Grammar Nazis: Useful Language Experts, Or Elitist Snobs?

from the well-this-ought-to-be-fun dept

Thu, Oct 29th 2009 9:09am — Mike Masnick

I know that my grammar is not ideal, though I really do strive to get the basics right. There are times, however, when I feel that the strict "rules" that are put forth by grammar go too far. If the text makes the point in a way that people can understand, what is the problem? On top of that, there's the utter snobbishness with which some (no, not all!) grammar aficionados put down anyone who makes a silly mistake. I have no problem with someone letting me know about a typo or a grammatical problem in a friendly and useful manner -- but all too often the message is delivered in the tone suggesting that making such an elementary grammatical error suggests that I obviously never made it out of the second grade. So I'm glad to see an English professor taking on the grammar nazis.

Salon is running a review of a new book by English professor Jack Lynch, called The Lexicographer's Dilemma, which argues that grammar nazis should chill out. Grammar rules are mostly to make people feel elite, not to make them any clearer, according to the book. Again, I have no problem with basic grammar rules for the sake of clarity, but focusing too much on the rules over the clarity is a mistake, and it's nice to see at least some "experts" agreeing.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: english, grammar, language

131 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Free Capitalist (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 9:18am

Nukeyoular Gramer Natsees
Grammar rules are mostly to make people feel elite, not to make them any clearer, according to the book.

Their are sum basic problematics with there fundamentalist BASIC statements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- GN, 29 Oct 2009 @ 10:44am
  
  Re: Nukeyoular Gramer Natsees
  You sir, are a moron.
  
  Their != There
  sum is a mathematics term, not a replacement for some
  problematics? seriously?
  There != Their
  It's fundamental dumb@$$
  BASIC is a total waste of 5 characters because it is included in fundamental, not to mention the egregious use of capital letters
  
  This ignores that fact that your comment is just a total wast of the life that courses through your veins and I just wasted a portion of my life that I will never get back!
  
  And now I just noticed the title of your post ...
  
  I'm going to go hang myself now
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Free Capitalist (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 10:47am
    
    Re: Re: Nukeyoular Gramer Natsees
    Its OK GN. This is all a part of fighting an uphill battle while trying not to seem combative.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ChimpBush McHitlerBurton, 29 Oct 2009 @ 10:55am
    
    Re: Re: Nukeyoular Gramer Natsees
    You spelled "waste" wrong, you complete and utter spoiling of what is good, natural and right on this beautiful world that we of the master race call "Earth".
    
    Allow me to assist you with that noose.
    
    Sieg Heil!
    
    CBMHB
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 9:22am

Agreed. If there is no ambiguity, what's the fricken deal?

For example, anyone with a brain should be able to distinguish between the intended use/misuse of "there, their, and they're" solely from the surrounding context. So why point that the writer used the wrong one? Not only does it not add to the discussion, it outright detracts from the discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2009 @ 10:01am
  
  Re:
  Their, there and they're isn't a grammar issue. It's a spelling issue. Not the same thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2009 @ 10:10am
    
    Re: Re:
    They're spelled correctly just used incorrectly, hence grammar.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 10:26am
  
  Re:
  I don't point out those errors, but I do notice them, and I wonder. Was it just a one-time slip of the fingers? Even if so, it means at best the writer didn't bother to proofread their own writing. If it's a comment on a forum, who cares (though I generally reread what I wrote before I post)? If it's the actual owner of the blog, I would find it strange that they would set out to write, but then care so little about their (not "there") writing as to not even read over it.
  
  Or worse, it could indicate they don't know the difference between "they're", "their", and "there". I do have a problem with that. I'm not going to call someone names about it, but isn't it important to understand the language you're (not "your") writing in? If you don't even know what words you're using, how can you be sure you're getting across the right point? It's not about whether I can figure out which one you mean, it just makes me question the rest of your (not "you're") writing too.
  
  Don't even get me started on "loose". ;-)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:00am
    
    Re: Re:
    "I'm not going to call someone names about it, but isn't it important to understand the language you're (not "your") writing in?"
    
    Yes, which is why you shouldn't end a sentence in a preposition...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That's not really a strict rule of grammar anymore.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Marcus Carab (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 3:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        nor is beginning with a conjunction or, in a lot of cases, splitting the infinitive. Sometimes, the rules do die...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DCX2, 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      haha my girlfriend nails me on that one all the time. That, and the difference between lie and lay. I just can't get those right, and I even consider myself somewhat of a grammar/spelling nazi.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - azuravian (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:20am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Ridiculous. "This is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dark Helmet (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Ridiculous. "This is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put.""
        
        My testicles are just quivering with excitement at the prospect of finding exactly what is you're going to do about it....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        azuravian (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Maybe I'll start ending all my sentences with a preposition from.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chargone (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 2:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        you know, much as English does have grammatical rules which it is generally beneficial to stick to, the one about never ending a sentence with a preposition is utter nonsense steaming from the whole 'Latin is perfect. therefor, English should be more like Latin' thing, which started with 'we have no codified system for English, there's a codified system for Latin, let's use that as a starting point'
        
        English, used properly, does end sentences with prepositions [does that make them postpositions?]. There's another common 'don't do that' rule with similar origins which is actually completely backwards, but i forget which one it is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chargone (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 2:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        argh! forgot to preview and the comment size limit [?] ate most of my post :(
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Sebastian Flyte, 25 Sep 2011 @ 5:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:Lazarus
        There is a plug-in for Firefox called "Lazarus" that saves a copy of text one posts online. If text gets eaten or lost somehow, it's very simple to recover it with Lazarus.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 3:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There's another common 'don't do that' rule with similar origins which is actually completely backwards, but i forget which one it is.
        
        Could be the one that says it's bad to ever split an infinitive, I think that is also a useless carryover from Latin.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - hegemon13, 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:42am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Actually, many professional style guides have eschewed rules against terminal prepositions. The Chicago Manual of Style goes so far as to call the rule an "ill-founded superstition."
      
      Still, many years of English classes have biased me against them. What's so hard about "the language in which you're writing." It is clearer in many cases, but it's optional according to most modern style guides.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - nasch (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 3:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What's so hard about "the language in which you're writing."
        
