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?"
Different brain function. (Score:2, Insightful)
The reason for my grammar is that my bad spelling gets in the way. My vocabulary is much broader then what I can spell and using some of my more advanced words I find that cannot spell them so I do a quick path to my sentence and replace it with a word combination that I do know to get the point across. Being human I will often overlook the grammatical mistakes because I am focusing so much on my point, and will often forget at the end to double check my work.
I admit to getting angry when people correct my spelling and grammar it is not that they care correcting me that gets me angry it is that they will disregard my points where they are well thought out because of technical writing errors, and yes we do realize that bad spelling and grammar may make us seem less intelligent, although I wish more time would be putting more effort in making these bigots see else wise.
As for bad spellers being good hackers, it is probably do to the fact that our minds do not work the same way as a good writers mind might. For me writing is very one dimensional, while coding is multi-dimensional. I find if I do not put any attention to my writing it will look like LISP code. Because I will often give my Main points then the details in parentheses (to allow for reading if the person this point is relevant or not (Because some people would rather quickly skim messages)). Writing doesn't work well with concepts like recursion, loops, skips and jumps and functions, and for a good technical programmer these things are often built into their psyche. Also because humans are so good at reading past our many errors we do tend to put much effort as in programming, because in programming we know that we are right when the program works. Spelling and grammar is much more difficult to find errors in.
Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone who is constantly picked on by these people, I can say that more than often, they are rude, have very little to add to any discussion, other than showing off their impressive command of the English language. I'd be more receptive if some of them made their response to the thread at hand, and did a BTW, but that's not what happens. Usually they are just have one line response that is rude, and often picking on one or two 'mistakes', and always critical of one's intelligence. I've said it before, but it's not the diction that matters, but the message. Good grammer is only helpful to get a message across. I'm not writing a fucking paper, it's an response in a damn forum.
Yes, good humor, understanding, and basic people skills.And The Point Being...? (Score:3, Insightful)
Two things: (Score:3, Insightful)
2) as for "hackers and geeks," they mostly reside in their own circles. this is especially tru on the internet. within one's own circle, it's much easier to get away with it.
Of course, it doesn't help... (Score:5, Insightful)
As if that wasn't bad enough! (Score:3, Insightful)
Schools? (Score:1, Insightful)
I understand what you're saying, people who don't understand the distinctions between "there, their, and they're" or "your and you're" etc. are pretty much the majority now.
But then again, English is a pretty daft language when all's said and done.
Where have you been? Grammar is bad all over. (Score:3, Insightful)
Additionally, spell-checkers have made things worse, because now no one knows how to spell things correctly by themselves. When you see somethng choc-full-o-spelling-errors, it is probably because there's no built-in spelling checker. And I am just as guilty of this as the rest of the world.
I'm not complaining, mind you. I'm a professional writer, and the worse the general population can write, the more employable I become...
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:5, Insightful)
I try to use the rules, but if I understand you, what else matters?
Sound point, wrong assumptions (Score:4, Insightful)
You say slashdot readers are: obsessed with technical knowledge and accuracy
Some slashdot readers are. Others are more interested in:
Tech Gossip, neither knowledgeable nor accurate
Latest Gadgets, ditto
Science Fiction
Anime, large breasted Japanese girls(!?!), transforming creatures and flying penises
Microsoft Delivery Schedule, always wrong
Mac Advocacy, occassionally right.
Not so many obsessed with technical knowledge and accuracy.
MOD STORY INSIGHTFUL! (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe it's a coincidence, but the fact that I'm _NOT_ a native english speaker answers why people have such a weak grammar / spelling. I didn't learn english by hearing. But by reading (In fact I had some trouble knowing how to pronounce certain words).
But anyway, from Mexico, it's common the rumour that americans are oh god the cream of the crop and they're so superior to us in everything. And then I come, and after a while of chatting I end up making a huge "WTF!? O.O" face.
Please kids, learn a little grammar. Is that too hard?
Re:Programming and human language (Score:4, Insightful)
None of his examples hindered effective communication in the slightest. Infact it could be said that it 'increased' the effectiveness of the communication. Now we know that the submitter is more concerned with details than with results. We wouldn't have had that information if we hadn't misspelled anything.
His other point about 'appearing less intelligent' has more credibility, but not much. It comes down to knowing your audience and taking the necessary measures.
I think the reason the submitter imagined a connection between 'technical' people and grammatical/spelling shortcomings is because we are in, (and have been in) an area of real-time written communication.
If you're using Email, or worse Instant Messaging, or even worse IRC, or even worse 'talk.' The 'speed' at which you present your ideas means MUCH MUCH more to the effectiveness of the communication than dotting the I's and crossing the T's. And once it's established, it's just a matter of habit.
I wonder if the submitter has compared 'on-the-fly' writings of the 'Slashdot Crowd' vs their more permanent and published writings.
Different problems? (Score:4, Insightful)
Assuming we're dealing with a native English speaker, I see these as different problems. Poor spelling might simply be poor typing (though if I see 'loosing' for 'losing' one more time, I will become upset...). Poor grammar is more fundamental I feel, as it implies a lack of comprehension. In coding terms, I may not remember the method name but I should at least understand the algorithm I'm attempting to implement.
Good. They assume far too much importance in the world as it is. If people still get them wrong, perhaps indoctrination hasn't quite been completed yet.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:who says we aren't communicating effectivly? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you communicate like a moron, you are treated like a moron.
If you don't like that, don't reply, since I'm acting like an arrogant, elitist bastard, but I want you to treat me like a friendly, helpful mentor.
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Different brain function. (Score:1, Insightful)
If it requires a change of thinking, change your thinking.
flamebait much,
Re:Correct English? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Should of" is only heard more in spoken English because people mishear "should've" and so few people read anything of substance to any appreciable extent that they don't know any better.
"Should of" is not meaningful in itself; it does not "mean" what "should have" means...it doesn't MEAN anything. It is the linguistic equivalent of people who say "expresso."
So it's really easy to say that "should of" is wrong because "should have" is an adverbial expression and "should of" is not.
