Why we are so critical of people who can't spell and punctuate [Archive]

Fraggle Rocker

07-12-07, 12:24 PM

A member asked, in another subforum, why so many of the responses to his posts focused on his spelling errors rather than his questions.

I think it's because educated people regard writing as almost sacred. Written language was one of the key technologies that is responsible for the advance of civilization. Oral communication has a limited bandwidth and no persistence. What we say can only be heard by a small number of people, and once it's said they have to rely on their memories to retrieve it. They repeat it to others with errors and editorial changes, and by the time a few generations have passed the original knowledge may be lost.

The ephemerality of our speech even makes it difficult for us to think in high levels of complexity. How perfectly can any of us recall the brilliant idea we had yesterday but didn't write down? Writing allowed people like Plato and Euclid to develop entire systems of learning, and it allows us to read their own words.

While older key technologies like agriculture, stonemasonry and perhaps bronze were developed without writing, most of what we take for granted today like electronics could not have been. Astronomy is a bona fide science that predates not only writing but perhaps civilization itself, but physics and chemistry could never have been developed by scientists communicating orally.

So then what must we think of a person who hasn't learned to spell or punctuate correctly--who hasn't mastered written language, a technology that holds the key to all the trappings of modern civilization? Sure, a few people have disorders like dyslexia. But even blind people can write correctly. Even George Bush has never been criticized for his spelling.

This is a forum for scientists and people who are interested in science. Writing was the key to all of modern science. People who haven't mastered the basics of writing are regarded with suspicion. Why haven't they done absolutely whatever it takes to achieve the universal standard minimal level of skill in this most important of technologies?

Orleander

07-12-07, 12:32 PM

...This is a forum for scientists and people who are interested in science. Writing was the key to all of modern science. People who haven't mastered the basics of writing are regarded with suspicion. Why haven't they done absolutely whatever it takes to achieve the universal standard minimal level of skill in this most important of technologies?

??? Isn't that arrogant? Can't uneducated people be interested in science? It's hurtful to have your stupidity pointed out when you are trying to learn. :( What if you are from another country trying to grasp English? What if you have a physical disability and typing takes forever?
And I don't know how to make my spell-checker work!!! :bawl:

mikenostic

07-12-07, 12:37 PM

'cause when peeps use txt slang 2 get there point across and mispel all kindz of stuff, 2 things come 2 mind:

1. They're too lazy to take the time to spell something or properly structure their sentences/grammar

2. Sometimes people look at that and don't know what the hell they're trying to say.

I would almost directly compare it to asking the question; why show up for a job interview in some nice business attire or a suit, when you could just show up in a t-shirt and jeans?
Why do office/corporate environments have a dress code of business casual and not jeans and a t-shirt?
Why would you show up for a date wearing grungy clothes when you should be dressed nice?

Same principle.

Oli

07-12-07, 12:42 PM

If people can't be bothered to express their ideas clearly then how clear are those ideas?
Why should we even try to understand an idea that the author does not care enough about to put across in a comprehensible fashion?
(Thinking specifically of the Pseudoscience subforum here and the general "literacy" of some of the woowoos).

Read-Only

07-12-07, 12:47 PM

??? Isn't that arrogant? Can't uneducated people be interested in science? It's hurtful to have your stupidity pointed out when you are trying to learn. :( What if you are from another country trying to grasp English? What if you have a physical disability and typing takes forever?
And I don't know how to make my spell-checker work!!! :bawl:

No, it's not arrogant. And we (most of us, anyway) readily make exceptions for people who's first language isn't English.

Everything Fraggle said was correct. Unless people can communicate clearly, the results will be confusion and misunderstandings. I've seen many, many VERY poorly written posts (by English speaking people) and never responded because they were so muddled that I could NOT be sure what they were even talking about. And I've even asked for clarification of some of them and STILL received garbage in response!

Writing is just like anything else - if it's worth doing, it's worth making an effort to do it right. Far too many get on here and just babble and it's a complete waste of time do even try to deal with some of them.

As a side note, have you made much of an effort to get your spell checker to work - or bothered to ask for help? Several people here would be glad to lend a hand.

Orleander

07-12-07, 12:50 PM

...As a side note, have you made much of an effort to get your spell checker to work - or bothered to ask for help? Several people here would be glad to lend a hand.

I'm trying and trying. And I think I already look stupid enough here (as I have been told over and over) without asking for spell-checker help.
But there it is, so I might as well ask huh.

GeoffP

07-12-07, 12:51 PM

Becasue they is dum.

mikenostic

07-12-07, 12:56 PM

I'm trying and trying. And I think I already look stupid enough here (as I have been told over and over) without asking for spell-checker help.
But there it is, so I might as well ask huh.
What are you talking about? Look at the sentences/paragraphs of the two posts you made in this thread. Aside from beginning the sentence above with an 'and', your grammar is fine. Besides, a misspelled word every now and then isn't bad; even I'm guilty of it here and there.

S.A.M.

07-12-07, 01:17 PM

Fraggle Rocker

07-12-07, 02:31 PM

??? Isn't that arrogant? Can't uneducated people be interested in science?Yes of course they can. But my hypothesis--which is only that and you're all welcome to disprove it in the true spirit of science--is that literacy has become the primary indicator of education. After all, it is the first thing we all learn in school because without it we can't read our school books. If you haven't learned to write then you have avoided learning to use what is arguably the most important tool we've got. This is doubly important for the people of a scientific inclination who inhabit SciForums because writing is the key to virtually all science; without it we wouldn't be here.

This has a strong parallel with spoken language. I think most people unconsciously consider that the primary indicator of sheer intelligence. If you can't talk you can't communicate and that singles you out as dysfunctional as a member of a highly social species.
It's hurtful to have your stupidity pointed out when you are trying to learn.Most of us are perfectly happy to make allowances for people who appear to be trying. But some of them are not.
What if you are from another country trying to grasp English?That's invariably obvious. They don't make the same kind of mistakes. Besides, a linguist can not only spot a foreigner by his mistakes but even guess his native language. :)
What if you have a physical disability and typing takes forever?Again, you simply won't make the same kinds of errors. They'll tend to be random typos rather than consistent misspellings and mispunctuations.
And I don't know how to make my spell-checker work!I have no great regard for spell checkers.

OWED TOO A SPELLING CHECQUER

I have a spelling checquer.
It came with my pea sea.
It plane lee marks four my revue
Miss steaks aye can nazi.

Eye ran this poem threw it,
Yule bee reel glad two no.
It's vary polished inn it's weigh:
My checquer tolled me sew.
'cause when peeps use txt slang 2 get there point across and mispel all kindz of stuff, 2 things come 2 mindMy favorite quote from the short-lived TV show "The Boondocks:
Nothing worth reading was every written by a man who was trying to type with his thumbs.
I'm trying and trying. And I think I already look stupid enough here (as I have been told over and over)No one has called you stupid on any of the boards I hang out on. You don't come across as stupid at all, and you can be reassured that there a couple of members whom we keep around just as reference standards for that. You write intelligently and as a professional editor I don't notice a high error rate in your writing.

However I do notice a tendency for self-effacing. :)

Orleander

07-12-07, 08:06 PM

...However I do notice a tendency for self-effacing. :)

and I have no idea what that means...so I went and looked it up. Yep, seems to fit.

Oh, and the person (you know who you are) that said I was stupid...several times...bite me! :frust: Yeah, I said it, I went there.

peta9

07-12-07, 08:29 PM

What I find peculiar about written and spoken language is it can be grammatically incorrect but still understandable and I'm not talking about slang which is another genre altogether or stupid cryptic use of letters or numbers. If it is understandable then why would it matter if the point is communication? What I find ridiculous is many times when reading, its literally mentally filtering out unnecessary prepositions and fluff words to decipher the real meaning and separating the wheat from the chaff. Somewhere along the line, you just know there was some egotistic and shallow idiot who had nothing real to say so added all these irrevelant formalities which don't even have anything to do with enhancing communication but obfuscation, waste of time, and pedantry. Let me make clear I'm not talking about vocabulary because it's necessary to express the subtleties but unnecessary grammatical rules. I think language should go through evolution and change because it's not perfect.

If you pay attention to how honest children utilize language, they don't use bullshit fillers. If someone said "I go eat" verus "I am going to eat", I see no real difference in meaning and it's understood. The latter actually leans to inaccurate communication because it's emphasizing themself (who gives a shit!) verus the fact they are going to eat. Go eat already then! "I" is already understood and "am" is unnecessary as well. I don't give a flying peanut that by gosh, You, You, You, emphasized is going to eat, already got that. If someone said "I going to eat" verus "I am going to eat", the meaning would not change a beat with me. Ridiculous fluff.

sandy

07-12-07, 08:44 PM

peta9

07-12-07, 08:59 PM

I was just thinking about this yesterday and almost said something. It is so hard to read the posts of some people that I just quit trying. After trying three times, I gave up. :(

Running sentences and paragraphs together is the most annoying to me. That and people who take three paragraphs to explain what I could say in two sentences. :rolleyes:

I was thinking to myself "these are supposed to be really intelligent people and they can't spell or punctuate?"

