Grammar Nazi-ness

[JourneyThroughHell]

snip

Can you guess why I snipped the comment? I'll give you a hint - it was torturous.
Yes, the comments on the Internet are not that important, but, here's a hint to ya, contrary to popular belief the Internet is real - because if it weren't, we would all be just wasting our time here.
And that's why post like the OP presented diminish our Internet experience - there are places for intelligent discussion in the Web and that discussion can occur between anyone, regardless of their nationality, age, preferences.
Yet stupid-ass badly written incoherent comments like I see every day diminish that and make the prospects of intelligent discussion seem unrealistic. They also fuel the bastards who go around shouting "You're getting upset over the Internet, hurr hurr, that makes your point obsolete".
Also, Caps Lock = cruise control for awesome, huh?

 

[ultrachicken]

You need to stop concerning yourself with grammar unless it's illegible.
Seriously, that wasn't that bad. And it was also youtube. I'd say that was an above average post.

 

[Lukeje]

You need to stop concerning yourself with grammar unless it's illegible.

You mean `unintelligible', surely? `Illegible' normally refers to not being able to decipher someone's handwriting.

 

[UberNoodle]

Basically, when I read posts that are hard to read because of mistakes, I CAN take it that that person WANTS to take other people's time but is unwilling to be respectful enough to write something readable. When you see things like "they're shoes are over there" or "I like dog's", I might assume that the writer is perhaps still learning English language fundamentals. When it is all written in phonetics or just mispellings due to an inability to READ clashing with an ability to SPEAK ("for all intensive purposes", or "should of"), I don't give much leeway at all.

 

[ultrachicken]

You need to stop concerning yourself with grammar unless it's illegible.

You mean `unintelligible', surely? `Illegible' normally refers to not being able to decipher someone's handwriting.

Difficult to read

 

[AWPerative]

I don't mind when we're talking on some IMing system like AIM or Facebook, but if I'm posting on forums or writing articles for my school paper, the Grammar Nazi in me just comes out and starts trying to find every little error.

 

[Lukeje]

You need to stop concerning yourself with grammar unless it's illegible.

You mean `unintelligible', surely? `Illegible' normally refers to not being able to decipher someone's handwriting.

Difficult to read

*Shrug* Each to their own. I can normally understand the words, but understanding the intended meaning behind them is a little more difficult. (Though I will admit that when spelling goes out of the window some posts can occasionally become illegible too).

 

[Sikachu]

You need to stop concerning yourself with grammar unless it's illegible.

You mean `unintelligible', surely? `Illegible' normally refers to not being able to decipher someone's handwriting.

Difficult to read

*Shrug* Each to their own. I can normally understand the words, but understanding the intended meaning behind them is a little more difficult. (Though I will admit that when spelling goes out of the window some posts can occasionally become illegible too).

So easy to settle these things, and everyone gets to learn something.

 

[UberNoodle]

I would say that 'legible' refers to the physical properties of type or written characters and that they are able to be deciphered. We talk about legible handwriting as well as legible fonts. So, even a sentence like "doze guyz R fool of sh!t" is legible. Understandable? It depends on how much you are willing to give the person that wrote it.

And regardless of what that dictionary entry says, illegibility due to 'language' is clearly not the primary meaning, and it does say 'specifically' use for writing. Using the word 'illegible' to mean 'unable to understand' might be arguably correct, but ironically misleading. 'The passage is illegible' could mean that age has significantly eroded the type/script to the point where it can no longer be read. If we are going to talk about "grammar Nazi'ness", I think it is worth discussing points like this too. Grammar is only one part in enabling clear transferal of meaning, no?

 

[ultrachicken]

You need to stop concerning yourself with grammar unless it's illegible.

You mean `unintelligible', surely? `Illegible' normally refers to not being able to decipher someone's handwriting.