If someone asked you "Have you eaten?" would you reply "I of eaten."? Maybe, but you would be wrong.
grammar nazis get their fp story (Score:1, Insightful)
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/ makes some simple mistakes in grammar no one has a problem getting around? or 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... but there is always white noise, always miscommunication, and some of it can most certainly 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 "definately"
really!
i was reading a slashdot story here a while ago, and it basically showed that you can rmv th vwls frm a sntnc nd th wrds r stll ndrstndbl nd cmprhnsbl nd rdbl.
wht ds tht tll s bt smntcs nd mnng?
it tells us that semantics is not really that imporant in communication, and 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 where they can't focus on the MEANING because of a little noise in the SEMANTICS
grammar nazis: you are the ones with the problem, not the kids with grammar and spelling mistakes
seriously
language evolves, it changes
today's l33t speak is tomorrow's standard english spelling and pronunciation
and if you've read this far into my rant, then you know exactly what i'm talking about
meanwhile, all of the grammar nazis are still hung up on my first sentence
whatever!
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:1, Insightful)
If you think that natural languages are rule-based (I do not) then the rules must be subject to change over time.
Such linguistic changes are not (usually) deliberate, but emerge from common usage.
Natural languages are essentially *defined* by the way in which their community of speakers use them.
As that usage changes, so the language changes.
Formal languages may be set-in-stone, natural languages are NOT formal languages.
My word to pedants? Deal with it.
Linguistic pedantry is an insistence on application of standards suitable to formal languages to natural languages.
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:5, Insightful)
What a strange logic: it's like saying "most people round 100/3 to 33, it's common usage, so when the math police die out of old age, the common usage will win out".
That's stupid because 100/3 != 33, it's completely incorrect, just like "should of" makes absolutely no sense. The only reason most people understand "should of" as "should have" is because they know the correct form is "should have".
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, the thing about that is... proper spelling and grammar make the writer look more "grown up". A tpyo or two are one thing, but if the grammar and spelling are at an eighth-grade level, I tend to assume that the writer is in the eighth grade. I'm always on the side of the grammar nazis on slashdot (even when they get me) because really poor grammar (from an otherwise obvious native English speaker) tend to make me discount the opinion of the poster. Although the grammar nazi victim may not think this is fair, I know I'm not alone... and you'd think that the poster would want to improve his/her writing skills just to make his/her opinions, thoughts, rantings, etc. more valuable to others.
Yes. You're missing a lot. (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately, I notice the same sort of trend. Not in the technical elite though. I notice it in forums, in games and otherwise from the 'immature crowd'. They seem to miss that point entirely. The amount of... mutilation done to their English -does- make their communication less efficient.
Maybe it's just some "you damned kids!" crotchety-ness on my part. I'd like to think that even the 1337-speakers of my day could write proper english when the scenario called for it. Some people I've seen in the past year or two just seem wholy incapable...
Minor errors and infrequent abbreviation is excusable. Making your writing hard to understand because you won't spend the effort just makes you sound retarded.
Re:Revenge of the Spelling Nazi and Grammar Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
The diction matters because it distorts the message. That's the whole point of diction - it defines the parameters for getting the message through.
Reading a post, a report or an email from someone who you know is technically adept but suffers from poor English skills is like watching a flickering television set. You know the message is there but you have to view it several times before you get through the static to what it actually means.
In addition, poor diction from someone that you are sure actually knows better is simply a matter of their being inconsiderate. It takes very little time and effort to get spelling and grammar correct and to not make at least an effort is just being contemptuous of the reader.
If anyone is "missing something", it's those that defend bad English usage. It's not acceptable, it's lazy and frankly if you can't even try communicate properly then you probably don't deserve to be heard. THAT is basic people skills, and I rarely have good humor for those that express contempt towards their readers.
Throx
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Should of" is a perfect example, because it's something that children say because they don't know any better. The presumption is that, as you grow up, your intelligence grows with you, and you outgrow grammar errors such as "should of", "supposably", and "pasghetti". Sure, the language will evolve, but "should of" will always sound like something a ten-year-old would say.
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:5, Insightful)
What is slashdot but a bunch of intellectuals (or intellectual wannabes) showing off to each other?
As for sounding like an intellectual - spelling errors can make you look like a retard. What do you prefer?
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think of it like a stuck pixel on an LCD around the edge of the screen. During normal use you wouldn't even notice it; the monitor works fine, you can watch movies, play games, surf the net... but in the back of your mind that monitor is still broken.
Poor spelling or grammar still gets the point across. Though, if the reader notices it lingers in the back of their mind and detracts from your message.
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's stupid because 100/3 != 33, it's completely incorrect
The main flaw in your argument is that math is constant, while language evolves. This is completely natural and more importantly, desirous. Rigid adherence to outdated grammatical constructs can only hinder communication. A perfect example would be the adoption of "google" as a verb; would you prefer to say "navigate to google's site and use it to search for widgets" or "google widgets"
That being said, I do agree with you, "should of" is horrible, but you have to take the good with the bad.
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no specific 'correct' forum for corrections and suggestions, the reason being that language is used in all forums as a means of communications. So this is not necessarily the wrong forum. In fact, in the ideal situation here on /., a correction will be read by the parent poster, but not by most others, since it might end up being modded down.
It breaks the flow of the discussion.
Bad spelling and grammar contribute to incoherence which definitely breaks the flow of the discussion. Good spelling and grammar will reduce distractions and facilitate good flow of the discussion.
Re: Racist? (Score:5, Insightful)
Tin foil hat time, man.
Disdain for the illogical (Score:5, Insightful)
Then there's the grammar standards of where punctuation marks are used. The comma was invented to just indicate an audio pause in speech. Then later on anal people changed it to only being usable under specific circumstances - Again, For, No, Reason.
Then there's the confusion over whether or not the quote marks are supposed to accurately quote what is inside them or not. I'd say that only things that are part of what is being quoted belong inside the quotes. Punctuation that is an artifact of the fact that the quote got pasted into another sentence are part of that external sentence, NOT part of the quoted material - so they logically belong outside the quote marks. For example:
Logical, but incorrect according to standard:
"Hello", John said.
Did John say, "Hello"?
Illogical, but correct according to standard:
"Hello," John said. (The comma isn't part of the quote dammit)
Did John say, "Hello?" (The question mark is there because of the sentence the "Hello" is pasted inside of, NOT because it is part of the "Hello" that John might have said. This allegedly correct way looks, to me, like the question is aksing whether John spoke "Hello" in a questioning tone, because the question mark ended up inside the quoted part.