I didn't say anything because I make mistakes too and I didn't want to get flamed. ;)

Being able to spell or punctuate isn't a complete indication of intelligence. Just because you can express a thought perfectly doesn't mean squat if that thought was stupid in the first place. People do it all the time and they are very good at driving home the point either verbally, in combination with body language or otherwise. I know people who have trouble communicating but they are very intelligent or even have trouble communicating what they know perfectly and can't convey it well. Language is also partly an ability not mere cognitive intelligence. Though usually it goes hand in hand but not always.

EmptyForceOfChi

07-12-07, 09:07 PM

im sorry but i am guilty of being lazy, i do not use correct punctuation, "grammer" or capitalization on sciforums. its not down to lack of understanding or knowledge, its becuase its faster. outside of the internet forum domain i gladly use the english language correctly, and in formal terms.

i feel no need to exert myself fully here, im sure people do not have a hard time understanding my posts.

it is also a good way of showing that everything i post is original content, and not just a copy n paste from a google search.

peace.

Fraggle Rocker

07-12-07, 09:55 PM

Your stuff isn't so bad and it's obviously the result of speed rather than lack of education. Still I beg you to consider making friends with the SHIFT key. It is very confusing to read something without capitals and it slows the reader down. That's how we parse sentences; the capital stands out much more than the period. And words like "I" just don't make visual sense in lower case. Since typing a capital merely uses both hands at the same time, it doesn't slow down the writer at all. It's a nice courtesy that costs you nothing. Our time is valuable too.

Ophiolite

07-12-07, 10:33 PM

im sorry but i am guilty of being lazy, i do not use correct punctuation, "grammer" or capitalization on sciforums. its not down to lack of understanding or knowledge, its becuase its faster. It may well be faster for you. It is not faster for those trying to read your posts. Your lazy behaviour is thus:
a) self destructive - people will be disinclined to read what you have written.
b) inflammatory - if they do read it, then your slovenly approach will annoy.
c) downright rude.

So, can you tell me why I should have any regard for, or interest in, an inflammatory, self destructive, uncouth poster?

Grantywanty

07-13-07, 05:30 AM

I must chime in as a member of the neo-sloppy writers.
There is no universal minimal standard (which was asserted in the OP).
Confused thinking is much more irritating than the occasional spelling error.
We are not writing papers. This is a much more expressive, impermanent communication form, somewhere between the old, hard-copy written text and speech. I cannot see the problem with sentence fragments, abbreviations without periods and other short cuts.
It seems like a number of people have asserted that they won't bother to read posts that are under whatever their minimal criteria are. Fine, who can complain about that. Perhaps, the sloppy posters will learn from that, perhaps not.
Not so much on this forum but on other forums, I have noticed the correcting of errors as a kind of attack without substance. Your point must be wrong because you mispelled ______________ is either stated directly or indirectly. The sloppy post (or post with one error) was completely clear, but this error is used as an out for the attacker, not unlike mocking someone with a lisp.

I think it's because educated people regard writing as almost sacred Fraggle Rocker said in the OP.

I am sure that sometimes this is the motive, perhaps most of the time. But it is often a way of getting off a shot, getting some aggression out, shaming someone for no real reason...at least some of the time. I am a little wary of accepting 'holy' motivations for all responses of this kind. Mixed motivations are also possible. That's the best: get off a real good shot but have high motivations and only focus consciously on the latter.

Are there posts so poorly written that I just skip them? Sure.
Have some of my posts suffered this? Probably.
I think the moral high ground taken by the fussy could be replaced by the simple avoidance technique mentioned by a couple of people.

Ophiolite,
God, it seems just too personal a reaction. Yours above to EFOC. I mean just ignore him. I could see if he stopped you on the street and had bad breath and kept catching up to you and spouting poorly worded theories, but here. Did you really find the form (not the content) of his posts so offputting?

(I confess that I tried a little harder to cut down on errors here. God, how are my actions speaking? I went back and put in a couple of errors intentionally, just in case I got lucky)

Grantywanty

07-13-07, 05:37 AM

Even George Bush has never been criticized for his spelling.

1) This statement could be used by the sloppy to show just how insignificant the issue is.

2) I doubt we see much that he has written. I guess one could argue that he agrees to take credit for text that is error-free. I promise, if elected, to also have people produce primarily error-free texts. Until then however....

sandy

07-13-07, 06:59 AM

Grammar is spelled g-r-a-m-m-a-r. ;) :)

Fraggle Rocker

07-13-07, 07:17 AM

Each moderator has some leeway on how he moderates his own subforum. My personal idiosyncrasy here is that since this subforum is about language and communication, our own language and communication will be held to a higher standard than in some of the other subforums. I have stated one of my reasons for this: SciForums is jam packed with people who have an excellent command of English but are not from anglophone countries. Their customs are different, they don't know all of our idioms, they've never seen CNN or "South Park," they can be offended or simply confused far more easily than us thick-skinned, plain-speaking, over-opinionated Americans.

I routinely edit out profanity when it's directed at another poster rather than an etymological discussion of the words themselves. I am draconian about the website's rule against personal attacks and have already deleted one post of that nature that even I found entertaining. And I insist that we respect the scientific method: linguistics is categorized as a science and no woo-woo theories that flout or reject science will clutter up this space unless the theories themselves are being discussed by ladies and gentlemen.
I must chime in as a member of the neo-sloppy writers. There is no universal minimal standard (which was asserted in the OP).I believe that most educated people--especially the scientists, future scientists and science groupies that SciForums is making a new effort to attract--unconsciously filter incoming communication that way and unconsciously form opinions of both the speaker/writer and the speech/writing on this basis. However I apologize if I made it sound like an official, conscious "minimum standard." If I find a post so irresistably interesting that I want to make sure everyone who comes here reads it, yet so full of errors that it's hard to read, I'll simply fix it. There's no standard here for quality of writing.
Confused thinking is much more irritating than the occasional spelling error. We are not writing papers. This is a much more expressive, impermanent communication form, somewhere between the old, hard-copy written text and speech. I cannot see the problem with sentence fragments, abbreviations without periods and other short cuts.Yes of course, and I'm sorry if I implied that this is not true. However, as I stated, I think a congenial compromise would be at least for everyone to take a moment to examine their keyboard and notice that there is a SHIFT key. It is a well-established internet tradition that WE DON'T TYPE IN ALL UPPER CASE. There is just as good a reason to not start sentences and proper nouns in lower case. Capital letters are important cues and leaving them out wastes more of each reader's time than it saves for the typist. There is such a thing as "netiquette."
It seems like a number of people have asserted that they won't bother to read posts that are under whatever their minimal criteria are. Fine, who can complain about that. Perhaps, the sloppy posters will learn from that, perhaps not.These people are unconsciously illustrating my hypothesis: Written language is a fundamental technology upon which all of civilization is based. People who haven't mastered it are assumed not to be well educated, and people who deliberately use it poorly are saying they have no respect for civilization. This is only a hypothesis so yes I know I may be wrong.
Not so much on this forum but on other forums, I have noticed the correcting of errors as a kind of attack without substance. Your point must be wrong because you mispelled ______________ is either stated directly or indirectly. The sloppy post (or post with one error) was completely clear, but this error is used as an out for the attacker, not unlike mocking someone with a lisp.I don't take kindly to personal attacks of any nature and will moderate them. Nonetheless, since they are consistent with my hypothesis I fully understand them.
This statement, ["Even George Bush is never criticized for his spelling,"] could be used by the sloppy to show just how insignificant the issue is. I doubt we see much that he has written.Jon Stewart had one of his ex-speech writers on one night. Jon never overlooks an opportunity to criticize Bush and the writer was in no mood to be especially kind to him. If he were a bad speller it would have come out. Speech writers don't write everything from scratch.

sandy

07-13-07, 07:25 AM

I think this was a great topic for discussion. I like, respect, and agree with everything you just said even though I think you have given me infractions for unintentionally wrong stuff. :D

Read-Only

07-13-07, 08:03 AM

Grantywanty

07-13-07, 09:48 AM

[QUOTE]People who haven't mastered it are assumed not to be well educated, and people who deliberately use it poorly are saying they have no respect for civilization.

