Question

[Iron Mal]

People here shouldn't have to do the work of people that don't use the search function. It is basic internet knowledge that most sites have a search function. It takes all of a minute to find it on here. So with common knowledge people should just use the search function, to find a thread that poses a question they are thinking about and then post in it instead of making a copy that clutters up the forum.

To be fair not everyone thinks about using the search function (and most of the time when people say something is common knowledge or common sense, it isn't).

Also, as I stated before, posting on a thread about a subject that already has several pages tends to result in your post getting overlooked and ignored (which to a lot of people defeats the point of posting in the first place) so it isn't entirely unjustified from a poster's point of view to just say 'fuck it' to the search bar.

That's all fine and dandy in fairytale land, but that doesn't work in the real world.

Oh Jesus H. Christ you had to go and write an essay...fine. Let me grab a chair so I can hear your story.

Spoiler: Spoilered to show mercy on others

First off, I'm taking into consideration that the OP is 19 or 20 years old, from his profile.

Because of that I'll looking at this from an adult prospective. If one doesn't have good communications skill, living in the real world will be quite a chore. Considering what I have been told by every single English professor that I had in college, if someone has a question they answered or has a point to make in an argument, people in the real world aren't going to take what that person says seriously if he or she can't communicate clearly with proper grammar and spelling.

Well that is all fine and good in College and University essays and projects because for the most part they do tend to award extra marks for presentaion (in other words, in scenarios like that where you're expecting your work to be evaluated to a high or professional standard then it goes without saying that you put just as much effort into the presentation of your writing as you do the actual content).

Someone asking a question on an informal internet forum isn't exactly a linguistics dissertaion so obviously you should adjust your expectations accordingly (if I was writing my English Language exam again then I would of course triple check to make sure that all my spellings were correct and that I had correct use of punctuation but if I'm just talking to one of my friends online then I don't even bother with capitals or any punctuation).

If I had submitted something that was as badly written as what the OP wrote, my professors probably wouldn't have even graded it, they would have probably given me a zero or if they were feeling nice, they would have given me until the end of the day or the next day to fix it and turn it back in.

Again, note how the OP was informally asking us here to just converse with him and answer a simple question, not to provide a detailed manuscript for a piece analyising the British lexicon.

You need to be able to adjust your expectations based on the situation (a skill that's just as important as being able to use grammar and spelling correctly, especially in social situations).

Even if you pull the whole it is just an internet post thing, my professors always stressed that even in personal conversations with random people or friends or family, proper grammar is still as important as it is in a professional setting. If people have a hard time reading what a person writes, they are going to have a hard time understanding the person and in most cases and rightly so, not care about what the person says since the person didn't care about communicating clearly.

That would be like saying that I should use the same manner of speech and vocabulary when talking to my best friend, my girlfriend, my doctor and my local member of parliment (in other words, that's ridiculous in practice and in theory). I understand the need to be clear and understandable (that's a different issue) but proverbially crucifying someone because what they've written is a bit rough around the edges in an otherwise informal context I would say is having unrealistic expectations (and potentially a sign of needing one's head surgically removed from the dark depths of their rear end).

Even if the OP's browser doesn't have a spell-checker, he could have at least opened his word processor and checked what he wrote. Any time I misspell a word and my browser doesn't know what I'm spelling, I either open Word and see what it says, or I pull up Google and let it decipher what I'm trying to spell. In the end, if by some impossible odds that fails, I don't just leave the word misspelled, I choose a different word that means the same or I rephrase what I was saying.

Well that's good for you but as someone who frequently has to lend assistance to others with their spelling and grammar I can tell you that this is the sort of thing that tends not to occur to most people unless they're writing something of vital importance or formality. Otherwise people tend not to get very anal over this provided that the intended recipient can understand what's being said (again, the message itself is more important than the presentation), if I was to drill and abuse the people I help over their spelling and grammatical mistakes then I guarentee you that not only would it not help them but it would probably reduce the odds of them seeking help (who wants to ask an arsehole for help?) and just make me come across as a stuck up and arrogant cockmuncher.

