Grammar Nazi-ness

[UberNoodle]

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.

Well please don't assume that I wrote anything as a personal attack. Language greatly interests me. I teach it, I study it. I found it stimulating to examine the use of that word, even if my opinion on it was based on personal feeling. Accept my apologies if you thought I was victimising you. I certainly wasn't. That is why I removed the quote and let my post stand on its own.

 

[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.

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.

Hence normally. Unintelligible would have been more appropriate. And I think the OP'er is probably getting slightly pissed-off that I'm derailing the thread so I'll stop now.

 

[iLikeHippos]

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!

A good and valid point, worthy to remember.

I'll use this the next time some dipshit tells me that it's spelled "corrupt" and not "corrupted".
It's a long story...

 

[joshuaayt]

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!

TL;DR
Haha, I kid.
So you're saying it's cool if I decide to, say, write a book and replace all of the "you"s with "u"s? Or teach children at a school in a similar fashion?
We need to keep language standardised. The communicative discrepancies that we are talking about right now start very small, with minor differences here and there. But then they evolve, creating a slightly different version, and so on. Eventually it becomes hard for even natives to understand, the changes being so great between regions. Then people have to learn English-Coast and English-City and everyone is unhappy.
Remember the Olde Times, when dictionaries didn't exist ande wordes were spellt howevere the fucke?
Man, I hate reading those books.

 

[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.

Well please don't assume that I wrote anything as a personal attack. Language greatly interests me. I teach it, I study it. I found it stimulating to examine the use of that word, even if my opinion on it was based on personal feeling. Accept my apologies if you thought I was victimising you. I certainly wasn't. That is why I removed the quote and let my post stand on its own.

I didn't think of it as a personal attack, I thought of it as frustrating. No need to remove the quote, by the way.

 

[Gindil]

It's like people don't understand... It's not a damn text message. This isn't Twitter and you have dictionaries and thesauruses at your beck and call.

But people want to bombard me with bad grammar and spellin' miztakes.

*eye twitches*

And usually they're the first person to come up with the wittiest retort of "Go suck a can opener u fukin fagot"

It's like... Really? You wanna insult me with bad spelling?

*shakes head*

What is wrong with the world?!

 

[Phoenixlight]

Nazis were never very good at grammar so there's no such thing as a "grammar-nazi". And if you're upset by people making spelling/grammar mistakes who may be using English as their second language cry more.

 

[Sikachu]

Spoiler: snip

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!

Was you girlfriend's Bachelor's degree in psychology? If not, I'm not convinced she is qualified to pronounce upon the sub-conscious motivation of Grammar-Nazism. Pop-psychology aside, I think that you stumble towards a good point - being pernickety about minor errors is not helpful - but I think you make the mistake of relegating the point of codified language (and therefore some degree of insistence on adherence) to asides. We are certainly agreed that the primary concern of language is the communication of ideas and that if this goal is achieved, usage was successful. However, there are degrees of success, and important factors in this include clarity and ambiguity. Adopting the standard form of grammar, and using words in their generally agreed senses (which are handily explained in regularly updated dictionaries) greatly diminishes the chance of misunderstanding.

I'm very sceptical of your claim that language acquisition occurs independently of intelligence. I suspect you make this claim because of a differing definition of the difficult concept of 'intelligence'. I would usually define this as 'the faculty of understanding' and so the ability to learn to effectively communicate would fall squarely in my definition, but yours may differ.

Your point about internally consistent grammar seems to me to undermine your more general argument that standard grammar is unimportant because it seems to show that some rudimentary agreement on 'the rules' is required at every level. If everyone uses the same grammar, so much the better for communication. Don't get me wrong, I support the evolution of language and its creative use, but when dealing with an audience that is not familiar with a particular set of rules (but still speaks the same language) is it not desirable to use the commonly agreed rules? Does that not facilitate better communication? I'm not arguing that there is one true grammar, but merely that there are certainly rules that are widely adopted (and taught) and that following them is better for the purposes of avoiding confusion. In written language, where there are many fewer clues as to meaning, it is doubly important, and following standard conventions greatly improves comprehension and readability.

So while there is no absolute, meta-physical 'good' grammar, there is such a thing as grammar that complies with that which is generally understood and facilitates understanding - might as well call that 'good'. It's the difference between 'I helped my Uncle Jack off a horse' and 'I helped my uncle jack off a horse'.

 

[Sikachu]

Hence normally. Unintelligible would have been more appropriate. And I think the OP'er is getting slightly pissed-off that I'm derailing the thread so I'll stop now.

Yes, I managed to read the word "normally" the first two times you wrote it. Still doesn't explain why you would not just read the word 'illegible' in its correct but obscure meaning and move on, rather than try to substitute a word that is also correct in for what he said. It read as though you were correcting his usage. "You mean `unintelligible', surely?" No. He means 'illegible'.