See, I object to the use of the passive here. Sloppy writing does not send me into thinking about how much education a person has. Hell, I might make a good guess, if someone asked me, but I focus much more on content. If the signal to noise ratio is poor, I notice that, sometimes getting irritated, sometimes choosing to stop reading the post. But if the ideas come through, I certainly don't start thinking about how far they got in school.

As far as the idea that they 'have no respect for civilization' I think you'll have to back that up with some studies before I would go along with that. Psychologists seem to study just about every thing under the brain lid so you might actually find a study. As a defender of civilization and writing standards on a science forum, you can probably understand why I might take you to task to back up such a theory - however much it was intended as polemic.

Jon Stewart had one of his ex-speech writers on one night. Jon never overlooks an opportunity to criticize Bush and the writer was in no mood to be especially kind to him. If he were a bad speller it would have come out. Speech writers don't write everything from scratch.

I think there are other possible reasons for not mentioning Bush's spelling. It might be seen as a petty attack. When there is so much to react to in terms of content (or often lack thereof), it also seems of little significance to go at details. Of course Bush may be a great speller. This makes him a counter example to anyone linking spelling ability and intelligence. Or at least a cautionary tale (sentence fragment used for timing purposes).

And if a Bush clone started posting here, it would require a rather clinical deficit in his writing ability to bring me to respond to his writing and not his ideas.

I wonder if dyslexics are genetically inclined to reject civilization.

Grantywanty

07-13-07, 10:04 AM

As an American who has had a lot of contact with member of another English speaking nation, I have found similar ideas about speech. They see Americans as sloppy and in a regressive stage of (or having a regressive attitude towards) civilization. I think the control they exert and expect others to exert over language is an indication of their cultural baggage. They are overvaluing rules and assuming that language is a container for information only. The expressive functions of language are downplayed or sublimated into wit. All fine and dandy in its context and fine for them. But the presumption that all speakers must follow these procedures and restrictions is, well, in line with some of the thinking that led to imperialism.
(this really applies primarily to certain classes in the unmentioned nation).

I still can't see why people can't simply not read certain people and certain posts. And what are seen as 'repeat offenders', more use of the ignore functions.

I see different people with different ideas about how to communicate. This is a practical problem and there are technological solutions.

What is the attachment to making this a moral issue? or to suggesting that, really, they hate civilization or disrespect me or themselves or have some other sinister or radical agenda?

I think some people see the internet and communication here in a different way then some of the people up in arms here. I think age rather than education plays the strongest role here, but also the cultural expectations of different people in relation to this medium. Academics or those with that kind of background used to thinking of texts as thesis or paper-like are upset. People raised on email, chat sites and SMS probably actually do make efforts to write more clearly than in those formats but still focus on being spontaneous, quick and expressive.

Can't this be like any community? You hang out with those you jive with? (Even if this jiving is often with people whose content you dislike but whose form you do. See, it sounds like we are teenage boys thinking about girls.)

I had no idea the moderators went to the trouble of correcting and improving posts. My heart goes out to you.

Fraggle Rocker

07-13-07, 11:46 AM

If you feel you have something important enough to say, why not put forth the tiny bit of effort (like using the shift key) to make what you're saying clearer? To me, a great deal of this whole topic comes down to common courtesy for the people who will try to read someone's post. If the typing is sloppy (misuse of capital letters, poor punctuation, etc.) it indicates (in my opinion) that the writer cares little about the difficulty it presents to those who DO try to read it.That's my point. It's the same way I feel about posting URLs. Didn't everybody take 4th-grade English and learn how to present a report on something they read? If you're expecting ten people to be interested in what you've posted, then you're expecting ten people to follow your URL and read the whole bloody thing. That could be an hour and a half of their total time which they won't have to read someone else's interesting posts, in return for saving ten or fifteen minutes of your own time to write an abstract, which incidentally would be read by far more members.
Therefore, it follows that if the writer has little, if any, respect for the readers, why should we have any respect for the writer?I don't like to put it so morally because I don't think most people have given it that much thought. They might not be aware of how much it slows down a reader to parse sentences by a counterintuitive inspection process instead of the lexicographical cues we learned when we were six. I'd rather educate people than berate them, and it generally elicits a much more positive reaction.
See, I object to the use of the passive here.Many people do. But many editors insist on it, particularly in government, where a good portion of America's writing is done. Part of the collectivist mind set: No one "does" anything, everything "is done."
Sloppy writing does not send me into thinking about how much education a person has. Hell, I might make a good guess, if someone asked me, but I focus much more on content. If the signal to noise ratio is poor, I notice that, sometimes getting irritated, sometimes choosing to stop reading the post. But if the ideas come through, I certainly don't start thinking about how far they got in school.I've used the word "unconscious" several times. I doubt that anyone stops and says, "Geeze, this guy is sure dissing me by writing like that." I don't think very many people even do the arithmetic that we've done and say, "Geeze, if he'd spent a total of five seconds pressing the Shift key a few times, it would save the forum members in aggregate sixty seconds of reading time. All of these guys put together have wasted three hours of their fellow members time so far this year." I think people feel themselves being slowed down, especially in an era of fast food and speed dating, and even though they don't remark on the individual instances it is not something they appreciate.
As far as the idea that they 'have no respect for civilization' I think you'll have to back that up with some studies before I would go along with that. Psychologists seem to study just about every thing under the brain lid so you might actually find a study. As a defender of civilization and writing standards on a science forum, you can probably understand why I might take you to task to back up such a theory - however much it was intended as polemic.In this case I think I'll start my practice of the scientific method with the peer review, since it's already begun. :)
Of course Bush may be a great speller. This makes him a counter example to anyone linking spelling ability and intelligence.I didn't link it to intelligence. I linked it to education and respect for the reader. Like many scholars I'm sure that Bush's college diploma, like his candidacies, was made possible by his powerful friends and family, but I have no trouble believing that he passed the first few grades when they taught him spelling and punctuation. And I'm positive he wants to make a good impression on people and win their respect, even if his target group doesn't happen to include me.
Or at least a cautionary tale (sentence fragment used for timing purposes).There's nothing wrong with a sentence fragment if you're not writing for publication or academic review. It's a powerful literary device that helps make up for the bandwidth we lose in non-oral language.
I wonder if dyslexics are genetically inclined to reject civilization.That's a cheap shot, I spoke of them specifically early on. In America we're even rather easygoing with the writing of foreigners, an attitude that is not reciprocated in all of their countries.
As an American who has had a lot of contact with member of another English speaking nation, I have found similar ideas about speech. They see Americans as sloppy and in a regressive stage of (or having a regressive attitude towards) civilization. I think the control they exert and expect others to exert over language is an indication of their cultural baggage. They are overvaluing rules and assuming that language is a container for information only. The expressive functions of language are downplayed or sublimated into wit. All fine and dandy in its context and fine for them. But the presumption that all speakers must follow these procedures and restrictions is, well, in line with some of the thinking that led to imperialism.Your point has merit.
(this really applies primarily to certain classes in the unmentioned nation).And I suppose I know which nation you're referring to, but there are quite a few others where that attitude prevails and English is not the language they all speak.
I still can't see why people can't simply not read certain people and certain posts. And what are seen as 'repeat offenders', more use of the ignore functions.You can do that. But I'm a moderator and it's my mission to facilitate the flow of ideas. I believe that if I can get everyone to at least make friends with their Shift key, more ideas will flow between more people.
What is the attachment to making this a moral issue? or to suggesting that, really, they hate civilization or disrespect me or themselves or have some other sinister or radical agenda?I'm just pontificating as I am wont to do. But obviously I'm not the only person who thinks this way consciously because others have agreed with me. And Pareto's Law says there are four times as many people who feel the same way but don't realize it, not to mention all the SciForums members who never set foot in the Hall of Linguistics.
Can't this be like any community? You hang out with those you jive with?From your perspective, of course. But I've been inducted into the Circle of Elders of this community. Civilization spreads when people increase the radius of their Jive Circle. :)
I had no idea the moderators went to the trouble of correcting and improving posts. My heart goes out to you.I have no idea how many other moderators do this, if any. There's not much action on this subforum compared to almost all of the others. I find all of the threads interesting so I read them, something no one could do in Free Thoughts or World Events. That--and the fact that I worked my way through college as a typist plus the fact that lately I've been working as an editor--gives me the opportunity to be more hands-on, or perhaps some would call it despotic. :)

Oli

07-13-07, 11:52 AM

or perhaps some would call it despotic.

:runaway:

Go, Fraggle!