        There's nothing hard about it, but it means the same thing, is no more correct, no more clear (IMO), and uses more words. So why would I want to do that?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        hegemon13, 29 Oct 2009 @ 3:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Like I said, it's optional. I just prefer it because there is never any ambiguity. If you end with a preposition, you always have to analyze the sentence to determine whether it is ambiguous. The traditional system works every time without the need to second guess.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 30 Oct 2009 @ 8:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't understand. What could be ambiguous about "the language you're writing in"?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        hegemon13, 2 Nov 2009 @ 8:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's not ambiguous in this case. Like I said, I prefer the traditional form because it is NEVER ambiguous.
        
        Read my first response above. I started out by explaining that, even in professional writing, the terminal preposition rule is optional. I finished with my personal preference, and I labeled it as such. I don't care what your writing style is. You should understand, however, that regularly ending sentences with prepositions can create more work for you as a writer. You have to analyze each of the sentences to ensure that no ambiguity exists.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nate, 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    You mean, "the writer didn't bother to proofread HIS own writing." ;-)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 3:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Sure, but then I couldn't have used "their" to contrast it with "they're". ;-)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2009 @ 9:16pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You mean, "the writer didn't bother to proofread HIS own writing." ;-)
      
      Actually, that was an example of gender-neutral grammar in which "their" implies "his or her".
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- not a nazi, 29 Oct 2009 @ 10:27am
  
  Re:
  What about the other side of the argument? Asking people to proof-read their work before posting? That's just having simple respect for the reader, don't you think?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2009 @ 10:34am
  
  Re:
  There wolf...there castle.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DCX2, 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:08am
  
  Re:
  The poor grammar is a distraction. When I see someone use the wrong word (there instead of their), I spend a few extra mental cycles re-processing the erroneous statement. A few cycles here and there aren't bad, but when there are multiple consecutive errors, it really interferes with the ability to read smoothly, much as a dearth of capital letters and punctuation may interfere with smooth reading.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jr Grammar Nazi, 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:22am
  
  Re:
  Your write. Their is know need two spell the correct word every thyme. Eye can usually spell the curse words write when Eye get mad enuf.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - AvatarMew, 2 Nov 2009 @ 7:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    It's you're not your -.-, there not their, everytime not every thyme, right not write and I not eye -.-.
    
    It's utter lazyness to not use correct grammar on the internet.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Moon, 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:22am
  
  Re:
  I read the comment above yours, and the "there" in there threw my brain off for a second. If I'm scanning text, having the correct form, without the need to really observe context, definitely icreases my comprehension.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hegemon13, 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:38am
  
  Re:
  They're completely different words. No, context does not always make the distinction clear, though it often can. Is it necessary to point out like a snob? No, not usually. Any professional publication better get it right, though. This is neither a grammar error nor a spelling error. It is a word-choice error, and the words have very different meanings.
  
  Of course, a professional publication only has two to worry about because they would not be using contractions to start with.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- doubledeej (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 12:04pm
  
  Re:
  It is a big deal. When I'm reading a sentence that has the wrong "there/their/they're" in it it's like my brain hitting a speed bump at 70 MPH. It might as well be another word entirely because I (like many left-brained people) don't read based on word pronunciation; I read based on what words have been written. When I see a sentence that says "I will be going over their tonight" it might as well be "I will be going over gobbledygook tonight" because it's the wrong word and it doesn't make sense. I have to back up and re-read the sentence again based on pronunciation (out loud in my head, if that makes sense... which is much slower) to determine the original meaning of the author. It really slows the process down, and if there is too much of this nonsense in someone's writing it hurts the brain too much to decypher their intent and I just give up and move on.
  
  It isn't so much of being an elitist snob; it's a matter of writing to be understood. Using the wrong words is just lazy. People know the difference between "there" (a place), "their" (belonging to them), and "they're" (they are)... they're just being too lazy to think about their writing or press the extra key on their keyboard.
  
  Spelling mistakes and typos are understandable. Using the wrong words in the first place just isn't excusable.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jesz, 29 Oct 2009 @ 1:08pm
    
    Re: Re:
    doubledeej--I've been reading through all the comments, wondering if anyone would mention anything like this. I am the exact same way: it is painful and distracting to me when words are used incorrectly or spelled abominably. Punctuation, too, can cause me distress. I can force my way through a passage if I know it will be worth it, but if I am not sure of the return, I often do not bother. I don't think of myself as a grammar nazi, as I generally refrain from pointing out errors and am far from perfect myself, but I am a concerned party.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 1:39pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Punctuation, too, can cause me distress."
      
      Okay, let me preface this by saying that I know what you mean....
      
      ...But it'd be funny to see you walking down the street in a tshirt that said this, looking all scared of the world, and such...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2009 @ 2:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ha! Thanks for the laugh. That mental picture was just what I needed.
        
        but the best part is' that if someday: jesz ever cheeses my whiz^ i now know how to get my revenge; and generally ruin their day¿
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Nick Coghlan (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 1:48pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yep - I'll occasionally poke fun at friends about poor spelling and grammar because it really is a painful mental experience having to back up the train and reparse a sentence with the correct words inserted*.
      
      The occasional error or typo is one thing (e.g. my brain knows how to use apostrophes correctly, but my fingers don't always get it right, so I'm fairly forgiving of such errors, especially in contexts that don't allow editing of posted messages), but allowing endemic errors in published writing is being disrespectful to one's readers.
      
      However, in such cases, I probably still won't try to correct it - if the problem is bad enough and persistent enough, I'll just stop paying attention to that writer.
      
      The one time I will post corrections is when someone has made a typo that significantly changes the meaning of what they wrote. In such cases, I have found a simple "s/what they wrote/what I think they meant/?" (or "Was 'written' meant to be 'intended'?" if the writer isn't another programmer) to be both polite and sufficient (i.e. assuming the author just made an accidental typo and seeking clarification rather than assuming they must be a poorly educated idiot and abusing them for it as some grammar nazis do).
      