According to standard, a question asked in the negative isn't really asked in the negative. "Aren't you coming with us", should logically be answerable by saying "Yes I am not coming with you". But the expected interpretation is the inverse of that. Again, the standard is at odds with logic.
Most people look at stuff like that and don't care. People who think logically get fed up with crap like that and rebell.
Re:Wow! (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe the quoted OP intended the "it" in "does it matter" to refer to "someone's work if devoid of common rules of grammar and usage", not to "you completely and unambiguously understand what they are saying/writing", although both are possible legitimate parsings.
Even if a highly misspelt and ungrammatical post/email/letter is completely unambiguous and can be completely and correctly understood, it usually takes more effort for the reader to get to that point of comprehension than it would without the errors. We are wonderful error-correcting devices, but it's not a zero-cost implementation.
By purposefully ignoring grammar and/or spelling when communicating, you're making things easier for yourself at the expense of requiring more effort from your readers. That's at the very least impolite and quite possibly arrogant and downright rude.
It's especially so in a forum like a news post, where you only need to write once, but what you write will be read many many times. Just making some attempt at reasonable grammar and spelling should greatly improve the overall efficiency of communication at a relatively small cost to the author. Just because something works doesn't mean it works well...
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is also the issue of ease of understanding. Any text is written just once, it is however, likely to be read multiple times by multiple readers. Shouldn't the author try to ease the workload of the readership?
Finally, consider the following quote: "As long as you completely understand them, does it matter if a person breaks common rules of grammar and usage?" transformed thus:
"As long as the page renders correctly in my browser does it matter if the HTML fails to conform to the DTD?"
Doesn't that make you shudder?
I agree. There's a proper forum for corrections (Score:5, Insightful)
Unsolicited correction of someone's English on the web is like stepping up to fellow customers in a clothes store and suggesting ways to improve their current wardrobe. Sure, you might be more fashion-savvy, but you'd still be arrogant.
Answer to devil's advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is when non-native speakers are taught the meaning of "should have" and never EVER have had contact with the completely illogical term "should of". I'm saying this because i couldn't understand what my friend tried to tell me whenever he said "should of". I'm not saying it was difficult to understand him. I'm saying i could NOT understand him AT ALL. I didn't know if he missed a word, and only after the third time he tried to explain, i caught the meaning.
You call this EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION? I don't think so.
Why should non-native speakers have to LEARN a WHOLE NEW LANGUAGE that is not even english? Shouldn't native english speakers learn ENGLISH in the first place?
Poor grammar does NOT help communication between people of different countries. And the fact that english is the universal language today is only by chance. Remember latin was universal 1000 years ago.
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:2, Insightful)
Rather than criticize the less than perfect grammer and spelling of the parent I would like to offer him/her some encouragement.
I too was taught in a regime that felt that books should be chosen for their political correctness rather than their interest and by the time I left school I probably hadn't read more than half a dozen books.
I was quite interested in sci-fi and fantasy novels and decided to give Lord of the Rings a try. I don't mind admitting that it was a struggle. A huge struggle. My reading skills, or lack of them, meant that the book was a chore to read but I pressed on and eventually finished it. Despite the amount of time it had taken me to read it I had become absorbed in the story and really enjoyed it. The best part though was the sense of personal achievement I got from finishing it. At the time I never in my wildest dreams thought that I could finish a book of that length and complexity. Since then I have never not had a book on the go - I've got 6 on the go at the moment and have developed a taste for Thomad Hardy.
What I am trying to say is that although the modern school system is letting kids down left right and centre you can teach yourself English. Read a few books that you enjoy and you will quickly find that you won't be able to put books down. That will make reading the tripe that the school gives you so much easier.
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyway, excellent observation. I will use that next time someone doesn't understand why I care so much.
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:3, Insightful)
For instance, I just went on a rant, as I periodically do, to someone about the difference between the abbreviations e.g. (which means "for example") and i.e. (which does not, and instead means "that is" or "in other words"). Consider this for a moment.
If everyone knew and used these abbreviations correctly, there's no problem. However, there are times when someone uses "i.e." and it's unclear if they are using it correctly or incorrectly. Mushification killing unambiguity*.
Then when I'm writing something, I wonder -- can I use "i.e." and know that people will understand that I'm not referring to an example? The distinction is often important. So I decide that I better not, and substitute "that is" in its place. Mushification killing conciseness.
* This appears to not be a word. However, I feel confidant that you know what I mean. And besides, I have already used "mushification" a couple times, so it's not as if I'm sticking to completly well-formed English.
Re:Different brain function. (Score:3, Insightful)
You deserve to get beaten with a clue stick, around the head, until you get a learning disability. Then everyone can call you lazy, and ask 'do you not care'?
"Writing is not entirely linear, though you do view it that way, and it's evident in your sentences that run on and on, concatenated with series of and's."
Um. You're not entirely blessed in this department yourself. Do you not care?
Consider: "You seem to view writing as entirely linear. Certainly, your sentences tend to run on, with too many clauses."
That's shorter, and clearer, and the sentence length is minimal.
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:5, Insightful)
Your text is your voice. It doesn't convey information about what you said, it conveys information about you --- it's the equivalent of your accent. If you write sloppily, you'll sound as if you're speaking sloppily, which means that people will associate what you said with sloppiness, which is probably not what you want if you want to be taken seriously...
I know it shouldn't happen, but it does, in just the same way that people associated educated accents with intelligence and working-class accents with stupidity.
Personally, I don't think you have a problem --- you come across coherently and precisely and you're not slurring at all. However, uh... I think in that last sentence you might have meant 'unintelligable'...
Re:What you are missing... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think good spelling and grammar are a small section of what some of us find lacking today: good manners. They're not really necessary; there's extra effort involved for little or no real return. But, whether it "counts" or not, it's part of how a person projects.
Now, if everybody is curt with everybody else, and nobody expects or would even appreciate anything different, there's really no problem. Some of us do appreciate eloquence though. Some of us do appreciate someone taking a few extra seconds and polishing their message a bit, whether it's written or not. Maybe the only real problem is that some people value those things while others don't. If we all agreed that good grammar and polite etiquette are a complete waste of time, then nobody would bother, and nobody would feel like there has been any sort of decay in what's valued. At the very least, we would probably tend to be more honest with one another; no more sugar coating.