Ophiolite

07-14-07, 01:25 AM

Case in point:This is barely okay so far, but next time please speak in the third person, not the second. Ophi is not the only member who writes that way so there's on reason to single him (her?) out.This is a personal attack. Even in the third person it implies that we all agree with your reasoning, and we haven't even had a chance to comment on it. You could say just as easily and clearly, "Why should anyone bother to read posts that they find annoying and rude?" Please do so next time. .There is unlikely to be a next time. This is such a bizarre application of rules I shall simply ignore any thread you appear in.

Fraggle Rocker

07-14-07, 05:33 AM

There is unlikely to be a next time. This is such a bizarre application of rules I shall simply ignore any thread you appear in.I have apologized privately to Ophi for my bizarre application of the rules and I now repeat the apology in public. I grossly misunderstood Ophi's post and simply saw something that wasn't there--and even then I overreacted to it.

I hope Ophi--one of our most thoughtful and articulate members whose posts invariably add substance to the discussion--gives me another chance and doesn't really ignore any discussion in which I participate. On one of my more meddlesome days that would amount to a boycott of this entire subforum, and I would end up having deprived the other members of access to a lot of good ideas.

Grantywanty

07-14-07, 06:00 AM

That's a cheap shot, I spoke of them specifically early on.

[referring to dyslexics.]
I did not mean that you, personally, believed dyslexics were like this. But I feel the door is open given your sense of the intentions of sloppy writers. Dyslexia could be seen as a propensity towards one kind of barbaric behavior. My shot is much more aimed at the genetic determinist models out there and musing on how they might mix with your ideas about the meaning of sloppy writing. It was an afterthought. Not well integrated in the post. My apologies. I did remember your mentioning dyslexics not qualifying in the offender group.

Fraggle Rocker

07-14-07, 08:33 AM

[referring to dyslexics.]I did not mean that you, personally, believed dyslexics were like this. But I feel the door is open given your sense of the intentions of sloppy writers. Dyslexia could be seen as a propensity towards one kind of barbaric behavior. My shot is much more aimed at the genetic determinist models out there and musing on how they might mix with your ideas about the meaning of sloppy writing. It was an afterthought. Not well integrated in the post. My apologies. I did remember your mentioning dyslexics not qualifying in the offender group.No, it's still my turn to apologize. Apparently I was having a bad day yesterday with my brain stuck in second gear. Obviously I misunderstood your post as I misunderstood Ophi's.

When the subject comes up I always wonder whether dyslexics can spell better using a keyboard, since the visual cortex doesn't get involved until the operation is over. I wonder whether dyslexia is either a special case or an extreme case of a phenomenon we've covered on SciForums a few times: If you smarblce the lterets whiitn eervy wrod in a stenncee, tehn so lnog as all the rhgit oens are trehe wtih no eraxts, and jsut the frsit and lsat are in the rgiht pclae, eyrobedvy can raed it at asolmt nmaorl seped.

If any of you for whom English is a second language are reading this, or attempting to, I'd be curious to know whether it was as easy for you to read that scrambled sentence. I am positive I don't read Spanish the same way I read English, so I don't think I would be able to read even a simple sentence like that in Spanish very fast, if at all.

temur

07-14-07, 09:17 AM

It was considerably slower than reading a (almost) correctly spelled sentence. I just woke up from sleep but I spent several seconds to figure out what "eraxts" is.

Fraggle Rocker

07-14-07, 06:12 PM

It was considerably slower than reading a (almost) correctly spelled sentence. I just woke up from sleep but I spent several seconds to figure out what "eraxts" is.Thinking back on it, all of the examples I've seen had probably been carefully crafted to make sure all the words would be recognizable. Rather than tracking one of them down, I just took a sentence in my text and scrambled it myself. I didn't stop to think that "extras" is probably not a familiar word in most people's vocabulary. I lived in Hollywood for ten years, even had a friend who ran a business that provided extras for film shoots.

iceaura

07-14-07, 07:17 PM

If you smarblce the lterets whiitn eervy wrod in a stenncee, tehn so lnog as all the rhgit oens are trehe wtih no eraxts, and jsut the frsit and lsat are in the rgiht pclae, eyrobedvy can raed it at asolmt nmaorl seped Some investigation has convinced me that that is an artifact of the inadequate scrambling of "randomization" so constrained.

Smoe ignsttvaeiion has ccnnveiod me that that is an acfrtait of the idnqtaaeue sbclmnraig of "rdmntzaaiioon" so cnnrstaeiod.

My own tendency is to overlook spelling, unless deliberately obnoxious, and count serious punctuation errors more heavily against the writer. They obstruct comprehension. That ought to be anticipated.

Grantywanty

07-15-07, 09:05 AM

No, it's still my turn to apologize. Apparently I was having a bad day yesterday with my brain stuck in second gear. Obviously I misunderstood your post as I misunderstood Ophi's.

And I now have misunderstood your latest. I understand, I think, everything you said, but I can't see how it justifies apologizing to me. You'll have to connect the dots for me, such is the slowness of my mind. Or perhaps it was ironic - I tested this and I didn't 'get it' - but that, as implied above, does not contitute proof irony was not there.

Fraggle Rocker

07-15-07, 12:20 PM

I understand, I think, everything you said, but I can't see how it justifies apologizing to me.Never turn down an apology even if it seems spurious. Save it for the next time you wish you'd got one. :)

s0meguy

07-15-07, 05:47 PM

This is a forum for scientists and people who are interested in science. Writing was the key to all of modern science. People who haven't mastered the basics of writing are regarded with suspicion. Why haven't they done absolutely whatever it takes to achieve the universal standard minimal level of skill in this most important of technologies?

No, spelling errors shouldn't really matter as long as people can understand eachother. It's probably feelings of superiority combined with a bad mood which results in the desire to bitch at people, and this is a nice opportunity.

Fugu-dono

07-15-07, 07:31 PM

Typos are usually obvious and I don't care for. It's when people spell incorrectly or completely destroy grammar intentionally every bloody time they post that's annoying. Other than that I don't really care. People can abuse their '?' and '!' and '...' as much as they want frankly. It's find it normal that some people are more eccentric than others in the way they communicate and find ways to dituinguish themselves from others when they type. I just don't want to be reading post that tries to type out Snoop Doggy Dogg's lyric. I would just likely completely ignore those type of post.

cato

07-15-07, 07:45 PM

Why we are so critical of people who can't spell and punctuate
well rocker, if you try to spell AND punctuate a word, it would be very difficult for people to understand what you are saying! =]

Later,

Grantywanty

07-16-07, 03:28 AM

Never turn down an apology even if it seems spurious. Save it for the next time you wish you'd got one. :)

In humble ignorance I accept your apology and hope in the future you will not repeat whatever it was.

Oli

07-16-07, 04:50 AM

well rocker, if you try to spell AND punctuate a word, it would be very difficult for people to understand what you are saying! =]

Later,

It's difficult to read a word that's spelt and punctuated?

one_raven

07-16-07, 04:56 AM

You can use a wrench to beat a nail into a piece of wood, you can use a rock or you can use a hammer.
Which you decide to use, says something about the person you are.

Grantywanty

07-16-07, 06:41 AM

You can use a wrench to beat a nail into a piece of wood, you can use a rock or you can use a hammer.
Which you decide to use, says something about the person you are.

Or the values of the culture you are in. A hammer as far as I can tell simply works better. But communication can have varied intents and goals.

Two teenagers standing on a corner may use the most grammatically horrifying English (even to American listeners). Their pronounciation may also vary widely from what is considered the norm. Nevertheless they can be communicating extremely well given their intentions and culture. the language used to SMS in cellphones or in chatrooms would horrify most people here (at least if it were used here). On the other hand it works.

Grantywanty

07-16-07, 06:42 AM

It's difficult to read a word that's spelt and punctuated?

Can one punctuate a word?

Oli

07-16-07, 06:59 AM

Can one punctuate a word?

It's difficult to read a word that's spelt and punctuated?
:D

Fraggle Rocker

07-16-07, 09:52 AM

The language used to SMS in cellphones or in chatrooms would horrify most people here (at least if it were used here). On the other hand it works.To repeat a quote from a TV show that I've probably already posted on this thread:

"Nothing worth reading was ever written by a man who was trying to type with his thumbs."
Can one punctuate a word?Some SciForums members need to learn to punctuate the word "I." It's very easy to spell, but its one letter is capitalized. My spell checker always chides me for not punctuating "cliché" with the accent ague. And I don't really know whether I'm supposed to punctuate "accent ague" by putting it in italics. Is this still a French word or has it been assimilated? Like "cliche". :)

EmptyForceOfChi

07-16-07, 07:34 PM

You can use a wrench to beat a nail into a piece of wood, you can use a rock or you can use a hammer.
Which you decide to use, says something about the person you are.

