Grammar, Spelling Nazis should just get over themselves
- Thread starter QtheMuse
- Start date
i dont judge intelligence based on grammar. i judge based on the opinion you get across, and if you cant get it across well then its useless.
I only correct people who are trying to make a point, but I cannot understand it, because of horrible spelling and grammar mistakes.idodo35 said:
If I get what someone said, I don't care if they used a proper semi-colon, correct conjunction, or correct spelling.
But when they spell words wrong that even a child could get, and its difficult to read their points, then I am compelled to correct them.
There are a lot of people saying improper spelling and grammar stops a statement from being understood. From personal experience I can usually understand people who communicate differently, but just as there are people who have problems with grammar, there are people who have problems understanding anything they aren't familiar with. Just because you can't understand them does not mean they are less of a person than you.
It is a big problem if you feel someone who uses grammar improperly is not worth as much as you are. Putting so much importance on something that hardly matters at all is a problem. It is a bigger problem than the ones you correct for other people. Different uses of spelling and grammar stretch the boundaries of our very existence. To be able to say something in a multitude of ways (and to understand different ways of communicating) allows us to see and understand our world in different ways. Can things like poetry and imagination come from using unchangeable, strict rules? It is a beautiful thing, not something to be corrected.
It is a big problem if you feel someone who uses grammar improperly is not worth as much as you are. Putting so much importance on something that hardly matters at all is a problem. It is a bigger problem than the ones you correct for other people. Different uses of spelling and grammar stretch the boundaries of our very existence. To be able to say something in a multitude of ways (and to understand different ways of communicating) allows us to see and understand our world in different ways. Can things like poetry and imagination come from using unchangeable, strict rules? It is a beautiful thing, not something to be corrected.
I'm a linguist by training, so this entire thread is catnip to me. I'll come back to the point above in a sec.Takumashii said:
Whoever posted the Stephen Fry kinetic typography got one main point right. Language, like any human institution, has a social aspect, and in fields like academics, business, or science, you have to "dress up" your language to match the setting. There are things I do on Twitter that I wouldn't for one second dare to do while, say, writing my thesis. That said, if I made a couple spelling or syntactical errors in my thesis (or even a few more than that), few would think I was automatically dumber for it. I've read dissertations from a couple scholars that are, by all accounts, really smart dudes and that still read like they could've used a proofreader.
On the other hand, this being the Internet, we usually don't have theses or other proven, reviewed, published work to buttress someone's credentials. (Exceptions abound, such as, say, Academia.edu.) In circumstances like that, it's normal to judge someone's mental capabilities by how they spell, or how well they know their grammar. Like Stephen Fry says, however, if you're getting to the point where you actually derive pleasure from correcting people, you're doing it wrong. Of course, no one thinks this about themselves, because it sounds like an extremely douchebaggish thing by which to be pleased.
The reason I quote the point above is because grammar "rules" are sometimes stupid, or unfair to their own languages. For example, I twisted the last sentence of the previous paragraph into a pretzel to make it not end in a preposition. That rule was dreamt up by scholars who wanted English to read more like Latin, in which sentences can't end with prepositions no matter what. Yet, to this day, you find people who defend it as an article of good grammar, or on an aesthetic basis, despite the circumlocution it requires. Similarly, grammar mistakes do help expand the language. The word "apron," for example, was originally "napron," until too many people said "a napron" too quickly and, with time, reanalyzed the "n" to go with the indefinite article rather than the noun.
(Having said that, I'm not sure poetry and imagination come from making actual linguistic mistakes. That's like saying Jackson Pollock's drip paintings are beautiful purely because he chose that over traditional art. The man's drip paintings are beautiful because he was working with the basic forces of fluid dynamics, without even being an engineer or scientist.)
Therefore, my personal standard is to take as much care as possible. Spelling isn't vital to communication - unless you're doing something like Xtreme Kool Letterz or l33t - but as a syntax fiend, I find grammar to be the major contributor to badly written prose. That said, I don't correct bad usage unless it actively interferes with my ability to understand what is being said. If every spelling and grammar mistake is evidence of disrespect or an insult to me as a reader, then (to bring back an old joke) most of Twitter, let alone the Internet as a whole, must absolutely hate my guts.
