Here.
Printable View
Here.
Good one WW, see each of the 10 several times daily, pity they missed out on the proper use of apostrophes:rolleyes:
LOL.
My partner has tort undergraduates for decades and is meticulus about apostrophe's, but she finds it a loosing battel.
An we spell it haemorrhoids! (Done ar*se me how I no this).
I'm with you, WW. How much effort does it take to spell 'lose' correctly?
They missed the yous and wes in the handy guides..
Though these are normally spoken words vs written ones.
I kant fur thee live of me understand why a people wood want a poster lik that!
I used to get bothered and upset by the correctness or lack of it - today I'm not really sure I should have expended the time or energy.
In communication the idea is to convey a meaning to another - if the message is clear and the wording is not ambiguous then surely the aim of the exercise has been achieved.
English - the language that is, is actually a mongrel [in the true sense of the word - it is not pure] and has adopted, borrowed etc from all languages but unfortunately, in almost every case it did not adapt the spelling - example "yacht" - Dutch word which is actually pronounced according to its spelling. Some get paranoid about "color" as opposed to "colour" - surely the message is clear as to what the word is supposed to represent.
Regards,
Bob
You're probably right. We could also drive down the road on which ever side we choose. As long as we stay between the kerbs, what harm can it do? The next time you're out and need to go to the toilet, go into a ladies' toilet; they're always cleaner and a toilet is just a toilet ... right? I might even prune the lemon tree with my Bad Axe tennon saw this afternoon... it should do the trick OK. Hell, tonight I'm going to sleep in my next door neighbour's daughter's bed. From what I've seen through her window, it looks much more comfortable than mine.
What are rules if not for breaking!
I'm not advocating Rafferty's Rules or anarchy - there are rules that must be followed eg road rules re which side to drive on etc - with regards the language, many of the rules have many exceptions, it is a "living thing" in that it is changing constantly and it will morph into newer forms.
The following is an interesting paragraph - I'm not suggesting that this become the norm only that it is interesting. See if you can read this and still get the meaning.
"i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!"
I was joking in my previous post BTW!
I think most people could read that, but being typoglycaemic (or automatically assuming others are) is no excuse for bad grammar. Of course language is a fluid entity and I'm all for advancement, but ill manners, laziness and ignorance are not progress.
Spelling and the meanings of terms change over time. Dictionaries follow common usage in the English speaking world.
Of course I learned what I know the hard way and somewhat resent emerging practices that are comparatively speaking fast and loose.
I particularly dislike the way the term problem has morphed into 'issue'. That deprives us of the older meaning and requires a resort to something clunky like 'matter'.
An even older meaning, mixed in the one sentence, could yield 'The issue of my issue is an issue'!
But I'm not going to die in a ditch over it.
I too lament the passing of some words and rue the ever decreasing vocabulary of the average person. However, it's the ill mannered and lazy misuse of acknowledged current English that really annoys me – as those characteristics annoy me in any other activity. People who write in 'txt' speak or who don't use the spell check software that all programs and forums freely provide, open a window to their personality that I find decidedly unattractive. If they don't have the manners to address me properly and courteously, why should I give them the time of day? I'm sure there must be hundreds of people who have sent me PMs and emails who wondered why I didn't reply to them. I'm sure I've missed out on some great oportunities/kindnesses as a result, but there it is.
Tis the day of the bromide.
'Acknowledged current English' is not a universal standard; it's a social construct.
And there are varieties.
I'll accept something in an email that would instantly disqualify the writer in a job application or an academic article I was reviewing for a journal editor.
My discipline operates on the Harvard citation system for example; others operate on the Oxford. Both have their rules. If I was sent an article using the Oxford style I'd immediately suspect the credentials of the writer.
Not because that style is wrong but because it doesn't fit the social context.
At a micro level of language something similar is going on. You can only tell if it's as against its is correct according to the context of the sentence.
Language is a toolbox. The selection of communication tools should fit the purpose and its social context.
I agree that communication should in general be courteous, but sometimes to achieve your purpose it will need to be assertive.
Of course like all social interaction, one person's assertive is another person's rude. This can be difficult to gauge beforehand. Face to face you can read the reaction and modify your linguistic behaviour accordingly; in writing, this kind of calibration is much more difficult.
Anyway, I ramble.
By way of anecdote, when learning French a long time ago I read that the Academie Francaise decided to ban foreign imports like 'le weekend' and 'le pullover'. Had no impact on the broader population. As tools, though foreign they were better than the local equivalents.
