Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Ayatollah Buggeri

Why Is Worrying About Written English Considered Snobbish?

Recommended Posts

From the misogyny thread:

****** me, you stoop low when you are interested in the spelling.

Why? Written communication was standardised for a reason: to enable it to take place accurately, flexibly and efficiently. There are academics who make their living trying to work out what writers were trying to say before around the early c19, largely because spelling, grammar, punctuation and syntax were less standardised, and therefore deciphering what people were trying to write can be a difficult and time consuming task.

I'm getting increasingly annoyed at the tactic of those who have been inadequately educated or just haven't bothered to learn, of condemning anyone who cares about the standard of written presentation as 'grammar (and/or spelling) Nazis'. I'm certainly not strung up enough to have a go at any minor typo on an Internet blog site, but when someone makes a polemical statement or strongly criticises someone else using semi-literate prose, I would argue that the standard of their written English is usually a pretty good indication of the validity of their statement.

Has the loss of our collective self respect (e.g. chavs in Latvia, etc.) gone so far that we can't even be bothered to use our own language with care and pride?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From the misogyny thread:

Why? Written communication was standardised for a reason: to enable it to take place accurately, flexibly and efficiently.

Has the loss of our collective self respect (e.g. chavs in Latvia, etc.) gone so far that we can't even be bothered to use our own language with care and pride?

100% agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From the misogyny thread:

Why? Written communication was standardised for a reason: to enable it to take place accurately, flexibly and efficiently. There are academics who make their living trying to work out what writers were trying to say before around the early c19, largely because spelling, grammar, punctuation and syntax were less standardised, and therefore deciphering what people were trying to write can be a difficult and time consuming task.

I'm getting increasingly annoyed at the tactic of those who have been inadequately educated or just haven't bothered to learn, of condemning anyone who cares about the standard of written presentation as 'grammar (and/or spelling) Nazis'. I'm certainly not strung up enough to have a go at any minor typo on an Internet blog site, but when someone makes a polemical statement or strongly criticises someone else using semi-literate prose, I would argue that the standard of their written English is usually a pretty good indication of the validity of their statement.

Has the loss of our collective self respect (e.g. chavs in Latvia, etc.) gone so far that we can't even be bothered to use our own language with care and pride?

Why do you assume that all the posters are English born and have a full grasp of the lingo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From the misogyny thread:

Why? Written communication was standardised for a reason: to enable it to take place accurately, flexibly and efficiently. There are academics who make their living trying to work out what writers were trying to say before around the early c19, largely because spelling, grammar, punctuation and syntax were less standardised, and therefore deciphering what people were trying to write can be a difficult and time consuming task.

I'm getting increasingly annoyed at the tactic of those who have been inadequately educated or just haven't bothered to learn, of condemning anyone who cares about the standard of written presentation as 'grammar (and/or spelling) Nazis'. I'm certainly not strung up enough to have a go at any minor typo on an Internet blog site, but when someone makes a polemical statement or strongly criticises someone else using semi-literate prose, I would argue that the standard of their written English is usually a pretty good indication of the validity of their statement.

Has the loss of our collective self respect (e.g. chavs in Latvia, etc.) gone so far that we can't even be bothered to use our own language with care and pride?

Your nagging upsets me so much i am considering enrolling in english reading and writing classes at the local library as i left school at 17 and have forgotten so much since then.

But then i think who gives a damn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do you assume that all the posters are English born and have a full grasp of the lingo?

I think we would make allowances for those who are not native speakers buit the general thrust of the thread I agree with. There is a concerted attempt to dumb down and I notice that even the BBC is at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree totally, AB.

Effective communication depends on non-ambiguity.

Unlike say, French, English enjoys a vast cornucopia of words: why not use some?

Rather than expletives based in Anglo-Saxon procreation and areas of the body.

Punctuation is essential for correct, unambigious meaning.

Trouble is today, since education fails from primary schools onwards, "Teachers" seem happy to accept quasi-literacy as normal.

And the classic defence of the ill-educated, is to scorn and mock the articulate and erudite as a form of self-defence and preservation of ego, as well as deflecting reality from themselves.

Rather sad, in fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of language is communication.

So long as you can understand unambiguously what the other person is saying, punctuation and spelling is irrelevant.

