|
|
|
|
|
| Any other grammar nazis around these parts?
Posted: 6/22/2009 4:28:21 PM |
Spelling and grammar have NO bearing on whether a person is able to communicate (intelligently) or not. Just that their mode of communication differs from yours.
This is a fair statement. However, I disagree that spelling and grammar have no bearing on the ability to communicate intelligibly or not. If a person spells lose like loose, then I must try and infer from the context what they are trying to communicate. If I have to ask for a clarification, then the vaunted ability to communicate information more quickly was an illusion.
I'm sure that discussions like this will keep coming up over and over with each new generation.
With the older, and 'classically educated' groups bemoaning how lazy and uneducated the younguns are.
Do you suppose that most people misspell words because they don't know how to spell them properly, because they are pressed for time and the information is time critical, or because they can't be bothered to spell correctly? I believe that it is rarely because the information is time critical and instead is a combination of not knowing how to properly spell the word and not caring to spend the time to spell it correctly. That certainly sounds like lazy and uneducated to me.
Additionally, if you know how to spell properly and compose grammatically correct sentences, you can choose to break those rules and communicate in abbreviations and in text speak. However, if you don't know the rules, you will find it difficult to communicate properly when that proper communication is necessary.
This method of communication argument is regularly brought up when comparing the communication styles between social classes. Some will argue like yourself that the ability to communicate clearly is paramount, while others will argue that the ability to communicate in the manner that those in power prefer is paramount. So, we often see those from the lower class complaining that it's unfair for hiring decisions and promotion decisions to be made even partially on the basis of whether someone can communicate like the bosses. This is a spurious argument as if the boss were to find himself in the lower class world, his communication style would stand him in poor stead. | |
|
| Any other grammar nazis around these parts?
Posted: 6/22/2009 5:52:59 PM | Zardos I have to disagree with your statement: *Spelling and grammar have NO bearing on whether a person is able to communicate (intelligently) or not. Just that their mode of communication differs from yours.*
After emailing & instant messaging with several guys on POF (and talking on the phone with them) I can honestly say (in my small sampling) that I could have accurately predicted a lack of communication skills based solely on their spelling/grammar.
I remember thinking to myself *oh boy - should I even bother trying to talk to this person on the phone?*.....then I remembered that if I were to meet someone in the real world I wouldn't get to critique their spelling and grammar. Ugh, I would actually have to use real conversation. Thus, I gave the benefit of the doubt. Oops - waste of time.
Since that has been my experience, I'm going to stick with believing that their spelling/grammar is indicative of their ability to communicate intelligently. Since their mode of communication is different than mine, I see a myriad of relationship problems forming from differing communication styles. It would be best to avoid that altogether. | |
|
| Any other grammar nazis around these parts?
Posted: 6/22/2009 6:41:12 PM | PS. I think I saw someone complain that 'Irregardless' isn't the proper way to express 'Regardless'. That may have been true in the past but, it, like the word ain't IS now a proper word. I believe Irregardless is very common to some regions of the US and not so others.
Basically, for a word to become 'English' it has to be used about 25,000 times (in the media and publications) by which time, it's meaning is established...common usage rules.
Good thing for you that you qualified yourself by saying that you aren't perfect, because there is no apostrophe in the word 'its' as you've used it--there are several other errors in your post, but I digress. (oh, yes, kids--I earned my nazi stripe!)
'Irregardless' is a double negative, -less and -ir make it so, and to use it as such would make it a positive--very probably NOT what the user intended, regardless of how many times it is used. Simply adding a word to the dictionary does not make its usage correct.
'Irregardless', should go in the substandard catagory rather than being termed 'nonstandard'. | |
|
| Any other grammar nazis around these parts?
Posted: 6/22/2009 7:44:21 PM | In mai opinyun, thare shudent be ownlee wun korekt way to
spel a werd. Eny way thats konsistint and inteligibul
shud be aloud. That way we wudent allwayz hav to go
lukin up werdz in a dikshunary to see how sumbudy ELSE
thinks they'r SUPOS to be speld. (And besydz, hoo told
the gy hoo ROWT the dikshunary how to spel HIZ werdz?)
 | |
|
| Any other grammar nazis around these parts?