Difficult to read

I would say that 'legible' refers to the physical properties of type or written characters and that they are able to be deciphered. We talk about legible handwriting as well as legible fonts. So, even a sentence like "doze guyz R fool of sh!t" is legible. Understandable? It depends on how much you are willing to give the person that wrote it.

Thank you, but I already had a sufficient explanation.

 

[Lukeje]

So easy to settle these things, and everyone gets to learn something.

The OED was the first place I checked to confirm my definition. It's why I said normally.

Edit: Try reading the `Quotations' for what I mean.

 

[UberNoodle]

Thank you, but I already had a sufficient explanation.

That sounds possibly snarky ...

 

[Helmutye]

I am not a linguist, but my girlfriend is. She is working on her Masters degree in Linguistics and plans on going for her Doctorate to become a Professor. She absolutely hates grammar nazis, and if given the chance she will always explain at length why being a grammar nazi is sophomoric and indicative of insecurity and an irrational need to feel superior. I'm sure she would love to comment on this, but she is asleep right now, so I will do my best!

A lot of people seem to be under the impression that there is such a thing as "good grammar" and "bad grammar." There isn't. There is no reason why what is typically called "good grammar"--the kind you generally learn in English class--is better than other ways of putting the language together. The only reason there is "good grammar" is because the people who are currently in charge of this country like to think their dialect of English is superior to others, and discriminate against them. The grammar used by people in the inner city is just as valid a way to speak English as any other. Sorry, English majors, but there is no basis for your field other than social inequality.

Language is not something that is learned, at least not in the same way we learn other things. Language is Acquired. Our brains are specially designed to use language, and this occurs independent of intelligence. So long as you do not have brain damage, you will speak your native language with internally consistent grammar. You generally learn the languages you are exposed to as a kid, and at a certain point your brain "hardens" and becomes less able to acquire new languages, but as a kid language is one of the things that your brain is most dedicated to. It is instinctive, to the point where groups of kids will spontaneously invent their own fully developed, fully grammatical language if they are not exposed to an existing language. Non-native speakers will sometimes use flawed and inconsistent grammar, but this is because their brains have not fully acquired it. And interestingly enough, if parents speak a broken, inconsistent form of a language around their child, the child will automatically "correct" the grammar so that it is internally consistent and shows all the hallmarks of native consistency. This does not mean that they will use the same grammar or dialect as the rich, elite speakers of the language. But by all scientific standards it will be just as Right.

So all you grammar nazis out there take heed: if you disagree with someone, go ahead and disagree with them. But disagree with their ideas. So long as communication is established, language has done its job, and nitpicking the tiny details of how someone else uses the language does not show how smart you are. It shows how boring, close-minded, and arrogant you are. It's like getting a letter in the mail but throwing it out without reading it because the sender spelled your name wrong on the envelope. You know how the rest of the world gets annoyed with Americans because we don't bother to learn anyone else's language most of the time? Grammar nazis do that within their own language! Get over yourselves!

 

[Daniel_Rosamilia]

You are someone who takes the internet too seriously.
ITS THE INTERNET
ITS NOT REAL

altho it is
BUT IT ISNT

the comments on utube and on forums ARENT IMPORTANT

getting pissed off about that kind of stuff really just makes you a loser. It's just like when people get made fun of for what they wear and you're thinking ITS NOT A BIG DEAL well to those people it is.
AND YOU ARE JUST LIKE THEM HOW DOES IT MAKE YOU FEEL

DOES MY BAD USE OF LANGUAGE MAKE U ANGER?!
MWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH I win

Urge to kill......
rising

Now, I shall counter-comment all your 'points':

1. The Internet IS real.
You are certainly on it right now, and if you are reading this and are NOT on the Internet, that raises a few questions about how you can do that.

2. Comments on YouTube and forums CAN be important, but YouTube is turning into 4chan, and that is a bit weird, so the majority of those comments shouldn't even exist or be noted.