Condescending comments such as "Try reading the `Quotations' for what I mean." certainly do not help your case for wanting to appear reasonable, particular if you refuse to acknowledge that those quotations to which you referred me (as if I had not read them already) do not support the point you are making.

 

[secretsantaone]

Are you all retarded?

Seriously?

Half the comments in this thread are people picking up on missed apostrophes or missing letters. That isn't poor grammar, that's just missing something while typing. Typing takes time, so most people want to get their message across quickly before the conversation has moved on, ensuring it's still relevant to the discussion. If the person makes a valid point then I'm sure you can forgive a couple of grammatical mistakes.

If you can understand it, stop complaining.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

You call that post "bad grammar"? Sure, he's generous with punctuation, even a lot, doesn't use capital letters... But he doesn't make any spelling errors. Really, there are worse. The only major problem is misuse of "otherwise".

Nazi. cuz not leik it wuz dis.
Seriously, its hard to be stupid.

Oh, the bitter irony.

Someone used irony correctly! You sir win one internets from the irony nazi "balloons and trumpets" also a cookie.

OT: That wasn't that bad, I tend to have different criteria for what is acceptable typing. In my english essays it has to be perfect. On the internet im fine as long as i can understand what the person is saying. For example.

"I cant see how that guy could think that was smart i wouldnt do that in a million years."

He missed a few apostrophe's and a capital I but it's stupidly easy to understand what he's saying. However in the example you gave: "but don't me other wise" isn't even coherent, I have no idea what he's trying to convey to me. Thats when I become annoyed at people.

I may have mispelt the word apostrophe, I apologise in advance.

 

[Lukeje]

Hence normally. Unintelligible would have been more appropriate. And I think the OP'er is getting slightly pissed-off that I'm derailing the thread so I'll stop now.

Yes, I managed to read the word "normally" the first two times you wrote it. Still doesn't explain why you would not just read the word 'illegible' in its correct but obscure meaning and move on, rather than try to substitute a word that is also correct in for what he said. It read as though you were correcting his usage. "You mean `unintelligible', surely?" No. He means 'illegible'.

Condescending comments such as "Try reading the `Quotations' for what I mean." certainly do not help your case for wanting to appear reasonable, particular if you refuse to acknowledge that those quotations to which you referred me (as if I had not read them already) do not support the point you are making.

(And they just keep pulling me back...) They support that the normal usage is as I said. What more do you want?

 

[Thaius]

I get typos: sometimes people make typing mistakes and don't catch them, and it's just stupid and arrogant to judge them in any way based on such small mistakes. Grammar, on the other hand... no.

People need to know how to communicate clearly on paper: it's a necessity for a society as advanced as ours.

And for you arrogant people saying that it doesn't matter, English people are snobs, etc., understand that grammatical mistakes and dialects are very, VERY different things. Don't go saying that grammar nazis are not allowing for dialectical differences, because there is a huge difference between grammar and dialect.

 

[UberNoodle]

Nazis were never very good at grammar so there's no such thing as a "grammar-nazi". And if you're upset by people making spelling/grammar mistakes who may be using English as their second language cry more.

I understand what you are saying there. I agree. However, I don't agree with the last part ('cry more'). It is so dismissive, as if the cause of people you are referring to has no merit at all.

When people posts on a forum, they are entering into a discussion. The goal is to be be understood as well as possible and thereby share thoughts and opinions easily. When poeple choose to write like they don't give a crap, despite having the ability to write well, they show disrespect. Yet, they demand everybody's time and understanding.

For people writing English as a second language (and I deal with them professionally), as long as they are doing their best to be understood, that effort is appreciated and reciprocated. When someone writes as if it's a waste of time, it is like mumbling something and then looking away when the other person answers. Or worse, it is like talking at someone and then not listening to their reply.

That said, correcting people on what are clearly accidental errors, is obviously rude. As far as I am concerned, it is only the extreme cases that I get bothered by. Like, Da 1s lik diss were peeple jus speel thins lik dey hev no idear. Or when, th3y u5e l3773r5 and num83r5 or aLtErNaTe CaPiTals or just dont bother to use any punctuation despite its power to make text more readible and understandble it is those kinds of people that frustrate me when online theyneedtoshowabitmorerespectfortheirreadersandofcoursetheenglishlanguage.

That was fun.

 

[manic_depressive13]

I'm hesitant to call out other people's bad grammar unless they are being grammar nazis themselves. In real life I'll generally mock someone who says (or writes) something grammatically incorrect if I know english is their first language. However, over the internet you can never be sure that it's not someone who has been studying english for a short period time, and who is trying their best to get their message across.

