absorb all of this change have led to the by now familiar "Singularity" discussions. If even a fraction of this is true, it would stand to reason that language and its use would be one of the first place this all manifests.

I am less interested in protecting the "King's English" than I am with the ability of one generation to communicate with the next in a complex and meaningful way. There is plenty of well written discourse on the Internet. I do not see that declining. The ghettoization of language as a marketing tool worries me a bit more, since it is sold as a generational identity.

My conversations with people in their early twenties shows me they are just as bright and articulate as anyone. Their opinions on language are much different. One of my favorites is the compression of language and meaning in rap music. Rap is a great place to look at the elasticity of language. Aside from the "bitches and ho's " rhetoric, which is the low end of that artform, there is clear and skillful use of language, rhythm and tone at work.

The other movement in language is the migration to visual rather than verbal communication. Language is no longer just about words. Image has changed the way we speak, the way we communicate, the way we articualte. The "comic-book" culture may not be a bad thing. The issue is not about comics- this is a medium that has a powerful and complex ability to communicate. The issue is that it is used mostly to communicate sex and power fantasies. However, I find it interesting that Dan Clowes now has a weekly comic that runs in the New York Times Magazine.

There is some virtue to being a "keeper of the flame" as far a literature is concerned. But television, movies and the internet are changing the concepts of literature. In the 21st century, is a good library just books, or does it include DVDs and CDs as well?

Part of the issue might have to do with the definition of language. If we insist on sticking to the definition where language is exclusively the written word, then language indeed might be in trouble, but not for the reasons mentioned.

A simple test

[ColaMan]

This closely ties in with the recent article about college students being unable to decipher credit card agreements.

Basically :
If you cannot read an End User License Agreement and understand what it is saying, you need to improve your English skills. NOW.

Legalese is the last bastion of specifically correct, carefully worded, properly formed English. Even words such as "shall" or "should" - the meaning of which can usually be inferred in everyday English - are often explicitly defined to avoid confusion. And you can be damned sure that Legalese is not going anywhere soon. If you can't comprehend Legalese (or any form of complex English), you're going to end up in a whole lot of trouble one day down the track. If you can comprehend it, you essentially have a grasp of the correct structure and form of Modern English.

The leet-speak, IM'ing crowd can poo-pooh it as much as they want, but learning correct English will serve you well in the future.

I'll give you a hint

[starX]

Attila the Hun didn't sack Rome because of his masterful literary skills. Nor did the Visigoths, the Ostrigoths, or any of the other barbrian hordes that had a hand in Rome's destruction. Mainly they used superior weaponry and military tactics, and I think we're pretty covered there.

Testing for New Hires

[Alien54]

I have decided that when I hire techs, I am going to ask them to write an essay, using pen and ink, giving the intructions on how to use a mouse for someone who is a computer beginner. (Think your grandmother). No internet research allowed. This tests several things.

1. Penmanship. Can I read their writing or their field notes, or is it all garbage?
2. Their technical understanding. Mouse operation is a common and simple task, but elements like right click, down button vs up button actions, etc. are not immediately intuitive.
3. Their ability to communicate. Can they communicate something they understand in a clear and concise fashion? Especially to someone without expertise or substantial experience in the field.
4. Can they get to the point, or is the essay filled with lots of technical fluff, jargon, and assorted filler?

Of course, I'll test for other things as well. Unfortunately, this may be a humbling experience for some applicants.

Re:Testing for New Hires

[munpfazy]

I've heard, "I've never been able to spell well" as an excuse for poor spelling for years, but what that really says is, "I don't consider the details of proper spelling important, since people will understand what I mean anyway. If someone can't be bothered to attend to the relatively easy-to-manage detail of correct spelling, why should I think they'll pay enough attention to other details that aren't as easy to manage?"

Translation: I cannot conceive of the existence of someone whose natural abilities and strengths differ from mine, and therefore they must be lazy bastards who just don't care enough to bother learning what I consider easy.

Just imagine the response if I were to say, "I've heard, `I've never been able to learn multivariable calculus' as an excuse for a poor understanding of basic physics for years, but what that really says is, `I don't consider the details of the world around me important, since other people will probably overlook any mistakes I make when describing it.' If someone can't be bothered to understand the most basic aspects of the physical world with which they interact on a daily basis, why should I think they'll pay enough attention to other details that aren't as fundamental and immediately applicable to their daily lives?"

People would call me a lunatic if I said something like that in public, and yet writing a textbook that derives all of multivariable calculus and its applications from scratch is a trivial task compared to, say, memorizing the correct spelling for the 5'000 most common English words.

Spelling is by no means an easy task for everyone, even for many of us who haven't been diagnosed with a "legitimate difficulty with spelling." It may be true that, if we chose to dedicate a significant portion of our lives to memorizing words, we could achieve the level of competency that those with a natural affinity for the subject display. But then we'd never get anything done in those areas for which we have a genuine talent.

Fortunately, there are now tools available which allow poor spellers to communicate effectively even with those too narrow minded to overlook poor spelling. Expecting someone to use correct spelling when publishing electronic text is perfectly reasonable. Anyone who allows spelling errors to appear in electronic documents *is* being lazy, since there are so many free and painless tools available to translate our text into correctly spelled words.

To require that an applicant be capable of somehow generating correctly spelled text when necessary is appropriate; however, to demand that an applicant spell well when writing in pen and ink, when they are being hired for a job that doesn't require doing so on a regular basis, is just silly. Judge us by the job for which we are being hired, not by how closely our skill set happens to match yours.

Required homework for this topic

[cagle_.25]

Before you get too self-righteous about those old fuddy-duddy thinkers, perhaps you ought to do the following:

1) Try to grade a set of English papers.
2) Read Less Than Words Can Say by Richard Mitchell.
3) Stop and contemplate whether it is really in the best interest of the younger generation to speak and write in a way that makes them uncomprehesible to the older generation.

Then ask yourself: is the language changing in order to become more flexible (a la Shakespeare), or is the language changing in order to accommodate more sloppy thinking? Both could be true in different cases, of course, but on average -- which is the case?

Language is a tool, no more and no less. If you want to mod the tool, then fine. But if in the process you wreck that tool, then your mods need some more thought.

Communication is not grammar

[Easy2RememberNick]

Fine, if "u want 2 rite" like that I'm sure your friends will know what you mean. Try that when you need to apply for a job and see how far you get.

  Just because you don't care how people older than you speak doesn't mean you'll never interact with them. You don't have to have to be an English Professor but at least know how to spell!

  It's about communication not grammar.

Re:Hmmm...

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

> What happened to punctuation,

dead!!

> capitalisation,

Dead!!

> spelling

teh DEAD!

> and understanding of homophones?

Sexuality, like proper spelling, is now devoid of limits - though I don't see what makes you bring it up now.