:) i love the comparison, you got married right? if i remember right it was in july?

and my weapon of choice has alway been the rock. crude but it gets the job done .

peace.

one_raven

07-16-07, 09:23 PM

:) i love the comparison, you got married right? if i remember right it was in july?
Thanks.
June 30th.

and my weapon of choice has alway been the rock. crude but it gets the job done .

peace.

I like to think I have an assorted set of tools in my belt - each with their own purpose(s).

Fugu-dono

07-16-07, 09:32 PM

^Do you carry kryptonite in your belt in case you wanna kick Superman's ass Batman?

one_raven

07-16-07, 09:35 PM

^Do you carry kryptonite in your belt in case you wanna kick Superman's ass Batman?

There should be a comma after your ass.

Fugu-dono

07-16-07, 09:58 PM

^It's the internet ne. Take it easy. What's your answer by the way?

one_raven

07-16-07, 10:10 PM

What's your answer by the way?

I don't carry much Kryptonite in there - just a bit.
Maybe someday I'll get more.

Ophiolite

07-16-07, 10:21 PM

I have apologized privately to Ophi for my bizarre application of the rules and I now repeat the apology in public. I grossly misunderstood Ophi's post and simply saw something that wasn't there--and even then I overreacted to it.

I hope Ophi--one of our most thoughtful and articulate members whose posts invariably add substance to the discussion--gives me another chance and doesn't really ignore any discussion in which I participate. On one of my more meddlesome days that would amount to a boycott of this entire subforum, and I would end up having deprived the other members of access to a lot of good ideas.
Thank you for your magnanimous and gentlemanly apology, both public and private. For my own part I shall attempt to make my use of rhetorical devices somewhat more unambiguous.
Regards
Ophiolite

Ophiolite

07-16-07, 10:23 PM

Can one punctuate a word?If you are a follower of Gould and Eldridge you can punctuate equilibrium.;)

Grantywanty

07-17-07, 02:17 AM

It's difficult to read a word that's spelt and punctuated?
:D

Well, duh. (aimed at me)

Grantywanty

07-17-07, 02:19 AM

If you are a follower of Gould and Eldridge you can punctuate equilibrium.;)

Excellent.

Grantywanty

07-17-07, 02:30 AM

"Nothing worth reading was ever written by a man who was trying to type with his thumbs."

I enjoy that quote, each time. However, I doubt it´s true. Sooner or later a book of great SMSes will be published and some of them will be as good as that quote and in context, perhaps better. (I recently had a collection of great blog texts shoved in my hands and I was really rather impressed. Here´s the thing: the sometimes very good writing in these blogs tended to have a different aesthetic from book texts. They had a more spontaneous feel, were more conversational and probably would have been sent back to the author, especially by British publishing houses.)

I think there is a constant battle between those who think language must be perfect as an object and those more tribally oriented (in whatever sense) who view language much more as expressive and/or part of an ephemeral process.

I read EmptyForceOfChi´s posts without a problem. I don´t stutter my way through them. I certainly don´t think he is saying something about me or society (that upsets me, in any case) with the form of his posts.

This does not mean you should like them or even read them, moderator role set to the side for a moment.

The posts I do skip are often fairly well written. They just make my head hurt. They simply don´t know how to communicate, but the issues are at higher levels of complexity than spelling and grammar.

But I feel like I am repeating myself, so I´ll

Hip Hop Skeptic

07-18-07, 01:36 PM

It's just another way for people to show off how much smarter they are then someone else. They think they are clever when they do it. And sometimes it's funny.

Fraggle Rocker

07-18-07, 04:49 PM

It's just another way for people to show off how much smarter they are then someone else.Not smarter. More educated. That's a really big difference. People don't have much control over their intelligence. But your level of education is almost entirely the result of your own choices, at least in the western world and at least up to a two-year college degree.

Hip Hop Skeptic

07-19-07, 10:17 AM

Not smarter. More educated. That's a really big difference. People don't have much control over their intelligence. But your level of education is almost entirely the result of your own choices, at least in the western world and at least up to a two-year college degree.

Yea but it is just casual online talk. Just because some1 does not spell things right or use proper punctuation does not mean they are not capable of it.

Maybe they just don't feel it is important or are too lazy to use it.

You can have an mba, master or whatever and still not spell well on here.

Nasor

07-19-07, 10:37 AM

Fraggle Rocker

07-19-07, 11:02 AM

Yea but it is just casual online talk. Just because some1 does not spell things right or use proper punctuation does not mean they are not capable of it. Maybe they just don't feel it is important or are too lazy to use it. You can have an mba, master or whatever and still not spell well on here.I'm not disputing that. I understand it and I consciously make allowances for it. But my point, and the reason I started this thread, is that not everyone performs that analysis consciously. Language is such a basic component of human nature--after all it's one of the things that makes us human--that a large part of our reaction to someone is based on the way they use the ancient technology of language.

People don't all have control over how they react to sloppy writing, but people do have control over whether they write sloppily.

As for laziness and whether it's "important," Pareto's Law is fine: just put in ten percent of the effort and eliminate ninety percent of the annoying errors. As I have said several times--in this thread alone--it only takes a fraction of a second to use the Shift key diligently, but it makes writing enormously easier to read. E.g., to write "MBA" instead of "mba", which I stumbled over and had to go back and read twice. My brain's first guess was to interpret it as a misspelled word, not an acronym.

Every tenth of a second you save by writing too fast and too sloppy probably wastes a full second of each reader's time. Multiply that by the number of people whom you hope will read your post. In a year of posting you've wasted so much of the membership's time that they never got around to reading some other poor guy's posts. So it's a discourtesy to everyone.

Grantywanty

07-19-07, 11:11 AM

Hip Hop Skeptic

07-19-07, 11:17 AM

I'm not disputing that. I understand it and I consciously make allowances for it. But my point, and the reason I started this thread, is that not everyone performs that analysis consciously. Language is such a basic component of human nature--after all it's one of the things that makes us human--that a large part of our reaction to someone is based on the way they use the ancient technology of language.

People don't all have control over how they react to sloppy writing, but people do have control over whether they write sloppily.

As for laziness and whether it's "important," Pareto's Law is fine: just put in ten percent of the effort and eliminate ninety percent of the annoying errors. As I have said several times--in this thread alone--it only takes a fraction of a second to use the Shift key diligently, but it makes writing enormously easier to read. E.g., to write "MBA" instead of "mba", which I stumbled over and had to go back and read twice. My brain's first guess was to interpret it as a misspelled word, not an acronym.

Every tenth of a second you save by writing too fast and too sloppy probably wastes a full second of each reader's time. Multiply that by the number of people whom you hope will read your post. In a year of posting you've wasted so much of the membership's time that they never got around to reading some other poor guy's posts. So it's a discourtesy to everyone.

Never thought of it that in depth. I agree with some of what you are saying. If the message is lost because of poor grammar and stuff then it is a problem.

But if it is still fully understandable I personally do not see a problem with it.

I do sometimes think the person is not too educated if their writing is terrible. Even though I am the one who said it may or may not be true.

So I do see your point. But I also think that it is a bigger deal to you than me, it's something you obviously see as very important.

Personal preference I guess.

Fraggle Rocker

07-19-07, 01:55 PM

Basic grammar and punctuation is something that people are supposed to learn in high school (at the latest). I have the same lack of respect for people who don't understand the basics of writing that I would have for someone who couldn’t do simple algebra, or who was lacking any of the other basic skills that people are supposed to be reasonably proficient at by the time they turn 16.I try to reserve my disrespect for people who are the way they are because of choices they've made, rather than being born that way and having no control over it. There are lots and lots of people who just flat do not have the cognitive ability to learn algebra. I encountered them when I was tutoring. Serious, determined people, they can do arithmetic but they just can't comprehend that next level. My mother was one. She tried hard and ended up crying. My father and I were both very articulate, patient explainers, and we had two much different styles, yet neither of us could get through, on top of all of her teachers.

But the percentage of the human race who are cognitively incapable of mastering the art of writing is much tinier than that. I used to work for a company that hired the mentally handicapped to work in the mail room--because they could read and write just fine. These are people whose IQs were so low that they couldn't get a U.S. driver's license, and if you've ever been on an American road you know what that means. My mother could write well and fast, and had a good vocabulary.

Many people who can't do algebra simply can't do algebra, and in my own personal value system they should be excused. But most people who can't write well just don't give a damn. They were too busy playing videogames or getting stoned when the rest of you were learning to spell.

Ripley

07-20-07, 05:00 AM

Alternative typography is really quite interesting—something that wouldn't have been appreciated before the digital age. http://www.i-dmagazine.com/previews/251/home.htm (http://www.i-dmagazine.com/previews/251/home.htm) Suddenly, it's alright to be eccentric with one's delivery. In fact, it's interesting—and refreshing. But not for stuffy academia, right?