3. Getting pissed off about these things does not make him a loser, it just means he actually cares about the English language and doesn't like people that ruin it for everyone else.

4. Your usage of bad grammar, punctuation and overall bad spelling will probably not anger him, just make him lose faith in part of humanity, or just make him laugh at how pathetic you are.

5. You do not win. The Internet does not allow this.
Neither does The Escapist.

Also, I really didn't want to do that, but I had to teach him a lesson.
I guess you could say I have taken Grammar Nazism to a whole new level.

 

[ultrachicken]

Thank you, but I already had a sufficient explanation.

That sounds possibly snarky ...

I admit, I was pretty annoyed that that one word was attracting so much attention and the meaning of my post was being ignored.

 

[AWDMANOUT]

You can almost feel the tension as everyone double-checks their writings. Hehe.

Honestly, spelling easy words incorrectly and a few other things really annoy me, but there's that one simple fact that we can't ignore.

People are stupid.

So, this Nazism is acceptable (to me, at least) yet fruitless at the same time.

Remember: the more time spent complaining, the less time spent mocking.

 

[Sikachu]

So easy to settle these things, and everyone gets to learn something.

The OED was the first place I checked to confirm my definition. It's why I said normally.

Edit: Try reading the `Quotations' for what I mean.

I don't understand what you mean - "esp. of written characters" clearly shows that 'illegible' especially means text where it is difficult or impossible to make out the characters, that isn't in dispute. To second guess his word choice when he used the word correctly if obscurely (as per both the definition and the quotations - "Clarissa Harlowe and Sir C. Grandison owe all their attraction to their length;..an abstract of either would be illegible" and "Sir Michael Scott, again-being all magic, witchcraft, and mystery-is absolutely illegible") seems absurd.

 

[Salviar]

Hahaha...When I see comments like that (especially on youtube) I mainly laugh at the stupidity of the person and the fact that they seem to have no life other than making others feel as bad as they feel. Basically, I just pass them off as 'wankers' and move on.
Sometimes it makes me angry, but that generally because of the context, not the spelling and grammar.

BUT I do proof read my comments like you do. Usually only on here though, because it's wasted on most other websites.

 

[Nouw]

Hell I just correct it and not say anything at all. On the Escapist I don't quote to fix.

 

[UberNoodle]

Snip!

I agree with the spirit of what you, or should I say, your girlfriend, believs. No living language is frozen in time. Rules change constantly and even an amateur etymologist/philologist would agree that so much of what is 'accepted' in English today is built on compounded 'mistakes'. It could be something as simple as a how a 'a napron' (from 'napery') became 'an apron'. And yes, rules change through culture and style - all the time. Now, with the Net, there are no real 'gatekeepers' of language. There are no hardarse editors. There is only you, your spell checker, your memory and your reading experience.

But on the other hand, so many mistakes are due to literacy problems or laziness, plain and simple. How could anyone could write 'for all intensive purposes' and manage to justify it as well? Explain how writing everything phonetically or without punctuation aids in understanding? You could demand that so-called grammar nazis "grow up", but there has to be some standards.

When we write for others, we are trying to communicate. So often nowadays, communication has become a selfish act - the equivalent of talking at people. Someone wanting to communicate and above all, be understood, must do everything in their power to make that happen. ifiwriteverythinglikethisanddontbotherdoinganythingmore, is that enough? From what you said, the readers are the selfish ones for demanding a bit of respect.

So I agree with what you are saying when it comes to actual nazis of grammar. However, I hope you are not calling to demonise the disussion of language, semantics and standards (and therefore what makes things more universally understandable). It is true that rules change and languages grow with the cultures and people that use them. The rules shouldn't be frozen because then they would die.

However, languages should be loved and respected, and even your girlfriend wouldn't say that TODAY'S rules should be disregarded. Without standards, even if they are fleeting, we can't communicate beyond our social circles. The Humpty Dumpty Principle doesn't work if one wishes to be properly and universally understood.