Ladies and Gentlemen, let me first clarify a couple of things:
I am pretentious. I know this. This is a rant. Please interpret it as such.
Let us begin.
I'll start by mentioning a couple of things about myself. First, I am a student of both education and writing. Second, I do a lot of freelance work, including professional editing and writing for various clients. Third, I believe in the importance of language and the importance of strong fundamental skills in regards to language, meaning a solid understanding of grammar, proper punctuation, and basic diction. Fourth, I believe that everyone is capable of understanding these concepts, as they are quite easy to grasp. Fifth, I absolutely hate that most people don't have the understanding I've described.
I really, really hate it -- like, a lot.
Seriously, is it that difficult to understand the difference between "there," "they're," and "their?" Really. Is it too hard for anyone? I would venture a guess that it is not. For some reason, there are a lot of people whose appreciation for language is nonexistent. There are people who think that saying something like "its they're" when they mean "it's their" is good enough. These are the kind of things that make me want to reach through the computer screen and slap people with a second grade grammar booklet.
I happen to have a greater appreciation for writing than most people, and I get that not everyone is going to be so completely enamored with writing that they maintain a strong passion for the fine art of writing. I get that I am more passionate about it than most people would be. However, just as I know basic arithmetic in spite of my dislike for the subject of mathematics, I would expect everyone to have a basic understanding of grammar and punctuation, which are the building blocks (if you'll excuse the somewhat hackneyed expression) of language, and language is the foundation for communication.
In my eyes, there are two main types of communication. The first is what I call "Colloquial Communication," which is the more simplistic of the two. In Colloquial Communication, there's a certain amount of leeway in terms of mechanical errors. For instance, ending sentences in prepositions, slight issues with tense agreement, or the occasional incorrectly conjugated verb. All of these errors are minor, and the message being sent won't suffer from them. Colloquial Communication is defined by the simplicity of the message being communicated, so absolute precision in grammar isn't wholly necessary. However, I don't believe that this lenience is a free reign to be completely uneducated.
Additionally, some mistakes that simply shouldn't happen are actually understandable, given how commonly they appear. For instance, the past tense of the verb "to sneak" is "sneaked," not "snuck." The verb "snuck" appears so often, however, that it's understandable how someone might make that mistake.
But there are so many errors that could be so easily avoided that it just blows my mind. The rampant wide-spread ignorance makes me feel somewhat despondent a lot of times, and it's made even worse when someone says something to the effect of "who cares?" to me. Understanding language isn't just a matter of memorizing obscure or unnecessary facets of communication. Language is the basis for the sharing of ideas, and therefore the most important aspect in their evolution. Without language, ideas would stagnate and be oft lost.
I get that not everyone shares my passion for language. I do. But it would be nice if people could at least make some kind of effort. It might slow the progression of the giant tumor in my brain that grows a little bit every time someone writes the word "irregardless."
I feel a little better now.
End rant!
--EDIT--
I feel I should clarify something, since there are a lot of non-native English speakers on this site. I am not bilingual, but I feel like I make up for that by being exceptionally skilled in the art of the English language. If English is not your first language, obviously a lot more lenience could be extended.
Understanding language isn't just a matter of memorizing obscure or unnecessary facets of communication. Language is the basis for the sharing of ideas, and therefore the most important aspect in their evolution.
Therefore small, ignorant mistakes of grammar aren't important as long as the proper idea is shared. Right?
Understanding language isn't just a matter of memorizing obscure or unnecessary facets of communication. Language is the basis for the sharing of ideas, and therefore the most important aspect in their evolution.
Therefore small, ignorant mistakes of grammar aren't important as long as the proper idea is shared. Right?
Proper understanding of writing allows ideas to be shared with greater accuracy. Particularly in the subject of philosophy and literature, the ideas being conveyed are not concrete; thus, a lack of understanding of language would result in the writing being misinterpreted. In this example, the idea is not actually conveyed.
Additionally, study of language often provides an education that equips you to greater understand the ideas in general, even if they have already been conveyed effectively. Being better with language actually helps to make you better at thinking in general.
Sharing ideas effectively is actually mutually inclusive with the effectiveness of the language used. For instance, if you're conveying a mathematical concept and some figure is slightly out of place (a plus sign instead of a multiplication sign, or some such error), the idea as a whole will not be conveyed effectively.
Particularly in the subject of philosophy and literature, the ideas being conveyed are not concrete; thus, a lack of understanding of language would result in the writing being misinterpreted.
That's implying that people correctly interpret literature and philosophy, and the process is somehow mechanical through the laws of grammar.
Math and English lit are not directly comparable, as much as you may think they are.
On December 30 2010 02:52 krndandaman wrote: i also believe in grammar to an extent. i don't see why i can't use "snuck" when everyone understands the meaning.
Why not use "sneaked" when everyone also understands that, and it also conforms to the laws of the English language?
at grocery stores the "10 items or less" register always makes me rage a little bit inside. this is a less common but pretty annoying one. it should be "10 items or fewer as to match the fact that the number 10 is countable, therefore "fewer" should be used, as opposed to something that is NOT countable such as "he is less handsome" not "he is fewer handsome".
also the complaints you mention aren't specific to a writing major, just anyone who paid attention in english in high school.
On December 30 2010 02:53 mOnion wrote: here's one that bugs the hell out of me:
at grocery stores the "10 items or less" register always makes me rage a little bit inside. this is a less common but pretty annoying one. it should be "10 items or fewer as to match the fact that the number 10 is countable, therefore "fewer" should be used, as opposed to something that is NOT countable such as "he is less handsome" not "he is fewer handsome".
also the complaints you mention aren't specific to a writing major, just anyone who paid attention in english in high school.
I used to work at a grocery store (right out of high school) and due to my comments, one of the supervisors changed all the signs to "Ten items or fewer," from "10 items or less."
Then, two or three people over the course of the time I worked there commented to me, "shouldn't it be '10 items or less?'" These people quickly learned that I am often times the answer to the question nobody asked as I put them through a minutes-long explanation as to why it should be "fewer" rather than "less" and how it's a common mistake. Then I explained how sentences should never start with numbers, mainly because numbers can't be capitalized. Thus, "Ten items or fewer," as opposed to "10 items or less."
Also you're right, assuming you had decent teachers. When I was in high school most of my teachers didn't touch grammar even though the significant majority of my peers had atrocious grammar. I was basically just trying to say, "hey, I'm not just some random snob. I'm a random snob who has a strong background in being snobbish."
On December 30 2010 02:53 mOnion wrote: here's one that bugs the hell out of me:
at grocery stores the "10 items or less" register always makes me rage a little bit inside. this is a less common but pretty annoying one. it should be "10 items or fewer as to match the fact that the number 10 is countable, therefore "fewer" should be used, as opposed to something that is NOT countable such as "he is less handsome" not "he is fewer handsome".
I don't think it bothers my anywhere near as much as it bothers you, but I feel similarly. I don't mind when people make mistakes, but when they don't try at all to type in a understandable manner, then that annoys me. Why should I have to work harder to read your sentence just because you're too lazy to add the occasional capital letter, comma or period?
Particularly in the subject of philosophy and literature, the ideas being conveyed are not concrete; thus, a lack of understanding of language would result in the writing being misinterpreted.
That's implying that people correctly interpret literature and philosophy, and the process is somehow mechanical through the laws of grammar.
Math and English lit are not directly comparable, as much as you may think they are.
You are correct that English Lit is not mechanical, but the point is structure. Both Math and English follow guidelines in order to communicate an idea. The difference is in the base units being used. In Math, we have numbers, which are universally understood. English is built upon words, with no single concrete definition for most of them. Nevertheless, they both require a set of rules in order to usable. I'd like to go on, but it would most likely end up being a rant.
When I'm doing proofreading or editing, I think the comma splice is one of the most common errors people make. For instance: "It was cold, it was rainy." This is a comma splice since "it was cold" and "it was rainy" are separate ideas, both with a subject and a verb. The comma should be a period (although it would be stylistically better to write "it was cold and rainy").
I think this problem stems from the commonly-taught "rule" that commas go where there is a verbal pause in the sentence. People follow this ideology fairly closely, and it plagues a lot of people's writings.
Also, I was just rereading this post (as I do with almost all of my posts) to make sure I didn't make any silly typos, and I thought of another one. People who use "sense" and "since" interchangeably. That bugs the hell out of me too.