Fraggle Rocker

07-20-07, 08:22 AM

Alternative typography is really quite interesting—something that wouldn't have been appreciated before the digital age. Suddenly, it's alright to be eccentric with one's delivery. In fact, it's interesting—and refreshing. But not for stuffy academia, right?Hey, you're talking to an old hippie here. (Well except for the fact that I had a job and a home anyway.) I have always valued eccentricity. Eccentrics want to be noticed and appreciated, so they take care to ensure that they can be understood. Alternative typography is fine. It's crafted to strike a good balance between impact and reading difficulty. The insult, profundity or sheer entertainment value in the message entices us into patience with the font or the spelling. The eccentric is paying his respects to us in his own eccentric way, saying precociously, "Trust me, this is worth the trouble."

The SciForums poster who fails to hit the Shift key with the hand that isn't typing, because he's too frelling lazy to learn to use the keyboard that he'll spend 75% of the rest of his life huddled over, is disrespecting us. He's not offering us any inducement to put up with the inconvenence. He's not distinguishing the quality or content of his post from the "stuffy academic" ones that don't give us eyestrain. This is an error in typography, not an alternative typography. This is selfishness, not eccentricity.

I'm not talking about "How r u" or "Je$u$ sells." I'm talking about "whydid i Flunk out the mba Pogrom?"

Oli

07-20-07, 11:44 AM

" I'm talking about "whydid i Flunk out the mba Pogrom?"

Hmmm, there's an idea: MBA pogrom! :D

Pandaemoni

07-20-07, 12:04 PM

I used to criticize people for their grammar, mostly because I was (and still am) an English language fanboy. It bothers me when I think I see people using the language poorly simply because they are too lazy to have learned the proper construction. It was very much the same indignation I felt when an article comparing Star Wars and Lord of the Rings on Salon.com referred to Luke Skywalker's "Uncle Otis."

I have, however, come to realize that it is silly for a person as prone to typos as I am to react so strongly to the "incorrect" grammar of others. I've also come to appreciate more fully that the grammar and spelling I love is somewhat artificial. The greatness of the English language comes in part from the fluidity it has had throughout its history and the rigid rules that have cropped up (mostly since the 19th century) that I perceive as "proper" are often the enemy of that fluidity.

In my more wistful moments, though, I still wish that more people would learn to use the subjunctive mood.

Ophiolite

07-20-07, 06:08 PM

The greatness of the English language comes in part from the fluidity it has had throughout its history and the rigid rules that have cropped up (mostly since the 19th century) that I perceive as "proper" are often the enemy of that fluidity. Yet that fluidity is based upon adherence to a set of meta-rules, so that the neologisms and novel grammatical structures are still comprehensible. The objections that many of us have (including, I think, yourself) is that some writers introduce random, inconsistent, incoherent, undirected, incomprehensible novelty that is not original, merely different.

Fraggle Rocker

07-21-07, 01:03 AM

In my more wistful moments, though, I still wish that more people would learn to use the subjunctive mood.But it's a broken paradigm. It only exists for the verb "to be." The past subjunctive only has a distinct form in the singular, "were," and the present subjunctive only has a distinctive form in the second and third person, "be." That's more of a relic than a useful tool, one of those things we hang onto just to confound foreign students. :) Portuguese has complete inflected conjugations of present, imperfect and future subjunctive, for all verbs, for all six persons. Now that's a tool.

Ripley

07-22-07, 01:54 AM

Hey, you're talking to an old hippie here. (Well except for the fact that I had a job and a home anyway.) I have always valued eccentricity. Eccentrics want to be noticed and appreciated, so they take care to ensure that they can be understood. Alternative typography is fine. It's crafted to strike a good balance between impact and reading difficulty. The insult, profundity or sheer entertainment value in the message entices us into patience with the font or the spelling. The eccentric is paying his respects to us in his own eccentric way, saying precociously, "Trust me, this is worth the trouble."

No, that's not quite how I meant it.

Designers are in the vanguard of keenly understanding symbolic functions, thereby taking things a step further outside their conventional limits by applying optional potentials—not by applying ad hoc arrangements within limits.

And it is with this same understanding of symbolic functions outside their limits that these functions must also, by right, adhere to their purpose: this is basic and taken for granted—not for the wish to be "understood" by the masses.

To be "understood" is a different matter altogether, derived from a challenge being waged between purpose and abstract content—that is, if the designer understands what he's doing, then so should an audience.

And each designer has his own method of approach, his own limits, his own understanding of penetrating the conventional. That's what I meant by alternative typography being interesting and refreshing: it stimulates participation.

Inotherwords, good writing doesn't necessarily go by the book.

Oli

07-22-07, 05:57 AM

Inotherwords, good writing doesn't necessarily go by the book.

Exactly what Fraggle was saying:

The eccentric is paying his respects to us in his own eccentric way, saying precociously, "Trust me, this is worth the trouble."

The point being that someone who knows exactly what they're writing CAN afford to use unfamiliar syntax/ grammar/ spelling - it can reinforce the message.
But do you believe the majority of writers here on SF (or anywhere else for that matter) are mis-spelling words/ using bad grammar out of stylistic considerations or laziness/ lack of knowledge?

Ripley

07-22-07, 12:49 PM

Exactly what Fraggle was sayingI think not. Fraggle was emphasizing, or at least that was the impression I got, a relationship between the designer/typographer and the public. I attempted to ignore the public completely. I mean, whenever the public's inclination comes into play, everything turns dull. Duuuuhll. Even the best dialogues turn duuuuhll.

The point being that someone who knows exactly what they're writing CAN afford to use unfamiliar syntax/ grammar/ spelling - it can reinforce the message.That's not exactly the point I was emphasizing, though; although you're right too. Just as certain forms of freestyle poetry can take it upon themselves to intimidate the rules, modern writing can also deviate—not merely by the person behind the typography, as though it were a whimsical act perpetrated by eccentricity alone, but because typography allows for it. That's the point I'm making; that there's a potential for the written word, something that can be exploited beyond the standards. Hence the typographer/designer exploring the potential of letter forms, sentence structure, function and effect.

But do you believe the majority of writers here on SF (or anywhere else for that matter) are mis-spelling words/ using bad grammar out of stylistic considerations or laziness/ lack of knowledge?I wasn't so much interested in that point because Grantywanty (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1471605&postcount=18) already addressed that quite adequately I thought, thank you very much. I merely hopped on board when everything else had already been more or less discussed.

However, note that whenever I played around with form and effect and sentence structure here at Sciforums, I no sooner got spat on for being illiterate.

Oli

07-22-07, 01:00 PM

That's the point I'm making; that there's a potential for the written word, something that can be exploited beyond the standards. Hence the typographer/designer exploring the potential of letter forms, sentence structure, function and effect.

Have you read "Le Ton Beau de Marot" by Hofstadter - he goes into a lot of this.
He typeset the entire book himself, while writing it.

Fraggle Rocker

07-22-07, 05:58 PM

However, note that whenever I played around with form and effect and sentence structure here at Sciforums, I no sooner got spat on for being illiterate.By me? I hope I'm more sophisticated than that. :)

But if you get that a lot, it just means you're practicing your art for the wrong crowd. Some people don't have much of a sense of humor, some (like me) don't catch sarcasm, and others don't see the subtlety in writing style. Remember, half the people here, no matter how smart they are, are still children.

Pandaemoni

07-24-07, 05:45 PM

Another post has just reminded me of an additional pet peeve of mine, people confusing "then" and "than" in constructions like "I'd rather go fishing then go camping."

If you prefer to fish instead of camp, use "than." If you want to go camping after fishing, use "then."

I save my mini-rant for this thread, as I'm sure the posters who make such mistakes do not care.

Orleander

07-24-07, 05:49 PM

than its a good thing this thread was here, because you get to feel less stressed than you used to by ranting. :)

Grantywanty

07-25-07, 02:21 AM

I save my mini-rant for this thread, as I'm sure ....

I find the use of the present simple here rather strange.

Past simple: I saved my mini-rant...
Future with plural: I'll save my minirants...

Both of these seem clearer to me.

Pandaemoni

07-25-07, 10:07 AM

I find the use of the present simple here rather strange.

Past simple: I saved my mini-rant...
Future with plural: I'll save my minirants...

Both of these seem clearer to me.

It should have been "saved." It was a typo.