I'm not sure where I fall. When I think of "good manners" I think of seven forks about which I know nothing of their proper use, stilted "I beg your pardon, good sir, but..." nonsense, bowing or curtsying when greeting someone, all that antiquated stuff I'm genuinely not interested in. It's just progress, we've phased those things out for a variety of reasons. Perhaps proficiency in English is doomed to a similar fate. I certainly find myself caring less about it over time. In terms of doing good or harm to anyone, pristine spelling isn't exactly important even relative to other areas of etiquette. The girl yakking away on her phone on the freeway isn't just rude, she's a threat to other people's lives. But if she wants to L her AO when she gets home, then OMG, there's, like, nothing wrong with that, and stuff.
Whether we're talking about the US or the entire world, it's a melting pot culture, all kinds of lowest common denominators get settled on eventually. It's what we all make it. We're either going through a phase now where language skills dip in common value, or it's just going to be the case where over time those skills are less and less relevant. Neither picture offends my senses.
Communicate better (Score:2, Insightful)
Spelling, grammar, and vocabulary matter a great deal. Just because I am able to understand what you are saying does not mean you have successfully communicated your ideas.
If you ever intend to wield the full power of any language you should be striving for correctness. It's one of the few things you can do to ensure as many people as possible will, at the very least, have a chance in hell of coming close to grasping the specific mental model you are attempting to verbalize.
If you don't believe me, talk to these [penny-arcade.com] guys [penny-arcade.com].
Respect your reader! (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of the comments here seem to say something along the lines of
The mistake is to not realizing that in bad writing, the understanding part is not effortless. You waste your readers' time. If it costs each of your readers just two seconds more to read your badly written prose, how many readers do you need before the waste of their time outweighs what you see as a waste of yours. Precious few! If it takes you a minute to correct your grammer, fix that typo, or add an actual link to the website you've just mentioned, you may have saved tens of minutes of everyone else's time.
And you'll save us all wasting yet more minutes wading through responses to your post that merely complain about your grammer, post the missing links, and generally complain about or fix the things you were too lazy to do.
(Same applies to email, where too many people love emailing everyone a "memo" in the form of an attached a .doc file, saving themselves all of a second's worth of copy and paste...)
Writing and programming (Score:3, Insightful)
The attributes of good writing - elegance, clarity, brevity, precision, sound organization, and so forth - are precisely those of good programming. I suspect that by learning one you are learning the other.
If we want better programmers and engineers, perhaps we can begin by producing better writers.
William Strunk had attitude. He would have made a hell of a programmer.
Re:grammar nazis get their fp story (Score:2, Insightful)
> wht ds tht tll s bt smntcs nd mnng?
Sure I could read that, but I had to slow down to do it. The thing that annoys me about incorrect grammar and spelling is that (in bulk) it requires me to slow my reading - my brain has to do a fuzzy match rather just check a lookup table, if you will.
It's not a problem if it's just a few mistakes, but as the mistakes get more frequent, I have to slow down more.. and it gets to the point where I just can't be bothered reading it.
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:5, Insightful)
its and it's (Score:3, Insightful)
its is correct.
reference: http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language
Q. What is the difference between its and it's?
A. Its is the possessive form of it.
It's is a contraction of it is or it has.
Examples:
It's a common mistake.
The boat has a hole in its hull.
The confusion arises from the dual function of the 's ending, which can indicate either possession or contraction, as in: Joe's hamburgers are the best (="The hamburgers which are Joe's -- that is, in that he makes them -- are the best"); Joe's going to have to buy some more patties soon (="Joe is going to have to buy some more patties soon"). However, 's is never used to indicate possession in pronouns. We do not write hi's (instead of his), for example.
Here is a test we can perform to determine whether to use it's or its: Replace it with his and see if the sentence still makes (grammatical) sense. His a common mistake does not make sense. The boat has a hole in his hull does make sense -- at least grammatically; of course boats are not boys, but we can pretend that they are for the sake of improving our spelling. The rule we shall apply, then, is this: If the sentence makes sense with his, which does not have an apostrophe, it is safe to replace it with its, which also does not have an apostrophe.
A Few Points (Score:5, Insightful)
There are no rules, only patterns. Grammatical rules are misleading. Langauges evolve. They have evolved from the ground up and continue to change. The "rules" at the moment represent the normative usage at this time. So it seems sort of silly to teach English "rules," but it is the best way to express the common English code to English-language-learners. In other words, "You ought to follow these rules if you want to be understood."
Language is in the mouths of the people, not the pages of the dictionary and grammar book. Usage by English speakers defines the language. That is why new words and grammatical constructions and figures of speech and idioms pop up and fall away all the time.
The purpose of language is communication. The reason we talk is so that we can communicate with one another. When someone says "should of" instead of "should have," most seasoned English speakers understand exactly what that phrase means. Communication has happened, and the language has served its purpose. This happens all the time in common English. Example: Goodbye. I do not attack people who use this nonsensical grammatically poor word. You see, it originates from "God be with ye." Goodbye is an obvious grammatical distortion that has taken hold as a normative part of English language. So will "should of" as has "aint" as done as well.
It is silly to get mad at someone for not following the "rules" of English if you know exactly what they mean.
their .vs. there, etc (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, Slashdot is a conversational forum, and people write "from the hip" without absolute consideration to their spelling. But come on
How am I supposed to take anything someone says seriously, when their text is riddled with grammatical errors that my 14 year old nephew mastered years ago.
Native English speakers who can't express themselves without making childish mistakes like that, just appear thick! And it devalues anything of real importance they may have to say.
Have you also considered that if you practice spelling correctly all the time, then you're less likely to screw up when it really matters?
Re:You are so wrong, grammer is not important. (Score:3, Insightful)
Think of it this way -- imagine someone is running a business, and someone else comes in and shoplifts, walking away with some of their product. You could use your same argument to say that it's all racism and elitism, as the business owner had the money and was taught the skills to run their business, while the shoplifter obviously was poor and disenfranchised. Are you willing to judge the poor shoplifter on the same level as the greedy business owner even though he did not have the same advantages? What if I told you the shoplifter was the child of a millionaire, and was doing it because they were bored, and the business person was running a family business, and they'd immigrated from a third world country and had their entire extended family's life savings invested in the one shop, and had virtually no margin left on their product?