On the subject of language, I thought this article on The Age website was quite interesting, "language-wise":doh:
http://content.mycareer.com.au/advic...clap-trap.aspx
I am on the committee of our local Landcare Group and deal with various government departments. Their verbal and written language use has to be heard/read to be believed.
It appears that everyone has to use acronyms and jargon to prove how clever and "with it" they are.
It also leaves the hoy-polloy out of the loop, don't you know:roll:
In fact the last "management plan" I received I returned with a note asking for it to be translated in to English!
Must admit I always get confused between affect and effect.
I think it's a bit unfair to judge people by the way they compose a letter. We have not all been subjected to the same education that some others have had through no fault of our own. I, through circumstances that were not my doing, left school when I was 9 years old and had no other education from that point on in my life.
Luckily the education system, to my mind, was better in those days and by the time I did leave school, I could read and write to a certain degree. Over the years that followed, I taught myself, through reading books, most of the things I wanted to learn. I guess I was lucky too to have been brought up in the era of would be employers; giving an opportunity to employees, who didn't have those bits of paper that said you could do something, a chance to show they could do the job and giving them a go.
From a very young age I worked for myself and again through circumstances that were not of my making but illness in the family, I had to take over as head of my family and provide for them when I was only 18 years of age.
I didn't have time to read books any more or wonder if I was speaking the Queens English. I had to get on with the job of keeping our family together. I hope people don't judge me by the way I compose a letter if it isn't up to their standards. I'm sorry if I offend anyone by the way I write but I just didn't have the time. The only qualification I ever achieved was to qualify as a computer repairer when I was nearly 60 years old.
We are not all born equal in this world and some of us don't get the opportunities that others may have had and I am not bitter about that, good luck to anyone who has a great education and can write excellent letters.
I did fine in my life without being able to compose a letter to standards that some seem to expect. Yes! I would like to be educated to the standard some others are in this world, but I am what I am and if it takes being able to write a letter professionally, to be someones friend then I guess I will be missing a few friends
To your credit, your English is many times better than some who enjoyed a fuller education; which just goes to show what effort can achieve.Quote:
Originally Posted by munruben
It's the lazy, ill mannered gits who know better, but couldn't be bothered writing properly and shift the onus onto the reader to decipher their witterings that really get my goat.
John, I would never have guessed that you left school so early, you have obviously made an effort to educate yourself one way or another. Not all learning is done in schools, in fact I think we all learn a lot after we leave school (or at least we should).
I can safely say I have had to read plenty of job applications and resumes from people with one or more degrees that weren't a patch on your written English.
The sort of jobs that I had to interview people for required good communication skills, both written and verbal, and like Ern said a good percentage of the applications never got past first base.
Me Too! My dad's a retired English teacher so I should know better. I think you speak very eloquently Munruben. Your effort was not wasted. I also forget to capitolize 'I" . What does that say about me?Quote:
Originally Posted by munruben
I agree, the spellchecker has ruined many people's ability to spell (me included) and colloquial English has become more prevalent than should be allowed. I blame it on the sheer volume of text based communication desensitizing people to the necessity for proper English.
IE: I write so bloody many emails in a day my language therein has dropped to the equivalent of talking to someone face to face rather than a proper letter.
But agreeing is no fun so I'm going to play Devil's advocate (what can I say, it's in the signature):
Fluff to Follow!
wArNiNg - I'm bored so this is probably going to be long and ridiculous.
Feel free to skip.
In this case, proper use of English language in text, I don't think education is the real delimiter as much as effort, exposure, and support. Munruben is an obvious example.
Someone can learn to speak beautifully by making an effort to speak properly, exposing themselves to proper writing such as via books, and having people who know correct you when you're wrong. So you're right, laziness is a factor, but not always.
I've used very different, what I can only call, versions or dialects of very proper English depending on the situation. I'm talking about situations where my vocabulary gamut and syntax completely changed.
For example, the flow and word choice in the paper I wrote for my classics professor on how Oedipus Rex is a paradigm of the human condition was VERY different from the technical report I wrote for my analysis of algorithms professor on the minimum perimeter of a convex hull. The language is literally different because the situation is different.
Again, there's always, as someone else said, Harvard vs Oxford, MLA vs APA etc and let's not get into line width and white space use, I could go on forever there.
That difference in academia extrapolates into common usage. There's just as many different levels of 'proper' outside of school as in.
When is it appropriate to use contractions, colloquialisms, anecdotes, abbreviations?
I put forward that the situation and the people involved dictate what's proper.
The problem is that everyone has a different idea of what's standard; what's appropriate or proper. I can assure you, even though we both derive from the British Commonwealth English between Australia and Canada is in some areas very different.