      *(A novel I read recently consistently used "insure" instead of "ensure" throughout, and it was a stumbling block every time I came across it. From context, the author definitely meant "ensure", but the error happened so many times that I couldn't see how it could be accidental that the author and editor both missed the mistake).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chargone (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 2:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        at least one of the mass effect books does this with 'undue', possibly both of them. 'undo' is repeatedly used instead. sentences often begin with 'And', as well.
        
        every time one of those sentences begins with 'and' it's because it's [it's? its? i HATE this one :S] the third sentence in a paragraph, and for whatever reason the sentence that should be First has been put second, meaning that the second and third don't line up properly. if this was done correctly the second sentence would be first, then a lot of the time the first [now second] sentence and the third sentence would be the Same sentence, using commas and such.
        
        i must admit to fail when it comes to capital letters, sadly. i often forget them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dan, 29 Oct 2009 @ 12:21pm
  
  Re: Ima Fish
  Sure, it is very easy to determine the proper usage of words from the surrounding context, but doesn't it grate on you're brain just a little bit to read mistakes like that? For me it is like a little brain hiccup, I have to consciously think about where someone messed up, and it ends up distracting me from whatever there actual point might've been. Reminds me vaguely of http://xkcd.com/371/
  
  I mean I know this is a large jump, but I'm sure you've seen that old paragraph where all the letters are scrambled except the first and last, and you can still read it relatively easily. But you end up spending a little bit more of your brain cycles on actually READING than on understanding.
  
  Either way, I'm not one to yell at someone for improper grammar, but I still appreciate proper grammar as it really does make things easier and clearer to read, even when there is no issue of ambiguity.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 9:25am

Hmm...
Probably the writer in me, but I'm kind of "into" grammar. Which isn't to say that I don't make plenty of mistakes, of course, but I tend to appreciate its importance.

Trivial matters on the web aside, grammar is important not in so much as representing who is "right" or "wrong", or even educated or not, but rather because, in addition to language being the dialect of vocal communication, it is also the language of THOUGHT. To disdain an understanding of proper language is to disdain that which makes mankind so unique, and I truly believe there is a correlation between the quality of one's language and the quality of one's thought.

Thinking back to the founding fathers, they simply had a way of words and communication that at the very least SEEMS so far and away beyond what we hear today that it is mind boggling. The eloquence with which they spoke perhaps helps to explain the regard with which our nation's leaders were held in the early days of our history.

We see such distinctions in modern days as well. Truly, the biggest, or at least more noticeable difference between our current and last Presidents have been their ability to communicate. That certainly involves many factors, but elegance and proper use of language is among them. And while we might not all be speaking to foreign dignitaries and the like, if communication, both written and spoken, is in large part what makes us human, then shouldn't we at least make a passing effort at excellence in its regard?

***This message brought to you by the Dark Helmet Organization on Pretty Words and Comma Prevalence***
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 9:37am
  
  Re: Hmm...
  For awhile now I've been pondering a theory relating to "Grammar Nazis" (specifically; those who seek to keep a language from changing) and time travel...
  
  If the language changes too rapidly, one's communicative abilities become less reliable the further you travel from your own era... whereas language which stays static for awhile leaves a nice, wide area in which you can travel.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - davebarnes (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 9:43am
    
    Thanks for revealing the truth
    Those time travelers will soon be visiting you to get you to recant.
    You are a dangerous person.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - :Lobo Santo (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 9:46am
      
      Re: Thanks for revealing the truth
      Nah, killing somebody for revealing such is far too obvious--unless it looks like an accident.
      
      Better to ignore them and spread hoax rumors. People are much more like to believe 'it's a hoax' than some crap about 'time travel.'
      
      : P
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dark Helmet (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 9:49am
        
        Re: Re: Thanks for revealing the truth
        Hey, did you guys know that :Lobo Santo raporizes grandmother puppies while also giving bailouts to large corporate executives practicing socialism, witchcraft, and Judaism all at once?
        
        Well? DID YOU??!!?!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        :Lobo Santo (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 9:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Thanks for revealing the truth
        ...and Dark Helmet was once the leader of OPEC, but ousted by a French Custard coup. The most shameful of all defeats...
        : P
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 9:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks for revealing the truth
        You know, you make ONE little comment about Freedom Fries and the frogs lose it...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2009 @ 10:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thanks for revealing the truth
        Fuck'em both. I'll have pomme frites.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Doe, 29 Oct 2009 @ 9:58am
  
  Re: Hmm...
  What does it mean if my only though is of beer?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Doe, 29 Oct 2009 @ 10:09am
    
    Re: Re: Hmm...
    Dang it, though should have been thought. Maybe that answers my question; I am slurring my writing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:42am
    
    Re: Re: Hmm...
    It means you should watch this video
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD_WPcSGHgs
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 10:30am
  
  Re: Hmm...
  Agreed! The number one reason I want to learn more languages is not for the ability to communicate, but for the experience of thinking with a different lexicon - an especially fascinating concept when you get into Turkic languages that flip the structure of words (and thus thoughts) completely on end.
  
  Following proper grammar keeps your mind sharp, and acts as a sign of commitment and thoroughness. Bad grammar doesn't invalidate a good idea, but good grammar definitely enhances that idea and makes it more likely to resonate with the audience.
  
  Of course, I completely agree that nitpicking about grammar on blog posts is pointless. I can't understand why people even bother when it comes to their/there/they're and such - in fact, it's higher level grammar errors that drive me nuts. Misplaced modifiers, for example, go completely unnoticed by many people, but they cause those who do notice to stumble, roll their eyes, chuckle or all three.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChimpBush McHitlerBurton, 29 Oct 2009 @ 10:42am
  
  Re: Hmm...
  I could care less about grammer it isn't what your writing but what your saying that matters people are so hung up on meaning that they dont stop to smell the roses. Irregardless, it makes little difference if i spell right or rong, as long as you udersand my meening.
  
  people think their better than you because they graduated high school or something. it doesunt matter anyways. i have a good job and i pay my taxis, why cant i get the same respect?
  
  people need to get a live if they want to juje because i know alot of stuff and mabe more than you mister high scool.
  