Posted: 6/22/2009 7:59:33 PM | I decline to identify myself as a "grammar Nazi*", but I do consider spelling & grammar important, particularly when one's trying to make a good first impression. When reading, I do form an impression of the author. Bad writing style leads me to believe that the content is not very important, or there would have been more care taken.
It's particularly so when the wrong word appears in formal or technical writing. Using "motor" when "engine" is called for, or "dampening" for "damping". When I read such careless and/or ignorant writing, I become much less persuadable by the content.
But neither am I an absolutist about it, and I'm very glad for that. I once received a reply to a personal ad written with the spelling prowess of a third-grader. My first response was "Are you kidding?" but I went ahead and met her anyway. As it turned out, English is her second language, she spells pretty well in her first language and she has a positively delightful accent.
*"Nazi" is a proper noun, is it not?
p.s:That peculiar dialect you call net-speak and txt shorthand has a name: e-bonics.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=e-bonics | |
|
| Any other grammar nazis around these parts?
Posted: 6/22/2009 8:36:48 PM |
*"Nazi" is a proper noun, is it not?
If referring to a member of the National Socialist party of Germany then yes, if referring to a harsh and strict person then no. | |
|
| Any other grammar nazis around these parts?
Posted: 6/22/2009 8:47:34 PM |
In mai opinyun, thare shudent be ownlee wun korekt way to
spel a werd. Eny way thats konsistint and inteligibul
shud be aloud. That way we wudent allwayz hav to go
lukin up werdz in a dikshunary to see how sumbudy ELSE
thinks they'r SUPOS to be speld. (And besydz, hoo told
the gy hoo ROWT the dikshunary how to spel HIZ werdz?)
Touche! | |
|
| Any other grammar nazis around these parts?
Posted: 6/22/2009 9:52:37 PM | Guilty I'm afraid.
I find that it is very likely that a person who posts a profile or writes a message that is very lazily put together is going to be someone that sooner or later begins to irritate my sensibilities. I respect difference, and it's not about worth. But I know I would bug the devil out of them if we got together long term.
It is important to me because there are a lot of occasions when my partner needs to "speak" for me, and the observers, fairly or not, will judge me somewhat by my partner's presentation, hence I would hope their spelling and expression is similar enough to my standard.
Besides, I don't always want to win at Scrabble.
My tuppenceworth. | |
|
| Any other grammar nazis around these parts?
Posted: 6/22/2009 11:07:32 PM | " borderline literate retards" wow, I am glad you said that and not me.
(however, politically incorrect that is......I couldn't agree more)
I find that the all time best (or worst) of these illiteracy indicators is when they butcher their headline .......... 'have a grate sence of hummour' / chances of me reading the rest of the profile........nil | |
|
| Any other grammar nazis around these parts?
Posted: 6/23/2009 2:35:42 PM | I corrected or pointed out glaring errors in the OP's post--I am sure he will be appreciative:
After reading countless profile and forum posts, I really need to ask... (WRONG USE OF ELLIPSIS, A COLON OR COMMA SHOULD BE USED INSTEAD) 'Is it just me?' (DOUBLE, NOT SINGLE, QUOTATION MARKS NEEDED HERE) Am I somehow wrong? The last time I checked, most everyone - at least in North America - was and/or is subjct to about - at least - 12 plus years of studying the English language at a minimum. (CONVOLUTED SYNTAX OBSCURING THE MEANING OF THE SENTENCE) So (IW, FOLLOWED BY A COMMA OR OMITTED) why then, ("THEN" UNNECESSARY OR SET APART BY COMMAS) do most people come off as borderline literate retards? (BIASED LANGUAGE, INSULT TO MENTALLY HANDICAPPED PEOPLE)
Spelling? Ok, not eveyone was 'huked awn fawnix'. (AGAIN, DOUBLE QMS NEEDED, MLA SAYS PERIODS GO INSIDE THE QMS) Granted (IW, FOLLOWED BY A COMMA) we all misspell from time to time. There's a myriad of reasons to misspell. I understand many of them may be typos. Most are not.
