Grammar Nazis - public service or public enemy?

DonDaddyD

Greg66 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Come now Gregory, you know that most Nazi's on here correct people in the most belittling way they can find and/or attack poor grammar as a way to win a debate. They are not called grammar nazi's for nothing.

Now I disagree that the grammar attack goes in to win a debate. It goes in to kick a man who is down; who has already lost the debate, but hasn't realised it yet.

In any event, even if that were true, why would it make a difference? If you're trying to persuade someone that you are right about something, it should be of especial importance to get your message across accurately.

I don't understand why someone should be permitted a few "free hits" just because they are in an internet argument. I'd tend to be more forgiving (as forgiving as GN can be, obviously) of errors in idle banter than when trying to convey a serious point.

I get your point, but then you're professionally trained to put a well constructed point across, so you have me at a disadvantage sir.

There is one thing I disagree with. If a person is unable to articulate a point as eloquently as someone else it doesn't detract from the validity of the point they are making. We cannot dismiss what a person is writing on the basis of grammar mistakes if the overall context of the point is understood.

At least that is what I think your assertion is here::

If you're trying to persuade someone that you are right about something, it should be of especial importance to get your message across accurately.

And here

I'd tend to be more forgiving (as forgiving as GN can be, obviously) of errors in idle banter than when trying to convey a serious point.

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

That apostrophe in Nazi's must be eating away at you though.

More than you can imagine.

Although there is no shortage of fodder in this thread.

DonDaddyD

TailWindHome wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

I'd tend to be more forgiving (as forgiving as GN can be, obviously) of errors in idle banter than when trying to convey a serious point.

Awfully kind of you Sir.

That apostrophe in Nazi's must be eating away at you though.

DAMN IT! :evil:

MrChuck

Personally I don't think people making lots of grammatical errors are necessarily stupid, I just think they can't be bothered. And even on an informal forum like this, that does colour my impression of that person and what they have to say.

Of course it's not a one-slip-and-they're-out thing, and obviously everyone makes typos. And I'm only really talking about "I done", your/you're etc and not all that dangling infinitives stuff that proper pedants get wound up about. But if people can't be bothered to express themselves properly then I can't really be bothered to listen to what they've got to say properly.

And it does matter I think- I wouldn't give money to a company that couldn't be bothered to get their promotional materials right. After all, what else can't they be bothered to do properly?

As for dyslexia, I dunno- no doubt it's a real problem for some, but plenty of dyslexic people manage OK.

greg66_tri_v2.0

DonDaddyD wrote:

There is one thing I disagree with. If a person is unable to articulate a point as eloquently as someone else it doesn't detract from the validity of the point they are making. We cannot dismiss what a person is writing on the basis of grammar mistakes if the overall context of the point is understood.

I agree that is doesn't detract from the objective validity of the point, however, it will affect adversely how validity of the point is subjectively perceived by the audience. If you have two protagonists, with equally valid arguments, the one who expresses their point poorly will suffer for it.

Think of it this way. You are browsing ebay for a bike. You see two adverts. One is grammatically correct, and contains no misspellings. The other looks like it was written with Scrabble tiles then shaken around a bit. It is littered with grammatical errors.

Both sellers appear to be selling the same type of bike, in apparently the same condition. The substance of what they have said is broadly the same.

Whose auction will you bid on?

hmbadger

clarkey cat wrote:

maybe people's usernames should be followed by (D) if they suffer from dyslexia so that grammar nazis know to pass them over as they scour the net searching for victims. And grammar nazis should have a (G) so that people know to be on their best behavior when speaking to them...?

Nah, grammar nazis should have a (T) for tw**.

jeremyrundle

Considering the fact that the term "Nazi" is being used here completely out of context shows a lack of understanding in the first place, and, if any of you were old enough to have been around during the war you would not be so quick to use the word in the first place.

Flyingbogey

I did enjoy the programme on telly a while ago featuring a lad going around with a can of spray paint correcting graffiti. I had a German girlfriend (No Nazi pun intended) who pointed out the poor grammar in my texts. I was happy to be educated, and not just in the quality of my English!!

Jay dubbleU

I have two degrees but as they are both science based my grammar is frankly sh**te.

The ability to string together an outdated form of communication that was used by hunter gatherers to point out where the nuts were is crude and inaccurate compared to the language of mathematics

UndercoverElephant

Greg, I'm honoured that you couldn't find fault with my grammar in the quoted section of your original post.