  CBMHB
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcus Carab (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 10:59am
    
    Re: Re: Hmm...
    You might think it makes little difference, but the cold hard fact is that it DOES make a difference to a lot of people. I would have a damn hard time taking you seriously if your grammar was as bad as that (presumably exaggerated) example, and what you were saying would have to be extremely insightful and original for me to focus on your point and not your abysmal communication skills.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ChimpBush McHitlerBurton, 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
      My point exactly.
      
      CBMHB
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - hegemon13, 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
      I would go a step further. I would never bother trying to decipher such abysmal communication. If you don't care enough about your "brilliant" or "insightful" thought to communicate it clearly, I don't care what you have to say. I should not have to work to decipher your thoughts when we have a language that empowers you to communicate them with perfect clarity.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Overtkill (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:03am
    
    Re: Re: Hmm...
    To: "ChimpBush McHitlerBurton"
    
    Thanks for the laugh! :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - LostSailor (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 12:16pm
    
    Re: Re: Hmm...
    Highly amusing. If you write poorly, most people are going to assume that you think poorly as well, whether that's true or not. If what you're writing matters, it should matter enough to write correctly.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- johnney (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 3:11pm
  
  Re: Hmm...
  The REAL question here is can it be read upside down?
  It really only counts for language translations.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
JonMontgo (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 9:33am

Although I can agree with avoiding criticizing blog posts and other informal works, as a writer I always find that most "bad" stories are not truly bad, they just suffer from bad grammar.

In a blog post or forum minor errors are permitted and frankly don't bother me. Even I make them. I find however,that I avoid forums and posts that do not use standard sentence structure. *Shrug* Just my two cents, I know you make a post in a hurry but do you really need to shorten all your words and not capitalize?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jim L, 29 Oct 2009 @ 9:40am

Grammer Aint So Important
Tell that to my two older sisters. Both became teachers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Capitalist (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 9:42am

And while we might not all be speaking to foreign dignitaries and the like, if communication, both written and spoken, is in large part what makes us human, then shouldn't we at least make a passing effort at excellence in its regard?

Good point.

I would add that worst chronic offenders should be punishable by creative and painful means at the discretion of the listener. After all, being forced to listen to some of the more annoying grammatical slackers out there is no different than being subjected to a SYN ACK attack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wirtes (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 9:47am

Imma let you Finnish, but...
I was once a very junior executive in Knight-Ridder, fresh out of B-F Indiana. After a rather informal meeting with other executives, a senior executive pulled me aside and said, "I can't believe that I heard the word 'irregardless' come out of your mouth -- that is not a word! You're not a hayseed. You work for the second largest newspaper chain in the country. Speak like it."

Was he a jerk? You bet.

Have I ever said "irregardless" again? Not even once.

Take the criticism and an opportunity. Grammar matters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Moon, 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:43am
  
  don't judge me...
  oh wow...that musta made your stomach knot...i can't imagine that situation. something nice about being able make little mistakes and not have it matter.
  
  on the other hand, i always cringe when i hear my coworkers use a double-negative, or break some other elementary rule. the speech patterns of my peers really gives me an idea on which rung of the social ladder i stand.
  
  hence the txt-style posting :D
  
  i do like the freedom that our quip-culture has given us in writing. i used to get docked a lot as a kid for writing outside of standard form. usually it was for short, incomplete sentences. thoughts as sentences. i think i learned that from reading techno thrillers.
  
  now, colloquialism seems commonplace. it's actually kinda nice to use "dunno," "imma" or "gonna," without criticism. go ahead. :D
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
roxanneadams (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 9:49am

The only thing that makes me really insane is when people use texting shorthand on a blog or in a grown-up discussion forum. UR grt. Same 2 u. God, that drives me crazy and I truly believe that using text shorthand when one is not texting is a sign of low-class and even lower intelligence.

Everything else I overlook. Life is too short to obsess over other people's grammar mistakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
robin, 29 Oct 2009 @ 10:07am

rules and death
grammar rules strikes me as an oxymoron anyway.

as soon as language is locked down with rules, it begins to die. language is alive, always changing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Matthew Cruse (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 10:45am
  
  Re: rules and death
  Yes it's always changing, but without rules, or structure if you prefer, then the changes are chaotic, disrtuptive and counter productive. Changes should happen in a way that advances language in a way that makes it easier to communicate, not harder.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2009 @ 10:08am

Irony
"If the text makes the point in a way that people can understand, what is the problem?"

I had to read this sentence twice as I had found it contradictory the first time through. It was confusing.

This amuses me as I was already agreeing with you that your grammar is never bad and was thinking to myself as I was reading that "as long as its clear, what does it matter?" when I stumbled on this sentence.

Still down with Grammar Nazis. They also Godwin a topic by default.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 10:27am
  
  Re: Irony
  I've read your post several times trying to figure out what could be confusing about the quoted sentence. :-)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2009 @ 10:11am

i dun't cee wat da ishoe iz?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 10:16am

The goal of communication is to have your reader understand what you are saying. Small problems in grammar and spelling that do not impact this goal are not really worth pointing out.

If, however, your attempt at communication causes the reader's brain to stutter and reboot in protest of an incomprehensible sentence structure, then you have failed in your goal, and figuring out where you went wrong is pretty important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
herodotus (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 10:30am

A lot of people are confused about grammar.

Grammar, properly understood, is a study of the structure of language. The linguistic etiquette that many people understand to be 'grammar' hasn't been taken seriously by the real language experts, people like Chomsky or Hjelmslev or Lamb or Pike and their followers, for many years.

The only reasons to worry about linguistic etiquette are either aesthetic or social. These are not unimportant concerns, and anyone who wants to be taken seriously or even just left alone in a given social circle should observe and conform to the language patterns of it's members.

But the people who obsess over other peoples linguistic usage should not be called grammar nazis, they should be called by their proper name: schoolmarms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
G, 29 Oct 2009 @ 10:31am

Grammarz fracken RuLeZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brad Hubbard (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 10:39am

All-purpose response
Grammar Nazi: "You used ______ incorrectly!"

