Hackers, Spelling, and Grammar? 2360
Strom Carlson asks: "Over the last few years, I've noticed that a surprisingly large number of native English speakers, who are otherwise very technically competent, seem to lack strong English skills. Mostly, this seems to manifest itself as varying degrees of poor spelling and grammar: 'definately' instead of 'definitely'; 'should of' instead of 'should have'; and I even see the names of products and companies misspelled from time to time. It baffles me that a culture so obsessed with technical knowledge and accuracy can demonstrate such little attention to detail when it comes to communicating that knowledge with others, and it baffles me even more that many people become enraged when you attempt to help them correct and learn from their mistakes. Do hackers and geeks just not care about communicating effectively? Do they not realize that a mediocre command of written English makes them appear less intelligent? Am I missing something here?"
Almost a Complete Answer: SpellCatcher (Score:3, Informative)
While I don't condone stupidity, some of us can't spell no matter how hard we try. Next time you see one of my posts, know that when I write, "M$ suks azz, I hate dem dirtee baztardz," SpellCatcher corrects it to be, "I am less than enthused with Microsoft's business practices."
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Of course, it doesn't help... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:5, Informative)
"should of" is not the common usage.
"should've" is the common usage - which is a contraction of "should have"
However, some people, having only heard "should've" and mis-heard it as "should of", think that "should of" is the common usage.
Here are some links. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Correct English? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:MOD STORY INSIGHTFUL! (Score:2, Informative)
For a grammar and spelling Nazi, you are not very picky.
The word "English" should be capitalized; the quote, "But by reading", is not a sentence.
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:5, Informative)
Here's another thing that bothers me about common usage.
The abbreviation "i.e." does not mean "for example."
Repeat after me:
The abbreviation "i.e." does not mean "for example."
The abbreviation "i.e." does not mean "for example."
The abbreviation "i.e." does not mean "for example."
The abbreviation to use if you mean "for example" is "e.g.". The abbreviation "i.e." stands for (the Latin of) "that is."
I.e., "i.e." is used when you are rephrasing, clarifying, etc. what was already said. The sentence "i.e. A report for work", if taken literally, means that the only documents that matter to you are reports for work.
For more information, see, e.g., http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/8707/52862 [suite101.com], http://www.planetoid.org/grammar_for_geeks/ie_vs_
(Sorry, I go on this rant periodically. Don't take it personally.)
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:5, Informative)
i.e. - in explanation
e.g. - example given
agreed. (Score:2, Informative)
Proper grammar/spelling is mostly an artifact of academic culture. It's an easy way of categorizing how smart someone is (since most smart people are well educated). I don't mind if people correct my spelling or grammar; I realize that it's important to follow certain rituals if you want to be part of a certain culture.
But I have to sympathize with those geeks who refuse to learn academic english, because I don't see the added value in conveying meaning for most academic rules.
In summary, I think getting annoyed at "definately" is like getting annoyed because someone doesn't wear a suit to an interview. It can provide a good baseline judgement on how willing the interviewee is to work with other's expectations (those who are willing to follow other people's rules of grammar are probably more likely to follow other people's coding design recommendations), but as even the submitter will admit, it may not tell much about their intelligence.
Correction (Score:1, Informative)
Seriously, some people have a problem, and this is it: semantics get more attention than meaning for them.
The shallow surface is so distracting their minds can't focus on anything deeper.
So who has the problem? The kid who misspells a few words and makes some simple mistakes in grammar that no one has a problem getting around. Is it those who have some sort of mental handicap where they can't get past a little white noise, that is present in ALL communication, and so they stay stuck at the surface?
Who has the real problem?
It is true; you have to communicate as effectively as you can in life, certainly. There is always white noise, miscommunication, and some of it can most certainly may be traced to not having the proper grammar/ spelling but hardly to the extent grammar Nazis will insist
They have the communication problem, not the kid who spells definitely "definitely."
Really!
I was reading a Slashdot story here a while ago, and it basically showed that you can remove the vowels from a sentence and the words are still understandable and comprehensible and readable. What does that tell us about semantics and meaning?
It tells us that semantics is not really that important in communication; it is only a point of contention among those who have a bigger communication problem than all of the bad grammar/ had spelling kids out there: an overly anal retentive focus on the shallow surface, a mental, almost autistic handicap in communication wh
I give up. I can see why your teachers probably just found it easy to put a bit "F" at the top of your reports.