Punctuation? Ok, (REPETITIVE USE OF "OK") sure. We may not all understand to (PREPOSITION "TO" NEEDS TO BE DELETED) where to utilize the comma, or ellipsis, or the semi-colon, but an A for effort, n'est pas?
Capitalization. Wow, do people stating things like 'so i saw the van gogh exhibit and it was off the hook' ever bother me. (UNCLEAR MEANING/SLANG OR COLLOQUIALISM)
Paragraphs. This more so than anthing else drives me insane. Reading profiles and/or posts where it's some giant blurb/run-on-senctence (TYPO) drives me up the wall. It's even better when people speak of the fact that they're college and/or university educated, and how smart they are and how much they appreciate "like-minded", (MLA SAYS COMMAS GO INSIDE QMS) educated people.
Really? Really??? (ONE QUESTION MARK IS SUFFICIENT)
So (IW, COMMA) people with four years of higher education, supposedly trained in the art of critical thinking and analysis can't structure a single cohesive paragrpah (TYPO) complete with requisite spelling, puntcuation,(TYPO) and capitalization? And who says our 'profs' are underpaid and out [OF] touch. (INCORRECT PUNCTUATION FOR A QUESTION)
I'm willing to forgive a lot. I'm not quite the grammar nazi of the ilk of the "Eats Shoots and Leaves" lady. I'll let participles dangle. I'll end sentences with prepositions - woo, I'm a rebel! However, the basics are important aren't they? Without language and the rulese (RULESE?) therein we're little better than cavemen sitting around grunting at each other, trying to figure out what the other means.
Actually, you aren't so much of a rebel--it is permitted to end a sentence with a preposition when it makes the sentence less convoluted or less stilted.
As for blaming profs for the state of grammatical/spelling affairs, I'll use a cliche (of which you seem to be fond): you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. | |
|
| Any other grammar nazis around these parts?
Posted: 6/23/2009 2:44:44 PM |
Spelling and grammar have NO bearing on whether a person is able to communicate (intelligently) or not. Just that their mode of communication differs from yours.
First rule of writing: Know your audience.
You are right, but if one is trying to communicate with someone whose "mode of communication" is different, the point will be lost. If the boss speaks one way and the employee speaks another . . . well, the boss is the boss, no?
Just as in the classroom--I don't expect but demand that my students write in standard English. If they want to use texting or some other form of communication, they can do it on their own time. I am not preparing them to win texting competitions: I am preparing them to function in a world that still expects a modicum of writing ability. Not only that, my school consistently hears from businesses that writing well is one of the most important assets that job seekers should/can possess.
I believe that it is rarely because the information is time critical and instead is a combination of not knowing how to properly spell the word and not caring to spend the time to spell it correctly. That certainly sounds like lazy and uneducated to me.
Awomen. | |
|
| Any other grammar nazis around these parts?
Posted: 6/23/2009 3:19:59 PM | @geeleebee
You've made a slight error there.
One, believing that words have to conform to a previously existing rules.
If that were so, then no one here has a right to claim nazi status when it comes to grammar and spelling as we violate many of the preceding rules for English.
Does anyone here claim to speak and write in Middle English?
Nooo.
Why?
Because language structure and usage evolves.
Thus, while irregardless IS a violation of your (and my...since I don't use it) rules as well as classical English. It, unfortunatly IS a word and in common usage meaning the same thing as regardless.
Same thing as 'ain't.'
As previously stated, educational standards have changed a lot since we were kids. And that goes to show that education is more in keeping in line with the changing nature of language. In a generation or two, we'll be classified as 'old english'...a relic of a past era.
I'd say most of us here make mistakes from time to time.
The issue seems to be more akin to pet peeves and what one finds to be personally unsatisfactory.
For me?
I DO look down on excessive txt speak and other errors.
But, I'm sure others look down on mine at times too.
Just the nature of the beast.
@throwit2me
I said Intelligently not intelligebly. Subtle difference there.