Response1: "English is a living language. I used a colloquialism or dialectal variance, either of which is perfectly acceptable and accurate."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LostSailor (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 10:40am

Effective Communication
Grammar rules are mostly to make people feel elite, not to make them any clearer, according to the book.

I echo what Chris and others have said. The point of grammar is effective communication of ideas. Some grammar "rules," such as the oft-mentioned rule about split infinitives, are in most circumstances somewhat silly. But others are reasonable rules for effectively and clearly communicating a writer's ideas to a reader. Spelling and proper punctuation count as well.

If the text makes the point in a way that people can understand, what is the problem?

This is often a fine standard for informal writing, but the problem is that while you may think that your idea is perfectly communicated, if you use poor grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure, you may not, in fact, be communicating effectively.

On occasion, Mike, you've accused me in comments of "twisting" or not understanding your words. I'd submit that this may not be true; it's possible that you communicated your idea poorly and left yourself open to a reading of your words that was other than you intended, no matter how convinced you are that you wrote clearly.

Pointing out grammatical lapses in blog comments is pointless. However, for anyone who writes professionally, and bloggers such as yourself certainly qualify, paying attention to good grammar, spelling, and proper punctuation is almost a duty if you want to communicate effectively and be taken seriously.

Forget manuals of style. I'd recommend The Careful Writer: A Modern Guide to English Usage by Theodore M. Bernstein. It's perhaps the best guide to good writing around.

My favorite part:

Grave issues of law have hung on commas.... Michigan discovered that its state constitution inadvertently legalized slavery. Section 8, Article 2, read: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, unless for the punishment of crime, shall ever be tolerated in this state." It was decided to move the comma after "servitude" and place it after "slavery."

Indeed, our modern political life would be much easier if the Founding Fathers had used clearer punctuation in the Second Amendment in the bill of rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:39am
  
  Re: Effective Communication
  Michigan discovered that its state constitution inadvertently legalized slavery.
  
  Could that have been the way it was actually originally meant? That would have put put it in alignment with the 13th amendment to the US Constitution which also specifically allows slavery as punishment for crimes. (No, slavery has not been completely outlawed in the US).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - LostSailor (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:54am
    
    Re: Re: Effective Communication
    No.
    
    And the fact that you seem to think that slavery is legal in the U.S. under certain circumstances due to the wording of the Thirteenth Amendment makes my case for me.
    
    Fortunately, the Supreme Court has ruled in numerous cases that the Thirteenth Amendment makes the ownership of human beings illegal in this country.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2009 @ 9:50pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Effective Communication
      And the fact that you seem to think that slavery is legal in the U.S. under certain circumstances due to the wording of the Thirteenth Amendment makes my case for me.
      
      Fortunately, the Supreme Court has ruled in numerous cases that the Thirteenth Amendment makes the ownership of human beings illegal in this country.
      
      Legally, involuntary servitude is defined and prosecuted as slavery in the US. Now, if you can cite for us the "numerous cases" in which the Supreme Court ruled that involuntary servitude is illegal as a punishment for crime then I would be glad to know of it.
      
      Yeah, I didn't think so.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pickle Monger (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 10:56am

Grammar rules
"There are times, however, when I feel that the strict "rules" that are put forth by grammar go too far."

Maybe you could switch to Russian? :-) Grammar rules are much more "relaxed": the rules that do exist are clear cut and fairly simple. Not to mention only three tenses! If only it weren't so damn foreign...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Derek Reed (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:02am

Grammar
While it's indisputable that petulant snobs pointing out tiny mistakes are doing so for their own emotional gain, there's something to be said for the impact your use (or misuse) of grammar has on the way your message is perceived.
Grammar Nazi's are full of themselves clearly, but the way you say stuff impacts how it's seen.
Even if the message is understood, it doesn't mean the message is the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Overtkill (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:07am
  
  Re: Grammar
  Indeed. This is exactly why I love message boards with comment or user rating systems.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jason, 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:04am

To me it's a question of art.
Grammar in language is like conventions in art. You learn the rules so that you can break them beautifully.

Some people may never learn certain rules, yet their own natural aesthetic sense consistently renders something utterly compelling. A rough cut diamond.

Some people use grammar perfectly with effusive pedantry and seem to enjoy screwing up a beautifully simple idea. A gilded lily.

Some people learn the rules, but don't give a crap. Their sloppy language only serves to emphasize sloppy logic. Shit on a pig.

Mainly though, most people are just plain, white bread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jason, 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:05am

To me it's a question of art.
Grammar in language is like conventions in art. You learn the rules so that you can break them beautifully.

Some people may never learn certain rules, yet their own natural aesthetic sense consistently renders something utterly compelling. A rough cut diamond.

Some people use grammar perfectly with effusive pedantry and seem to enjoy screwing up a beautifully simple idea. A gilded lily.

Some people learn the rules, but don't give a crap. Their sloppy language only serves to emphasize sloppy logic. Shit on a pig.

Mainly though, most people are just plain, white bread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jason, 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:09am
  
  Re: To me it's a question of art.
  And sometimes you leave the domain off your email address, notice it as you post, think that must be why your post didn't appear, repost, and...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jason, 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:11am
    
    Re: Re: To me it's a question of art.
    The last one is me, btw, a hapless toad.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re: To me it's a question of art.
      I am utterly incensed as a Posting Nazi. I wish I could submit you to a place where you would learn to concentrate. Some sort of camp.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - nasch (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 3:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: To me it's a question of art.
        I am utterly incensed as a Posting Nazi. I wish I could submit you to a place where you would learn to concentrate. Some sort of camp.
        
        Really, actually LOL. Marvelous.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grammer Not Z, 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:08am

Touchy Subject Apparently
I find it interesting to note that so many comments were posted so quickly to this subject. Must have touched a common nerve somewhere...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- LostSailor (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 12:21pm
  
  Re: Touchy Subject Apparently
  Hey, don't get me started on the correct use of the defining and non-defining relative pronouns "that" and "which."
  
  Or misuse of such phrases as "I couldn't care less."
  