As a recovering non-grammarian, I did find "Eats Shoots and Leaves" an interesting read; not least due to the insight it gave into the psyche of the Grammar Nazi. It really does seem as though they feel that they should be warmly rewarded for their corrections, as though they are indeed a public service and not, as is often the case, being condescending in the extreme.

Like I mentioned in the other thread, grammar wasn't even taught above a very basic level in many schools for a good number of years. Naturally, I could point out that there's a correlation between the Grammar Nazis and public schooling, certainly for people of around my age. Most of the rest of us don't have a clue, nor really care.

DonDaddyD

jeremyrundle wrote:

Considering the fact that the term "Nazi" is being used here completely out of context shows a lack of understanding in the first place, and, if any of you were old enough to have been around during the war you would not be so quick to use the word in the first place.

FUN NAZI!!!

deptfordmarmoset

If you think about language as being first and foremost about communication then mistakes are only of importance when they are misleading or ambiguous. For instance, no one is ever confused as to meaning when someone says ''less'' instead of ''fewer.'' Also, because there are so many homonyms in spoken English, we are all used to automatically deciding for ourselves whether someone means ''there'' or ''they're'' or ''their.'' Even ''would of'' and '''should of'' instead of ''would've'' and ''should've'' don't cause confusion. They might irritate but they don't confuse.

So from a functional point of view there is rarely a problem. Other people like to use language as a more refined too; as something to display style with or to communicate highly differentiated concepts with. That's their choice - and I suppose it's mine too - but it is, nevertheless, a choice.

I think I only correct someone's language when they've just corrected someone else's. And that is surprisingly easy to do because whenever someone writes with the attitude ''I do it right unlike you,'' they create a blind spot - they're asserting what they do more than actually doing it - and errors flood in.

Agent57

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY

In the past, I've been a grammar Nazi. However, over the years I've come to realise that I don't know it all, and language evolves.

As far as knowing it all goes, I recall making some pedantic point, only to be on the receiving end of returned fire regarding my misuse of "that" (as I recall, something to do with my use of "people that do X" versus "people who do X").

Evolution of language is something that happens, and who are we to stand in its way? I still get quite irritated by people who say "I didn't get an invite to the party;" as far as I'm concerned, they didn't get an invitation to the party. Similarly, I am irritated by phrases such as "the install has finished" ("the installation has finished"). At the same time, I realise that I'm comfortable with "can you give me an estimate?" (versus "give me an estimation"). If I can accept that, and use it myself, using "invite" as a noun should be just as acceptable. It's similar to the way "you" has become commonplace, where in the past people would have insisted on the use of "one."

I try not to point out grammatical errors just for the sake of it, these days. I may pick up on them if the meaning of the sentence isn't clear.

On the other hand, I've little time for people who seemingly just can't be arsed to try and spell correctly, form coherent sentences, capitalise or punctuate their prose, and I do allow it colour my perception of the worthiness of anything they may have to say. There are certain things that really grate upon me, though. One of the primary examples is "of" instead of "have." Could of, should of, would of... It's like fingernails down a blackboard.

I do try to get things right (i.e., as I was taught), myself. For example, using "whom" where appropriate, rather than "who"; but I dare say that marks me down as an old fuddy-duddy, trying to cling to the past, rather than moving with the hip new language times.

tailwindhome

....after a couple of years posting on here and Facebook I seem to have developed the habit of ........... for no real reason. I'm not really too sure what function this punctuation serves........

MrChuck

Agent57 wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY

In the past, I've been a grammar Nazi. However, over the years I've come to realise that I don't know it all, and language evolves.

As far as knowing it all goes, I recall making some pedantic point, only to be on the receiving end of returned fire regarding my misuse of "that" (as I recall, something to do with my use of "people that do X" versus "people who do X").

Evolution of language is something that happens, and who are we to stand in its way? I still get quite irritated by people who say "I didn't get an invite to the party;" as far as I'm concerned, they didn't get an invitation to the party. Similarly, I am irritated by phrases such as "the install has finished" ("the installation has finished"). At the same time, I realise that I'm comfortable with "can you give me an estimate?" (versus "give me an estimation"). If I can accept that, and use it myself, using "invite" as a noun should be just as acceptable. It's similar to the way "you" has become commonplace, where in the past people would have insisted on the use of "one."