What seems to be the issue is that they don't have the same communication skills as you. No different than me speaking German and you Dutch. We might grasp a little of each others meanings due to common words...but, we're really speaking a different language.
Now, all this aside.
One can be unintelligent and use any mode of communication perfectly. Following 'rote' often doesn't translate into having rational or critical thinking skills.
As to the tangent of communicating on an established standard, 'that of those in power' I fully aggree if it is they who you are trying to impress or who's position you actually aspire to share...assuming the heiratchy isn't locked and closed to outsiders or those of a lesser caste to themselves.
That's why I stated in my 1st post here that I believe profiles and opening communications should be done in a proper manner and directed at your targer audience.
Since I'd probably prefer to attract people with a decent intellect and/ or education, I'd try to present myself as a reflection of that.
If I wanted to attract someone who's a little more wild and adventerous, then I'll reflect that too.
I will also agree with you on it being easier to break the rules if you know them (I'm often accused of being a rules-lawyer and loop-hope abuser myself =P ) .
But, when the rules have changed...do you really need to know the old, outdated ones?
So, if you are a grammar nazi, what level are you?
Me, about a 7 out of 10.
10 being (for a person of my generation, adhearing to the rules I was taught)
1 being...i dnt reed or rite enuf 2 care.
7, I know most all the rules and can avoid c0mmon mistakes but have slip-ups myself from time to time. I strive to be easily understood but am not about letting some things 'slide' nor in using alternatives once in a while.
I tend to write things out the long way when IMing. I use a few LOL's and emoticons and when in the process of rapid communication, I don't correct all of my typos (I do some) after sending the message. I am also lax on perfect punctuation but do try to use my commas properly.
The vast majority of people I've communicated with prefer me to the 'rednecks' and 'dewds' who send short, ill-defined messages and can't express themselves beyond; 'I Lik sex, U do 3some w/me?'
PS: I think it's a combination of factors on why people make errors. My opinion however is that they're stupid and uneducated people in comparison to myself (us nazis can be a little elitist at times). But, if I was given some other guideline to go by, such as initial messages and profiles...I would come up to a different result and say it's haste or some other distraction.
I'd disagree with you on the time constraints after reading a lot of threads here dealing with 'response time' to returning a message.
Many have stated that you should respond quickly, even if all you have is your e-mail capable cell phone as waiting until later and leaving the sender hanging, knowing you've read the message they sent, is rude.
PPS: All errors be they grammatical or otherwise are INTENTIONAL.
 | |
|
| Any other grammar nazis around these parts?
Posted: 6/23/2009 3:36:40 PM | From Merriam-Webster:
Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
"...a long way from general acceptance."
It is a double negative--which renders its use moot--and it is nonstandard.
I do not use the nonstandard 'ain't', either.
Use the 'words' at one's own discretion, and be prepared to have others who know better, correct their usage. | |
|
| Any other grammar nazis around these parts?
Posted: 6/23/2009 3:36:57 PM | | I don't consider myself to be a grammar Nazi. It might be somewhat annoying if a person has a large amount of spelling / grammar errors. But a few mistakes here and there isn't a big deal. | |
|
| Any other grammar nazis around these parts?
Posted: 6/23/2009 3:38:25 PM | Those who communicate online in such an obscure matter (e.g., so u wanna hang out 2nite?) simply irritate the fudge out of me. If you're having grammar troubles because english isn't your first language, it's completely understandable.
However, if it's due to the fact you're treating your computer keyboard like a cellphone keypad, there's no excuse for it at all. I can't stand it. If you're old enough to type on a keyboard, then there's no reason you shouldn't be typing (or attempting to try) your words in full. Even my 9 year old sister types out all of her words. Have I rubbed off on her? 
Little typos here and there are fine! But for god's sakes, it's a keyboard not a cellphone! 
I realize that people online vs. real life can appear to speak (and look) much differently, but it still bugs me. Call it a pet peeve if you want to. | |
|
| Any other grammar nazis around these parts?