Re:Correct English? (Score:2, Informative)
Standard English can be defined as the English which is used, and understood to be correct, by a majority of contemporary native English-speakers. Some might narrow the definition to written English, especially as physically published in book or newspaper form; that is essentially the tacit definition that drives the Oxford English Dictionary.
I won't get into technical debate with you, but I will point out that "should have" is correct and meaningful, and that "should of" is derived from verbal bastardization. That doesn't make it wrong: if "should of" enters widespread use, it will eventually make its way into a dictionary, with its definition and (presumably) etymology. This is how language works.
I have no problem with people who use "incorrect" English, as long as I can understand them. However, I've noticed that posters who have responded in defense of poor written English have -- surprise! -- written their posts in poor English. I noticed because the posts were hard to read and hard to understand.
If you expect me to make the time and effort to read and consider your ideas, you should make an effort to write with care and clarity. Why should I respect your opinion when you don't appear to respect it?
A separate poster commented that some poor writing is a result of learning disability. Obviously I am not speaking about that issue here. However, I would suggest that that poster might find it useful to alert others of the disability in advance, to avoid the normal reaction.
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:3, Informative)
shutter? like on a window? (Warning: if you're going to be a language nazi you need to proofread...)
Little Brown Book (Score:3, Informative)
Re:sms-speak (Score:3, Informative)
I can understand using abbreviations when you're trying to overcome the length limitations of standard SMS (160 characters), but (a) modern phones work around SMS limits like magic and (b) I have never, in writing text messages, exceeded the 160-char limit. I've used SMS fairly extensively, between it being my sole link to my girlfriend when she was in the hospital and the best way to reach dear ol' dad since he's always with patients.
I've actually seen people write software documentation (both Open Source and plain ol' shareware) in SMS shorthand style. Drives me up the wall. Meanwhile, I regularly consult Apple's Documentation Style Guide to make sure my own documentation is familiar to users, and utilize the Chicago Manual of Style for nearly anything else. Maybe I'm just anal, but the marketplace doesn't seem like an appropriate venue for SMS/IM-speak and regional vernacular.
Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll (Score:3, Informative)
"I've almost gotten to the point where I consider a phrase like "makes its own gravy" to be written wrong because of the missing apostrophe, because it's so common -- even in advertising copy, for pete's sake."
That's because "its" is the proper spelling of the possessive form of the pronoun it.
It's is a contraction of the phrase it is.
Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Problem in America... BUT (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, and Russian language is in fact regulated, by the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Re:Obligatory Tom Stoppard Quote (Score:5, Informative)
The moment I posted that, I remembered an even more appropriate quote:
Guildenstern: The old man thinks he's in love with his daughter.
Rosencrantz: Good God. We're out of our depths here.
Guildenstern: No, no, no! He hasn't got a daughter! The old man thinks he's in love with his daughter.
Rosencrantz: The old man is?
Guildenstern: Hamlet... in love... with the old man's daughter... the old man... thinks.
Rosencrantz: Ah.
I wonder what Stoppard would make of the debate here? Something amusing, probably.
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:5, Informative)
A: "What do you want to to do tonight?"
B: "We could go see a movie, but I think we should just rent something... that would be cheaper."
Also, "have" in "should have" is not a verb either. It's another modifier. Usually the verb follows after, with "(sh|c|w)ould have" suggesting a possible alternative to a past action.
"He would have left a bigger tip if he had change."
"You could have turned left on main street as a shortcut."
"You should have read the manual first."
The verb determines tense. There is only a handful of exceptions where the "have" is the acting verb, and is always used as a possessive for the subject.
"The jar should have holes in the lid."
"The car could have a larger engine if you want that option."
"He would have more time if he stopped surfing slashdot."
You are absolutely correct that language evolves. However, you can't honestly claim that substituting "of" for "have" in any of the above examples is sensible, readable english because 'of' is a preposition. It might be acceptable in speech from the slurring of "should've" but that does not make it grammatically correct.
=Smidge=
Source: Mark Twain (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll (Score:3, Informative)
I think you mean "try to make sense".
If you're going to whinge about people's grandma, learn how to suck eggs first...
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:4, Informative)
i.e. - id est (that is)
e.g. - exempli gratia (for [the sake of an] example)
Once I learned what they actually stood for, I never got them confused again. You don't have to speak Latin to know which is which. It amazes me how many people use these every day and don't know what they stand for. Also, they should usually be followed by a comma when used in a sentence, just like the phrases "for example" and "that is" are.
Trivia: in German, instead of e.g., they use z.B. which stands for "zum Beispiel".