Anyone can learn grammar; some won't have been taught it correctly when they were young, and that's a shame. However, they're ignorant no matter what their race or social status; they are less effective at communicating, and will be judged based on how they handle themselves in a public situation. I know some highly educated people who speak four languages; while their Chinese, French, and German are top notch, their english is lacking, and people assume they aren't very intelligent, as they can't understand what they are saying. Snobbery exists, but it exists in all aspects of life. People thinking they are better than others does not depend on language use. When I wear an expensive suit, people treat me much differently than when I wear a sweat shirt, ball cap, baggy jeans and vans. Basicly, people respect success, and are snobbish toward people who seem to have a high opinion of themselves, but aren't displaying the cultural "success" symbols.
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:5, Insightful)
According to your own argument , minimizing a person's intellect based on their tendency to minimize another person's intellect is therefore also a form of racism, and you too are guilty of tying two unrelated concepts together to diminish a person's worth.
So, either you're wrong, a racist, or a hypocrite.
Could you clarify for us by letting us know which?
Based on your numerous spelling and grammar errors, I'm gleefully jumping on your minimization bandwagon and am guessing that you're merely wrong (which means neither of us are therefore necessarily racist! yay!) though I haven't ruled out hypocrite yet.
Good hackers have excellent communication skills. (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at Linus Torvalds, James Yonan, Guido van Rossum, Donald Knuth; all of these people have outstanding communication skills. It's merely the wannabes and hangers-on whose skills are inadequate -- and arguably, such individuals aren't really part of the community at all.
Indeed, I distinctly recall it having been noted decades ago that there was a disproportionate number of English majors in the computing community. Perhaps someone will have a source?
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you use "viz" you are hardly better off than "i.e." because it's no more clear which you mean. It's just that with "viz" the ambiguity comes built into the correct definition, while with "i.e." the ambiguity comes from misuse.
The reason that using "i.e." as "for example" is bad isn't that there's some grammar god who will get mad and smite you if you don't follow the prescribed rules, it's because it increases the ambiguity of language. If I'm reading something that uses "i.e." it's usually possible to make a good guess if it's used as "that is" or "for example", but not always. And when writing, if it's important to make the distinction, "i.e." is out because too many people will misunderstand it.
The argument that always comes up against language pedants is "well, if I can get across what I mean unambiguously, what's the harm?" But the misuse of "i.e." makes it so that your statement is ambiguous, because I don't know if you're using it correctly or not. (Or, in the common case where it doesn't effect a particular sentence's ambiguity, it at least contributes to the belief that "i.e." = "for example" which helps propogate the ambiguous instances.)
But vis has the exact same problems.
Levels of effort (Score:3, Insightful)
So now, if I'm on a Mac I generally spellcheck posts because it is easy.
But sometimes I don't because a post on Slashdot is, when you get right down to it, worthless. So no effort to verify spelling is warranted or really take any care with the message is warranted. After all, even with some mistakes people will pretty much be able to figure out what I am saying even with glaring errors present. So when the point of the message is only to put something up that others can read, lax spelling is OK.
Now sometimes when I care more about what I am saying - yes, then I will go to the effort of spellchecking (or at least re-reading my own text before I post) even if I'm posting from Windows or elsewhere. If I feel like I am trying to convince someone of something they might not otherwise go for, I make sure all the I's are dotted and so forth because any error can and does distract from the persuasiveness of a message. But again not all messages are world-changing missives and so do not warrant that degree of effort.
The fact is that the the amount of communication we engage in day-to-day has jumped tremendously, so it's only natural that engineering types would seek to optimize time spent on a task that can normally be highly automated - it's just not automated in all the tools people use for messages. For much of what we type the only goal is to transmit information and therefore any errors in the message that do not lead to error in understanding on the receiving end simply do not matter.
In fact I would go so far as to say that if you are not seeking optimization of time through caring less about spelling, well - what is wrong with you?
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Source: Mark Twain (Score:1, Insightful)
holy moly (Score:2, Insightful)
The obsession some people place upon what they consider to be the "proper" form of a language is often the source of an undo amount of grief and ironicly... confusion.
The English language has evolved greatly within the span of only a couple hundred years, and the predominent force behind it has been "slang". If your wondering what i mean, pick up a book of shakespeare. It is near to impossible to understand ANYHTING written in the old english that preceeded that, and shakespeare along with his contemporaries is also a task to go through.
Should you decide to fast foward a bit into 18th century texts, and then along to early 19th century, you'll find the language less grueling, yet still alien enough to make the task more daunting than today's literature. This isn't because they were smarter or more verbose in those times... it's because the language has changed, and along with the times it's change is an evolution.
This same evolution took latin into italian, french, spanish, portugese, etc... And is a constant process.
While a lot of people are confronted with the conflict between their learned notions of "correct" english and the newer forms of the same meanings, many others simply do not notice... and some don't care.
The essence of language is effective communication, that is taking the course of action which you hope will convey your meaning in the most percise and direct format possible givin your audience and the necesary words to accomplish the goal. If your speaking in the southern section of the US you'll likely convey your thoughts in a southern twang shuold you have any inclination or desire to reach people more effectively. The same applies through-out all the different regions of the english speaking world. Australians, Brits, Canadians, etc...
Secondarily, Short hand speech, and the various amorphisms that have entered popular culture are not to be discounted as simply "mangling" the language. Prominent words such as FUCK and GOLF were once simple slang words (acronyms both) along with a host of other words which we take for granted today.
So while you may see "cya" as nothing short of a terrible abreviation of "see you", if it is used long enough and widely enough it will likely enter the language as a new word many decades from now.
Someone commented that shortening a 5 letter word into 3 isnt saving any time. I beg to differ. In shortening a whole sentance of words down to significantly less letters, expecialy in the context of commonly spoken terms, and doing so on a longer term IM conversation... Your reducing a great deal of physical effort as well as conveying the meaning you want to send effectively.
For exmaple while programming, i get hit with IM's that need confirmation. "alt-tab" -- "k" -- "alt tab".
in about a second i have switched from my script to the IM, aknowledged the other persons comment, and returned to my work.