Fraggle Rocker

07-25-07, 03:59 PM

It should have been "saved." It was a typo.You're supposed to say, "I'm a novelist. I'm practicing writing in the present tense. It's a technique." :)

Ripley

07-31-07, 12:11 AM

i like the way gustav writes

/snort

Grantywanty

07-31-07, 03:16 AM

You're supposed to say, "I'm a novelist. I'm practicing writing in the present tense. It's a technique." :)

Oh, thank God, I knew things would loosen up. My posts from now on will be written in the style of James Joyce and e.e. cummings. The latter is not a novelist, of course, but door was ajar.

lucifers angel

08-01-07, 07:20 AM

Ripley

08-01-07, 07:39 AM

Besides - any professional writing intended for publication will be thoroughly edited and proof-read by the publisher. I heard from a publisher that often times a piece will be proof-read over and over again by a line-up of proof readers, passing the item from one to the next. Also, people will hire ghost writers and writing technicians—writing is a serious professional occupation.

Fraggle Rocker

08-01-07, 12:24 PM

Why haven't they done absolutely whatever it takes to achieve the universal standard minimal level of skill in this most important of technologies?
Because some people dont want to!!That's no answer. That's just a "duh." Obviously we're talking about people who haven't mastered written language because they don't want to, not the unfortunates who lack the intelligence or opportunity.

What makes a person look out at the world and see that written language is the technology that underlies all of civilization, the skill by which all people are judged, the ability that is essential to an ever-larger majority of non-menial jobs, and say, "What the heck, I'd just as soon show the whole human race that I'm just not responsible enough to learn to be good at that"?

Nasor

08-01-07, 03:41 PM

There are lots and lots of people who just flat do not have the cognitive ability to learn algebra.
Learning basic algebra is a simple matter of memorization. You can do it even if you don't really understand why it works. Hardly any actual thought is required - you just have to remember a few simply rules on how to set up the problems.

one_raven

08-06-07, 02:25 AM

Why Punctiuation is Everything (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1496518&posted=1#post1496518)

Hapsburg

08-06-07, 07:58 AM

Maybe they're just lazy? I know I am.

Only through years of being on forums with tons of grammar-nazis has formed me into the mould of a man who thinks first, "spell well, jackass".

Maybe these guys you speak of just haven't been on long enough.

John99

08-10-07, 04:45 AM

I can spell pretty good but i cannot punctuate. mostly i just guess. i was taken out of school in the fifth grade. i learned from the internet. the main problem is that when i write i cannot make distinctions as to where these:

; : '"

things go. Even when i read paragraphs containing them they do not mean anything to me.

one_raven

08-10-07, 05:18 AM

Why were you taken out of school?
You learned everything yourself?
Did you not have tutors or anything?

John99

08-10-07, 06:48 AM

Why were you taken out of school?
You learned everything yourself?
Did you not have tutors or anything?

I had problems from day one. I peed on the floor and threw my shoes in the garbage can.

Fraggle Rocker

08-10-07, 06:52 AM

I can spell pretty good but i cannot punctuate. mostly i just guess. i was taken out of school in the fifth grade. i learned from the internet.Well then that's your problem. :) It's not easy to learn good writing skills from the internet. For one thing, it's an international community, so you're reading things written by people whose command of English ranges from minimal to university scholars. For another, even well-educated native speakers get pretty sloppy on internet forums.

You have mastered the first lesson in punctuation: You know that every sentence must start with a capital letter and end with a period. That puts you ahead of some of our other members.

Today's lesson: The pronoun "I" is always capitalized. No exceptions! That includes the contractions "I'm" and "I've". It's easier to learn things if you get a little background with them. Capitalizing "I" makes English unique among all languages and identifies us anglophones (native speakers of English) as rather rude and self-centered. Many languages do just the opposite and capitalize the word for "you" as a form of politeness.

Work on one thing at a time and start with capitalizing "I".

The next lesson may be the comma. Study this by reading something out loud that was written well--a newspaper article or a novel, not some of our internet junk. Look at the commas and notice that you pause very slightly at the same point in the sentence where you find the comma. The whole purpose of punctuation is to compensate for the fact that spoken language has much more to it than words: pauses, pitch, speed, loudness. All of these features are expressive. We try to make up for the lack of them in writing by using punctuation marks. The comma stands for a little pause between words.

Keep in touch. We'll help. :)

one_raven

08-10-07, 06:54 AM

I had problems from day one. I peed on the floor and threw my shoes in the garbage can.

So they kicked you out and never took you back?
No other school would take you either?
Did you have tutors?
Did your parents home school?

John99

08-11-07, 02:24 AM

So they kicked you out and never took you back?
No other school would take you either?
Did you have tutors?
Did your parents home school?

I don't think they kick you out of kindergarten. From fifth grade on i did my own thing, that was it, i had had it.

Fraggle Rocker

08-11-07, 07:43 AM

In the USA it's virtually impossible for a child to escape government-enforced institutional schooling, even if he lives in the Neolithic regions of Alabama or West Virginia. Up through age 16, or maybe a couple of years younger in the Neolithic. Exceptions are made for tutors, as is common with child entertainers and the occasional unruly rich kid, and for home-schooling. In both cases government monitoring is rather intensive. Things aren't much different in the other Anglophone countries, which don't have Neolithic regions.

This is starting to sound like a work of fiction. I notice John writes to a much higher standard on our other subforums. :)

Baron Max

08-11-07, 12:04 PM

In the USA it's virtually impossible for a child to escape government-enforced institutional schooling, ...

Oh, com'on, Fraggle, surely you don't really believe that, do you?????

Many kids just quit going to school ..and some have never even been in a school ...and there's virtually nothing that the "government" can do about it. Thousands, perhaps millions, of kids just stop going to school ...and only a few records indicate it ...and virtually nothing is done about it.

That you don't know that is .....frankly, amazing to me! From your posts, I thought you knew everything, and then some. Then you come up with this bullshit.

Baron Max

Fraggle Rocker

08-11-07, 05:21 PM

Many kids just quit going to school ..and some have never even been in a school ...and there's virtually nothing that the "government" can do about it. Thousands, perhaps millions, of kids just stop going to school ...and only a few records indicate it ...and virtually nothing is done about it.Max, I said "virtually" impossible. In a land of three hundred million people, "thousands" is a credible estimate, even "tens of thousands." You say "perhaps millions," which implies at least many hundreds of thousands. I'm willing to grant the possibility of a tenth of a percent of the population--300,000 people who managed to drop out of school before age 16 and got away with it. I think that qualifies as "virtually impossible" and puts our estimates close enough not to bicker. It also explains why I've never met one, why my wife who was a social worker for half of her life never had that on her agenda, why my dozen or more intimate friends who are teachers or other professionals in the educational establishment never included it on their list of problems, and why in 35 years of reading the ultra-leftist L.A. Times every day I never saw one article about what they would have trumpeted as a CRISIS IN EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT IS NOT POWERFUL ENOUGH AND SHOULD RAISE TAXES!

Baron Max

08-11-07, 06:28 PM

Max, I said "virtually" impossible.

Hmm, I must be misinformed about the term "virtually impossible". I always thought it meant that it was completely, totally, absolutely impossible.

Has English changed that much over the last few years?

Baron Max

Ophiolite

08-13-07, 05:57 AM

It seems you were misiniformed. The usage of 'virtually impossible' I am familiar with would render it as 'practically impossible'.
In case you have also been misinformed on the usage of 'practically impossible' it is best equated to 'really, really, unlikely, so you wouldn't want to waste betting even a dime on the odds that it actaully happened, but then again sometimes really weird things do'.

Captain Kremmen

08-13-07, 06:39 AM

Hmm, I must be misinformed about the term "virtually impossible". I always thought it meant that it was completely, totally, absolutely impossible.

Has English changed that much over the last few years?

Baron Max

If something has no possibility of occurring then that is "literally impossible".
People mistakenly use that phrase in place of "almost impossible".

"Practically impossible" should convey the meaning that something can be done but that the effort to do it is so great that it is not worth doing.
Again people use it as an alternative to "almost impossible"

I use "virtually impossible" myself to mean "almost impossible", but there is probably another shade of meaning.

Ophiolite

08-13-07, 08:11 AM

The distinctions between these can best be conveyed in this sentence.

"It is virtually impossible to get Baron Max to agree with you, but impossible to become concerned by that. It is literally impossible that Baron Max will be able to resist at least the thought of commenting on these observations."