So writing for a varied audience or an audience that has varied expectations becomes incredibly difficult. In the end you have to write to the majority, or what you think is the majority and hope for the best. Some will find you colloquial, some will find you stuffy, it's a gamble.
The underlying discordance might be that the modern populace (youth in particular) feel everyday messages warrant a more colloquial, for want of a better word, subset of English than you do.
Or, it's a pop culture "thing" that the writer is involved in. For example, one of the girls I work with is a math/physics major. She's brilliant. She also writes in lolspeak. It's just her .... thing.
Holy C&@* that was long. Sorry!
You're starting to delve into the use of jargon now, which is not really what the original post is about. There's no question that different situations require different use of language, but it's not about that is it? It's about common every day language use (some would say abuse). The common errors highlighted by the poster at the link have nothing to do with different contexts: they are simply incorrect spelling and/or grammar. We're not talking about a gradual change of meaning or use of a word over decades or centuries, nor are we talking about new word usages. We are talking about people confusing "they're" with "there" or "their". Or misspelling "definitely". I don't think anyone is proposing a change of spelling to the word, they just don't know how to spell it correctly in the first place.
To me this is a completely different issue to intentional misuse, such as "texting", or colloquial use of words like "sick".
Ah, I think I misunderstood the direction of the thread. I apologize.
Thank you SilentC.
As a side note, people I work with use "Ballin" and it drives me near postal.
But, I can't really say anything. I've insinuated so many horrible pop culture phrases into Skew's everyday language that I'm sure he's scarred for life.
No need for apology! It did take a turn in that direction, as these threads often do. :)
(Some people dislike those smilies. They feel that you should be able to communicate yourself well enough to not need them. I find they help to make sure people know where you're coming from. It's been that long since I wrote a letter by hand, I think if I was to do it now, I would find it hard not to try using them semi colon right parenthesis.)
I think the only thing worse than my written English, is my script.
I learned how to write in grade 1 (5-6 years old) and have been told to either print or type my submissions ever since. I don't think I know how to do a lower case Z anymore.
Addendum: Never mind, just remembered.
If someone could just teach the 'when in doubt, leave the apostrophe out' rule, especially to whoever doe's store sign's, I'd be a happier person. Although I don't think the average perpetrator would be in doubt, though.
Shifting back to the original site for a moment, I would also commend this particular piece to anyone who has ever used the services of a graphic designer....
Munruben, you actually prove the point of the original post's intention (what i believe it to be, anyway), there is nothing wrong about occasional error as long as you give it your best. It is the lazy, "could not be bothered" attitude that gets me going. I don't feel i am in any position to give an opinion on your language skills as English is my second language and i struggle with it probably more than you. For me it is not so much the grammar as it is the "finer points of" actual social meanings of different words (this is not to say that my grammar is particularly good).
While on spelling, let me mention "guiet" and "quite". Like in : "it was quiet a quite night yesterday".
Boring laments warning !
While I understand the notion that the whole point of writing is to communicate and convey a message and as long as that is achieved little else matters. That should be particularly true for a forum like this where ideas and information are exchanged in a relaxed manner.
I do find it however that it takes me more effort to understand a badly written post than it does for a well written one. Sometimes I am left wondering about the actual meaning of a post because of a lacking punctuation or poor spelling or a lack of any sentence structure.
Languages have developed to give us an ability to communicate with accuracy and finesse. Loss of facility in a language to achieve either of those is not necessarily a development of a language, IMHO (:B)
Big Shed, I am with you on learning and allow me to take it to an extreme, If you are not learning, you are probably dead.
Language is a living thing. It changes.
While many take the OED as the authoritative source, the meanings and spellings were compiled from everyday usage. People were invited to submit words in their contexts. A major contributor was a criminal lunatic (see the Surgeon of Crowthorne by Simon Winchester).
And since, updates have followed the same path. If a usage becomes common, it gets added.
At a guess in a couple of decades, phrases like 'c u l8tr' will make it.
Apostrophes are rampant. Lost cause there.
But overall, I'd say that a higher proportion of the population are now literate than ever before, defined as communicating appropriately given the context.
That might mean emailing, web posting, texting or twittering.
Good grief, one of my sons can 'touch text' on his mobile while walking down the street. Should I complain if he uses abbreviations? I'm happy to hear from him. (As it happens, he doesn't need to abbreviate given his skills).