Should i have siwthced over and said "Okay"?... or maybe "Yes, i understand and agree".... or maybe i should eshew ever saying "OK" at all since it is not really a "word". While im at it i should probably drop Snafu and laser, and all those other lovely acronyms we use from my words and just spell em out.
Im sure most people will acknowledge that there are some "slang" or formerly "slang" words that have such a obiquotus (sp) use they're most certainly acceptable as "real" words. However they didn't just appear over-night, they were at first only known by those who were in the "in" crowd, and then slowly became popular in their region, until over time they had become universal.
Hackers, script kiddies, etc... have a propensity for shortening anything and everything they can into the simplest measures. This stems from several main components.
A: Programming. You learn that less letters is a LOT less wor
Abbreviations with "w" (Score:5, Insightful)
You're asking a false question. (Score:2, Insightful)
Firstly, English spelling and grammar are several orders of magnitude more complex than a computer language. Secondly, the mental skills needed to program with correct syntax are different than the skills needed to express oneself with words. (In fact, one person responding to this topic put it pretty well when he expressed his annoyance at people criticizing his written form when his goal was clear expression of ideas. He noted that he could, if required, edit his writing to comform to "standards" but that was not his priority. You might differ in your opinion of his priorities, but it perfectly illustrates how the mental skills are different.)
So it really should be no surprise that, when dealing with a Slashdot crowd, you might see sloppy spelling. I mean spellling.
I mean, computer nerds are, if nothing else, known for their propensity for nonconformance in the face of arbitrary rules. Computer syntax is not arbitrary, but natural language rules often are.
Judge not. (Score:1, Insightful)
To say that a person's spelling is truly horrible is one thing.
To assume that a person is an incoherent idiot, sub-standard, "less intelligent than myself", not properly educated, lazy, or *ANY OTHER DETERMINATION MADE BY YOU, REGARDLESS OF SUPPORT BY YOUR PEERS OR FOLKS OF YOUR ILK* makes you lose any grip or traction on your own self-importance.
While hanging around in that state, your own ego momentarily blossoms into a beast equally chilling as bad grammar or punctuation.
Live and let live. You don't have to save the poor bastards, just learn their weaknesses *and* your own in the process.
They are still your brothers - bad spellers or not. You read and committed to memory a set of rules about words.
They may have dedicated that space to something more useful for them - like knowledge of how to repair an automobile or motorcycle in addition to computer junk. Let's all share.
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:1, Insightful)
The problem is our resistence to being corrected. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:2, Insightful)
If you look back at the Proto Indo European it probably isn't the K sound in there.
English was designed by comittee... (Score:2, Insightful)
However, despite this, I find English to be not too bad for communication, although if I want to think deep and clearly about difficult things, I might adopt Loglan instead, because English can be mirky at times and makes understanding the actual problem even trickier...
Here are my observations on English:
So, "correct" English depends on:
Finally, please observe that it is extremely bad netiquette [albion.com] to complain about English grammar/spelling because the Geek may not have English as a first (or even fluent) written language. Perhaps in Russia it is not considered rude to constantly nit-pick about it, but most of the Commonwealth thinks that it is , and the general netiquite adopted by netizens certainly does think it rude.
Thus, even though "should of" is a pet pieve of mine also, I won't pick someone up for it, assuming they are a non-native who has translitterated (sp? :-) what they have heard...
So to sum up: get over it... :-)
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:5, Insightful)
In order to understand English spelling, you first need to understand English (assembly of Japanese motorcycle requires great peace of mind).
All words in English are derived from words in other languages. The way words are spelt in English is determined by the language they came from, so when you learn a new word, you need to learn its etymology. Fortunately, this is in the dictionary (The Oxford University dictionary. Others don't count).
Unfortunately, the etymology is not entirely correct in many cases - most etymologists know their Latin, Greek, and French, and can read German text books, but know nothing of Arabic or Chinese or various Indian, and possibly African languages that may have been the origins of common English words, so they are rarely credited. Nothing is perfect except God.
Why is the preterite of run ran, yet the preterite of shun is shunned?I do not know the actual answer to this question, but there are normally two explanations for this, both working together. The change of vowel sound: run->ran is generally derived from Arabic, while the change of ending is a European (Greek, Latin) technique. The reason the difference is retained is generally to maximise the linguistic difference from words which might be confused in the same context. Context being both gramatical (similar positions in a sentence), and semantic (words with similar meaning). It may also be that this is specific to certain environments: the similarity might only occur in a classroom, printing house, or some other significant work environment. It might be to make the word easily distinguished from background noise in an environment where it was common.
English has developed in a darwinian manner, and the fact that you cannot tell the spelling from your local pronounciation is not necessarily a snag. Your accent is likely very different to mine. Within my family, we pronounce "there", "their" and "the're" recognisably differently. My wife's family pronouce "ear" and "hair" indistingushably.
I once worked on a speech synthesiser using a National Semis phonym based synthesiser chip. Unfortunately, although the users could easily tell which parts were programmed by me (with a Cambride accent) and which by my colleague (With a Newcastle accent) no one could understand what the damn thing was actually saying.
The problem is more complex than you think: People actually recognise English words by different features in different places. Yoruba speakers are used to a pitch language, and will always pronounce English words with the same pitch setting. They readily understand each other speaking English, but often find it hard to recognise English spoken by English people who use changes in pitch for emphasis.
Before the Internet was common, we had Fidonet. We found out on Fidonet that: If you obey the established spelling rules, people who are not native english speakers have a chance of understanding what you mean, even if they have to look up every word in the dictionary. If you don't, and try to write phonetically, then people outside your local area won't have a clue what you are talking about.
Interesting moderation on this thread. (Score:2, Insightful)
One conclusion that I can draw from this is that moderators like good grammar and spelling.
Further on from this, I would conclude that moderators generally have to have good grammar and spelling in order to be able to recognise it and appreciate it.
Moderators get to be moderators by having their posts moderated up (having positive karma) and by meta moderating. Posts are moderated up by other moderators who like good spelling and grammar. Therefore the moderation system is a vicious cycle where those in power tend to promote people like themselves to positions of power.