Eats, Shoots & Leaves (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:3, Informative)
While we are being pedantic, that should be affect. You might say: `an effect of closing your eyes is that you cannot see', or `closing your eyes affects your ability to see'. But saying `closing your eyes effects your ability to see' is saying that closing your eyes is what gave you the ability of sight!
(I do completely agree about the degradation of the language through sloppy usage.)
They didn't start off as acronyms (Score:3, Informative)
Are you honestly claiming both of those words were actually acronyms? If so you've fallen for some very common, but incorrect, stories. While the origins of both words are a bit muddy they're certainly not what you're most likely claiming.
This is what the wise people at snopes.com have to say about golf [snopes.com] and fuck [snopes.com]
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:5, Informative)
Words usually do not exist all by themselves but are members of a "word family" (and yes that is the technical term). Word families are made up of forms of the same word which feature little to no extra learning burden to master given knowledge of one of the other forms. These relationships are best represented by fixed spelling of the morphemes, even when there are pronunciation differences.
Something like Japanese (kanji, not the hiragana and katakana syllabaries) or Chinese puts all their eggs in the morphology basket, and none in the phonetic. Words are comprised of morphemes which are represented by particular graphemes (kanji/hanzi). This is great once you learn all the morpheme/grapheme pairs, but at 15,000 for Chinese, the system requires a large initial investment of time and cognitive burden.
English splits the difference between a morpheme-centric and phonetic orthographic system, wherein spellings of morphemes are relatively regular, but they are also phonetic enough that anyone with a basic understanding of the phoneme-grapheme pairings of the English use of the Roman alphabet can at least make an excellent guess at the pronunciation.
And to the many lazy and weak-minded individuals who whine about how everything should be phonetic, I would like to point out that there is an entire alphabet designed for this: the International Phonetic Alphabet. Learn this and try reading some text in it. See if it's really easier. A morpheme-centered orthographic system allows for faster processing of text because it allows the reader to bypass the sound production phase entirely, linking written words directly to their meanings (resident in the brain).
So stop whining, whiners, and learn the system. It's just a system to aid in the transfer of information. It's there to help you, not keep you down, man.
And BTW, although Noah Webster gave birth to the modern science of lexicography, dictionaries did indeed exist before his tome. They were used as spelling lists, mostly. The phase in which the English didn't care about spelling to which you are referring was up to the introduction of the printing press. Once more reading material was available to the masses it was very rightly decided that spelling should be standardized throughout the industry (he wrote with the arguably NON-standard, American spelling of "standardised). Furthermore, the "gh" that's left over in many words, including "knight" was a voiced velar fricative, not a
How to learn spelling (Score:5, Informative)
The reverse is true. Hang around sites like
Re:Abbreviations with "w" (Score:3, Informative)
And Let's Not Forget About "It's" (Score:4, Informative)
IT'S = a contraction of IT IS
Used in sentences like:
"It is a sunny day" = "It's a sunny day"
"It is really annoying" = "It's really annoying"
"Don't do that, it is stupid!" = "Don't do that, it's stupid!"
ITS is neuter possessive - as in his or hers, only it refers to a non-gendered object.
Used in sentences like:
"My laptop's battery lost its charge"
"Open Source Software has its drawbacks"
"The G5's strength is its vector processing abilities"
Many times you can save an extra keystroke by using "its" instead of "it's" - and you get the bonus of being grammatically correct.
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:1, Informative)
This is evidence that changing the spelling does not change mutual intelligibility. For example Spanish speakers know verbs like "creer" or "ver" but don't get too confused when they see Italian/Latin "credere" or Italian "vedere" or Latin "videre". It does not take a genius to see that these are the same words, except that Spanish dropped a few letters and swapped a few vowels. "yo creo" vs "ego credo". "conocer" vs. "cognoscere". It's not very hard to see one, knowing the other, and understanding that it's the same phrase.
What does this have to do with what you're saying? Well, the Romance languages, especially Spanish and Italian, are a good example of changing the spelling frequently. Even Cervantes wrote "dixo" where modern Spanish would write "dijo". But the works of Cervantes, or Dante, or even far back as Cicero, still should be somewhat intelligible to the modern Romance speaker, even if somewhat archaic.
(And by the way: Shakespeare didn't spell everything the same way we do to begin with.)
Content organization vs. Grammar and Spelling (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:3, Informative)
Only a fool would simply notice familiarity in the written language of Shakespeare and ignore the fact he has no clue of it's original meaning and connotation or the probability that half of it is NOT original but transliteration from a completely bizarre and archaic form of English.