The Surgeon of Crowthorne is a great read. To round it out, I suggest a viewing of the Blackadder III episode titled "Ink and Incapability". ;)
The flip side of the "living language" argument is that we need to have some rules, else it would be virtually impossible to teach children and new language learners to read and write. The dictionary and the rules of grammar are the fundamental blocks upon which these skills are built, so we can't cast them out altogether. How confusing would it be to tell a new student 'you should write "they're" for "they are", but you can write "their" if you want to'?
Following the line of always adding common usage, we should soon see "would of", "could of" and "should of", even though they make no sense at all in place of ... have.
I think there is a fine line between modernisation and decimation.
I'm with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
The scary part is, English classes here in Canada are being completely revamped. They were called stuffy and it was believed children weren't learning.
(This is one of my dad's big stews. He'll rant for hours. This and the new math curriculum)
The new method of teaching how to read, is full word recognition. So, no more sounding out words, no more learning component letters and how they form the word and no more root word with prefix/suffix. If you don't recognize the word, look it up in the dictionary.
I don't know about you guys, but that sounds like a serious PITA and most kids I know would just put the book down. Which is a shame because I think most people get their vocabulary from prolific reading.
The other groaner, what do you think full word recognition is going to do to the already atrocious spelling problem? When you don't sound a word out or learn it's component letters, how do you learn to spell?
That does sound like a recipe for a generation of illiterates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skew's_Girl
You sure stirred up a can of worms with this topic Ww; but interesting nevertheless.:2tsup:
SG, there's been debates ad nauseum about that issue Downunder, and some good research that's worth a look. Not being a primary (grade school?) teacher, mercifully I don't have to deal with that issue.
SilentC, the trouble with 'rules' is that they typically follow practice. So we have no warrant for getting on a high horse, other than being grumpy old men. IMO teachers at all levels are teaching yesterday's rules.
Same in my case. I do it because I'm employed (part-time) to do so.
I'm glad to be mostly out of my game. I have the 2nd highest academic qualification there is, and dammit I got it the hard way. But when I'm asked to assess PhD theses, I bend over backwards to ignore forms of expression that irritate me and try to appreciate what the writer is trying to communicate.
Cos that writer is 30 years behind me and forms of communication change.
I'm still not quite sure what we're arguing about here. When you say "forms of expression that irritate me", do you refer to spelling mistakes or incorrect word use, like "their" instead of "they're" or "would of" instead of "would have"? Or are you talking about otherwise correct language that you nevertheless feel is inappropriate in a thesis?
It's just that I don't think any of the examples in the original link are forms of communication change. They're nothing more than mistakes and if we ever see them in the dictionary as acceptable usage, I'll go learn French and give up speaking English.
The former silentC. Here are some examples that I think represent stylistic or convention variations over time and while the newer forms irritate me I don't regard them as a hanging offence:
Different from/to
Compare with/to
Misplaced apostrophes: egs. it's/its, sofa's (when what is meant is sofas)
Possessives: egs. Jesus' death/ Jesus's death; women's/womens' health
Abbreviations: i.e./ie. or eg./e.g.
Of greater concern is confusion over homophones: eg. their/they're/there, or who's/whose. The meaning is clear from the context in most cases. I'd let one or two of these go but point out consistent errors.
In my youth split infinitives were a serious faux pas; they're widespread now.
Ditto not ending a sentence with a preposition. That was a rule that even in my youth was pretty much only adhered to by pedants, snobs and students on exam days.
Passive voice was standard usage in my undergrad days but in my discipline active voice is now acceptable and sometimes encouraged.
So, most kids have the fundamentals of verbal language before they go to school where they may or may not get instruction in parts of speech, rules of grammar and so on. In my view some of these rules are helpful to learners in understanding their mistakes (eg. the two functions of an apostrophe) but through history formal instruction in and practice of them has operated as a form of social exclusion. ('To whom do you wish to speak, young man?' - see the many novels in English lit. with social class as a theme.)
The former? Do you know something I don't? I hope I'm going to make it through to the new year.
Ah well, then there's the comma ;-}
And debates about whether to use them (publishers have acquired a dislike for them for some reason) and where they go and when semi-colons and colons might better be used.
Best wishes for the New Year.
I throw in the odd colon or semi colon every now and then. Fortunately no-one seems to know enough about them to pick me up on it when I get it wrong :D
All the best for 2011!
Here's a nice eg. of the homophone problem, taken from the online blurb of James Ellroy's memoirs:
ADDED Ah, that's interesting. 'Coeur' was rendered 'cur' on the website. So probably the blurb writer didn't get the sack after all.Quote:
The Hilliker Curse is a predator’s confession, a treatise on guilt and the power of malediction, and above all a cri de cœur.
:rolleyes: No wonder you make an elegant maul :DQuote:
Originally Posted by rsser