Fraggle Rocker

08-13-07, 08:33 AM

Hmm, I must be misinformed about the term "virtually impossible". I always thought it meant that it was completely, totally, absolutely impossible. Has English changed that much over the last few years?Look up the adverb "virtually." It allows for exceptions. The whole point of putting a modifier in front of an absolute word like "impossible" is to modify it.The performance was virtually flawless. There were some barely noticeable intonation problems in the brass section. The food at Sam's Bistro was virtually inedible. It did not actually make me throw up. President Bush is virtually incapable of telling a joke. Occasionally he does so unintentionally by mangling his sentences.People grumble about the prevalence of "nearly unique." They say "uniqueness" is absolute, it's either there or it's not. And they miss the point, because adverbs like "nearly" allow us to express relative conditions using absolute words.
If something has no possibility of occurring then that is "literally impossible". People mistakenly use that phrase in place of "almost impossible".On a scientific website like ours, it should be enough to just say "impossible" when we mean "not possible." People say things like "I literally fell over laughing" as in intensifer, in a situation where we know dadgum well that they did not fall over since there are no Band-Aids. Their command of the language is insufficient to express to us why the situation was so funny, so instead they express to us how they reacted to it. We can forgo the criticism and simply pity them for their inarticulateness. :)

But "literally impossible" should be equivalent "truly impossible, I mean it, not just the American legal definition of 'true beyond a reasonable doubt'." Obviously the word "literal" is losing its meaning and will soon need to be supplanted by something stronger.
I use "virtually impossible" myself to mean "almost impossible", but there is probably another shade of meaning.Hmmm. My sociolinguistic group uses "virtually" as a stronger modifier than "almost." "Almost impossible" to us means, "There are people out there who have dropped out of school and gotten away with it and you may meet one, but this won't happen in any of your friends' families because you're all perfect parents." "Virtually impossible" means, "There are people out there who have dropped out of school and gotten away with it, but they're so rare that the L.A. Times can't find a poster child for the phenomenon to put on the front page."

Grantywanty

08-13-07, 07:21 PM

People say things like "I literally fell over laughing" as in intensifer, in a situation where we know dadgum well that they did not fall over since there are no Band-Aids. Their command of the language is insufficient to express to us why the situation was so funny, so instead they express to us how they reacted to it. We can forgo the criticism and simply pity them for their inarticulateness. :)

See, I think this is unfair and unnecessarily smug. Where I would draw the line of course would probably make me uncomfortable with my own smugness, but that's another issue.

1) you could look at the use of 'literally' as an intensifier - of a very specific type I would argue - as a kind of trope.

2) language is not logical and does not evolve logically. Meanings change through misinterpretations and we all use words in ways that go against earlier meanings and the 'literal' roots of the words. Those people are simply participating and adding to a trend of meaning and use change of literally. A change that will become, probably, accepted. Words change and shift and disappear and return and get borrow from other languages and mangled.

3) I think that 'literally' when used in situations where whatever is referred to did not literally happen is not simply a neutral intensifier but rather speaks to a phenomenological truth and literalness. It felt like I could fall over. It was laughter of such intensity that I might very well have fallen over.

Does the person who 'misuses' 'literally' in the way you described communicate effectively? Yes, they do. Their listeners are rarely misled. If they are communicating effectively, can we really say they are inarticulate? Language is for us.

Fraggle Rocker

08-13-07, 09:29 PM

Captain Kremmen

08-14-07, 12:05 AM

Yeah, okay, so I'm smug. But you see the problem with illogical evolution of language. On the one hand I've got Max telling me to tighten up my definition of "virtually," on the other you're telling me to loosen up my definition of "literally." :)

Literally:
"According to the primitive import of words"- Dr Johnson's dictionary 1768

is going the way of Nice:
"Scrupulously and minutely cautious" -Dr Johnson's dictionary 1768

Don't be cowed. Make a stand now!

Ophiolite

08-14-07, 05:32 AM

That's literally a nice point. (Sometimes Chris, you're impossible.:))

Captain Kremmen

08-14-07, 09:10 AM

That's literally a nice point. (Sometimes Chris, you're impossible.:))

I'm open to modern interpretations. 1768 was the 3rd edition!

(I am joking. Though DJ's dictionary is online now from google, and an accepted definition of a basic vocabulary might be useful. )

Will try to add a link.

lucifers angel

08-14-07, 11:18 AM

Grammar is spelled g-r-a-m-m-a-r. ;) :)

also you've got to take into account the differant spellings for differant countries:

colour: Bristish
Color: American

Grantywanty

08-14-07, 12:10 PM

Yeah, okay, so I'm smug. But you see the problem with illogical evolution of language. On the one hand I've got Max telling me to tighten up my definition of "virtually," on the other you're telling me to loosen up my definition of "literally." :)

I sympathize. But here's the thing: literally, I did not tell you to do this. I reacted to you judging others for using it in a way you didn't like. And that's not splitting hairs. I would not (literally or metaphorically) track your usage of the word and decide you were using it in too limited a fashion. I think it's fine the way you use it. I also think that Baron Max was incorrect, not simply being judgemental or fussy.

As far as illogical evolution of language: I don't think we have another option. It is not as if we have a base of logic and we have recently strayed. We used metaphors in all their cultural oddness, misplaced specificity and loose-fitting creativity to build up most of the language we take for granted as rational. And this base evolved in at times logical extentions but also often in illogical or sloppy extensions or substitutions. I mean, that is language.

Or course I would also react with fussiness to certain developments. I have never liked 'impact' as a verb and other business world jargon with all its attendant 'cool' and smarmy positiveness. In fact many of the business terms (and the fads that go with them) are irritating, especially if they arise in non-business contexts. I almost feel like a relgious fundamentalist fearing the infectious qualities of certain words.

(I wish I could mention some other example, but my internal editor is not letting any of these terms up. Perhaps I should start a thread on business terms that ruin the language.)

Anyway, you clearly know enough about a wide range of areas of knowledge to justify the occasional smugness. I wish I was as thorough in many of the same realms and yet I am no stranger to smugness.

Grantywanty

08-14-07, 12:13 PM

What about Wittgenstein's 'meaning is use'?
If it works, isn't it ok?

Fraggle Rocker

08-14-07, 03:04 PM

As far as illogical evolution of language: I don't think we have another option.Oh I agree, sorry if I gave a different impression. Logic is neat and orderly, but the illogical roots of any language are often what makes it charming.
In fact many of the business terms (and the fads that go with them) are irritating, especially if they arise in non-business contexts.I hope you organize Buzzword Bingo and pass out the cards at your staff meetings. :) The law of averages occasionally comes up with one of those coinages that communicates something and is worth keeping. I rather like the image of "thinking outside the box," and the slogan "work smarter, not harder" should be printed on our money, now that the average American work week has crept back up to the 50 hours it was a century ago and all we've got to show for that herculean effort are products like Windows.
What about Wittgenstein's 'meaning is use'? If it works, isn't it ok?No, precisely because it's not a yes-no question. How well does it work? Even the worst rap lyrics with their 300-word vocabulary manage to communicate something.

Grantywanty

08-15-07, 08:06 AM

No, precisely because it's not a yes-no question. How well does it work? Even the worst rap lyrics with their 300-word vocabulary manage to communicate something.

Good point about it not being a yes, no question, but in the case at hand I think it's a pretty clear yes.

Someone uses 'literally' as an intensifier. The listener does not get confused. Especially in most contexts where it is used this way.

And let's take a moment to look at other potential intensifiers:

really - "It was really funny." Well, of course it was 'real' so what is the person 'really' trying to say.
incredibly - "He was incredibly _________" Actually I can believe that he was that __________. And you seem to believe it. Hmm.
truly - this is strange, the speaker is emphasizing that what they are saying is true. Or are they a platonic person, saying that the concrete instance was near the ideal form?

and so on.

Chatha

08-15-07, 09:04 AM

Fraggle Rocker

08-15-07, 03:26 PM

If people can't spell today, its only going to get worse. These days school papers, resumes, E-mails, e.t.c are done with computers, which by the way has spell and punctuation checkers. I once had a biology teacher who emphasized we write our paper and even...get this, our lab report with our hands and with a pencil. It was supposed to encourage proper grammar and spelling but others would argue it was archaic.I'm sure I've said this in an earlier post on this long-winded thread. Of all the languages that use phonetic writing systems, I believe that English and French are tied for the lowest correlation between spelling and pronunciation. English spelling is a hard enough study for seven-year olds with their agile brains; it is positively daunting for adults who are not native speakers.

As the world continues to shrink and America continues to become home to a greater number of immigants--who we shrilly insist must learn our language or be marginalized--we're going to have to do something about this problem.

Spell checkers are a promising technology, although they have a habit of guessing the wrong word and we have a habit of writing a perfectly good word that just isn't the right one. (BTW, yours would have caught your mangling of "etc.", a simple abbreviation of Latin et cetera, "and the rest". :))

In the long run we're going to have to face this problem. Many languages normalized their rules for spelling during the 19th century, including German and Italian. Others did it earlier. The rules for Spanish and Czech, for example, are very straightforward and easy to use. The last time this was done for English was, IIRC, before Shakespeare.