I do my best to keep the spelling/grammar correct, but I don't expect others to do the same and I never judge them for it. I see judging intelligence by seeing how someone types and/or acting all superior about it as pretty narrow minded and pompous. I know a lot of people who type without proper spelling/grammar (and some use textspeak) who are also far, far more intelligent than me (as in, attending the top universities in England, etc.)
Dammit. I was going to say how posting a poorly-written message is like turning up to a job interview wearing jeans and a t-shirt. There's nothing wrong with it. You're still wearing -some- clothes, but you know you won't get the job, even though it has no bearing on how good you would be at it.Sleekit said:
But once again, I find that everything I've thought worth saying has already been said by Stephen Fry, only more eloquently.
I'd be annoyed only if he wasn't so charming.
Actually, spelling and grammar do say something about one's personality and habits. Spelling and grammar make what you say much, much less of an eyesore to read. Your grammar doesn't have to be absolutely perfect, but enough so that people actually care about what you're trying to say. Using more proper grammar does indeed make you look smarter, thus does it add to the initial trust that someone will actually listen to you, instead of take what you say with a grain of salt.
and im srry to say but typin like this wit no concern to grammer or spellin will more often then not make u look like a moron even if ur not
It also goes to show how freaking lazy you are. If you took the time to make your typing muscle memory used to using proper spelling and grammar, it's no different than typing like the phrase right above this. To the people that hate Grammar Nazis and tell them to get over themselves, how about YOU get over yourself. The annoyingly excessive Grammar Nazis, I can understand because they're more than a thorn than anything. However, the ones that just randomly point something out are really not doing anything wrong, unless it's out of malicious intent. I've been called a Grammar Nazi before, and accused of believing myself higher than others because they don't type as properly as I do. But I'm quite aware my grammar's far from perfect, so I usually just ignore it.
and im srry to say but typin like this wit no concern to grammer or spellin will more often then not make u look like a moron even if ur not
It also goes to show how freaking lazy you are. If you took the time to make your typing muscle memory used to using proper spelling and grammar, it's no different than typing like the phrase right above this. To the people that hate Grammar Nazis and tell them to get over themselves, how about YOU get over yourself. The annoyingly excessive Grammar Nazis, I can understand because they're more than a thorn than anything. However, the ones that just randomly point something out are really not doing anything wrong, unless it's out of malicious intent. I've been called a Grammar Nazi before, and accused of believing myself higher than others because they don't type as properly as I do. But I'm quite aware my grammar's far from perfect, so I usually just ignore it.
That is one of the most ridiculous, poorly thought out, emotion over logic arguments I have ever read.QtheMuse said:
People care about spelling and grammar because for English to be a language we can all understand we all need to follow the rules. I have no idea what being "OCD" means. I can look it up on the internet, but I would prefer not to, and sometimes I cannot find the meaning of acronyms. If there were several internet acronyms in a post, I would become frustrated and just not read it.QtheMuse said:
If everyone starts making up their own rules for English and assuming every other English speaker can understand it, this will only be true for a while. Eventually people have more and more difficulty communicating with each other because there are so many different ways people are speaking within the English language. Some might believe this is good for diversification of culture and language, but people deciding to not follow the rules of the English language will not create culture, it will just create difficulties in communication over the long term.
In addition, English is already a very difficult language to learn. In an increasingly globalised world, where cross-border communication is essential to commerce, the last thing we need is to make communication even more difficult.
Imagine if you needed to move to Japan for work, and had to learn Japanese. The Japanese language is already one of the most difficult in the world to learn (right beside English), but fortunately Japan is a very business minded, traditionalist country. I therefore speculate on this partially informed statement that the Japanese language is not very flexible or fluid, as you claim language is. (I'm just using this as an example of a non-flexible language which is difficult to learn, and I think Japanese reasonably fits that description.) Imagine how difficult it would be if some in Japan, rather than strictly following the rules of their language, instead decided that if they cut corners on certain rules of grammar, if they settled for having people merely ?get the gist? of what they were saying, while others continued to follow the rules, imagine how excruciating it would be to learn the language. You would have to learn several different forms of the same language in order to be able to communicate effectively with everyone. People would all have slightly different ideas of what getting the gist of something means and it would become more difficult to understand other people speaking the same language.