  It could get ugly fast!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Charlie Potatoes, 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:10am

It's all about clarity ...
"Sure, if I reprehend any thing in this world it is the use of my oracular tongue, and a nice derangement of epitaphs!" ... Mrs. Malaprop
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
herodotus (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:15am

"Yes, which is why you shouldn't end a sentence in a preposition..."

Yes, but then the clause in question would become: "...but isn't it important to understand the language in which you are writing?", which sounds prissy as all hell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Buzz Saw (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:16am

self-inflicted
I'm a Grammar Nazi with myself. I'm the kind of person who will edit his forum posts afterward to cleanup errors. I will use the classic asterisk correction method in chat clients. For other people, I wait until those grand opportunities to edit their school essays for whatever class we're in. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2009 @ 3:04pm
  
  Re: self-inflicted
  I'm sorry, don't you mean you wait *for* those grand opportunities?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jack Lynch, 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:19am

Lexicographer's Dilemma
Thanks for the interest in my book. In it I try to explain where our different ideas about the "rules" of English come from, and I encourage people to think about what's "appropriate" rather than what's "right." I'm certainly not saying anything goes, but I'd like to see people talk about the language with a little understanding of how we got here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike allen (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:25am

nazis
forget the word grammar they are just control freaks go get them mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- LostSailor (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 12:22pm
  
  Re: nazis
  Okay, grammar aside, how to you feel about punctuation?
  
  Just askin'.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jeffscott (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 12:35pm
    
    Re: Re: nazis
    I get a bit mental, when people abuse, or overuse, or, even, when they misuse, commas.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - LostSailor (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 1:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: nazis
      I'm with you. I tend to use more commas than most, and sometimes even a semi-colon or two, but I do try to use them correctly.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ben, 29 Oct 2009 @ 11:47am

I are fine, how am you?
Watch Jerry Springer, those people write like they talk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is me., 29 Oct 2009 @ 12:15pm

About that.
Grammar boils down to something very simple:

Proper usage of grammar indicates that someone has spent the time to appear intelligent to others.

It isn't rocket science, as they say, to learn you own native language properly. Just because someone understands the general meaning behind slang and innuendos and just because people can gather from context the meaning of "their" "there" and "they're" doesn't mean you should neglect it.

The point being: proper grammar is what generally divides the educated from uneducated.

If you can't take the 30 seconds it takes to make a sentence look intelligent, then that tells me something about your character.

I don't expect people to write in proper English for texting on phones or when they're bored and FEYUL LAIK RITING IN LOLCAT SPEEK. Nor do I expect people to remember where the heck to put a semicolon vs a comma...

...but for goodness sake learn how to SPELL.

You might not care, and your equally illiterate friends might not take notice, but OTHER people will move you down a notch on their ladder of respect.

Also grammar may not be a product of direct intelligence, but it sure as hell tells shows whether or not you give a sh*t. Poor grammar sends a powerful message that you don't care enough to correct yourself or to maintain yourself in the eyes of other people.

It equates to getting up every day and not shaving or combing your hair. Sure, you get the same quality of work done at your job whether or not you fix your looks each morning, but you certainly won't get the same respect or give off the same message as when you took care of yourself.

Get the point yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChimpBush McHitlerBurton, 29 Oct 2009 @ 3:12pm
  
  Re: About that.
  "It equates to getting up every day and not shaving or combing your hair. Sure, you get the same quality of work done at your job whether or not you fix your looks each morning, but you certainly won't get the same respect or give off the same message as when you took care of yourself."
  Yes, so to all you "Grammar Freedom" advocates: This is why you can't get a date. What girl in her right mind wants to go out with a guy who sports the written equivalent of B.O. and a bad scratching habit?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
@jeffscott, 29 Oct 2009 @ 12:22pm

Stephen Fry on language
You should have a listen to the lovely and erudite sometimes-linguist, Mr Stephen Fry, on language: http://j.mp/QxfBp

Enjoy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tracker1 (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 12:40pm

I think it depends on a given context...
I'm far from a grammar Nazi, but it really does irritate me when a professional work, that I pay to read has simple spelling and grammatical errors. I think it's far worse today that 20 years ago. Where is the editorial staff in publishing? Isn't it their job to proofread the content they intend to put to print?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vidiot, 29 Oct 2009 @ 12:44pm

Birds of a feather
Here's a scary correlation: The compulsive need to correct any and all deviations from perfection leans toward the Asperger-ish... like Andy Breckman's "Mr. Monk" aligning map push pins in even, symmetrical patterns. And others have reported the significant link between that syndrome and tech-immersed personality types, as evidenced by excellence in logic and numerical thinking as well as deficiencies in... umm.. social skills. So could it be that the correction compulsion, plus the inability to comprehend potential offense, is to be expected in the tech community?

Remember, it's okay to think these thoughts, but there's no requirement to act on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Korrosive, 29 Oct 2009 @ 12:53pm

We are technical
I think one of the issues here is that as 'techies' we understand the amount of pain that a simple error may cause. It's like using the wrong variable. If you happen to do so, the results could be deadly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beta, 29 Oct 2009 @ 1:03pm

In no particular order...
1. It's a matter of courtesy. As DCX2 and others have pointed out, grammatical errors are an unpleasant distraction to the reader. And that's at best, when the errors aren't severe enough to render the text incomprehensibabble.
2. It's a matter of credibility. If the writer didn't know how to write correctly (or didn't bother) then it's that much less likely that the content will be worth the effort to untangle. A non-native writer is the exception that proves the rule-- I will pass over a lot of small mistakes if I know that English is not the author's first language, because I know that they have nothing to do with the qualities of mind that produce good content.
3. It's a matter of public mental hygiene. Sloppy language can obscure sloppy thinking, so that sometimes a whole argument (or political philosophy) depends entirely on bad usage for its survival. (Don't believe me? Consider the word "need".) To discourage sloppy language is to promote an environment where bad ideas can't spread easily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bob Webster (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 1:18pm

A
I did not see a single grammatical error in this article. No speling errors, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom Black, 29 Oct 2009 @ 1:42pm

News Flash - Different Words Have *GASP* Different Meanings!
There are different words with different meanings that all sound alike but are spelled differently. They're called homophones. If you actually believe that having the ability to differentiate between the various meanings of different words isn't important to good written communication you are truly ignorant. Maybe it'd be okay to replace the word "car" with the word "care". It's close enough for you, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ted, 29 Oct 2009 @ 1:42pm

Grammar Snobs
I'm an ESL teacher and have been for 7 or 8 years now. Grammar rules are 'descriptive', NOT 'prescriptive'. If the meaning is clear, then you have accomplished your aim - which is to successfully send a message through the medium of written (or spoken) text. As long as message sent = message received, you have been successful. That's the bottom line.