No, you CAN not "read" as in comprehend in full hardly any paragraph of an original peace from Shakespeare today. Some words like prepositions might be recognizable, some other words too but words routinely change meaning. Idioms change. Ideas are taken for granted. We see drapery atop a bed as a strong sophisticated and classical meaning, we might even see "rich". It's to keep insects, rodents and dirt and crude from dropping on you at night, long before electricity and when roofs weren't very clean or had insect infested straw/hay layers; how "rich" is that?! It's intended use is a most disgusting situation. So Shakespeare describes one in his works, and you get a totally different image.
Language has to evolve, otherwise it's not getting any better. And, for those who THINK they have authority over English--cough those Indians--a native English speaker is afforded the right of using the language the best way he see's fit regardless of what rules YOU were taught.
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Abbreviations with "w" (Score:3, Informative)
* In hospitals, the abbreviation "GSW" is used for "Gun Shot Wound". That's a time sensitive environment--isn't "Wound" shorter than "Double-U"?
* How much time has collectively been lost saying "Double-U, Double-U, Double-U" for "World Wide Web"? Can we not figure this out?
Ah, but this has noting to do with saying anything. GSW is used as medical shorthand to reduce the amount of writing one has to do on his/her medical chart.
When I write a report, and the patient has suffered a gun shot wound, I write GSW (instead of gun shot wound, because there is only so much space on the chart for medical notes.
Here are some other accepted medial abreviations:
HTN hypertension
SSCP sub sternal chest pain
LS lung sounds
PE pulmonary embolus
When I'm presenting a patient to the accepting ER facility, we don't say GSW, we just say gun shot wound.
Thanks,
Your local Paramedic
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:2, Informative)
Notice my spelling of "emphasise" and my use of the word "spelt"? You probably aren't use to that either, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. It's just different. We spell according to the Queen's English, and therefore we don't change the 'ise' endings to 'ize'. Remember, Americans drop certain letters too. One example I can think of is that you don't seem pronounce the 'h' in herbs. I suppose in America you are taught that this is a silent h, but I don't believe that it's considered a silent h anywhere else in the English speaking world (I could be wrong).
Every country has their own unique ways of prnouncing and spelling certain words. Different != incorrect
Re: Racist? (Score:3, Informative)
From 2003 census data:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov
Poverty percentages by race
white 10.5
black 24.5
hispanic 22.5
asian 10.2
And from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762156.html [infoplease.com]
Total Population 290,809,777
by race
White 234,196,357
Black 37,098,946
Hispanic 39,898,889
Asian 11,924,912
So the number in poverty by race:
White 24,590,617
Black 9,089,242
Hispanic 8,977,250
Asian 1,216,341
So, you are wrong. The majority of poor people in this country are without a doubt white.
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:3, Informative)
University of Phoenix Masters Program (Score:2, Informative)
news:alt.usage.english (Score:2, Informative)
The debates in the English newsgroups, such as: news:alt.usage.english [alt.usage.english] (or http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.usage.engl ish [google.com])
illustrate the complexity of English composition.
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:3, Informative)
- Today, I can ride my bike to work, but won't.
- Yesterday, I could ride my bike to work, but didn't.
You can't use the defective verb can in the past, for could is the past of can. Therefore, could does indeed have tense. However, as a modal auxiliary, its defectiveness makes it behave differently than how normal verbs behave.--tom
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:2, Informative)
The importance of capitals (Score:2, Informative)
In German, I've noticed a tendency to write everything in lower case. Nouns, however, should always be wirtten in capitals. If you know a little bit of German, you'll enjoy the following examples:
Die Spinnen!
Die spinnen!
Warum sind füllige Frauen gut zu Vögeln?
Warum sind füllige Frauen gut zu vögeln?
Er hatte liebe Genossen.
Er hatte Liebe genossen.
Wäre er doch nur Dichter!
Wäre er doch nur dichter!
Sich brüsten und anderem zuwenden.
Sich Brüsten und anderem zuwenden.
Die nackte Sucht zu quälen.
Die Nackte sucht zu quälen.
Sie konnte geschickt Blasen und Glieder behandeln.
Sie konnte geschickt blasen und Glieder behandeln.
Der Gefangene floh.
Der gefangene Floh.
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:1, Informative)
By the same token, you can witness the rich history of the English language in its orthography. Many western languages have had some form of spelling reform or some sort of acadamy making sure "the language is pronounced just as it is spelled" (ie, a phonetic alphabet).