Speaking of cockmunchers, I would like to make a sidenote about the whole 'swearing is a sign of a limited vocabulary' thing (sorry for the derailment here), how exactly is having more words under my command (and more importantly, the willingness to use them) limiting my vocabulary?

That never made sense to me.

College made me appreciate using proper grammar and spelling. My professors and even I now would say that ideas like yours that only the opinion and/or idea of what is written is important are the reasons why every year new college prospects that enter their freshman year seem like they have had absolutely no teaching in proper writing.

It was the fact that I was so often called upon to help others that taught me how to write and spell properly, as you can probably see from what I've written (not just here but across many threads and other discussions) I possess very good spelling, grammar and a wide vocabulary.

But I bet you wouldn't believe me if I told you that despite my command and mastery of the English language that my actual handwriting is bloody terrible (I liken it to 'a six year old with only a finger and a thumb on each hand') and is very hard to read, now would my awful handwriting suddenly mean that anything I write posesses no value?

Would you and your professors, despite my clarity and ability to structure my arguements, turn their nose up at me and ignore what I had to say because my C's look like E's and my O's look like A's?

If so, then I hate to break it to you, but you and your professors are a bunch of narrow minded idiots.

Heck, ideas like yours almost brought about the destruction of proper English learning a few years ago.

Oh no...it can't be...HYPERBOLE ALERT! HYPERBOLE ALERT! HOLY SHIT! BATTLE STATIONS, EVERYONE! GET THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN OUT FIRST! RALLY THE TROOPS! TO THE WALLS!

I almost feel like you called me a Communist or a Heretic or something like that.

I remember hearing about some crazy idea that some grade school teachers wanted to put into effect. The plan/idea was called Whole English, basically what it was is that if a kid misspelled a word but it still sounded like the word they were trying to spell, it would be counted right.

That is utter bullshit, that would mean that if such a thing was in place when I was in first grade, when I had a brain lapse and spelled "of" as "uv", it would have been counted right and possibly from then on I would have been misspelling "of" as "uv". The OP's spelling of "thread" as "thred", would have been counted right as well.

Again, I don't disagree with the notion of teaching correct English in schools (that is partly what they're there for after all) so I agree that an idea like that does sound counter-intuitive and counter-productive.

But that isn't what I was argueing.

We can't have such ignorance in our education system or even let it by in in our everyday lives. Because if we let what the OP writes slide as okay. Everybody eventually will start believing that they can write anyway they want and then all communication will break down.
Things like text speak are already seeping into the English language and corrupting people and hurting their communication and academic standing. I remember one of my English professors, she was practically banging her head against the front desk in the classroom when I came in. I asked her what the problem was and she said that practically half her freshman composition class was using text speak in a majority of their papers and they weren't doing it as a joke. The students literally thought it would be accepted in college, since the everyday texting world finds it acceptable. That thought just made me think less of the world, at least of the teachers those kids must of had in high school if they let that stuff get by.

We were reminded not to use Text speech in our classes but as a general rule even though a lot of the people in my class were frequent texters who obviously used text speech a lot in their day-to-day lives they mostly all passed with C's and above (I got a B myself). You're speaking about not crucifying people over their writing as if it's the Red Scare ('if we even tolerate the wrong use of the word 'there' then I tell ya...our grandaughters will be standing naked on street corners selling crack and talking in grunts and clicks!'), society is not going to Hell on an express elevator and even if it was, I doubt it would be because someone forgot to use capitals and spell check their forum post.

I'm sure that in order to just be accepted into a College or University that you have to posess a certain level of literacy in my College we actually had to do a test to check that we could write and count to an adult l,evel, those who failed would be given extra support to try and help them catch up, and that's before we get to the fact that all of my courses required C's and above in Maths and English.