Not that I mind however. I have done my share of moderating and I much prefer posts that are easy to read because I don't have to make sense of a garbled message.
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it then that for centuries, countless people have had no problem with the nuances of the English language? Sure, it is a difficult language to learn in later life, but it is an extremely flexible and powerful communication tool.
How long did it take you all to learn Cobol, or C++ or other programming languages? Now, how long did it take to you master those same programming languages? An 8 to 10 year old child will (should?) know the difference between to, two, and too, but you wouldn't expect them to be able to write a paper worthy of publication. Similarly, just because I can write a "hello world" application doesn't mean I can call myself a programmer and not have to study the programming language any more.
Mastering the English language is something most people will never achieve in their lifetime. And by mastering the language, I mean knowing the spelling and use of every single word in the English language plus all grammar conventions. Like all languages (including programming languages) you are constantly learning new things. New words, new operations, new conventions.
Ever needed to refer to a dictionary? Ever needed to refer to a technical reference document?
So what's my point in all this? Well, if you've chosen to give up on the English language and decided that it's not worth your time to improve your language skills, don't blame the language itself. Your skills will only be as good as you make them.
English is a horrible language. You simply can't argue otherwise.
It seems I can.
Shitdrummer.
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes it's far more than a stuck pixel. Unfortunately, it can be every other word, or perhaps their grammar is so bad that I read something entirely different from what they meant.
Honestly, when I read someone's poor english (and I know they're a native speaker), I stop paying attention to what they've written, and I start dwelling on how stupid they must be.
Re:A Few Points (Score:2, Insightful)
ndansmith writes: It is silly to get mad at someone for not following the "rules" of English if you know exactly what they mean.
Not always. There are levels of communication that must be taken into account. A grunt may most certainly do just as well as a finely-turned sentence for transmitting information. But what we are discussing is not simply the transference of ideas or facts; in fact, you should know this better than most as you are a Greek major. As a fellow Classics geek, I know that most of what you are reading (unless you are in a very odd program indeed) is made up of poets (Homer, Callimachus); historians (Xenophon); philosophers (Plato, Aristotle); rhetoricians (Isocrates); playwrights (Aeschylus); and much else. You also are familiar with the various levels of the Greek language represented in the various genres. The very same idea may be put across by a writer in one genre in the most basic fashion, while another writer in another genre may say it in flowery and grandiose terms. The same idea is embedded in each instance; its meaning may be quite different due the language in which it is expressed (and that is said while keeping in mind that we are not discussing context, rhetorical use of a fact, etc.). Now imagine taking expression 1 and dropping it into instance 2, in place of expression 2. It will be out of place, perhaps even appearing to be crass or overwrought, depending on its new surroundings --- causing all manner of difficulties for reader/hearer. Knowing exactly what someone means is often just the beginning of things.
brwski
Something about language... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:5, Insightful)
The easy way to think about it is to consider "his, hers, its". When using "it's" you should be able to replace it with "it is", "it has" or similar and the sentence should still make sense.
its == 1 word
it's == 2 words
If you're unsure about which to use, see if "it is" works in the same place. If it doesn't, you should probably be using "its".It's a fairly simple construct, but I've seen English teachers get it wrong, and worse, teach the exact opposite.
It does seem to break the general rule of "an apostrophe indicates possession", but it's easy to think of "its" as a more specific rule that should supersede the use of "it's", if you're so inclined.
On a completely different note, does anyone find themselves previewing maybe a dozen times when posting about spelling or grammar? (And probably missing a half-dozen errors?)
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, that's exactly the way it should be. A person who can't be bothered to learn the simple basics of their mother tongue is a person who's lazy and self-involved. This is especially true when it comes to communicating via the internet, as a plethora of spelling and grammar checkers are only a click away.
That isn't the sort of person I want working for me in my place of business. If you're so goddamned lazy you can't even be bothered to learn how to communicate properly then there's no reason in the world I should think that you won't be an equally lazy, egotistical ass when it comes to doing the job.
Act like an intellectual incompetent and you'll be treated like one. There's nothing 'unfair' about this. If you don't like it then learn how to speak and write the language you supposedly have the wit to master, seeing as how you grew up with it.
Or at least master left-clicking on the spell-checker before you post. But then we can safely assume that people who can't be bothered to learn how to spell or use a dictionary are also too fat-assed to use a spell-checker, so I guess that's probably asking too much of these fools.
Max
Re:Correct English? (Score:3, Insightful)
"C'mon, to be fair you have to admit that English has no word order rules ... just like Latin, it merely has customs (and yet you insinuate that you are a linguist?!)."
I didn't say I am a linguist, but I have taken several classes in linguistics.
English has very strict word order rules. Consider:
The ball hit a boy.
A boy hit the ball.
The ball a boy hit.
A boy the ball hit.
Hit the ball a boy.
Hit a boy the ball.
Out of all [noun], [verb], [object] combinations, only two are grammatical, and those two have different meanings. Word order changes meaning in English.
" If English relied on word order (c.f., Asian languages) they would have had to subtitle Yoda. "
Yoda acutally uses word order rules, creating constructions that are often used in English poetry and verse. Consider:
The force you must use.
Away put your weapon.
Told you, did he?
However, we all know that Yoda *would not* say:
Force the use must you.
Weapon your away put.
He did you told?
Whereas in Finnish, for example, word order affects emphasis but not meaning:
Auto otti hän?
He took the car?
Otti hän auto?
He took the car?
Hän otti auto?
He took the car?
Because of endings, a Finnish speaker knows which part of speech each word it. Notice the word order has to stay the same in English, but I've adopted html tags to represent verbal emphasis. However, Finnish word order can change in a sentence, yet each word is still the same part of speech. It does change the emphasis, which you can argue changes the meaning, but my point is that 'hän' is always the subject, 'otti' is always the verb, and 'auto' is always the object. It doesn't matter what order they are in.
If you say "The car he took?" meaning "He took the car?!" makes you sound like Yoda or an old Yiddish grandpa. Notice how I showed you what I mean by changing the word order in the sentence.
"English has rules. The phrase Should of violates those rules. Rules change. At this point though of is still a preposition and have is still a verb."
Yes, English has rules, but nobody will agree on what they are, and there is no authority to say what they are, or when they change.