On December 30 2010 02:58 ]Grey[ wrote: I don't think it bothers my anywhere near as much as it bothers you, but I feels similarly. I don't mind when people make mistakes, but when they don't try at all to type in a understandable manner, then that annoys me. Why should I have to work harder to read your sentence just because you're too lazy to add the occasional capital letter, comma or period?
Winner.
And to the OP - your weren't complex and eloquent enough in that essay of yours so you haven't really proven to have the aforementioned skill set. I'm not sure who you've tried to cater to but it doesn't seem to be anywhere near the level you've claimed it to be. Opening paragraphs with 'seriously' and 'in my eyes' is not something a mature writer would do.
Having said this, I'm not a native speaker and have probably made 10 mistakes of my own.
I actually don't mind the people who make common punctuation/grammar errors, like the you're/your stuff, that much since those could be simple brain farts or just plain ignorance. Most of the time, the people making these kinds of errors might not even be realizing their errors and will correct them once they do realize it.
The part that really gets to me is these people who seem to have constructed their own online languages. And I don't mean the colloquial, shortened form of english used in text messaging and whatnot for convenience, I mean the people who literally typ lik dis :3 cuz im spesho baybee XDDD. Seriously, what the hell is that? How have we regressed back to baby-speak? Then there's the e-thug gangsta language, although that can be really hilarious when applied correctly.
On December 30 2010 02:58 ]Grey[ wrote: I don't think it bothers my anywhere near as much as it bothers you, but I feels similarly. I don't mind when people make mistakes, but when they don't try at all to type in a understandable manner, then that annoys me. Why should I have to work harder to read your sentence just because you're too lazy to add the occasional capital letter, comma or period?
Winner.
And to the OP - your weren't complex and eloquent enough in that essay of yours so you haven't really proven to have the aforementioned skill set. I'm not sure who you've tried to cater to but it doesn't seem to be anywhere near the level you've claimed it to be. Opening paragraphs with 'seriously' and 'in my eyes' is not something a mature writer would do.
Having said this I'm not a native speaker and have probably made 10 mistakes of my own.
There are a lot of things that I didn't do here that I would have done in other situations. For instance, in a formal essay, I would have avoided any form of the verb "to be," avoided the first and second person perspectives, used compound and complex sentences more effectively, and combined a lot of ideas. If I was to attempt some form of creative writing, I would have experimented with diction, sentence structure, and maybe some technique like stream of consciousness.
The OP is a rant, and thus caters to my need to vent my frustration. If you really need some kind of tangible proof, I'm sure I can find some example of my writing that better exemplifies my skills.
I am billingual; perhaps exactly because of that I am quite comfortable at rudimentary English grammar and understanding (IB English yeah!). Yeah, you bring up the stupidest example I think - heh - but deliberate deviation from formal English, a.k.a. net speak, is what gets to me the most as I believe someone has already pointed out.
Edit: Oh wow, this thread is quickly becoming island haven for sticklers- should be fun to see funny/frustrating RL examples people bring up in their rage xD
On December 30 2010 03:45 Hesmyrr wrote:Edit: Oh wow, this thread is quickly becoming island haven for sticklers- should be fun to see funny/frustrating RL examples people bring up in their rage xD
Understanding language isn't just a matter of memorizing obscure or unnecessary facets of communication. Language is the basis for the sharing of ideas, and therefore the most important aspect in their evolution.
Therefore small, ignorant mistakes of grammar aren't important as long as the proper idea is shared. Right?
Proper understanding of writing allows ideas to be shared with greater accuracy. Particularly in the subject of philosophy and literature, the ideas being conveyed are not concrete; thus, a lack of understanding of language would result in the writing being misinterpreted. In this example, the idea is not actually conveyed.
Additionally, study of language often provides an education that equips you to greater understand the ideas in general, even if they have already been conveyed effectively. Being better with language actually helps to make you better at thinking in general.
Sharing ideas effectively is actually mutually inclusive with the effectiveness of the language used. For instance, if you're conveying a mathematical concept and some figure is slightly out of place (a plus sign instead of a multiplication sign, or some such error), the idea as a whole will not be conveyed effectively.
If you are concerned about the accuracy of communication in addition to the proper sharing of ideas, you should probably just learn Lojban. English is not exactly the most rigorous language out there.
I fully appreciate this blog, and it annoys me when my friends write college papers the way I wrote my elementary school essays. You'd be surprised how many English majors are terrible at English. They pay me to correct their papers, and I was a math major!
If you truly are so frustrated by the style of writing commonly found on public forums on the internet, you should probably stop browsing said forums. For example, if I was extremely intelligent in real life and hated having to converse and socialize with stupid people, I would simply avoid such people and attempt to surround myself with people of similar intellect. I wouldn't write to a stupid kid asking him to better educate himself and become more well-read.
Oh but what's that? You actually still enjoy the material presented by the forum? The stupid kid you hate is actually a hot girl you are in love with? Then maybe you should just put up with her shortcomings.
I get angry every time someone writes "would of" instead of "would have" or "would've". It's not like it's incredibly much faster than "would've" so why not just write that.
On December 30 2010 03:04 Seltsam wrote: Y'know what else? Commas!
Commas everywhere!
When I'm doing proofreading or editing, I think the comma splice is one of the most common errors people make. For instance: "It was cold, it was rainy." This is a comma splice since "it was cold" and "it was rainy" are separate ideas, both with a subject and a verb. The comma should be a period (although it would be stylistically better to write "it was cold and rainy").
I think this problem stems from the commonly-taught "rule" that commas go where there is a verbal pause in the sentence. People follow this ideology fairly closely, and it plagues a lot of people's writings.
Also, I was just rereading this post (as I do with almost all of my posts) to make sure I didn't make any silly typos, and I thought of another one. People who use "sense" and "since" interchangeably. That bugs the hell out of me too.
Actually, when within quotation marks a comma is properly used as a verbal pause. I have experience as a playwright and studied at a performing arts school, we were taught grammar and elocution from a very young age. When writing a novel, speech or play and crafting diologue you use the comma to indicate to the reader to pause for either flow, turn of phrase, effect (after a revelation perhaps), for applause or laughter. Therefore in dialogue "It was cold, it was rainy" is perfectly acceptable, as if someone asked you a question such as "How was the weather?" the response is spoken and spoken grammar and written grammar are two completely different things.
Most people don't ever get taught proper grammatical speech, hell, most don't even get taught written grammar. However, verbal grammar is slightly different and how it is represented in written form is also different. As any good speech writer will tell you, where a person likes their commas takes time to learn. This is because when spoken aloud, where you place the comma can change the tone of the speech. This effect does not happen on paper because the words themselves hold the meaning and not the tone and rhythm of the voice speaking them.
find a copy of the script to your favourite TV show or play, when you read it you will go mad because the grammar is all wrong. It isn't, you just haven't learnt how to turn speech into writing for correct interpretation.
edit: I'm actually going to explain the difference between "it was cold. it was rainy" and "it was cold, it was rainy"
If i were reading a script and the line read "it was cold. it was rainy" then i would interpret the delivery to be in an angered or frustrated tone. The period indicates a blunt stop to speech and in such a short sentence that usually indicates the words to be said in anger or frustration or with particular emphasis.
If it were "it was cold, it was rainy" i would take it to be more resigned, an admission of things less than perfect but expected.
If it were "it was cold and rainy" then it would be a simple flat admission of the circumstances with that having been the expected response.
On December 30 2010 04:17 Enervate wrote: If you truly are so frustrated by the style of writing commonly found on public forums on the internet, you should probably stop browsing said forums. For example, if I was extremely intelligent in real life and hated having to converse and socialize with stupid people, I would simply avoid such people and attempt to surround myself with people of similar intellect. I wouldn't write to a stupid kid asking him to better educate himself and become more well-read.
Oh but what's that? You actually still enjoy the material presented by the forum? The stupid kid you hate is actually a hot girl you are in love with? Then maybe you should just put up with her shortcomings.
If you found a blog on an internet forum that espouses ideas you don't like or with which you disagree, would you post telling the author that you think he's wrong, or would you simply avoid such a person's writing and attempt to surround yourself with people whose ideas reflect your own?