Have you ever considered the possability that maybe the professor you spoke to was maybe (gasp) exaggerating? (my teachers joked about terrible and nightmarish students to us all the time although we were apparantly savvey enough to see that it was just meant as light hearted humour)

So no, people here aren't in the wrong by criticizing the OP about his grammar and spelling. Such is needed to protect the integrity of proper communication.

So no, I still don't think you have a point and wouldn't be too suprised if you are one of those people who seems to have an image built up of themselves being some enlightened beacon of the last hope for civilised society (I'm sorry but the phrase 'Such is needed to protect the integrity of proper communication.' makes you sound like one of the old, white haired men who always shake an angry fist at them damned pokemans and Hip-Hop albums).

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

why dose the The Escapist community care so much about repeat threds and repeat question's so much. dose it really incovies you so much to read a question twice and if so why commint on the thred in the first place is it just to make you fell better or is it just out of spite

Because it used to be against forum policy. Ok, the rules have changed now, but when I first started coming here the main posting rule was 'Please use the searchbar when creating a thread, and if a similar thread has been made recently, please consider posting in the existing thread rather than making a new topic'. I still abide by those rules, and I dare say a lot of others do as well.

 

[SimpleJack]

I understand that my grammar sucks but it dosn't really bother me

Whether it bothers you is not the problem...

It's bothering others. -_-

 

[Tselis]

I understand that my grammar sucks but it dosn't really bother me

Iron Mal, I would school you, since you seem to need it, but I think the person you are defending just did it for me.

Admitting that you have bad grammar doesn't nessercarily mean that everyone is justified in ripping you a new one so your suggested schooling may not be as self-explanitory or obvious as you think it is.

Ah, but the delicious irony of trying to defend someone and having them accidentally shoot you in the back of the head is just to comical to ignore. Which is what he did, by the way.

Also, I'm a trained linguist, it could have been a great deal worse, and I still could have understood. What I object to is people defending the corsening of the language. It's like defending gutter speech. If you want to be a white knight, find something better to crusade for. You aren't making the world better. If it makes you feel better, that's fine, but you are not making the overall situation better.
As for fits of hyperbolic rage, I'm not even angry. I'm an anti-social asshole. Yeah, I'm a happily married woman, but I'm still proudly an asshole. So, I guess that means you've been trolled. Grammer trolling for Great Victory!! *snicker*

My statement about labelling myself as a white knight was more along the lines of 'if that is what you're going to think of me as then the implications and stigmas attached to that aren't going to dissuade me from standing behind my point of view' (probably could have explained that somewhat better).

I studied English Language and the history and evolution of it myself in college so I understand what issues people sometimes have with the notion of language 'dumbing down' and I feel it's a concern that's up there with panics like 'video games cause violence' and 'movie stars turning our daughters into hookers' (in short, it's understandable why some people would think this is possible and panic over it but I somehow doubt that our language is doomed to a proverbial fate worse than death).

I personally think that it's a very reactionary and somewhat elitist view that the feared lowering of standards (or more importantly, if we don't 'safeguard the pristine purity of our language') will somehow result in some great crisis of communication, if you're trained as a linguist (which would mean you should surely possess more knowledge than me in the field) then you should know that it is through this process that the English language as we know it today was actually formed (language is a living and constantly changing thing that adapts to the cultures, societies and technology around it), now I'm not saying that we should stop teaching kids how to spell and write properly in school (it's an important skill) or that we should encourage people to drop their T's and H's but what I am saying is that the typical reaction of proverbially gutting the offender doesn't help anyone and isn't really help give anyone a better grasp of proper spelling and grammar (remember, if school or circumstance failed them then I doubt that a buch of anti-social arseholes on the internet is going to be able to work miracles[/quote]