Grammar snobs are, well - snobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 1:46pm
  
  Re: Grammar Snobs
  I think you have highlighted the point nicely. Grammar must fit context. For people learning ESL, clearly being able to communicate their ideas is the most (and often only) important thing.
  
  But if you think that's the "bottom line" and that grammar rules have no place, you are being somewhat shortsighted, and a bit of a snob yourself.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 1:50pm
  
  Re: Grammar Snobs
  "Grammar rules are 'descriptive', NOT 'prescriptive'."
  
  Absolutely correct, but that's EXACTLY the point us "snobs" are making. Complex thought can only be described through complex language, and for everyone to be able to understand the meaning of complex language, common practices and rules must be followed, thus grammar and syntax. All kinds of minor inflections, stressors, etc. can be lost with minor errors in grammar, and for complex thought this can go a long way towards killing the meaning behind the thought. Proper grammar may in certain instances aid in describing.
  
  "If the meaning is clear, then you have accomplished your aim"
  
  Fair enough, but it should be stressed that the aim is to have the EXACT meaning of the expression be entirely clear. Language is one case where good enough is NEVER good enough.
  
  "As long as message sent = message received, you have been successful."
  
  Yes, but again, in the interest of true understanding of one another, it has to be as exact as we can get. Good enough doesn't cut it with language.
  
  "Grammar snobs are, well - snobs."
  
  No, we just happen to believe that when it comes to universal practices such as language, there is a right way to do things and a wrong way, with all the benefits and detriments that such distinctions entail.
  
  Plus we're better than you.
  
  And I am SOOOO cereal....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcus Carab (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 3:51pm
    
    Re: Re: Grammar Snobs
    You're making me feel philosophical now, so I will add:
    
    One of the biggest challenges for humanity, and one of the seemingly cruelest facts about our mysterious nature, is that we are all completely isolated. Not one of us is ever able to completely communicate the true nature of our perceptions, ideas and emotions to another person. At some point you've probably considered the notion that what you see as red and blue could be different from what I see, and we would never know - but if you follow that line of thought, you realize the same is true of everything, right down to the very texture of thought and self-awareness.
    
    This fact is what gave rise to language in the first place. And it could be argued that all of human art, literature, poetry and music is an attempt to bridge the divide between our isolated selves and communicate something fully, even if it's only a single moment of emotion or the essence of an idea. I think this is a glorious pursuit, and precise language is one of the tools we use in it.
    
    Many people value language a great deal, and revel in the process of examining it closely to discover its nuanced meanings. We don't ask that everyone do the same (I am very glad others put their minds to different tasks) but we do feel some responsibility to defend the language when it is egregiously assaulted.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcus Carab (profile), 29 Oct 2009 @ 4:22pm
    
    Re: Re: Grammar Snobs
    By the way, excluding the first line, I was still addressing Ted there. (I don't want you to think you got completely and utterly misunderstood twice in one day DH)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2009 @ 2:41pm

To all that like to correct others please go to lang-8 there your efforts will be very much appreciated LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2009 @ 3:03pm

Hey Mike,

I'm with you on this one, but with the declining doller, and if you can't use grammer right, you should hire a skilled immigrant to edit and proofreed your works before you post them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2009 @ 3:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But that makes me wonder who is proofreading Mike's book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2009 @ 3:22pm
  
  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
  GOOD POINT! I almost forgot about that.
  
  Mike must be fighting with his editor.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2009 @ 3:29pm

Adith Multilingual Services Pvt. Ltd.
Hi Mike,

This company provides "Outsourced Proofing Solutions". And it looks like they have "High Quality". They seem reasonable, and can translate in more than 150 Foreign and Indian Languages.

:-)

http://www.thelanguagetranslation.com/services/our-quality.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Omar, 29 Oct 2009 @ 3:46pm

Need Help Editing and proofing? Language Aide is your helping hand!
Hello Distinguished Person,

I have had very good success with Language-Aide.com, and they can help you improve your writing skills. Never worry about the Grammar Nazi again!

http://www.language-aide.com/

Their rates are very reasonable, and turnaround is usually within a few hours.

I highly recommend them. Check them out!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2009 @ 4:15pm

If the text makes the point in a way that people can understand, what is the problem?

I think the bar should be considerably higher than this, at least for anything I'm likely to bother trying to read. Things like capitalization and punctuation are used for a reason: they make writing easier (and quicker) to read, even when they aren't needed to avoid ambiguity. Bad grammar can be distracting and confusing as well, even if it's possible to figure out what was intended.

As for prescriptive grammar in schools, back when I was in school, I was annoyed on many occasions when my English teachers declared that things like split infinitives were disallowed, because I knew that people have long used those constructions and that sometimes using them can be the best way to convey one's thoughts.

Now though, I realize that my English teachers were completely right to make rules like that. The fact is, the vast majority of the time a high school student breaks one of these rules (even the "rules" that I disagreed with) they're engaging in bad writing. By demanding that students follow these rules, teachers can improve the writing of the vast majority of the students, while not adversely affecting the writing of few students who know better. I think this was even beneficial to me as well, as it made me pay more attention every time I used those constructions to whether there might be a better way to express the same thing.

Here's a contrived example: whether or not the sentence "A preposition is a word you should never end a sentence with" is grammatically incorrect, the sentence "You should never end a sentence with a preposition" is a far better way to say the same thing.

English, used properly, does end sentences with prepositions [does that make them postpositions?].