I remember when I went to Peru; I tried to learn Spanish so I could better communicate with the people there. Then I learned that 10-15% of the population does not speak Spanish, but rather Incan. It was hard enough to try to get a grasp of Spanish, much less get a grip of Incan as well. Although there would be more similarities, the same is true of people diverging from the commonly accepted rules of a particular language. Everyone going off on their own without heed to universal rules is what caused there to be so many languages in the first place. The last things we need are more barriers to communication, and even more barriers to understanding a language. In order for English to be a language English speakers universally understand, and for people trying to learn it to only have to learn one set of rules, it is important that we respect the rules of the English language.
A major issue of widespread abandonment of the rules of the English language the enormous difficultly people would go through to write technical papers, as well as problems people would have in understanding verbal or textual instructions. People would misinterpret others more often, and this would lead to mistakes, small and large, as well as conflicts due to misunderstandings of others intentions and the meaning of what they have said.
I enjoy reading manga, and I actually prefer to read right to left. However, the society I live in reads left to right. As much as I would prefer to read right to left, I would not want people to start mixing things up because it just leads to confusion and more diversity in the English language.
I suspect some of your opposition to what you call ?grammar Nazi?s? is the feeling that those whom you would put in that category are being condescending and feeling superior to you. I think you say that they should ?get off their high horses,? or something to that effect. I also suspect you feel that they are attempting to belittle, insult, and reduce you by correcting your grammar. I?m sure some are, but for most, I do not think this is the case. I think they fundamentally have the same concerns I do, that the English language will become cumbersome and divisive if people abandon the rules of the language. I think they just want to protect the common ground of communication English speakers have for future generations. Reducing the amount of ease and universality of communication we all have is pretty much never a good idea.
This is a political example, and maybe not too relevant, but I am a very political person, so it was inevitable. (Sorry for not including it in the previous post)
In Canada, we have many different opinions, but we have enough in common that we do not have the enormous polarisation that we see in the United States. Canada is built on respecting other cultures and beliefs. This is what causes people to be more respectful of others opinions, because there is a universal, ancient value that everyone respecting others is good for us all, and for us all. This allows conflicts to not escalate too far, and allows them to be resolved more quickly than if we did not have this universal value. The laws of any country greatly contribute to its peace, order, and stability. It?s important to be able to disagree, but it?s also important that people cannot just go off and do whatever they want to, because it promotes instability, harm to others, and conflict. In business, politics, and social interactions, we need to have a common set of rules and make sure everyone obeys them. It creates a sense of security that we need in order to make our higher order brain functions relevant, practical, and useful in everyday life. A sense of security allows people to build, create, and achieve self-actualization.
To emphasize the important of stability and consistency in our actions, I will compare China to a totalitarian monarchy in which the ruler has absolute power. I think pre-Magna Carta England is a good example of this. The Magna Carta was a demand created by monks and given to the king at the time. They demanded that the king create and follow a set of rules, so that people would not have to guess if they would get into trouble with the authorities, but instead follow a concrete set of rules and take the guesswork out of life. The king refused, and went back to chopping people?s heads off for whatever he felt like, changing his mind about what people should and shouldn?t do with his changes in mood. Obviously this made people fear doing just about anything, and made invention and new ideas dangerous.
Consider China on the other hand. China?s government also executes people and is a totalitarian regime. It is dangerous in China to speak out against the government or protest against it, but everyone knows that. People can be safe as long as they follow the rules, even if the rules are unjust and they do not like them. It may not be fair or just, but people have far more security knowing what actions could get them executed and what will not. There is not a chance in hell that China would have achieved its current economic success if China?s government arbitrarily changed the rules like a pre-Magna Carta monarch.
EEEEEK! As I use the Queen's English, I must post this immediately without doing the extra editing and additions I was planning, or I will delay posting it for ages. It just happens, I have ADHD, hope this is not too offensive to the Escapist Rules (which keep people civil and make communication easier by creating a set of rules grounded in good use of the English language, attention to one's words, and zero-tolerance of ad-hominem attacks.) but that's just the way it is.