I'm sorry, it's just that I don't really understand what you're trying to accomplish with your post. Perhaps you misunderstood that I was simply venting frustration? Because that's honestly all I was doing. Plus, I had hoped to hear some posts from some like-minded people so that I could reaffirm that I'm not the only person in the world who feels the way I do. I realize that I'm not, and it's not like I forget that on occasion, but it's nice to see it in a tangible way sometimes.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with your ideology. I have a degree in education and teach at a high school level. I've seen a rampant disregard for language since I was in middle school, and I aim to try to rectify the problem in whatever way I can, no matter how insignificant or futile it may seem.
On December 30 2010 03:04 Seltsam wrote: Y'know what else? Commas!
Commas everywhere!
When I'm doing proofreading or editing, I think the comma splice is one of the most common errors people make. For instance: "It was cold, it was rainy." This is a comma splice since "it was cold" and "it was rainy" are separate ideas, both with a subject and a verb. The comma should be a period (although it would be stylistically better to write "it was cold and rainy").
I think this problem stems from the commonly-taught "rule" that commas go where there is a verbal pause in the sentence. People follow this ideology fairly closely, and it plagues a lot of people's writings.
Also, I was just rereading this post (as I do with almost all of my posts) to make sure I didn't make any silly typos, and I thought of another one. People who use "sense" and "since" interchangeably. That bugs the hell out of me too.
Actually, when within quotation marks a comma is properly used as a verbal pause. I have experience as a playwright and studied at a performing arts school, we were taught grammar and elocution from a very young age. When writing a novel, speech or play and crafting diologue you use the comma to indicate to the reader to pause for either flow, turn of phrase, effect (after a revelation perhaps), for applause or laughter. Therefore in dialogue "It was cold, it was rainy" is perfectly acceptable, as if someone asked you a question such as "How was the weather?" the response is spoken and spoken grammar and written grammar are two completely different things.
Most people don't ever get taught proper grammatical speech, hell, most don't even get taught written grammar. However, verbal grammar is slightly different and how it is represented in written form is also different. As any good speech writer will tell you, where a person likes their commas takes time to learn. This is because when spoken aloud, where you place the comma can change the tone of the speech. This effect does not happen on paper because the words themselves hold the meaning and not the tone and rhythm of the voice speaking them.
find a copy of the script to your favourite TV show or play, when you read it you will go mad because the grammar is all wrong. It isn't, you just haven't learnt how to turn speech into writing for correct interpretation.
You are correct; however, what you refer to falls under the category of dialect, which has its own set of rules (or lack thereof) in order to maintain flow (as you mentioned). You're completely right, but I always viewed dialect as more of a giant exception. While I don't have much experience as a play-write, I do have a little over a decade of acting experience and I do remember seeing a lot of the things to which you're referring.
My issue is more with colloquial situations (or academic writing) and the errors that appear so commonly in those situations.
Anyone who complains about failure to understand and abide by the simple laws of grammar, punctuation and so on, should know not to put a comma in the second to last object of a list before the word "and". If you're going to rant about this kind of thing, be certain to make sure you don't make silly mistakes of your own.
Secondly, snuck is a real and perfectly acceptable word. At least on this side of the Atlantic.
On December 30 2010 04:14 Seltsam wrote: I don't like Lojban. It's all of the rules with none of the artistry.
And it isn't capable of communicating non-concrete ideas, which are usually the most applicable to the human condition.
I feel like part of the beauty of language is in its complexity.
Can you give an example of a non-concrete idea that cannot be communicated by Lojban? I myself do not speak the language but from what I understand poems and such are possible.
I must say though, I do not appreciate the complexity of language. Language is to me a simple tool to be used in the expression of ideas and communication. Tools are designed to be simple. As a tool, simplicity, not complexity, in language is beautiful to me.
Seltsam, if it makes you feel better, I found a grammar mistake in your OP.
These are the kind of things that make me want to reach through the computer screen and slap people with a second grade grammar booklet. (Should be "kinds" of things.)
Also, you used the saying "free reign", which actually should be free rein... Free reign is in common usage nowadays but it's because people are retarded. Free rein as in a horse's reins and when you leave them free, the horse can move about without the bit hurting them. Free reign makes no sense... If you're "reigning" then you probably call the shots. And a free reign sounds like someone gave you a crown for free or that you're ruling without consequence, in which case why not just say dictatorship?
Lastly, snuck can be used as the past tense of sneak.
In my opinion though, it's not very important. I agree there is a certain threshold of proficiency people should reach so that their writing can at least be intelligible, but grammar Nazis are just as bad. As a writer, I have a decently liberal interpretation of grammar (such as not using commas before conjunctions like and as or but. I think it's excessive), and I think sometimes grammar rules are unnecessarily constricting or just outright stupid. Overall though, I agree with you, but I wouldn't go as far as to rant about it and act like my English is so far beyond anyone else's. Languages are interpretive and writing even more so. There isn't really one right way to do things.
On December 30 2010 04:30 Flicky wrote: Anyone who complains about failure to understand and abide by the simple laws of grammar, punctuation and so on, should know not to put a comma in the second to last object of a list before the word "and". If you're going to rant about this kind of thing, be certain to make sure you don't make silly mistakes of your own.
Secondly, snuck is a real and perfectly acceptable word. At least on this side of the Atlantic.
I agree with your point though.
That's actually a UK grammar rule. In the USA, we can put commas before each word of a list. Such as, I bought oranges, apples, and peaches.
Kind of hilarious though because it shows how arbitrary grammar is.
On December 30 2010 04:17 Enervate wrote: If you truly are so frustrated by the style of writing commonly found on public forums on the internet, you should probably stop browsing said forums. For example, if I was extremely intelligent in real life and hated having to converse and socialize with stupid people, I would simply avoid such people and attempt to surround myself with people of similar intellect. I wouldn't write to a stupid kid asking him to better educate himself and become more well-read.
Oh but what's that? You actually still enjoy the material presented by the forum? The stupid kid you hate is actually a hot girl you are in love with? Then maybe you should just put up with her shortcomings.
If you found a blog on an internet forum that espouses ideas you don't like or with which you disagree, would you post telling the author that you think he's wrong, or would you simply avoid such a person's writing and attempt to surround yourself with people whose ideas reflect your own?
I'm sorry, it's just that I don't really understand what you're trying to accomplish with your post. Perhaps you misunderstood that I was simply venting frustration? Because that's honestly all I was doing. Plus, I had hoped to hear some posts from some like-minded people so that I could reaffirm that I'm not the only person in the world who feels the way I do. I realize that I'm not, and it's not like I forget that on occasion, but it's nice to see it in a tangible way sometimes.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with your ideology. I have a degree in education and teach at a high school level. I've seen a rampant disregard for language since I was in middle school, and I aim to try to rectify the problem in whatever way I can, no matter how insignificant or futile it may seem.
On December 30 2010 03:04 Seltsam wrote: Y'know what else? Commas!
Commas everywhere!
When I'm doing proofreading or editing, I think the comma splice is one of the most common errors people make. For instance: "It was cold, it was rainy." This is a comma splice since "it was cold" and "it was rainy" are separate ideas, both with a subject and a verb. The comma should be a period (although it would be stylistically better to write "it was cold and rainy").
I think this problem stems from the commonly-taught "rule" that commas go where there is a verbal pause in the sentence. People follow this ideology fairly closely, and it plagues a lot of people's writings.
Also, I was just rereading this post (as I do with almost all of my posts) to make sure I didn't make any silly typos, and I thought of another one. People who use "sense" and "since" interchangeably. That bugs the hell out of me too.
Actually, when within quotation marks a comma is properly used as a verbal pause. I have experience as a playwright and studied at a performing arts school, we were taught grammar and elocution from a very young age. When writing a novel, speech or play and crafting diologue you use the comma to indicate to the reader to pause for either flow, turn of phrase, effect (after a revelation perhaps), for applause or laughter. Therefore in dialogue "It was cold, it was rainy" is perfectly acceptable, as if someone asked you a question such as "How was the weather?" the response is spoken and spoken grammar and written grammar are two completely different things.
Most people don't ever get taught proper grammatical speech, hell, most don't even get taught written grammar. However, verbal grammar is slightly different and how it is represented in written form is also different. As any good speech writer will tell you, where a person likes their commas takes time to learn. This is because when spoken aloud, where you place the comma can change the tone of the speech. This effect does not happen on paper because the words themselves hold the meaning and not the tone and rhythm of the voice speaking them.
find a copy of the script to your favourite TV show or play, when you read it you will go mad because the grammar is all wrong. It isn't, you just haven't learnt how to turn speech into writing for correct interpretation.