How about this then, when in 100 years people are still speaking in coherent enough language to properly communicate their ideas, I think that will have borne out the notion that having standards is a good thing. It is neither reactionary nor elitist to draw a line in the sand and say, "No, you go no further with that." It's what's called discipline. Any good parent knows what it is, and any functioning and lasting society has it. Proper speaking skills are part of the myriad of social contracts that make up any society. Why do you think they are taught at Ivy League schools and looked upon not only as a marker for promotion, but an indicator of prosperity. Language was one of the first things to set us apart form the beasts. Even a chimp can be taught to use an iphone, but do you think it could communicate to you any ideas it had for how to improve the experience? No. Why? It's can't communicate.
It's my training as a linguist that gives me a love and passion for languages. To speak is to be able to express your thoughts, to be able to give form and construct to the nameless, formless myriad of thoughts that swirl through anyone's mind. I wasn't trained my just anyone. I went to a school that only employed the best teachers, people who were native speakers of the languages they taught. They had poor English skill, bless their hearts, but they tried. Each and every one of them constantly strove to better themselves. I respect that.
What you are defending is laziness, nothing more. It comes in many forms, but all of them are despicable and contemptible. Laziness doesn't deserve defending. It deserves to be bludgeoned with the nearest heavy blunt object until it is nothing more than a quivering pile of giblets on the floor that would make any janitor scream at the heavens while his carpet cleaner cried inconsolable tears of rage.
If you are unwilling or to naive to see this, then you are right, there certainly is someone here to whom even miracles would be useless.
Either way, I am bored now, and have better things to do. It's a shame really, perhaps someday you will find something worth defending, you seem like you might do a reasonable job at it.

EDIT: Hm, the quote function doesn't seem to be working. This posting mechanism is quite buggy.

 

[Wuggy]

Why does the The Escapist community care so much about repeat threads and repeat questions? Does it really inconvenience you so much to read a question twice and if so why comment on the thread in the first place? Is it just to make you fell better or is it just out of spite?

I strongly, but very kindly, encourage you to put some effort in your text in the future.

OT: It's not because the threads inconvenience us. It's because the fact that the poster did not bother to put the effort of checkin whether the same question had been asked previously (on most occasions, multiple times) before. When discussion in these forums is one of the things that you keep yoursef from being bored, it's very cumbersome to see the same topic repeated over and over. Sometimes multiple times per week, or even per day.

 

[Iron Mal]

For the continued sanity of others here (this does approach essay lengths) I shall spoiler my response.

My appologies for the inconveinience.

Spoiler: Essay length response to Tselis

Ah, but the delicious irony of trying to defend someone and having them accidentally shoot you in the back of the head is just to comical to ignore. Which is what he did, by the way.

You are aware that is the incorrect use of the word 'irony', right? (despite the two terms sharing the word 'irony' it should be made clear that they do represent entirely different concepts, 'regular' irony mearly refers to use of a word for something besides it's literal intention, typically in a way that is distinguished from lying or sarcasm) If you wanted to convey the notion of a combination of two events that would be seen as foreshadowing or coincidental then that is actually referred to as 'dramatic irony' and is typically reserved exclusively for use in fiction.

As for why even if we were in a fictional tale (this is becoming a very meta point) I would argue that his admission in realising that he has poor grammar skills doesn't proverbially castrate me is that him being able to acknowledge that his writing skills aren't as good as some of us around here still isn't grounds for giving the guy (or others like him) hassle to the degree that is often shown around here.

How about this then, when in 100 years people are still speaking in coherent enough language to properly communicate their ideas, I think that will have borne out the notion that having standards is a good thing.

Again, seeing as we've had things like slang, idiotmatic language and even worse levels of literacy and writen compotency throughout history then even if we didn't hold any standards I'm going to guess that the Englisg language wouldn't be any worse or better off in a hundred years than it is now.

Appologies for putting this in a blunt or crass fashion but for someone who claims later on to be have been trained by some of the best linguistics teachers (more on that later) you appear to be pulling information out of your arse and hoping that your pedigree will automatically give you 'victory'.

It is neither reactionary nor elitist to draw a line in the sand and say, "No, you go no further with that." It's what's called discipline.

There is a profound difference between having discipline and being an opinionated elitist (you fall squarely into the second camp unfortuneately).