I try not to point out grammatical errors just for the sake of it, these days. I may pick up on them if the meaning of the sentence isn't clear.

On the other hand, I've little time for people who seemingly just can't be arsed to try and spell correctly, form coherent sentences, capitalise or punctuate their prose, and I do allow it colour my perception of the worthiness of anything they may have to say. There are certain things that really grate upon me, though. One of the primary examples is "of" instead of "have." Could of, should have, would have... It's like fingernails down a blackboard.

I do try to get things right (i.e., as I was taught), myself. For example, using "whom" where appropriate, rather than "who"; but I dare say that marks me down as an old fuddy-duddy, trying to cling to the past, rather than moving with the hip new language times.

Well said. Although 'the evolution of language' does tend to wind me up a bit, maybe because it's often a lazy response to the lazy use of English. It's easy to recognise the changes in, say, newspaper articles from 50 years ago and I'm sure the same will be true in another 50 years, but that doesn't mean that we should wave away any old abuse of the language as evolution.

Agent57

Agent57 wrote:

Could of, should have, would have... It's like fingernails down a blackboard.

Obviously, I find it difficult to type that incorrectly, even when I'm trying to.

CiB

Oooh a grammar nazis thread. Cute. Well done Greg - take the rest of the day off as a mark of gratitude.

Like I said earlier, I don't flag up errors or send furious PMs berating the offending poster for some minor typo. It just makes me smile, like watching the Under-9s at football training and thinking "come on it's not difficult, just think about it a bit more". And so it is with those who can't or won't bother with the English language.

I will confess to a palms facing upwards on desk + bemused smile though for people who claim to be cyclists and write stuff like "my breaks failed and I hit the curb". That does my head in to be honest. But it generates nothing more than a rueful smile and a move-along-nothing-to-worry-about moment. I don't really care enough to make a fuss. It's enough just being right about these things, and wanting to be right. Like Greg says, why wallow in only achieving the level of adequate?

Maybe it's jealousy that inspires the dislike of those who have a command of the language - and I include DDD in that. Despite his comedy punctuation, he writes well and inspires debate so is excused boots on the being picked up for poor grammar front. There are some on here though who are between clueless and DDD, and deserve more flak than they get. Despite all suggestions to the contrary though I don't recall seeing any posts that pick posts apart for their awful spelling, punctuation or grammar.

And for those that suggested it, being enthusiastic about the language isn't the mark of a public-school toff. I'm just a poor farmer's boy who suffered the comprehensive education system of the 60s & 70s. Public school, paid education? Would that it were chaps, would that it were.

PedalPedant

DonDaddyD wrote:

jeremyrundle wrote:

Considering the fact that the term "Nazi" is being used here completely out of context shows a lack of understanding in the first place, and, if any of you were old enough to have been around during the war you would not be so quick to use the word in the first place.

FUN NAZI!!!

Post of the week , genuinely made me laugh out loud.


PP

greg66_tri_v2.0

Agent57 wrote:

Agent57 wrote:

Could of, should have, would have... It's like fingernails down a blackboard.

Obviously, I find it difficult to type that incorrectly, even when I'm trying to.

Probably not. The forum has some a degree of autocorrection. "Should of" and "would of" are on the list, but evidently "could of" is not.

Don't believe me? Type a response containing the words "would of" and click "Preview".

The workaround for illustrative purposes is to insert a double space.

So now you know. The mods are the Grammar Gestapo!

tx14

it's never wrong to be right.

Underscore

Greg66 wrote:

I'll see your dangling preposition (!) and raise you a "to/too" and throw in a misplaced capital after a colon. But I won't quote, so you can edit, because secretly I'm a Really Nice Guy.

The "to/too" is embarrassing - that will teach to proof read before posting - but I was under the impression that the words following colons, exclamation marks and full stops should be capitalized; those following a semi-colon or a comma should not. Is this not the case? TBH, I have probably only assumed this because the grammar checker on Microsoft Word says that this is the case - so not from an authoritative source...

_

HamishD

clarkey cat wrote:

in my profession, poor grammar is applauded and encouraged - I work at the Guardian.

POTD !