Posted: 6/24/2009 7:03:30 AM |
Thus, while irregardless IS a violation of your (and my...since I don't use it) rules as well as classical English. It, unfortunatly IS a word and in common usage meaning the same thing as regardless.
Same thing as 'ain't.'
While the linguist in me knows that one "word" is not inherently "better" than another word and that all speech variations have equal worth, the English teacher in me (which dominates) knows that people are judged on how they speak and write. Although you didn't remark on my earlier comment about audience, I know that you understand the concept because you say here that you write in a certain way to attract a certain type of person--that goes for the world at large. If people want to say "aint," that is their prerogative, but whether it is fair or not, they will be judged by their use of the word.
I will also agree with you on it being easier to break the rules if you know them (I'm often accused of being a rules-lawyer and loop-hope abuser myself =P ) .
But, when the rules have changed...do you really need to know the old, outdated ones?
I spend the first week of my classes explaining the need for rules and show how they have changed over the centuries. I do this because if students understand the why of seemingly arbitrary rules (i.e. why DOES "knee" have that silent "k"?), they are more likely to grasp several aspects--the changing dynamics, the need for some rules, and how the written word changes much more slowly than the spoken word. They often thank me for the background information because, as they say, no one took time to tell them before and somehow, it just makes more sense.
Since I'd probably prefer to attract people with a decent intellect and/ or education, I'd try to present myself as a reflection of that.
If I wanted to attract someone who's a little more wild and adventerous, then I'll reflect that too.
I have a more than "decent" intellect, am well educated, and mostly speak/write in standard English (I sometimes lose my bearing during sex and shout out something totally ungrammatical), but I am not staid, prim, or prudish. It seems rather hypocritical and prejudiced of you to classify "wild and adventurous" women as somehow lacking the ability to understand your more intellectual/educated style.
PPS: All errors be they grammatical or otherwise are INTENTIONAL.
That's called "CYA." | |
|
| Any other grammar nazis around these parts?
Posted: 6/24/2009 4:42:12 PM | Yes, like it or not, Nazi is a title to an individual as well as an organization, so it should be capitalized "Nazi" for an in dividual & "NAZI" for the organization.
Sooo, you could, therefore, say, "That Nazi son of a btch needs to hang!"
OR...
"Those Godamned NAZI sonsa-beetchiz need to hang!"
My God Man! get it write! | |
|
| Any other grammar nazis around these parts?
Posted: 6/24/2009 6:13:05 PM | ^^^^^
Not to be anal, but dictionary.com says:
Na⋅zi
–noun
1. a member of the National Socialist German Workers' party of Germany, which in 1933, under Adolf Hitler, seized political control of the country, suppressing all opposition and establishing a dictatorship over all cultural, economic, and political activities of the people, and promulgated belief in the supremacy of Hitler as Führer, aggressive anti-Semitism, the natural supremacy of the German people, and the establishment of Germany by superior force as a dominant world power. The party was officially abolished in 1945 at the conclusion of World War II.
2. (often lowercase) a person elsewhere who holds similar views.
3. Sometimes Offensive. (often lowercase) a person who is fanatically dedicated to or seeks to control a specified activity, practice, etc.: a jazz nazi who disdains other forms of music; tobacco nazis trying to ban smoking. | |
|
| Any other grammar nazis around these parts?
Posted: 6/24/2009 11:06:01 PM |
Spelling and grammar have NO bearing on whether a person is able to communicate (intelligently) or not. Just that their mode of communication differs from yours
I'm sorry, but I have to laugh at this. I wish the above was true, but how someone uses grammar does indeed have some bearing on whether a person is able to communicate intelligently or not. At least, in my experience on dating sites so far. I've chatted with too many guys who "sounded" ignorant due to their poor grammar online, and once I met them in person, they were just as disappointing. So, I don't even bother meeting guys with horrendous online grammar anymore. It's become pointless.
Here's one reason why...
I personally, can't stand "text speak" in messages to me. It tells me that the guy who contacted me, really isn't going to put a lot of effort into me, if he can't even put enough effort into his initial message.
Seriously, think about it. If you really, really like a girl, don't you want your very first message to her to at least sound somewhat coherent? You'd be amazed, at how many guys don't seem to care about that after all.