Like I said, I understand wanting to keep high standards in schools and colleges and that the teaching of the correct use and application of the English language is important (it is important that we do pass on the information behind how we use the language so they can continue to use these skills themselves) but I draw a definate line at giving people abuse for their lack of profeciency with writing and spelling in a situation that doesn't demand it (I understand reprimanding people on poor writing in situations such as job applications and in education but in relatively casual settings like an online forum it does step into being a bit excessive, especially in the ways that said reprimanding is conducted).

Any good parent knows what it is, and any functioning and lasting society has it. Proper speaking skills are part of the myriad of social contracts that make up any society.

I'm not a parent (if you are then congratulations and I hope your kids do well in their chosen endeavors) and being a parent does very little, if anything, to make your arguement more valid (if I had kids then would me bringing up that there are better ways to encourage them to do well than give them a sharp rap across the knuckles with a ruler make my point more valid?).

I wasn't actually defending speaking skills (I'm more than confident that most people have the ability to speak down well by the time they're learning to write) so much as I was stating that people's writing not being up to par for professional situations isn't really sufficent grounds for ignoring what they've said and launching insults their way.

Why do you think they are taught at Ivy League schools and looked upon not only as a marker for promotion, but an indicator of prosperity.

This could have more to do with the inherantly unbalanced perception of certain educational institutes which in turn result in various social classes of students being accepted (and therefore judged differently), in other words, of course Ivy League schools tend to encourage eloquence and sophistication in their students and staff, it tends to be the rich upper classes who make up the majority of the student body (studied Sociology for four years, we covered education many times in various focuses).

This has little to do with the 'superiority' of 'proper language' and more to do with inherant inequality between the 'classes' in society and how those with privelleged backgrounds tend to have more of an advantage in life. Are you now also going to imply that the very aristocratic style of manners (things such as always passing the salt and pepper together at dinner and how one must never make exaggerated movements to do things such as scratch their ear or get hair out of their face) are also markers for promotion and prosperity because the student body probably hold standards like those too?

Language was one of the first things to set us apart form the beasts.

As well as increased brain size compared to our body mass, the rudimentry ability to use tools, standing upright, use of things such as agriculture and the capacity for abstract thought.

Also, other animals have displayed behaviour that appears to be their own form of communication (it isn't too hard to imply from this that it could be argued that animals do have their own language, just one that isn't easily translated or interprited by humans).

Sorry but on this point you are provably wrong (and science has my back on this one).

Even a chimp can be taught to use an iphone, but do you think it could communicate to you any ideas it had for how to improve the experience? No. Why? It's (inappropriate use of the abbreviated 'it is' by the way) can't communicate.

See my above point, animals can (and have been witnessed doing so on several occasions) communicating. Hell, bees can communicate complex information such as the location of flowers, intruders in the hive and other vital messages through the medium of interpritive dance (the most complex thing most people can convey through that is they need to pee).

Next point, please.

It's my training as a linguist that gives me a love and passion for languages. To speak is to be able to express your thoughts, to be able to give form and construct to the nameless, formless myriad of thoughts that swirl through anyone's mind.

I have a love for being able to express my opinions with clarity and emotively as well (as well as an inherant interest in the various ways that language has been used to great effect to do great and horrible things), I didn't need training as a linguist for that (and I'm sure your love of languages and speech probably was there before you learnt how to use it the way you do).

The fact that I'm addressing you using all manner of words drawn from my vocabulary as well as the knowledge and experience I have garnered over the years should show you that I do care about the way that people communicate and do believe that it is important for people to engage in well worded debates and deep discussions of intellectual and philisophical worth.

The difference between us is that I realise that biting at the ankles of those who don't have as much in the way of verbal power and grace doesn't show them the error of their ways, it doesn't reflect the complex views and beliefs you hold and it doesn't make you a better or more refined person.

It just makes you mean and self-absorbed, and nothing is gained from that.

