Grammar Discussions

[JessicaTam]

What about Mods who can't spell? ...

You mean Doms?

 

[anat0l]

Are we making any allowances for AFFers whose first language is not English?

Yes and no.

There are several people here whose first language is English. As there are many others who are otherwise.

That said, for most professions in this country where communication skills (written and oral) are anything from important to critical, there is no discrimination here about the standard or any "allowance". It also doesn't mean that those whose first language is not English can't learn to be better at it. This thread is not supposed to be some sort of KKK or grammatical supremacy cult.

To be honest, I don't envy people whose first language isn't English who must learn English. Notwithstanding it is the most accepted lingua franca globally, it is actually very difficult to learn. We should be taking our hats off to them when they are first getting used to the language (and especially in Australia where proper English structure can be severely lacking).

Now employing someone whose English skills are questionable into a position where English communication is critical to the role... that's a bit concerning...

 

[TonyHancock]

This thread is not supposed to be some sort of KKK or grammatical supremacy cult.

Sadly, though, it does come across that way.

 

[JessicaTam]

Sadly, though, it does come across that way.

That was certainly never the intent. I actually (inadvertently) started it by picking on some poor choice of words often found on this forum. It has morphed into an opportunity to raise all sorts of grammar/spelling mistakes that are used.

Correcting english usage may seem to marginalise non-english speakers. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I have learnt much from this thread, and hope to continue to do so.

 

[whatmeworry]

Billboard sign that got pulled because the diet didn't go in front of the Coke!




Is Diet Coke Dabbling in Drug References in Its Ads? | Adweek

 

[TonyHancock]

That was certainly never the intent. I actually (inadvertently) started it by picking on some poor choice of words often found on this forum. It has morphed into an opportunity to raise all sorts of grammar/spelling mistakes that are used.

Correcting english usage may seem to marginalise non-english speakers. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I have learnt much from this thread, and hope to continue to do so.

I'll quote one of my previous posts on this site:

Most people make grammatical or spelling mistakes at some time. My pet peeve is when posters pick up on grammar and spelling rather than address the post content. If I can understand the poster's point then I'm happy, and in reality that is all that matters on most sites. (Understanding the poster's point that is.........not my happiness...although I do think that is quite important! )

With the advent of SMS the English language will evolve further away from the grammar we, of a certain generation, were taught. It's just evolution. :-|

 

[JessicaTam]

I'll quote one of my previous posts on this site:

I guess we are at an impasse then. Perhaps we continue this discussion in a bar somewhere.

 

[medhead]

Sadly, though, it does come across that way.

You always have free choice. No one is asking you to participate. In fact why support the thread at all if you feel that way?

 

[TonyHancock]

I guess we are at an impasse then. Perhaps we continue this discussion in a bar somewhere.

I don't believe there is an impasse. I won't belittle posters for their "perceived" lack of grammar, including your good self. ("There but for the grace of God go I"...and all that.)

My grammar is poor.

I don't men to cause offence.

 

[anat0l]

I'll quote one of my previous posts on this site:

Depends on why someone picks up / picks on another's grammar.

If they are picking on their grammar and not the argument, then at best that's not a big deal. The "pick on" has no bearing on the argument no more than someone who tries to support or undermine the proponent with an irrelevant point. It is tangential to the argument. I suppose that then results in the sometimes equally or more lashing sub-thread where subsequent posters criticise or viciously attack the "grammar naz_".

If someone picks on another on their grammar as the sole basis of why their argument is invalid, then clearly that's not really fair; more specifically, it is inaccurate and ill-targeted rather than unfair - it would be similar to fallacies like ad hominem. Then again, look at how many 'arguments' or some viewpoints (expressed as emails, letters, postings, blogs etc.) that have been mostly flat disregarded due to poor grammar, irrespective of the topic of discussion and viewpoint adopted. I think it has been seen before that some people have sent letters to, say, government or council officials, which were mostly ignored straight away due to poor English. (There was a story once of a councillor who actually "corrected" a submission with red pen, then sent the "corrected proof" letter back to the complainant). Is that fair?

If someone picks on another on their grammar as a basis of saying their argument is invalid because it cannot be understood, then I think that's fair game. We've had postings here before where someone is clearly frustrated or furious, but all we get is a wall of text that would not look completely out of place in a mid-1900s war communications room, as long as you capitalised everything. Sure, if you read the text a couple of times, you can usually pick up at least a glimmer of what the poster has a grief with. But surely that kind of verbiage should not be completely necessary. On this forum, as we lack facial expressions, gestures and tonality, the difference in someone's writing can reveal a lot more about their issue than the flat face value of the problem alone.

If the English language is evolving, then the acceptance of the evolution shall only be so in accordance with that of society's current satisfaction. As it stands, SMS speak is not socially nor professionally acceptable in most except casual and short communications, and certainly not in several formal or professional arenas. That may change with time (much to the chagrin or otherwise disregard of the current living generations). I remember an article at one time mentioning that New Zealand was considering making SMS speak acceptable vocabulary for certain secondary school literary examinations.

English speakers (and writers etc.) are very lucky in the fact that English is one of the few languages in the world where the spelling and grammar can be incorrect or substandard but you can still be understood...and it isn't even because people actually have to try (or try hard) to understand you (look at so many of those internet chain letters where people demonstrate that you can 'understand' a bunch of words in a passage simply due to context, even if every word is misspelt with the exception of the first and final letters of each word). In many other languages, getting the spelling, grammar or - in some cases - pronunciation incorrect can result in ambiguities (sometimes puns, sometimes serious faux pas) or complete incomprehension, with the resulting frustration or potential to be completely ignored.