Of course it's a fine line. I've had some people email me before where I couldn't actually understand what they were saying, the spelling and the grammar was so bad.

But there is a massive grey area between perfect use of the language and failure to communicate adequately...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree totally, AB.

Effective communication depends on non-ambiguity.

Unlike say, French, English enjoys a vast cornucopia of words: why not use some?

Rather than expletives based in Anglo-Saxon procreation and areas of the body.

Punctuation is essential for correct, unambigious meaning.

Trouble is today, since education fails from primary schools onwards, "Teachers" seem happy to accept quasi-literacy as normal.

And the classic defence of the ill-educated, is to scorn and mock the articulate and erudite as a form of self-defence and preservation of ego, as well as deflecting reality from themselves.

Rather sad, in fact.

Wan't not ever learnt how to do it proper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wan't not ever learnt how to do it proper.

Actually their right, I wish all posts were as clear as there posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest absolutezero
Your nagging upsets me so much i am considering enrolling in english reading and writing classes at the local library as i left school at 17 and have forgotten so much since then.

But then i think who gives a damn.

I could read, write, punctuate and spell when I was at primary school.

What has 17 got to do with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest absolutezero
Trouble is today, since education fails from primary schools onwards, "Teachers" seem happy to accept quasi-literacy as normal.

Very true.

I'm a science teacher and I've been told not to mark or correct poor spelling as it's the science I'm marking and not the 'literacy'. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a 'Grammar Nazi', apparently. However I make no apology for it and it is much more common for people to mock my use of words such as 'one' or 'thus' (etc.) than it is for me to pick out flaws in what they say to me!

I do think that it is a bit silly when someone comes online and tries to ridicule others, but does so with a grasp of the english language that would barely pass primary level. It is, unfortunately, very common.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anorthosite
From the misogyny thread:

Why? Written communication was standardised for a reason: to enable it to take place accurately, flexibly and efficiently. There are academics who make their living trying to work out what writers were trying to say before around the early c19, largely because spelling, grammar, punctuation and syntax were less standardised, and therefore deciphering what people were trying to write can be a difficult and time consuming task.

I'm getting increasingly annoyed at the tactic of those who have been inadequately educated or just haven't bothered to learn, of condemning anyone who cares about the standard of written presentation as 'grammar (and/or spelling) Nazis'. I'm certainly not strung up enough to have a go at any minor typo on an Internet blog site, but when someone makes a polemical statement or strongly criticises someone else using semi-literate prose, I would argue that the standard of their written English is usually a pretty good indication of the validity of their statement.

Has the loss of our collective self respect (e.g. chavs in Latvia, etc.) gone so far that we can't even be bothered to use our own language with care and pride?

Woa their m8. Y U so stressed? Don't loose your rag over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest absolutezero
Woa their m8. Y U so stressed? Don't loose your rag over it.

Lose/loose and there/their/they're are my pet hates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why? Written communication was standardised for a reason: to enable it to take place accurately, flexibly and efficiently. There are academics who make their living trying to work out what writers were trying to say before around the early c19, largely because spelling, grammar, punctuation and syntax were less standardised, and therefore deciphering what people were trying to write can be a difficult and time consuming task.

I'm getting increasingly annoyed at the tactic of those who have been inadequately educated or just haven't bothered to learn, of condemning anyone who cares about the standard of written presentation as 'grammar (and/or spelling) Nazis'. I'm certainly not strung up enough to have a go at any minor typo on an Internet blog site, but when someone makes a polemical statement or strongly criticises someone else using semi-literate prose, I would argue that the standard of their written English is usually a pretty good indication of the validity of their statement.

Has the loss of our collective self respect (e.g. chavs in Latvia, etc.) gone so far that we can't even be bothered to use our own language with care and pride?

U could have said that with a lot less words :lol: If U been using proper grammar U wouldn't put 'can't' but would put 'can not' and put 'I am' instead of 'I'm'.
And the classic defence of the ill-educated, is to scorn and mock the articulate and erudite as a form of self-defence and preservation of ego, as well as deflecting reality from themselves.
I know, or used to know, all the grammar rules but I realise they were laid down by paternalistic middle-class Victorians so I don't bother with them overly these days. Language changes - a good start would be to replace the anachronistic 'ph' with 'f' asap. Fotograf, filosofy etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anorthosite
Lose/loose and there/their/they're are my pet hates.