Underscore

Underscore wrote:

... I was under the impression that the words following colons, exclamation marks and full stops should be capitalized; those following a semi-colon or a comma should not. Is this not the case? TBH, I have probably only assumed this because the grammar checker on Microsoft Word says that this is the case - so not from an authoritative source...

Forgive me for replying to my own post but...

Wikipedia wrote:

Use of capitalization or lower-case after a colon varies. In British English, the word following the colon is in lower case unless it is a proper noun or an acronym, or if it is normally capitalized for some other reason. However, in American English, many writers capitalize the word following a colon if it begins an independent clause (i.e. complete sentence).

So it would seem that Word, not surprisingly, favours (or should that be "favors") the American convention and, as a result, I have inadvertently adopted that myself... until today!

_

Agent57

Underscore wrote:

I was under the impression that the words following colons, exclamation marks and full stops should be capitalized

I don't usually capitalise a word after a colon, but there are exceptions. In your case, I wouldn't have capitalised "They." My rule of thumb is that a colon doesn't end one sentence, it just breaks the existing one into parts; so I'd probably capitalise the word after a colon if I'd capitalise it without the colon's presence, otherwise I'd use the same style as I would if using a comma or semi-colon.

I gather that capitalising words following a colon is more common in American-English.

John Stevenson

Greg66 wrote:

Probably not. The forum has some a degree of autocorrection. "Should of" and "would of" are on the list, but evidently "could of" is not.
...
So now you know. The mods are the Grammar Gestapo!

That would be me.

Thanks for the spot of 'could of/could have'. That's now added, which I'm afraid makes nonsense of your original post, but you get that

To the original issue, it's not about grammar, it's about communication. Most of the alleged 'rules' of English grammar are nonsense presented to children to give them simple guidelines to work within. They're like the atomic model of a nucleus surrounded by orbiting electrons. A more accurate description is substantially more complicated, but you can't teach it to people who don't have the maths.

It's therefore daft to insist that adults follow these rules to the letter and it doesn't help that some of them, like the prohibition on split infinitives, are simply wrong.

On the other hand, text that lacks structure and punctuation and is full of careless misspellings is simply hard to read. If someone can't be bothered to make the effort to get their point across in a readable way, why should anyone else be bothered to read it?

And it does matter. According to this story, a US online retailer saw sales increase when it improved the quality of its user-contributed product reviews: http://boingboing.net/2011/04/27/zappos ... chani.html

So: Grammar Nazis, lighten up. And to the 'It's all informal, it doesn't matter' crowd: if it doesn't matter, why are you bothering to write it at all?

HamishD

"People called Romanes they go the house?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIAdHEwiAy8


I don't have a problem with the grammar of other people. But: "Breaks/brakes", "too/to", "loose/lose" - come on, it's not hard. Ditto the wilful misuse of the apostrophe.

I freely admit to being too liberal with ellipsis myself . . . .

Agent57

Greg66 wrote:

The workaround for illustrative purposes is to insert a double space.

Useful to know; I've "fixed" my post.

I don't think auto-correction systems should wade in and fix "errors" that aren't present. When I typed "would of", I meant that.

CiB

John Stevenson wrote:

Most of the alleged 'rules' of English grammar are nonsense presented to children to give them simple guidelines to work within.

Couldn't disagree more strongly I'm afraid. Rules & guidelines exist to provide a solid framework within which we all try to work. It provides for a [fairly] consistent structure to the language which allows us all to sing from same hymn sheet. Rules of grammar are a necessity to make the language work, not to keep small children happy.

UndercoverElephant

CiB wrote:

John Stevenson wrote:

Most of the alleged 'rules' of English grammar are nonsense presented to children to give them simple guidelines to work within.

Couldn't disagree more strongly I'm afraid. Rules & guidelines exist to provide a solid framework within which we all try to work. It provides for a [fairly] consistent structure to the language which allows us all to sing from same hymn sheet. Rules of grammar are a necessity to make the language work, not to keep small children happy.

But when you set yourself up to be a Grammar Nazi, you'd better be good, CiB. Otherwise you end up using square brackets where you shouldn't.

ETA: I'm like an Inglorious Basterd of grammar, me, like.

clarkey cat

Greg66 - I may be wrong but I seem to recall that you are a lawyer. If that is the case then it's a little unfair to be so harsh on people on an internet forum for making grammatical mistakes - especially when you get paid to do it for a job and at least then you are dealing with people who are fair game (who are also getting paid to be correct).