 

[TonyHancock]

Depends on why someone picks up / picks on another's grammar.

If they are picking on their grammar and not the argument, then at best that's not a big deal. The "pick on" has no bearing on the argument no more than someone who tries to support or undermine the proponent with an irrelevant point. It is tangential to the argument. I suppose that then results in the sometimes equally or more lashing sub-thread where subsequent posters criticise or viciously attack the "grammar naz_".

If someone picks on another on their grammar as the sole basis of why their argument is invalid, then clearly that's not really fair; more specifically, it is inaccurate and ill-targeted rather than unfair - it would be similar to fallacies like ad hominem. Then again, look at how many 'arguments' or some viewpoints (expressed as emails, letters, postings, blogs etc.) that have been mostly flat disregarded due to poor grammar, irrespective of the topic of discussion and viewpoint adopted. I think it has been seen before that some people have sent letters to, say, government or council officials, which were mostly ignored straight away due to poor English. (There was a story once of a councillor who actually "corrected" a submission with red pen, then sent the "corrected proof" letter back to the complainant). Is that fair?

If someone picks on another on their grammar as a basis of saying their argument is invalid because it cannot be understood, then I think that's fair game. We've had postings here before where someone is clearly frustrated or furious, but all we get is a wall of text that would not look completely out of place in a mid-1900s war communications room, as long as you capitalised everything. Sure, if you read the text a couple of times, you can usually pick up at least a glimmer of what the poster has a grief with. But surely that kind of verbiage should not be completely necessary. On this forum, as we lack facial expressions, gestures and tonality, the difference in someone's writing can reveal a lot more about their issue than the flat face value of the problem alone.

If the English language is evolving, then the acceptance of the evolution shall only be so in accordance with that of society's current satisfaction. As it stands, SMS speak is not socially nor professionally acceptable in most except casual and short communications, and certainly not in several formal or professional arenas. That may change with time (much to the chagrin or otherwise disregard of the current living generations). I remember an article at one time mentioning that New Zealand was considering making SMS speak acceptable vocabulary for certain secondary school literary examinations.

English speakers (and writers etc.) are very lucky in the fact that English is one of the few languages in the world where the spelling and grammar can be incorrect or substandard but you can still be understood...and it isn't even because people actually have to try (or try hard) to understand you (look at so many of those internet chain letters where people demonstrate that you can 'understand' a bunch of words in a passage simply due to context, even if every word is misspelt with the exception of the first and final letters of each word). In many other languages, getting the spelling, grammar or - in some cases - pronunciation incorrect can result in ambiguities (sometimes puns, sometimes serious faux pas) or complete incomprehension, with the resulting frustration or potential to be completely ignored.

Thank you for proving my point, I will not correct the multiple errors in your post. It is worth purchasing a copy of The Oxford Companion to the English Language.

 

[JessicaTam]

This thread is not about belittling posters. It is about general grammatical/spelling errors in everyday usage.

 

[TonyHancock]

This thread is not about belittling posters. It is about general grammatical/spelling errors in everyday usage.

Sadly that is not how it comes across.

 

[medhead]

The thread also provides the opportunity for people who do make consistent grammatical mistakes (yes, I have notice few without correcting them) to learn the correct usage. If posts are made in a constructive and educational way. I've certainly admitted to the grammar I know I get wrong but can never remember the correct usage.

It also gives an opportunity to express things that could be autocorrect problems. "aswell" is an example that has been mentioned. I know there have been times when autocorrect has not fixed that for me. A simple typo of not including a space.

 

[medhead]

Sadly that is not how it comes across.

As I said feel free to leave the thread if it offends you so much.

You always have free choice. No one is asking you to participate. In fact why support the thread at all if you feel that way?

 

[Pushka]

I guess we are at an impasse then. Perhaps we continue this discussion in a bar somewhere.

Ah Jessica. You forgot the ? At the end of the question.

I think we are all tough enough to laugh at our mistakes. Non?

 

[TonyHancock]

You always have free choice. No one is asking you to participate. In fact why support the thread at all if you feel that way?

My apologies, I was not aware that I am not allowed to have an opinion in this thread. I won't post here again.

Once again. I am sorry if I have offended you.

 

[JessicaTam]

My apologies, I was not aware that I am not allowed to have an opinion in this thread. I won't post here again.

Once again. I am sorry if I have offended you.

No offence taken. I appreciate your opinions. Post away!

As long as we recognise that this thread may mean different things to different people.

 

[medhead]

My apologies, I was not aware that I am not allowed to have an opinion in this thread. I won't post here again.

Once again. I am sorry if I have offended you.

Whatever. I'm not offended in the least. No one says you can't have an opinion and express it. (Even if that isn't a universal standard, at least it applies on AFF) But you have expressed your opinion a few times and it appears to be unchanged. Clearly the thread offends you. I'm simply pointing out that there are 2 options: 1) keep telling people how our opinion is wrong or 2) don't support the discussion.

I don't care what you choose, I'm 'just saying'....

 

[TonyHancock]

I don't care what you choose, I'm 'just saying'....

Repeatedly so I see.

I'm bowing out. I, with poor grammar, will leave those with even poorer grammar to complain about others with poor grammar.

...and medhead you are alway right so I agree with whatever it is you have to say.