Also, I don't try to pull out poetic language to try and make myself sound smarter or more thoughtful (it's the opinions I express and how I express them that does that for me).

I wasn't trained my just anyone. I went to a school that only employed the best teachers, people who were native speakers of the languages they taught. They had poor English skill, bless their hearts, but they tried. Each and every one of them constantly strove to better themselves. I respect that.

This makes it all the more suprising that you're supporting people who are being cruel and unpleasant towards those who may have legitimate reasons (what you call laziness may be attributed to something else) for their downfalls in the use of English as a language (not everyone who gets hassle for this is a 'lazy bum' who had it coming).

Not everyone had the advantage you seemingly had, for example, I didn't do particularly well in my education (especially from secondary school onwards) and my command of the English language is largely the result of self-teaching and circumstances demanding I be better at writing, spelling and the use of my vocabulary to try make up for the downfalls that my family life and social class bestowed upon me (as well as otherwise learning about a wide variety of subjects and topics and trying to understand why people think the way they do).

If you were in my situation (sans the whole part where I decided to compensate for my problems) would you see yourself holding the opinion you do?

What you are defending is laziness, nothing more.

What I am defending is the notion that someone's writing ability is not grounds for ignoring what they have to say or give them abuse and insults.

There is a clear difference, regardless of whether you want to see it or not.

It comes in many forms, but all of them are despicable and contemptible. Laziness doesn't deserve defending. It deserves to be bludgeoned with the nearest heavy blunt object until it is nothing more than a quivering pile of giblets on the floor that would make any janitor scream at the heavens while his carpet cleaner cried inconsolable tears of rage.

You remember the part where you said you weren't a reactionary/knee-jerk type person?

This colourful little departure into exaggertion kinda shows that you are (and quite worryingly that you look down upon who could otherwise be good and decent people who are intelligent and thoughtful just because you don't like the way they write).

If you are unwilling or to (you should have used the word 'too' here') naive to see this, then you are right, there certainly is someone here to whom even miracles would be useless.

If either of us suffers from unwillingness or naiveity then rest assured it is probably yourself (not least of all to mention that you seem to have taken my statement about miracles out of context as well as having missed the meaning behind it completely).

If you could put across a fair enough arguement and debunk me then rest assured I would conceide defeat and accept that you're right and I'm wrong.

As of yet, you seem to just cycle the same repeated notion of 'properness = right' and 'I'm a linguist and I say good language is important', neither of which are particularly good counter-arguements (and neither of which, despite the obviously large amount of effort you put into wording your response, sound particularly well thought out).

Either way, I am bored now, and have better things to do. It's a shame really, perhaps someday you will find something worth defending, you seem like you might do a reasonable job at it.

And what exactly would you say is something worth defending? I would say that sparing people from unessercary flak and insults and trying to help encourage tolerance and well thought out debate is a worthwhile use of half an hour of my time.

The whole 'I'm bored and have better things to do' isn't really as effective a way of trying to cut off the other person's response in an online forum as it is in person (unlike a phone call or face-to-face conversation, what I've written will be here waiting for when you're done) and is a terrible way to try and imply that you've gotten the 'last laugh' or landed the final proverbial blow (and kind of shows how petty and self-absorbed you are when you literally say something to the effect of 'the conversation ends now because I say so').

It also reflects something of a lack of respect towards someone who has taken the time and effort to not just respond to you but also to spend time thinking and phrasing their opinion for you (which is funny seeing as you insisted on your lack of elitist attitudes and behavior, exactly the sort of thing a response like that would imply you possess).

Also, 'a reasonable job'? In case you haven't noticed the previous essay I have written that has essentially been deconstructing and criticisng everything you've said as well as doing the same for a handful of other people in this thread alone I think I can quote Wolverine here when I say 'I'm the best there is at what I do, but what I do isn't very nice' (I learnt argueing my points and defending my opinions in an arguement from the best).

I may be tooting my own horn here but I think I deserve a bit more credit than just 'a reasonable job'.