I seem to recall that "postponed preposition" is the term. There are good linguistic reasons (which I don't remember) not to call them postpositions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2009 @ 4:28pm
  
  Re:
  "back when I was in school, I was annoyed on many occasions when my English teachers declared that things like split infinitives were disallowed"
  
  Yes. Those damned split infinitives. They always ruined the weekend parties too. They were so annoying.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 30 Oct 2009 @ 8:17am
  
  Re:
  Here's a contrived example: whether or not the sentence "A preposition is a word you should never end a sentence with" is grammatically incorrect, the sentence "You should never end a sentence with a preposition" is a far better way to say the same thing.
  
  If I'm not mistaken, the reason the second way is better is because it's in the active voice, and the first is in the passive voice (in the first, the verb is "to be", in the second, it's "end"). I think I'm right about that anyway.... if so, that would make the example contrived because it actually has nothing to do with ending a sentence with a preposition, which is on its own perfectly fine.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jeff G, 29 Oct 2009 @ 6:56pm

Grammar doesn't really matter unless you're writing for a company or school that has specific grammar rules. The writer is an artist and paper is their canvas. have fun!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2009 @ 9:46am

If I'm not mistaken, the reason the second way is better is because it's in the active voice, and the first is in the passive voice (in the first, the verb is "to be", in the second, it's "end"). I think I'm right about that anyway.... if so, that would make the example contrived because it actually has nothing to do with ending a sentence with a preposition, which is on its own perfectly fine.

No, there's no passive voice there, just an extra clause making things more complicated than they needed to be: the point was that trying to "correct" the preposition at the end could lead to better writing, even if the preposition wasn't really itself the problem.

A passive voice version might be something like "A sentence should never be ended with a preposition" (which is probably even worse writing).

I think passive voice is actually a far better example of the sort of thing I was talking about. I had at least one English teacher who told us that using the passive voice was wrong and that we weren't allowed to do it. Of course, in fact the passive voice is a useful part of the English language, but in many cases using the passive voice isn't the best way to say something, and that English teacher forced students to pay attention to that.

(Of course, I don't think most "grammar nazis" on the internet are really so interested in improving anyone's writing; it's more just another example of the various trash-talking that people wouldn't do in person but can let out on the internet with little fear of any consequences...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bav (profile), 30 Oct 2009 @ 11:14am

.
.
"Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school."
~Albert Einstein

There is a time and place for simplifying the language. To disregard its proper use and make the misuse of English the norm is simply wrong. What little "education" remains today does not have to define us. As humans, we are always learning and adding to our education in daily life.

To promote the slow demise of our language is to support it's death.

What is the English Language when we despise it, consider it unimportant and conspire to render it flexible? It becomes a dialect. Once the majority, in this case the uneducated lazy, wins this battle, America is ripe for another language to take over. One that people have pride in and defend to keep.

Who knows, maybe 20 or 50 years down the road America will be a Spanish speaking country with all media dominated by the Spanish language...or Chinese, Japanese, Korean. Who's up for that? It may be that we'll have to have Einstein's intelligent words translated to our new dialect. (because that's what it will become)

Einstein's English may read something like this in the future dialect-

"edumkashun r wut sta after wun haz phorgoten wut eyz learnt ins skul."

I welcome correction when there is a correct.

What shall we blur next? Our unalienable rights?

Grammar and spelling corrections welcomed.
.
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Miyna, 1 Nov 2009 @ 6:06am

I disagree
While I understand that tone is everything, and that tone isn't always easily understood over the internet, the idea that people shouldn't use proper grammar whenever possible is horrific.

I'm not defending people who are complete jerks about it, and I'm not talking about using big words and complicated sentences, I only mean that proper word usage -- your v. you're, do v. due, etc. -- and spelling are important. Simplifying language and butchering it are entirely different things.

I fully believe that the people who have the biggest problem with so-called Grammar Nazis are those who don't understand basic grammar (and spelling!), due to substandard teaching. I am discomfited to learn that some of the professors and teachers responsible for this are climbing on the bandwagon instead of taking responsibility. Don't get me started on the parenting involved in this endemic.

It appears, then, that the issue has come full circle -- from substandard education to improper grammar, leading to the abundance of incorrect spelling and word usage and the defense of it by substandard educators, and by those who are not well taught.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 1 Nov 2009 @ 2:32pm

If the text makes the point in a way that people can understand, what is the problem?

I is agreeing with you. Two many peoples get two uptite about grammatological stuffs. Its grate when peoples trys to right gooder, butt as long as they gots there point across, whats the problems?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
whatever, 1 Nov 2009 @ 4:27pm

"...suggesting that making such an elementary grammatical error suggests that I obviously never made it out of the second grade."

Excuse me, that's quite possibly because an elementary grammatical error makes you *sound* like you never made it out of the second grade. So a big fat DUH to you.

And while I'm here, I'll don my nazi cap:
"Grammar rules are mostly to make people feel elite, not to make them any clearer, according to the book."

That is a poorly constructed sentence. It is not clear whether "them" is referring to "grammar rules" or "people". Tsk tsk.

Oh, and here's a news flash: just because it says so in a book, albeit by a professor, doesn't make it "so". It's still just one person's opinion.

I concur with Dark Helmet in that quality of language is paramount.

(btw, you need to indent the list numbering a bit on your comments .. it's being chopped off)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark, 24 Apr 2011 @ 5:31am

If we can understand each other then who cares?
Most of it is to make people feel elite. All languages have rules. Regardless, most of us can successfully communicate without following every single rule to the T.

What's really sad is that all these rules make life more difficult for people. We could easily communicate without such a technical language. Problem is, we think it makes us intelligent.

It seems most humans have a little snob in them. Grammar snobs, music snobs, food snobs, literary snobs, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jolie du Pre, 25 Sep 2011 @ 9:56pm

Grammar snobs
"A grammar snob is someone who likes to use grammar, spelling, usage, etc. to humiliate and ridicule other people. Grammar snobs should never be confused with their gentle cousins, words nerds and grammar geeks." - June Casagrande
[ link to this | view in chronology ]