You are correct; however, what you refer to falls under the category of dialect, which has its own set of rules (or lack thereof) in order to maintain flow (as you mentioned). You're completely right, but I always viewed dialect as more of a giant exception. While I don't have much experience as a play-write, I do have a little over a decade of acting experience and I do remember seeing a lot of the things to which you're referring.
My issue is more with colloquial situations (or academic writing) and the errors that appear so commonly in those situations.
in an academic sense, i agree whole heartedly with you. When writing for an audience (play,TV, speech, novel) you must write in a way that conveys your message to those who will be performing the material, they will usually have a good understanding of spoken grammar. When writing for academic purposes you should always use standard grammatical punctuation or else you could be misinterpreted or worse, made to look uneducated ;p
On December 30 2010 04:30 Flicky wrote: Anyone who complains about failure to understand and abide by the simple laws of grammar, punctuation and so on, should know not to put a comma in the second to last object of a list before the word "and". If you're going to rant about this kind of thing, be certain to make sure you don't make silly mistakes of your own.
Secondly, snuck is a real and perfectly acceptable word. At least on this side of the Atlantic.
I agree with your point though.
That's actually a UK grammar rule. In the USA, we can put commas before each word of a list. Such as, I bought oranges, apples, and peaches.
Kind of hilarious though because it shows how arbitrary grammar is.
In the US you technically don't speak English. You speak American English, which has its own spelling and grammar. So no its not arbitrary, in all other countries that speak or learn English (perhaps with the exception of Canada) they use English and our grammatical norms, not American ones.
On December 30 2010 04:30 Flicky wrote: Anyone who complains about failure to understand and abide by the simple laws of grammar, punctuation and so on, should know not to put a comma in the second to last object of a list before the word "and". If you're going to rant about this kind of thing, be certain to make sure you don't make silly mistakes of your own.
Secondly, snuck is a real and perfectly acceptable word. At least on this side of the Atlantic.
I agree with your point though.
That's actually a UK grammar rule. In the USA, we can put commas before each word of a list. Such as, I bought oranges, apples, and peaches.
Kind of hilarious though because it shows how arbitrary grammar is.
In the US you technically don't speak English. You speak American English, which has its own spelling and grammar. So no its not arbitrary, in all other countries that speak or learn English (perhaps with the exception of Canada) they use English and our grammatical norms, not American ones.
In Canada we use a hybrid version of English combining elements of both. I guess we have Canadian English?
On December 30 2010 04:30 Flicky wrote: Anyone who complains about failure to understand and abide by the simple laws of grammar, punctuation and so on, should know not to put a comma in the second to last object of a list before the word "and". If you're going to rant about this kind of thing, be certain to make sure you don't make silly mistakes of your own.
Secondly, snuck is a real and perfectly acceptable word. At least on this side of the Atlantic.
I agree with your point though.
That's actually a UK grammar rule. In the USA, we can put commas before each word of a list. Such as, I bought oranges, apples, and peaches.
Kind of hilarious though because it shows how arbitrary grammar is.
In the US you technically don't speak English. You speak American English, which has its own spelling and grammar. So no its not arbitrary, in all other countries that speak or learn English (perhaps with the exception of Canada) they use English and our grammatical norms, not American ones.
In Canada we use a hybrid version of English combining elements of both. I guess we have Canadian English?
I'm not sure lol. I know that American English is a recognised language seperate from English. What dictionary do you use? If its Webster's (is it Wepster's?) it's American and the Oxford/Cambridge ones are English.
I am utterly convinced that the lolcats meme was established by the token American teenager simply writing in what he thought was proper grammar and spelling.
On December 30 2010 04:30 Flicky wrote: Anyone who complains about failure to understand and abide by the simple laws of grammar, punctuation and so on, should know not to put a comma in the second to last object of a list before the word "and". If you're going to rant about this kind of thing, be certain to make sure you don't make silly mistakes of your own.
Secondly, snuck is a real and perfectly acceptable word. At least on this side of the Atlantic.
I agree with your point though.
That's actually a UK grammar rule. In the USA, we can put commas before each word of a list. Such as, I bought oranges, apples, and peaches.
Kind of hilarious though because it shows how arbitrary grammar is.
In the US you technically don't speak English. You speak American English, which has its own spelling and grammar. So no its not arbitrary, in all other countries that speak or learn English (perhaps with the exception of Canada) they use English and our grammatical norms, not American ones.
In Canada we use a hybrid version of English combining elements of both. I guess we have Canadian English?
I'm not sure lol. I know that American English is a recognised language seperate from English. What dictionary do you use? If its Webster's (is it Wepster's?) it's American and the Oxford/Cambridge ones are English.
I haven't used a paper dictionary for 5 years >_>
But I think our spellings are the same as England... except we use alot of American words.
It was D.H. Lawrence who said "The philosopher, on the other hand, because he can think, decides that nothing but thoughts matter. It is as if a rabbit, because he can make little pills, should decide that nothing but little pills matter."
Of course you're going to think what you do is the most important thing. Why would you do something you think is less important? But I think you should respect that other people have different ideas of what is most important.
On December 30 2010 02:53 mOnion wrote: here's one that bugs the hell out of me:
at grocery stores the "10 items or less" register always makes me rage a little bit inside. this is a less common but pretty annoying one. it should be "10 items or fewer as to match the fact that the number 10 is countable, therefore "fewer" should be used, as opposed to something that is NOT countable such as "he is less handsome" not "he is fewer handsome".
also the complaints you mention aren't specific to a writing major, just anyone who paid attention in english in high school.
Now I'm gonna use this as much as possible next time I see you .
On December 30 2010 04:30 Flicky wrote: Anyone who complains about failure to understand and abide by the simple laws of grammar, punctuation and so on, should know not to put a comma in the second to last object of a list before the word "and". If you're going to rant about this kind of thing, be certain to make sure you don't make silly mistakes of your own.
Secondly, snuck is a real and perfectly acceptable word. At least on this side of the Atlantic.
I agree with your point though.
That's actually a UK grammar rule. In the USA, we can put commas before each word of a list. Such as, I bought oranges, apples, and peaches.
Kind of hilarious though because it shows how arbitrary grammar is.
In the US you technically don't speak English. You speak American English, which has its own spelling and grammar. So no its not arbitrary, in all other countries that speak or learn English (perhaps with the exception of Canada) they use English and our grammatical norms, not American ones.
It's pretty arbitrary that Americans decided to create their own "language," which is essentially the same damn thing other than a few arbitrary grammar rules. So, yes, it is arbitrary. Or are you trying to say all the Americans convened at a a great grammatical council and voted in favor of commas in lists? I'm not really understanding how you don't see that language is random and chaotic.
I couldn't care less as long as I can comprehend what the person is trying to communicate to me. Obviously in formal writing grammar and whatnot should be perfect but I often send texts substituting "u" for "you" and I overuse commas a lot.
I often use semi-colons incorrectly too, I don't see it as a big deal. You must be pretty miserable if you get your panties in a big bunch every time someone is guilty of a comma splice. I hate the attitude of grammar nazis. You have to come to terms with the fact that most people simply do not give a shit about grammar as much as you do, they never will, they will continue to make constant spelling and grammatical errors, and they will never understand why it makes you mad.
I have a very good understanding of grammar. I just don't think it's worth taking care to make sure my grammar is always correct, except in formal writing.
As an aside, it's worth noting that the "educated" have always complained about commoners bastardizing their language. However, this is exactly how language evolves. Since OP is so big on language, doubtless he knows what a language is called once its rules are set in stone and it stops changing through usage. It's called a dead language.
I often play it fast and loose in my adherence to grammar rules and conventions, but there is one particular instance in which I become the Oberster Befehlshaber der Grammatik: sexting.
Nothing drives me up a wall quicker than getting a text from my girlfriend that says, "I want 2 get naked for u."
Then I have to send back a furious text like: "Ok, we've had this talk before. I simply cannot get a boner while you're taking that hatchet to our glorious language. You're not texting Zac Effron. We're both adults now and need to start communicating as such. When you say 'naked for u,' I don't know if you mean me or some kid at your spineless liberal arts community college whose liberal hippy parents think names like 'U' and 'Carpet' are acceptable names for human beings. By the way, it's 2 o'clock in the afternoon and I drive a bus for work. Am I supposed to pull over and rub one out between stops? It's bad enough as it is that I had to pull over and write this text. People are going to be late for their appointments because you can't be bothered to type a couple of extra letters. How are we supposed to have a complex, fulfilling emotional relationship if you can't even get basic things right? I'm very disappointed in you.