Having said that, while I might find grammatical errors mildly irritating, I would never get genuinely angry over something as trivial as someone's use (or misuse) of the english language. Honestly, as most people have already said, it was only a youtube comment.

 

[longbowgr]

Thank god, English was voted to be the international language. It actually won by one vote against Greek.
I couldn't stand watching Greek being slaughtered each and every day.

 

[Revolutionary]

And yet you put 'proof read' as one word, which in fact, is not entirely correct.

 

[unoleian]

Nitpicking details like wonky punctuation is going a little overboard. 18+ years of school later, and I'm still a little unclear on all the rules of when to use what when, and what goes inside or before whatever else. (Especially with these. Is the ending puncutation inside, or out? Does it matter?) However, people should be able to at least use the right word in the write context as often as possible.
It makes me sort of sad too see how often people will switch there words around and use the wrong word entirely for what their trying to say. It becomes two much after a while. [/badgrammar]

This is stuff people should have down-pat after fifth grade, around the time most websites allow registration to even use them! It shows a lack of any care or intelligence whatsoever to completely walk all over the language that you likely use to communicate every day of your life.

Latitude for non-native speakers aside, I know such words as to, too, two, there, they're, their, you're, your, and etc. can be a confusing morass. But for native speakers, it's simply bad form. Have a little respect for yourself, and the language that forms the basis for all your interactions, ever.

 

[Helmutye]

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.

I greatly appreciate your response. I'm pretty sure we're on the same page as far as this topic goes, and I assure you and all others that I am not trying to demonize the discussion of language. To discuss is fun and interesting. But to dismiss is rude and arrogant, and that is what I dislike about grammar nazis. I think that in any conversation both the speaker/writer and the listener/reader should be doing everything they can to understand each other. It is not solely the responsibility of either, but rather the joint responsibility of both.

I will, however, differ with you on the idea of universal understanding. I do not believe that universal understanding is possible. People evolved in small tribes, and our language abilities were suited to that sort of environment. As long as we can communicate with the small group of people we need to communicate with, we are satisfied.

So you're saying it's cool if I decide to, say, write a book and replace all of the "you"s with "u"s? Or teach children at a school in a similar fashion?
We need to keep language standardised. The communicative discrepancies that we are talking about right now start very small, with minor differences here and there. But then they evolve, creating a slightly different version, and so on. Eventually it becomes hard for even natives to understand, the changes being so great between regions. Then people have to learn English-Coast and English-City and everyone is unhappy.
Remember the Olde Times, when dictionaries didn't exist ande wordes were spellt howevere the fucke?
Man, I hate reading those books.

Communicative discrepancies are inevitable. Unless we are all part of the same homogenous group and everyone continually talks to everyone else, subgroups will form and develop their own unique versions of the language. I really doubt we even have that much choice in the matter. I would argue that differences in language are an indicator of just how divided our society is becoming--people in the inner city are hard to understand to and have a hard time understanding people from the suburbs. Kids on the internet are becoming less attached to the "proper" English their parents and teachers are more familiar with. However, we cannot fix these divides by standardizing our language. The reason our language is diverging is because of the divides.

Ultimately, language is a tool of necessity. Because it is not learned like other things are, it cannot be controlled as other things can be. People can learn math, and have little difficulty conforming to standardized notation and rules of how to structure things. But people don't learn language. They acquire it, as I said in my last post. At this time there are actually more non-native speakers of English in the world than there are native speakers, and there are signs that a whole non-native dialect may start to form. I have heard non-natives say that they often have an easier time conversing in English with other non-native speakers than they do with native speakers. How would all you native speakers feel if you were told that you had to change the way you speak and adopt the dialect the non-native speakers use? You would have to change the words you used, change the order of you sentences, possibly change the way words are conjugated, and all kinds of similar things. It would be very difficult, and you would probably feel very resentful, right? When you try to standardize a language, that is what you are asking the speakers of other dialects to do.

 

[UberNoodle]

Are you all retarded?

Seriously?

Half the comments in this thread are people picking up on missed apostrophes or missing letters. That isn't poor grammar, that's just missing something while typing. Typing takes time, so most people want to get their message across quickly before the conversation has moved on, ensuring it's still relevant to the discussion. If the person makes a valid point then I'm sure you can forgive a couple of grammatical mistakes.

If you can understand it, stop complaining.

Text can be reread. Sending out a message full of errors, quite often greatly affects the writer's ability to be understood. No matter how valid the point may be, it may end up obscured, misinterpreted or completely lost. If you were speaking, would you mumble or slur? Would you speak without tonal variation, pauses or breaks? Would you just say 70% of the words? Apologies if you have any impediments, but the goal in any communicative task should be to be understood. We all have to do our best, or accept that we may be ignored or even criticised. Of course, I don't agree with picking on people, especially if they only made a few little, often habitual, mistakes.