"One could tell right away that they were writing in dialect and thus one could throw out all grammatical parsing and just use phonetic parsing."
Language is based on sound (or, in the case of sign language, visual form). There is no parsing other than phonetic parsing.
Re:Abbreviations with "w" (Score:3, Insightful)
We could call the letter wynn [wikipedia.org]. That's what the letter was in Old English before the Norman French scribes systematically stripped out all the wynns, thorns, eths, yoghs and macrons in the 11th century.
There are valid reasons... (Score:3, Insightful)
Please practice patience, tolerance, and only gentle chiding in making corrections. Be nice.
The reason for grammer and spelling errors... (Score:3, Insightful)
People make errors for many reasons, including:
1. They are in a rush and content is more important than correctness.
2. They do it on purpose in rebellion against perceived authoritarian figures (from their childhood etc).
3. They want to make a specific point or joke (eg referencing "pr0n").
4. They don't know any better.
5. They didn't notice the mistakes (for some reason at that time) though normally they would.
6. They don't really care about producing correct written English.
I'm sure there are other reasons. Without a doubt I'm sure most readers make value judgements regarding the writer based on their sentence structure, choice of words, punctuation etc.
I'm equally sure many readers of Slashdot feel they shouldn't be judged on their writing style. However, the truth in the world is the "face" you present to people really is all they have to go on to determine in some way what the writer is like as a person.
In a scientific journal one does not try to read between the lines (usually) to determine what sort of person the writer is like (unlike there is something unusual about the text).
On Slashdot, many of the posts are opinion related. Many are also purely about technical issues, though most, even if by relation to other posts, hold valuable content regarding the writer. For example, earlier posts regarding the 128k Apple Mac were gleefully given by people who used them. Readers would immediately think about how old that person was and that changes how we process the rest of a post - even if the content is technical. Or a technical point refuting an earlier technical point, depending on it's conciseness and thoroughness might cause the reader to decide the latter writer knew what he was talking about and is more experienced and is to be respected. If the second post has poor grammer and spelling errors then we might tend to question their authority in this area.
This is just human nature.
There are always times we wish we'd written things differently before hittimg "Submit". Likewise the world is full of so many different people it's hard to determine how you will be interpreted some times. However, it's a good general rule of thumb to assume you will be judged on how you write, just as you're likely to be judged in real life on how you dress, walk, speak, groom etc. It'd be nice at times if life wasn't like that but it is.
My own personal pet peeve is when people add "already" at the end of a sentence. This is a recent US trend that was spread largely by the scriptwriters of "Friends". In most cases it adds no extra meaning or content. It does however identify the writer as a fan of "Friends" or perhaps easily influenced by recent cultural trends. But then, that's my personal judgement and shouldn't influence what you write! Of course, I'm sure people reading this post will put make all sorts of value judgements about me - but then, that'll just prove my point
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:2, Insightful)
You keep a saying that phrase. I no think it means what you think it means (in Inigo Montoya voice).
If a lot of people use "should of" it is common usage, it doesn't matter if its derivation is apocryphal or whether not you like it or whether or not it is accepted academic or professional usage.
Common usage means exactly what it sounds like it means: usage that is common.
Unlike C... (Score:3, Insightful)
We spend enough time staring at computer screens and getting yelled at for improper syntax used on a daily basis. Why can't we have a break when communicating with human beings? Improper syntax usage still effectively communicates the message. After all, communicating is the only reason *any* language exists.
Re:I agree. There's a proper forum for corrections (Score:1, Insightful)
It's sad that helpfulness is so often seen as arrogance. Arrogance is an attitude. When I correct someone's spelling or grammar, I do it because I figure no intelligent person wants to walk around making rookie mistakes. If you constantly spell racist as rascist, wouldn't you want someone to point it out so you could learn and improve yourself? I'm not talking about missing apostrophes or punctuation, because they rarely matter. I'm talking about situations where it's obvious the poster doesn't know the correct way to write something.
It's a bit like seeing someone with his pants unzipped. If you tell him, chances are good that he doesn't know, and would appreciate the tip. On the other hand, there's a small chance that he does know, and will get pissed at you because he's ABSOLUTELY ENTITLED to walk around with unzipped pants if he wants to! So really, I take the risk because the benefit of someone learning something useful outweighs the risk that some ungrateful prick will think I'm trying to prove myself better than him.
Of course, there's a right way and a wrong way to go about mentioning it too, and being arrogant about it doesn't help anyone.
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:3, Insightful)
Languages change over time for a reason. Words are added to introduce new things, concepts, tools, and thoughts. Language is one part progression, one part evolution. To do that effectively, we can't stop ourselves in the present.
~D
Language (Score:2, Insightful)
Possibilities (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Many of us are very quick typers -- not hunting and pecking the specific letters needed
2) Many of us never use spell checkers -- unlike the average college student, secretary, or employee of days past
3) Many of us realize that it will have absolutely no impact on our job -- ie: we know our stuff and management will overlook certain things because of it
4) Many of us regularly skipped classes or left high school / college early
5) Many of us don't care
6) Many of us created the common netspeak because it was faster to type -- for example, 'dunno', 'wtf', 'rtfm', 'l8r', whatever -- thus, spelling became less important
7) I honestly believe that you would find that the same people making those spelling/grammar mistakes would provide much cleaner prose were it for a grant application, etc -- ie: where the text is being used is a lot less important
Well, that's just a few thoughts off the top of my head.
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:5, Insightful)
In Shakespeare's day, nobody worried about English spelling in large part because serious people wrote serious things in Latin, where the spelling was thoroughly standardized. Because Latin was the language of the educated, nobody had bothered to standardize the spelling of the vernacular.
Since that time, English spelling has been standardized, and very few of us have reliance on Latin as an excuse today. English spelling isn't difficult: it follows two sets of simple rules. We have a set of rules for the words adopted from Latin (about half the language) and another set for the words derived from Anglo-Saxon. Foreign borrowings generally retain their foreign spellings. See my English spelling [geocities.com] page for some pointers to resources for learning how simple it really is.
Those worried over form, miss content.
Those who don't worry over form obscure their content, and ensure that it will be missed or misconstrued. It's just plain rude to deliberately or carelessly use bad grammar and orthography: it shows contempt for your ideas and for your audience.