Sincerely, Jack"
Of course she has some stone-age phone that can only get minuscule text messages, so it breaks my transmission into about 10 parts. Then she gets all uppity with "OMG I cant believe ur doing this agian. Ur wasting all my msgs. why would u do this on xmas??"
Now I'm absolutely fuming. I shoot back, “I’m driving a fucking 14 ton bus in the middle of a snowstorm on Christmas so we can afford that abortion. Are you trying to cause an accident? Do you want me to die? Is that your Christmas wish? Maybe I should steer this thing over a bridge so I don’t have to look at another one of these texts. When I get home I’m pulling that baby out myself. There’s no way I’m letting any son of mine be raised by a cavewoman who writes things like ‘xmas.’ This stuff is important. It’s things like proper grammar that separate us from the apes.”
“I cannot believe I ever liked you. I’m putting all your shit on the doorstep. Don’t call me again.”
“See? That wasn’t so hard. Don’t you feel better now? I’ve just pulled into the bus depot. So, what are you wearing?”
Many people for whom English is not their native language write the word the way it sounds in their head. Hence the mix-up with "they're" and "their". This isn't such a big deal to me.
What does irk me is reading spelling or grammar mistakes in major newspapers. These people should know better. And I can find mistakes in at least one out of four newspapers that I read..
On December 30 2010 05:49 JackMcCoy wrote: I often play it fast and loose in my adherence to grammar rules and conventions, but there is one particular instance in which I become the Oberster Befehlshaber der Grammatik: sexting.
Nothing drives me up a wall quicker than getting a text from my girlfriend that says, "I want 2 get naked for u."
Then I have to send back a furious text like: "Ok, we've had this talk before. I simply cannot get a boner while you're taking that hatchet to our glorious language. You're not texting Zac Effron. We're both adults now and need to start communicating as such. When you say 'naked for u,' I don't know if you mean me or some kid at your spineless liberal arts community college whose liberal hippy parents think names like 'U' and 'Carpet' are acceptable names for human beings. By the way, it's 2 o'clock in the afternoon and I drive a bus for work. Am I supposed to pull over and rub one out between stops? It's bad enough as it is that I had to pull over and write this text. People are going to be late for their appointments because you can't be bothered to type a couple of extra letters. How are we supposed to have a complex, fulfilling emotional relationship if you can't even get basic things right? I'm very disappointed in you.
Sincerely, Jack"
Of course she has some stone-age phone that can only get minuscule text messages, so it breaks my transmission into about 10 parts. Then she gets all uppity with "OMG I cant believe ur doing this agian. Ur wasting all my msgs. why would u do this on xmas??"
Now I'm absolutely fuming. I shoot back, “I’m driving a fucking 14 ton bus in the middle of a snowstorm on Christmas so we can afford that abortion. Are you trying to cause an accident? Do you want me to die? Is that your Christmas wish? Maybe I should steer this thing over a bridge so I don’t have to look at another one of these texts. When I get home I’m pulling that baby out myself. There’s no way I’m letting any son of mine be raised by a cavewoman who writes things like ‘xmas.’ This stuff is important. It’s things like proper grammar that separate us from the apes.”
“I cannot believe I ever liked you. I’m putting all your shit on the doorstep. Don’t call me again.”
“See? That wasn’t so hard. Don’t you feel better now? I’ve just pulled into the bus depot. So, what are you wearing?”
On December 30 2010 05:49 JackMcCoy wrote: I often play it fast and loose in my adherence to grammar rules and conventions, but there is one particular instance in which I become the Oberster Befehlshaber der Grammatik: sexting.
Nothing drives me up a wall quicker than getting a text from my girlfriend that says, "I want 2 get naked for u."
Then I have to send back a furious text like: "Ok, we've had this talk before. I simply cannot get a boner while you're taking that hatchet to our glorious language. You're not texting Zac Effron. We're both adults now and need to start communicating as such. When you say 'naked for u,' I don't know if you mean me or some kid at your spineless liberal arts community college whose liberal hippy parents think names like 'U' and 'Carpet' are acceptable names for human beings. By the way, it's 2 o'clock in the afternoon and I drive a bus for work. Am I supposed to pull over and rub one out between stops? It's bad enough as it is that I had to pull over and write this text. People are going to be late for their appointments because you can't be bothered to type a couple of extra letters. How are we supposed to have a complex, fulfilling emotional relationship if you can't even get basic things right? I'm very disappointed in you.
Sincerely, Jack"
Of course she has some stone-age phone that can only get minuscule text messages, so it breaks my transmission into about 10 parts. Then she gets all uppity with "OMG I cant believe ur doing this agian. Ur wasting all my msgs. why would u do this on xmas??"
Now I'm absolutely fuming. I shoot back, “I’m driving a fucking 14 ton bus in the middle of a snowstorm on Christmas so we can afford that abortion. Are you trying to cause an accident? Do you want me to die? Is that your Christmas wish? Maybe I should steer this thing over a bridge so I don’t have to look at another one of these texts. When I get home I’m pulling that baby out myself. There’s no way I’m letting any son of mine be raised by a cavewoman who writes things like ‘xmas.’ This stuff is important. It’s things like proper grammar that separate us from the apes.”
“I cannot believe I ever liked you. I’m putting all your shit on the doorstep. Don’t call me again.”
“See? That wasn’t so hard. Don’t you feel better now? I’ve just pulled into the bus depot. So, what are you wearing?”
Actually the double hyphen WITHOUT SPACES around it is the typographer's code to replace with an m-dash.
I kick fucking ass at writing and English and all that shit, but A) style is primarily composed of the manner in which you break the rules and B) I want to fucking punch every douchebag who calls themselves a "creative writer".
On December 30 2010 02:31 Seltsam wrote: Additionally, some mistakes that simply shouldn't happen are actually understandable, given how commonly they appear. For instance, the past tense of the verb "to sneak" is "sneaked," not "snuck." The verb "snuck" appears so often, however, that it's understandable how someone might make that mistake.
I'm assuming you've never heard of a past participle, huh?
I don't know the grammar rules for it that well, but I feel like a lot of people use "what" in a question where "which" is more appropriate to use. What do you think?
Irregardless of what you may think; not everyone can be good at there grammar. Alot of people have trouble using english correct but your not the only one who get's annoyed by it, I do to.
i used to type with good grammar and spelling, but i began to notice how hilarious it is to purposely have poor grammar, because people like you get so mad. i imagine you trying to hold a conversation with a group of people and constantly interrupting someone who's talking to inform them of their sentence structure mistakes. i just love making uptight people mad, so now i type like this, except when it matters. it's good enough to understand what i'm saying, but bad enough to irk people who are obsessive compulsive about it, which is a great medium imo
when i smell a grammar nazi like you afoot, i get even worse:
like idk y u guys even care so much cuz im just writin how i wanna write n if u guys dont like it mb u should get dat stick out of ur ass u no wut im sayin? juz mind ur own biznez cuz i do wut da fuck i wanna do n idgaf about u lil grammer nerds, u can read wut im writin newayz so just stfu
I looked to see if anyone else pointed this out, and it looks like no one did. So...
It isn't wrong to end a sentence in a preposition. At least, it isn't always wrong.
"Where are you at?" Bad!
"Where you at: DEATH
(The famous example): "That is something that I will not put up with!" Good! You don't have to say, "That's exactly the sort of thing up with which I will not put!"
you guys realize that there's a difference between getting annoyed by something and correcting everyone, right? Saying things are annoying in a blog that I've clearly labeled as a rant is not the same as going around correcting everyone.
In fact, the very reason I felt like I needed to vent was because I don't correct people, and my frustrations stay bottled up. Over a long enough period of time, I get a little overwhelmed by that frustration and feel the need to vent.
On December 30 2010 02:53 mOnion wrote: here's one that bugs the hell out of me:
at grocery stores the "10 items or less" register always makes me rage a little bit inside. this is a less common but pretty annoying one. it should be "10 items or fewer as to match the fact that the number 10 is countable, therefore "fewer" should be used, as opposed to something that is NOT countable such as "he is less handsome" not "he is fewer handsome".
also the complaints you mention aren't specific to a writing major, just anyone who paid attention in english in high school.