The printing press really slowed down language evolution. English itself was in the middle of a rather severe change at the time of Gutenberg. Because English standardised at that point, we are able to figure out how people spoke, say, in Chaucer's time, or just after William the Conqueror arrived in England. This understanding, in turn, helps us figure out how other languages, and language in general evolve (not to mention societies).
This, in turn, gives people like Chomsky something to do, which contributes to the evolution of computer languages.
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:3, Informative)
I can overlook a few mistakes, and if an argument is particularly compelling, I can overlook many. But you know, when I see a post here in which every other word has typos, and there are missing words all over the place and so on, I'm going to quite rightly stop reading it. It's not worth my time to try and decode it, and I don't care if you're using text-to-speech or "multitasking" or whatever.
If you want to communicate with people, then you should make an effort to try and do it decently. First impressions do count when you're one voice in thousands. The fact that this is all written, and you can't see who you're speaking two puts more emphasis on the construction of your argument, not less.
If you speak like a 5th grader, I'm going to assume you are a 5th grader, because in a lot of cases that's right. And don't tell me that's "racist" (what a bullshit, buzzword argument that is), or that I'm denying the opinion of geniuses (that's a cop out).
Go look at some posts on Slashdot, some time. Do a big random sampling, and then come back and tell me that the ones that are written better aren't generally the same ones that have more cogent arguments. The fact of the matter is, when someone puts something on the internet, and the writing is crap, then most of the time, so is the content. I don't have time to search through all that crap to find the diamond in the rough, so if you want me to take you seriously, then polish things up a little.
The human brain automatically generalizes about things. Trying to deny that is silly, and, quite frankly, I think it's ridiculous to compare placing value on good writing to racism at all, and I wouldn't be surprised if people who've been through the real thing would be insulted if you tried to make that argument in front of them.
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:1, Informative)
Actually, you're wrong. "Should" is the past tense of "shall", "could" the past tense of "can" and "would", the past tense of "will". Change the past for the present in your first example, and you'll see that the meaning doesn't really change.
Admittedly, the tense aspect of these only exist for conservative (usually older) speakers. Technially, they are verbs, though in modern usage, they function only as modal verbs, meaning that they set the mode or mood of the sentence in English (mood doesn't really exist in English).
As for your "have left, have turned, have read" examples, "have" is carrying the tense. In the second half of each sentence, "have" becomes "had", indicating further distance in the past. The "left, turned, read" are the participles.... they remain the same if the auxilliary is "have" or "had".
You make some valid points, though.
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:5, Informative)
This article (PDF) [american.edu] suggests that the genitive ending was -es in Old English, and -ies or -ys in Middle English, and that the apostrophe was introduced as a replacement for omitted vowels.
However, he also describes an alternative view: that the apostrophe was originally used because of the mistaken assumption that the genitive ending was already a contraction of "his". Apparently even Shakespeare made this mistake...
Re:A Few Points (Score:2, Informative)
You see? Did you immediately read: but they're there? No, you got confused, just like everybody else when confronted with a grammatical error. In the institute where I work, we put people in big fMRI scanners and watch EEG readings of language processing, and let me tell you: quite a few of the grammatical errors are spotted by readers/listeners.
Anyway, without syntax you wouldn't be able to distinguish between "The dog bit the man" and "the man bit the dog". So syntax aids communication.
Glad you referenced something from 1880 (Score:3, Informative)
While I speak German, and my wife is learning German, there are issues. But when you critique German, at least critique modern German. It is sort of me saying, "Gee English easy? Look at Shakespear."
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:2, Informative)
Euh, sorry to correct you here, but the changing vowel is a typical feature of Germanic language. It's the difference between strong verbs and weak verbs, one of the two retains their vowel but changes the ending, the other changes the vowel.
In the above example: "I run, "I ran" would be in German "Ich renne", "Ich rannte". Pretty similar eh? "I can, I could" -> "Ich kann, Ich konnte". In some cases the English verbs have lost their irregularities (like English lost a lot of Germanic grammar): "I help, I helped" -> "Ich helfe, Ich half". Although the regularization of verbs is a general trend in German too.
Glad I could help
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:3, Informative)
To make this easier, re-write the sentence as "It is just a case of who your English teacher was." The main verb of this sentence is "is." The subject of "is" is "it." The rest of the sentence is a noun clause serving as the object of "is."
Within the noun clause, there is another verb, "was." The subject of "was" is "your English teacher," leaving "who" again in the role of an object.
So in this particular sentence, "who" is serving as an object in both contexts, and is therefore unambiguously correct.
-Graham