If this makes me shallow, so be it. But I like decent grammar in online. What I don't like, is trying to decipher what they wrote me, because all their sentences run together, and they don't know how to use a period or capital letters. That's just freaking annoying, and a major turnoff.
Just my two cents... | |
|
| Any other grammar nazis around these parts?
Posted: 6/24/2009 11:34:49 PM | I am at times the "Rogue Grammarian".
Having been drilled relentlessly through a number of different elementary schools while my Air Force musician Dad moved us hither and yon, I usually spot boo-boos in various websites I visit.
Sometimes I post a remark about it, but most of the time I've learned to let it be. It drives me crazy! I have to own that and not let it harass my nerves so much.
The compulsion to correct others' usage is based on, I think, the notion that if they knew how to render their text properly, they would do it right from then on. The fallacy in my thinking is that apparently, very few people actually care if their skills meet the standards claimed by their schools. Sadly, those claims are now almost completely moot.
I'm reminded of "The Fugitive", in which there is an opening scene depicting Harrison Ford as Dr. Richard Kimble.
The jury is told by the prosecutor that Dr. Kimble's wife's 911 call proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Dr. Kimble is the killer.
The actual verbatim of Helen Kimble's dying words are as follows: "Richard, he's trying to kill me."
The prosecutor and the jury; consequently the witnesses, and the entire court were convinced of Dr. Kimble's guilt because of this incredibly sloppy, incorrect interpretation of Helen's sentence.
Imagine this: "My dog, he has fleas." That is incorrect.
The right way to say it is "My dog has fleas."
Helen's statement: "Richard, he's trying to kill me."
Helen Kimble was TALKING to her husband. She was not IDENTIFYING him.
She was calling to him, telling him that someone was trying to kill her.
People, proper grammar and punctuation does matter! | |
|
| Any other grammar nazis around these parts?
Posted: 6/25/2009 1:20:15 AM | before all you so called intelligent naysayers keep tooting your horn I'd just like to add one thing.
"One of the great things about books is sometime there are some fantastic pictures."
-George W. Bush
The Illiterate Digest has always saluted Illiteracy and now has compiled a list of the most illiterate cities in the United States. We're doing much better than our European brethren, since 23 million American adults are functionally illiterate and 13% of all American 17-years-olds are functionally illiterate. To those people we dedicated the...
Illiterate Digest Index
1. Miami FL: 63%
2. East LA CA: 57%
3. East St. Louis IL: 56%
4. Compton CA: 55%
5. Newark NJ: 52%
6. Brownsville TX: 50%
7. Union City NJ: 50%
8. San Fernando CA: 49%
9. Camden NJ: 49%
10. Detroit MI: 47%
11. Laredo TX: 47%
12. East Orange NJ: 46%
13. Gary IN: 46%
14. East Palo Alto CA: 45%
15. Orange NJ: 45%
16. Passaic City NJ: 45%
17. Paterson NJ: 45%
18. Augusta GA: 43%
19. Elizabeth NJ: 42%
20. Atlantic City NJ: 42%
21. Miami Beach FL: 41%
22. Hartford CT: 41%
23. East Chicago IN: 41%
24. South Miami Heights FL: 40%
Source: The National Institute for Literacy
The NALS found a total of 21-23 percent - or 40-44 million - of the 191 million American adults (defined as age 16 or older) at Level 1, the lowest literacy level. Although many Level 1 adults could perform many tasks involving simple texts and documents, all adults scoring at Level 1
| |
|
| |
| Any other grammar nazis around these parts?
Posted: 6/25/2009 1:54:00 AM | | Whilst I'd never openly comment on anyone's grammar, if I see a profile full of spelling mistakes and error’s then I move swiftly along. I feel it shows a lack of care and attention to detail and it bothers me. Even if I’m texting I tend to use correct English; it’s easier to understand and avoids misinterpretation. Lastly, most software packages have a spell checker, why not use it? | |
|
| |
| |
|
| Page 3 of 6
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
Home
login 