I'm a bit of a pedant as well, and this doesn't actually bother me. "Or less" obviously sounds better. It could easily be argued to read as "10 items or less than that amount", with amount not being used as something countable, but simple referring to a small amount in size.
It's interesting to read about the comma before and in recital sentences. I was definitely always under the impression that we were taught British English in Denmark, but I remember that it was pointed out to us a couple of times that we were reminded to put the comma before "and" since we don't do that in Danish. Maybe those teachers had read a few too many American texts ... actually, I recall as I'm writing this, one grammar book mentioned it was an American/English thing (a book we used during my Bachelor degree in communication), so apparently the teacher we had then told us that since Americans did it, it was acceptable
I have always felt I have a really good grasp on English, but I'm becoming more and more aware that I don't. When I become an author, I'm still not sure whether to write in English or Danish, and I have started reading more books in English to get used to more everyday phrases, expressions and words. I actually noted down a few very interesting examples about commas that puzzled me and that I was planning to have a talk with the TL community about, however, I do not have those at my disposal right now. My problem is, I think, that I have relied on a very strong intuition when it comes to language, and it has always served me well - that is, up until some years ago, and ever since then I have too often been in doubt. Thinking in rules might help, but I really enjoy being able to understand things more intuitively.
Obviously, by reading more books in English, I will figure out the last kinks that still haunt me about the English comma. I'm not sure whether I'll ever avoid bad formulations and typos that have stuck with me from a young age. They always sneak in when I'm typing as I think, and even though I will notice it instantly when correcting (which I rarely do), I still write "its"/"it's" wrong, most often where I use "it's" for possessive since I write it so often it's engrained in my fingers. And there are many verbs that I use incorrectly, since I have been using the internet from a young age, and back then I used a lot of words that I didn't really know the meaning of, but had only been able to guess at from the context in which they appeared.
I'm sure I still do a mean expressive and poetic English language (see how I butchered that formulation :D), though, and I have no doubt that I could do well in that way. As a perfectionist, things like this just easily grabs my attention. Certainly feels wrong not to express myself as clearly as I would like due to bad formulations or silly errors. And yes, I do worry about language use deteriorating as well, and I will react, sometimes in a spiteful manner, but I'm not really that pretentions about it.
at grocery stores the "10 items or less" register always makes me rage a little bit inside. this is a less common but pretty annoying one. it should be "10 items or fewer as to match the fact that the number 10 is countable, therefore "fewer" should be used, as opposed to something that is NOT countable such as "he is less handsome" not "he is fewer handsome".
Is your argument that "less" can't also mean "fewer" based on the fact that "fewer" can't mean less? What about when we say 5 is less than 10. Or 5<10. When do we ever say 5 is fewer than 10? "Fewer" is kind of an awkward, bumbling word that no one uses anymore because it sounds like overly formal.
On December 30 2010 02:31 Seltsam wrote: I'll start by mentioning a couple of things about myself. First, I am a student of both education and writing. Second, I do a lot of freelance work, including professional editing and writing for various clients. Third, I believe in the importance of language and the importance of strong fundamental skills in regards to language, meaning a solid understanding of grammar, proper punctuation, and basic diction. Fourth, I believe that everyone is capable of understanding these concepts, as they are quite easy to grasp. Fifth, I absolutely hate that most people don't have the understanding I've described.
I really, really hate it -- like, a lot.
I'll start by mentioning a couple of things about myself. First, I am a college football player and have been playing various sports throughout my life. Second, I perform a lot of physical activity on a daily basis purely for enjoyment. Third, I believe in the importance of regular exercise and physical activity due to its numerous health benefits. Fourth, I believe that everyone is capable of performing at least some level of physical activity throughout their life, as it requires just a little dedication and time. Fifth, I absolutely hate that most people eat poorly and fail to exercise on a regular basis.
I really, really hate it -- like, a lot.
Pretty much, don't hate on people because they do not value the same things you hold in such high regard.
at grocery stores the "10 items or less" register always makes me rage a little bit inside. this is a less common but pretty annoying one. it should be "10 items or fewer as to match the fact that the number 10 is countable, therefore "fewer" should be used, as opposed to something that is NOT countable such as "he is less handsome" not "he is fewer handsome".
Is your argument that "less" can't also mean "fewer" based on the fact that "fewer" can't mean less? What about when we say 5 is less than 10. Or 5<10. When do we ever say 5 is fewer than 10? "Fewer" is kind of an awkward, bumbling word that no one uses anymore because it sounds like shit.
That's not really a good example, though, since the formulations that you mention here would usually refer to amount, not the numbers of an item. For instance, when we say "10 kg > 5 kg" or that five kilos is less than ten kilo, then were are not saying that the amount of kilos is less, but that one amount, when you compare the two, is less. And that is a common problem in language: that expressions commonly used in one way come to saturate other similar expressions that are not actually related.
Of course, you can see that I argue in my post above that the example of "10 items or less" is ambiguous, and we cannot really judge the grammar of it until we know what it means to express. It would seem that it's correctly expressed, but simply carried another implicit meaning that it is pretty much that same as that it would have if it was used differently. Or you could expect that they simply don't care, and just want something catchy, accepting the fact that language just boils down to what's common practice.
By the way, the common practice thing: In the Danish Counter-Strike scene (almost ten years back, I reckon), everyone was the word "event" occurred more frequently than our own Danish alternative since everyone was reading international community sites. People said "et event" (et/en = Danish specific articles), which would be the natural way to adopt the word from English (if you're a Dane, you will know whether to put "et" or "en" as the article"). However, the biggest Danish community site, XplayN, started using "en event", which was based on an old-fashioned adoptation of the word, where it carried a different meaning. Saying "en event" sounded absolutely horrible and didn't make much sense, but the guy who started it was a frequent news writer on the site, and simply settled the argument by referring to an official state-run dictionary (by the council/authority who offcially decide correct language use), which hadn't yet picked up on this adaptation of the word from modern English, but still listed the old adaptation of the word. This ended up with most of the Danish Counter-Strike community actually using "en event" today, and it has now been established as the best practise, it seems. Sadly, that is - it would have been nice if "et event" could have been established as common practice first - now we have another confusing exception in our already quite difficult Danish language. In general, all the words that people mix into the daily language from English these days causes me a bit of stress.
RiB: Poor example as well :D ... How much people exercise doesn't affect you in as direct a fashion as language use does, so obviously it's less natural to "hate on". That said, all this hating on things seems kind of petty, but I'm sure that more often than not, people just use it communicatively and not expressively. I don't believe that people have such strong feelings of dislike, but it's just easier to express as something you "hate", so the becomes a bit inflated.
OTOH I do agree with the points brought up. I hate when people intentionally disregard grammar as unimportant. Simple mistakes are excusable but should not be the norm. At least put some effort into educating yourself right? English is my second language and I probably have a better understanding of it then people who have only known English.
although normally i would disregard some rules because i am a little bit lazier. i think as long as you get sentence structure, punctuation, and spelling right a lot of other stuff can be forgiven because i can still discern and understand what you are trying to communicate.
my 9th grade english teacher had a list of 10 grammatical mistakes that would automatically earn you an F on an essay. among them was the split infinitive (eg. "to boldly assert"). now i notice this (trivial) mistake everywhere.
is there a legitimate argument for anal retentiveness about the finer points of english grammar? it just seems like intellectual wank to me, who the fuck cares
On December 30 2010 02:40 hifriend wrote: I knew the difference by the time I was 12 but I still find myself making the mistake when I'm typing something in a rush every once in a while.
edit: regarding their/they're/there
Then again, as swedes it's hardly our native tongue.
I suggest taking time to look at your own easily corrected, basic understanding type mistakes.
But there are so many errors that could be so easily avoided that it just blows my mind
Look at all the unneeded words here. 'So many' 'so easily' 'just blows' all within a single phrase, phew. I'm exhausted before getting to the meat of the paragraph.
The rampant wide-spread ignorance makes me feel somewhat despondent a lot of times, and it's made even worse when someone says something to the effect of "who cares?" to me.
Damn. Pretentious shouldn't mean tedious, this whole statement meanders around with qualifying words "somewhat" "someone says something" and a redundant "to me" (its implied). The argument it makes is buried for no reason. Labeling this as a rant is fine, but why would I read it when its taxing to figure out what you're mad about?