They're the pet hate of many people. Hence my incorrect usage of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should be able to scan someone's written text and be able to pick up the meaning on the first read.

For me, it's like driving the wrong way up a one-way street, or slurping your drink in a restaurant. Not a show-stopper, and nobody dies, but we all have to stop and re-adjust to what's just happened.

It's a real skill to make one's written word only have one clear meaning to everyone, void of any symantic differences caused by misinterpretation. (Symantics is the difference between what one person said, and what another hears)

I tend to find that even where grammar and punctuation is correct, that email messages, are not clear communication. This is why we have conversations. The follow up to a point is not just to move onto the next point, it is often to clarify the previous point, often very subtley, too. If you listen to two people talking or arguing on the bus or elsewhere, you can usually hear this negotiation taking place, as one person clarifies upon the other's ambiguity, or builds further tension from a misinterpretation of a poorly made point.

Back to punctuation & grammar specifically...

1) Bad versions of either of the above makes re-reading a line of text a necessity and a chore. It's like a Polish driver asking for directions. You don't mind helping, but you'd rather be doing something else.

2) Some people are a-null because they are built that way, and can't hold back even when an important point is being made. It's like landing on the moon and complaining that Neil Armstrong's 'One step for man' speech makes no sense. We know what he meant to say. It wasn't a legally binding statement, give him a break. I don't remember the television broadcasters in 1969 stopping to correct the guy, they just went with the flow.

3) You can 'mock the afflicted'. Some will respond gracefully when "you're" and '"your' are swapped and pointed out, but some people will get all weepy and blame their (or 'there') upbringing or usually, the rest of the world for being intolerant.

It bugs me to have to re-read "Your" & "You're", "where", "Were" & "Wear", and even "here" & "hear". These ones are simple issues that everyone has been taught very early on. If the same people who can't remember these can't remember their PIN for the ATM, then I can understand, otherwise they need to prioritise their communication skills. Just as I don't burp and fart in restaurants, I have prioritised the requirement to be understood, at least as far as spelling and grammar goes.

4) Using pendantry to knock back a point or argument should be seen as a failure of the pedant. They didn't fail to land on the moon just because Neil Armstrong got a bit nervous (whilst trying to keep his cool and not burst out crying over the amazing thing he was in the middle of doing).

5) Any grammar, spelling, or gibberish in the above can only be the fault of a very large Friday night glass of wine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently apostrofies* are allowed for the plurals of initials, like MOT's or CD's. It's official, a lexicografer said so on Radio 4!

*note the replacement of ph by f like I said in my earlier post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently apostrofies* are allowed for the plurals of initials, like MOT's or CD's. It's official, a lexicografer said so on Radio 4!

*note the replacement of ph by f like I said in my earlier post.

Are they aloud? I tend to say CDs or MOTs, but their's sum kayses wear this dosn't wurk very wel. Can't remember them tho!

Must remember to inshulate my loft beefour the wintur. Haz enyone had this dun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very true.

I'm a science teacher and I've been told not to mark or correct poor spelling as it's the science I'm marking and not the 'literacy'. :rolleyes:

Ummm indeed.......

And having served a few years as an External B School Examiner, mainly at MBA level I was constantly reminding the exam board that an essential precursor for MBA was GMAT: and if students could not read, comprehend and write effective English then they would not pass GMAT and ergo they would not qualify to commence an MBA.

However, economic expediency overcame standards and "Bums on Seats" meant the tenured lecturers were paid.

And the effective low standard meant their MBA was de-valued and not recognised by AMBA.

Their loss: CUBS and Cranfield et al's gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So long as you can understand unambiguously what the other person is saying, punctuation and spelling is irrelevant.

:huh:

I do hope my sarcasm detector is not on the blink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why Is Worrying About Writen English Considered Snobbish?

It's 'written'. Not 'writen'. ;)

Thought Someone Else Must Have Noticed This. What About Needless Use of Capitals At The Beginning of Words. Must Be To be Ironic Me Thinks.

Seriously though, as long as it pretty much makes sense, the odd spelling mistake, typo or mixed up words because people are busy thinking about other things I can cope with. Rudeness annoys me much more, but not enough to really wind me up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   287 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.