In Canada, we have many different opinions, but we have enough in common that we do not have the enormous polarisation that we see in the United States. Canada is built on respecting other cultures and beliefs. This is what causes people to be more respectful of others opinions, because there is a universal, ancient value that everyone respecting others is good for us all, and for us all. This allows conflicts to not escalate too far, and allows them to be resolved more quickly than if we did not have this universal value. The laws of any country greatly contribute to its peace, order, and stability. It?s important to be able to disagree, but it?s also important that people cannot just go off and do whatever they want to, because it promotes instability, harm to others, and conflict. In business, politics, and social interactions, we need to have a common set of rules and make sure everyone obeys them. It creates a sense of security that we need in order to make our higher order brain functions relevant, practical, and useful in everyday life. A sense of security allows people to build, create, and achieve self-actualization.
To emphasize the important of stability and consistency in our actions, I will compare China to a totalitarian monarchy in which the ruler has absolute power. I think pre-Magna Carta England is a good example of this. The Magna Carta was a demand created by monks and given to the king at the time. They demanded that the king create and follow a set of rules, so that people would not have to guess if they would get into trouble with the authorities, but instead follow a concrete set of rules and take the guesswork out of life. The king refused, and went back to chopping people?s heads off for whatever he felt like, changing his mind about what people should and shouldn?t do with his changes in mood. Obviously this made people fear doing just about anything, and made invention and new ideas dangerous.
Consider China on the other hand. China?s government also executes people and is a totalitarian regime. It is dangerous in China to speak out against the government or protest against it, but everyone knows that. People can be safe as long as they follow the rules, even if the rules are unjust and they do not like them. It may not be fair or just, but people have far more security knowing what actions could get them executed and what will not. There is not a chance in hell that China would have achieved its current economic success if China?s government arbitrarily changed the rules like a pre-Magna Carta monarch.
EEEEEK! As I use the Queen's English, I must post this immediately without doing the extra editing and additions I was planning, or I will delay posting it for ages. It just happens, I have ADHD, hope this is not too offensive to the Escapist Rules (which keep people civil and make communication easier by creating a set of rules grounded in good use of the English language, attention to one's words, and zero-tolerance of ad-hominem attacks.) but that's just the way it is.
I hope you fall down a flight of stairs OP.QtheMuse said:
Grammar should be correct in every single field you do, you practice like you play, start typing like that on the internet, you start spelling everything like that, which is indeed wrong.
Yes I understand that "your dumb" means "You're dumb", but it's still wrong.
It is you're not your first off.QtheMuse said:
And if I can not understand your post due to spelling or grammar(though differences between American English and British English I know there are differences in spelling especially since I use half of them anyways), then yes I usually get on people's cases for it. If you can not properly communicate an idea then you are abusing the language.
Spelling and grammar should be oberved to the best of one's ability. When a girl I know texts me I literally can not understand what those texts say because she doesn't use actual words and letters.
That said it's not a big deal when people post with atrocious spelling post - it servers as a big warning label saying "my opinions don't matter because I can't even string a correct series of words together."
PS: apologies for any spelling or grammatical errors, I tried to the best of my ability.
That said it's not a big deal when people post with atrocious spelling post - it servers as a big warning label saying "my opinions don't matter because I can't even string a correct series of words together."
PS: apologies for any spelling or grammatical errors, I tried to the best of my ability.
It's partly a matter of respect. If somebody can't be bothered to make sure she's used "they're" where she should, why should I be bothered listen to what she has to say?
Dear god, I do hope you are taking the piss.aprilmarie said:
OT: People who use language incorrectly are usually uneducated, and people who are uneducated are often painfully stupid. Not always, but often. Generally it doesn't matter, but it's hard to take someone seriously in a political discussion, for example, when they don't understand the rules of English. What could they possibly know of the infinite complexities of society when they can't get their head around a few, comparatively simple, grammatical rules.
I usually don't mind, my friends and I often talk as if we have no concept of the English language when we are bored but I do think it is necessarily to proper grammar and spelling if you are trying to get a point across or argue with someone. You would't hand in a resume written in ice-cream sauce on a cereal box so why wouldn't you use proper grammar. It doesn't take long to check the spelling of words if you don't know them and it helps get your point across. I often find myself rereading sentences when someone hasn't used grammar properly to try grasp what they mean. I can excuse people who are learning English or are using Google Translate as I know my German grammar is terrible but I don't think there is any excuse to not if English is your native language. If you need proof that language when used correctly is wonderful, go ask your English teacher to explain the meaning of some lines in Romeo and Juliet. Most have something to do with sex.