Grammar mistakes are not a big deal, editors exist to find them when it matters. Unfocused writing will kill a piece before it can be brought to the table. Funny, because its every bit as easy to stop using adverbs as making sure the correct form of your is in place.
Elements of Style sums up well.
Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.
This video quite aptly sums up my thoughts on the issue.
Language is a no more set in stone to any criteria of correctness than music or humour. Grammar is often neccesary in order to make your meaning clear, but there is no law in regards to grammar that we must all adhere.
And some of the greatest works of literature would be stripped of their beauty if the elements of style were to be taken as anything more than a helpful guideline on a subject that is as open to flair, imagination and creativity as art.
On December 30 2010 09:00 uberMatt wrote: is there a legitimate argument for anal retentiveness about the finer points of english grammar? it just seems like intellectual wank to me, who the fuck cares
If the sentence is ambiguous, or needlessly difficult to parse, then the sentence is poorly constructed.
If the sentence is clear and specific, but violates some derpy grammatic decree, then the sentence is solid.
On December 30 2010 09:00 uberMatt wrote: is there a legitimate argument for anal retentiveness about the finer points of english grammar? it just seems like intellectual wank to me, who the fuck cares
If the sentence is ambiguous, or needlessly difficult to parse, then the sentence is poorly constructed.
I agree, on my last final exams I had a question that was: Did Neitzsche look more favourably on the teachings of jesus than those of the Catholic church?
Spent the whole time arguing that Catholics would almost self-evidently look more favourably on the teachings of Jesus, as his teachings and inherent goodness are intrinsically bound up in the Catholic faith.
In the same exam had an arguably worse one, although semantically not grammatically, that went: Was Hegel really an atheist? Think I just wrote is this REALLY an answer? and then wrote really a few more times getting gradually larger.
How the hell did you misunderstand that? That's just you not studying Neitzsche and thinking on the exam 'oh shit!' then trying to find a loop hole that isn't there. If it were meant to be answered the way you wanted to answer it, it would have been phrased 'Did Neitzsche or the Catholic Church look more..." The way it's phrased is really obviously a comparison of the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of the Catholic Church. There is nothing ambiguous about it. Yeah, technically you could interpret 'those' in two different ways, but one is awkward and contrived as hell, and the other makes sense in the context of your exam. If you were really unsure you would have raised your hand instead of trying to get away with it.
The second is fine too. Your prof probably talked about it in class as a controversial question, therefore 'really' is meant to jog your memory about it and show that it is a debatable point. IE you're supposed to counter the argument to the opposite side you take, rather than just list a couple reasons that support one side.
Didnt misunderstand either of them, i just knew nothing about either so thought id get out of the first one due to the idiocy of the way it was phrased, and your wrong there is ambiguity as it can be interpreted in both ways, and the latter due to the idiocy of "really"
The whole concept of really is troublesome even if applied to our own existence let alone when the question is the authenticity of a philosophers belief. the question of Did X "really" anything is just dumb.
I was feeling pretty depressed at the time as well which might have leaned me towards being a dick in the way i answered them.
The only thing I notice is when people say if I was or if it was. I notice this because I was corrected on it by my friend, and realized, OH CRAP, IT'S REALLY IF I WERE!
Your writing is laden with errors both grammatical and punctuational. Luckily, the people who hire you don't know the difference. Your use of the run-on sentence, in particular, is outstanding.
A run-on sentence is not ungrammatical. Neither is an Oxford comma.
I feel like self-righteous Internet denizens who thump their chests over grammar and then complain about "they're"/"their"/"there" are like self-avowed science fans who can recite 20+ decimals in Pi but have only a foggy conception of Planck's constant.
On December 30 2010 12:16 XeliN wrote: Didnt misunderstand either of them, i just knew nothing about either so thought id get out of the first one due to the idiocy of the way it was phrased, and your wrong there is ambiguity as it can be interpreted in both ways, and the latter due to the idiocy of "really"
The whole concept of really is troublesome even if applied to our own existence let alone when the question is the authenticity of a philosophers belief. the question of Did X "really" anything is just dumb.
I was feeling pretty depressed at the time as well which might have leaned me towards being a dick in the way i answered them.
I share in your appreciation for writing! I hate to say it, but eloquent prose is close to the classics for me and if I desire a good bit of pretension I visit the Harvard Review or scan through some text by Shakespeare, which for me is a choice that consists of the unbastardized versions that are not as "colored" by modern English spelling of course; in fact, almost any classically powerful poet will have me in true textual captivation—Milton, Jonson or Keats.
I was just thinking the other day about how short of an attention span that our society has. When I worked for a classless Web firm the head writer was so infected by the "standard" version of readers. The statistics that I found supported his claim. They proved that the "normal" Web goers and traditional readers don't care to scan even a page of text anymore (Web or traditional media like newspapers)—we're talking a capacity of only 50-100 words maximum. It's sad to think of the total weight of our ability to be ignorant of our capacity to read and write. There's all kinds of justification for this so I don't blame the large incentive (in our society) to disregard information.
EDIT: To Jon: But there is a reason for individuals to know Pi for twenty decimals (just knowing that is beneficial to knowing a bit more about something), which is completely aside from "chest pumping". I'm sure there are many other reasons for us net "denizens" to pump our chests, but we are also passionate creatures. And for this poster (in his own blog post even) and others to be disillusioned about things is certainly justifiable. And while it's certainly correct to satiate oneself to any style they well please, there are of course different spheres of writing. The run on, fragment or comma splice are certainly accepted on an Internet forum and popular writing (Twilight).
Oh and my opinion on the Nietzsche question: A fundamentally flawed question, because he never "looked favorably" on life, heh.
On December 30 2010 13:57 ffdestiny wrote: EDIT: To Jon: But there is a reason for individuals to know Pi for twenty decimals (just knowing that is beneficial to knowing a bit more about something), which is completely aside from "chest pumping".
Confirming that it's trivial knowledge doesn't necessarily work as a counterpoint.
On December 30 2010 13:57 ffdestiny wrote: I'm sure there are many other reasons for us net "denizens" to pump our chests,
Here is as good a place as any to drop the civility: I am firmly convinced you do not know anything about technical grammar. A good example follows:
On December 30 2010 13:57 ffdestiny wrote: The run on, fragment or comma splice are certainly accepted on an Internet forum and popular writing (Twilight).
Of grammar, a serial or Oxford comma is not a comma splice.
Otherwise, yes, you're entirely right: run-on sentences and sentence fragments are a function of literary ignorance and stupidity, the end-point of a century's worth of verbal erosion, grammatical ignorance, and dialect miscegenation. Literature and popular discourse these days is chock full of pen-armed retards putting together ghastly works of pragmatically ignorant and popularity-courting piffle. Besides Twilight, there's William Faulkner, Samuel Beckett, James Joyce, David Foster Wallace, Thomas Pynchon, Salman Rushdie, Slavoj Zizek, Virginia Woolf, Kurt Vonnegut, Wallace Stevens, T.S. Eliot, Dylan Thomas, and the entire corpus of pre-20th century literature you evangelize - all of whom write in English and occasionally write sentences large in length or lacking in SVO construction. Man, that's just off the top of my head too. And don't even get me started on writers in translation!
I will hazard a risk that the hopelessly confined nature of "popular writing," confined to skimming a few hundred pages, negates the possibility of run-on sentences. I will guess this on the basis of experience with print media and taking for granted your hopelessly pretentious characterizations of the modern attention span in conjunction with popular print media. In some cases, at the most watered down level, newspapers and broad-reaching pop magazines have editors who vet their copy for complex-compound sentences and definitely extend the same courtesy towards the run-on sentence. I have not read Twilight - + Show Spoiler [pseudo-parenthetical tangent] +
which doesn't seem to inspire the same admiration for useless knowledge you express for Pi's unending decimal numbers, but for someone interested in how Victorian-era gothic tropes and archetypes persist and/or are transformed in their genre- or literary-oriented reiterations, or for someone wishing to use Twilight's popular appeal from the perspective of wish fulfillment as a launching pad into a study of gender roles in popular fiction, cf. Dan Brown and Stieg Larsson, Twilight would be a fascinating study indeed
- but I will assume that Stephanie Meyer is neither writing many complex-compound sentences nor is her book being distributed chock full of grammatical errors. She has an editor and an audience that the editor understands, and even then complex-compound sentences are matters of style, not length, where a poor stylist's sentences (like maybe those of Stephanie Meyer) will read stilted, awkward, and tedious, while a powerful prose stylist can craft an incredibly long sentence reading urgent, complex, and beautiful.
And even if Twilight is addled with mixed metaphors Dan-Brown-style, this is still not a grammatical issue. Neither is your elitism, which does not effectively distance you from popular lit itself: Stephanie Meyer is supposedly a huge Victorian lit wienie that reads rabidly Austen and the Bronte sisters.
Besides Twilight, there's William Faulkner, Samuel Beckett, James Joyce, David Foster Wallace, Thomas Pynchon, Salman Rushdie, Slavoj Zizek, Virginia Woolf, Kurt Vonnegut, Wallace Stevens, T.S. Eliot, Dylan Thomas,
I cried when you mentioned Twilight and the greatest names modernism has to offer in the same sentence. You are a mean, mean man. That is vulgar, hateful, and offensive and I wish you to stop at once, sir.
RiB: Poor example as well :D ... How much people exercise doesn't affect you in as direct a fashion as language use does, so obviously it's less natural to "hate on". That said, all this hating on things seems kind of petty, but I'm sure that more often than not, people just use it communicatively and not expressively. I don't believe that people have such strong feelings of dislike, but it's just easier to express as something you "hate", so the becomes a bit inflated.
Your example of how my example is a bad example is a bad example.
On December 30 2010 13:57 ffdestiny wrote: EDIT: To Jon: But there is a reason for individuals to know Pi for twenty decimals (just knowing that is beneficial to knowing a bit more about something), which is completely aside from "chest pumping".
Confirming that it's trivial knowledge doesn't necessarily work as a counterpoint.
On December 30 2010 13:57 ffdestiny wrote: The run on, fragment or comma splice are certainly accepted on an Internet forum and popular writing (Twilight).
Of grammar, a serial or Oxford comma is not a comma splice.
Otherwise, yes, you're entirely right: run-on sentences and sentence fragments are a function of literary ignorance and stupidity, the end-point of a century's worth of verbal erosion, grammatical ignorance, and dialect miscegenation. Literature and popular discourse these days is chock full of pen-armed retards putting together ghastly works of pragmatically ignorant and popularity-courting piffle. Besides Twilight, there's William Faulkner, Samuel Beckett, James Joyce, David Foster Wallace, Thomas Pynchon, Salman Rushdie, Slavoj Zizek, Virginia Woolf, Kurt Vonnegut, Wallace Stevens, T.S. Eliot, Dylan Thomas, and the entire corpus of pre-20th century literature you evangelize - all of whom write in English and occasionally write sentences large in length or lacking in SVO construction. Man, that's just off the top of my head too. And don't even get me started on writers in translation!
I will hazard a risk that the hopelessly confined nature of "popular writing," confined to skimming a few hundred pages, negates the possibility of run-on sentences. I will guess this on the basis of experience with print media and taking for granted your hopelessly pretentious characterizations of the modern attention span in conjunction with popular print media. In some cases, at the most watered down level, newspapers and broad-reaching pop magazines have editors who vet their copy for complex-compound sentences and definitely extend the same courtesy towards the run-on sentence. I have not read Twilight - + Show Spoiler [pseudo-parenthetical tangent] +
which doesn't seem to inspire the same admiration for useless knowledge you express for Pi's unending decimal numbers, but for someone interested in how Victorian-era gothic tropes and archetypes persist and/or are transformed in their genre- or literary-oriented reiterations, or for someone wishing to use Twilight's popular appeal from the perspective of wish fulfillment as a launching pad into a study of gender roles in popular fiction, cf. Dan Brown and Stieg Larsson, Twilight would be a fascinating study indeed
- but I will assume that Stephanie Meyer is neither writing many complex-compound sentences nor is her book being distributed chock full of grammatical errors. She has an editor and an audience that the editor understands, and even then complex-compound sentences are matters of style, not length, where a poor stylist's sentences (like maybe those of Stephanie Meyer) will read stilted, awkward, and tedious, while a powerful prose stylist can craft an incredibly long sentence reading urgent, complex, and beautiful.
And even if Twilight is addled with mixed metaphors Dan-Brown-style, this is still not a grammatical issue. Neither is your elitism, which does not effectively distance you from popular lit itself: Stephanie Meyer is supposedly a huge Victorian lit wienie that reads rabidly Austen and the Bronte sisters.
Aside from the acridity of the analysis that you offer at the start of your reply, and apart from your incessant drivel about dialect miscegenation, grammar, "piffle" and "SVO construction", you directly lack in separating what is classified as part of classic literature or as you generically put it, "pre-20th century literature." In fact, due to your mislabeling of this literature as part of your broadened "repertoire", one idea is still true to the fact—literature, regardless of what you pretentiously classify as "pen-armed retards putting together ghastly works" is popular because of its modern appeal.
In fact, the apace speed at which you throw in such different writers, poets and minds into the supposed "drivel" of the pre-20th century literature makes me question your awareness of these works; perhaps you've read too much of what you aimlessly called the "mixed metaphors" of the Dan-Brown-style (that's a lot of hyphens).
And for you to make a weak assumption based on the above is not a strong argument for your case of Stephanie Meyer. Since as you stated that you have never read the work Twilight, you instead breach into an argument based on your sentimental knowledge of "poor stylist's sentences" in whatever "popular" books that you laud or disapprove of, which is of course as you put it either Dan Brown and Stieg Larsson.
Even with your weak assumption of her work, you reach a rather obtuse insight on the subject by constructing the final part of your reply based on the rather flaccid grounds of Meyer's ability to have editors and the power of Victorian-era writers at her support. In fact, to assume the knowledge of her appeal to readers is filled entirely with (and as you put it) "hopeless" elitism.
You callously boast of the "powerful prose stylist can craft an incredibly long sentence reading urgent, complex, and beautiful" but then rest on the rather baseless claim that there is a reading that you call "powerful" and those that are not obviously; a bit short-sighted. If anything in prose, the style of constructing a sentence is equally as complex as poetry, and this claim strengthens your trifling remark. The fact that no matter the sentence length or as you abruptly say "urgency" in the style itself, it matters not to the taste of said reader. Maybe you were amusing yourself or not, but a "power" of a text only has ephemeral value to the "beholder" or as you clumsily say "Neither is your elitism, which does not effectively distance you from popular lit itself".
Besides Twilight, there's William Faulkner, Samuel Beckett, James Joyce, David Foster Wallace, Thomas Pynchon, Salman Rushdie, Slavoj Zizek, Virginia Woolf, Kurt Vonnegut, Wallace Stevens, T.S. Eliot, Dylan Thomas,
I cried when you mentioned Twilight and the greatest names modernism has to offer in the same sentence. You are a mean, mean man. That is vulgar, hateful, and offensive and I wish you to stop at once, sir.
Prose is a prose is a prose is a prose.
At least I hope you got the point because evidently ffdestiny didn't.
On December 30 2010 02:52 krndandaman wrote: i also believe in grammar to an extent. i don't see why i can't use "snuck" when everyone understands the meaning.
Why not use "sneaked" when everyone also understands that, and it also conforms to the laws of the English language?
First of all I want to say that I wholeheartedly agree with the views describe in your post. As I am not a native English speaker, I tend to make more mistakes than I would like (I guess I'm guilty for overusing commas. Especially while writing in English) but I try to do my best at all times.
There is one thing I do want to add though regarding the quote above. In your original post you mentioned language to play an important role in the evolution of man, which I agree with. However it's important not to forget that language has its own evolution which you will, like it or not, have to accept. If the word "snuck" is something that is used increasingly often, the chance is that it will be accepted and maybe even a replacement of the "old" term.
The Swedish language have had examples similar to this. One that comes to mind is the Swedish words for "them". Depending on the gender (someone correct me if I'm way off here) it's either "de" or "dem". What happened was that people would increasingly use the word "dom" as a mixture of them both. I have always hated that word and to this day I cringe everytime I see it being used. Regardless of that its use increased (with the explosion that was the Internet) and as far as I know, it's now an officialy accepted term. It's still frowned upon in academic writing but not considered wrong in more casual situations.
This seems to be similar to what is happening with the word "snuck" and I fear you might have to live with that.
EPT
... actually, I recall as I'm writing this, one grammar book mentioned it was an American/English thing (a book we used during my Bachelor degree in communication), so apparently the teacher we had then told us that since Americans did it, it was acceptable 
