Grammar Nazis - public service or public enemy?

UndercoverElephant

clarkey cat wrote:

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).

That's probably the issue: lawyers almost never use any punctuation at all in their work. I reckon all of this is pent-up frustration stemming from work-related under-punctuation. Take a day off, Greg, the strain is showing.

mudcow007

The only type of language (or lack of it) used on some forums that gets right on my thrinies
is "txt spk" (see what i did there?!)

It would be great if everybody knew how to punctuate and spell correctly, but i don't lose any sleep over it

CiB

Bang, gone. Edited for wrongness.

greg66_tri_v2.0

John Stevenson wrote:

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

You're welcome! My post remains intact (I assume because the auto-correction software doesn't trawl historic posts as each new rule is added; it just applies the new rule prospectively). Your quotation of my post was auto corrected though, presumably because your post was made after you added the new rule.

Agent57

Greg66 wrote:

You're welcome! My post remains intact (I assume because the auto-correction software doesn't trawl historic posts as each new rule is added; it just applies the new rule prospectively).

I'm not so sure about that. My displayed post was "corrected"; but when I went to edit it and insert the extra spaces, the original text was still as I entered it. I assume the "correction" is only upon display.

Robstar24

UndercoverElephant wrote:

clarkey cat wrote:

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).

That's probably the issue: lawyers almost never use any punctuation at all in their work. I reckon all of this is pent-up frustration stemming from work-related under-punctuation. Take a day off, Greg, the strain is showing.

that's rubbish, i'm a lawyer and there's plenty of punctuation in my work. Law is a good profession for Grammar perfectionists (not using the Nazi tag, like Greg66 I see nothing wrong in having a good command of grammar and punctuation, and unlike some others I don't turn it into a class issue.

John Stevenson

Agent57 wrote:

I assume the "correction" is only upon display.

That's correct.

sketchley

There two reoccurring themes the grammar pedants keep mentioning.

The first is that people with poor grammar and spelling do not appreciate good grammar and spelling. This is an incorrect assumption. The problem is having my mistakes pointed out which is different thing entirely.

The second is that grammar rules are easy and it only takes a bit of effort to learn and apply. This is also an incorrect assumption. The rules are not easy and do not make sense, the reason for this that they do not make logical sense and are full or exceptions, a good example being the use of apostrophes, the rules initially make sense but then you get something like "St James's" which does not follow the rules but is allowed because it's a house style. If you did this in mathematics it would be like saying 3 time 4 is 12 unless you work for HSBC then it's 11. Those of us with logical minds find these kind of things difficult not easy. Additionally, with regard to lack of effort being at the route of the all grammar and spelling mistakes, I had to deal with this perception during my schooling with teachers unable to understand the problems I was facing, note I was diagnosed with dyslexia in 1983 at the time only 3 other people in North Kent were diagnosed. I needed help resolving them, I did not need being shouted at for lack of effort. Here is the problem I faced then and still do now, it's more complicated than this but hopefully you will get the point. If you show me some text written by someone else I can proof read it and correct grammar and spelling, the same is not true for a text written by me, I simply cannot see my own mistakes, because each time I read it, I read what I thought a wrote and not what I actually wrote. Time away from the screen can fix this and often when I read reed a post written a few hours or even minutes before I can see the mistakes but at the time I cannot. This post looks good, but I bet you can find a mistake or 2 which I simple cannot see (feel free this time!). Yes effort can correct this, and over the years I have developed system and methods that help me make corrections, switching to Firefox and its red underlined spell check has help on here for example, away from the forum MS word helps as does my colleague who proof reads my documents and knows the mistakes I tend to make. But this is an internet forum and as someone else said it more like casual conversation and if I had to get every post proof read it would be a nightmare, unless that is Greg is offering a service.

Finally, to the grammar pedants out there who think they are doing me a favour pointing out my mistakes. I already know my mistakes, I already know most of the grammar rules although some baffle me in the extreme. I've spent 30+ years over coming dyslexia to have a very successful career at the top of my profession. You are not doing me a favour by pointing out my mistakes. You are just p1ss1ng me off.

DonDaddyD

Robstar24 wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

clarkey cat wrote:

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).

That's probably the issue: lawyers almost never use any punctuation at all in their work. I reckon all of this is pent-up frustration stemming from work-related under-punctuation. Take a day off, Greg, the strain is showing.

that's rubbish, i'm a lawyer and there's plenty of punctuation in my work. Law is a good profession for Grammar perfectionists (not using the Nazi tag, like Greg66 I see nothing wrong in having a good command of grammar and punctuation, and unlike some others I don't turn it into a class issue.

It's not a class issue, it has everything to do with the person and nothing else.

Some Lawyers have to work for (i.e. defend in a court of law) people who can barely speak English, let alone write it, regardless of whether they are born here or not. In those situations Lawyers and Solicitors are expected to exude tolerance, patience and understanding. So there really is no excuse for hiding behind or attacking a particular profession.

MrChuck wrote:

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.

It must be lonely up there.

Mr66 wrote:

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?

I need to disect this as you have, of course, constructed it brilliantly.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Sketchley wrote:

If you did this in mathematics it would be like saying 3 time 4 is 12 unless you work for HSBC then it's 11.

Have you not seen the 48÷2(9+3) puzzle floating round t'internet?

greg66_tri_v2.0

DonDaddyD wrote:

I need to disect this as you have, of course, constructed it brilliantly.

You should probably have a go at dissecting it as well. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Agent57

Sketchley wrote:

Those of us with logical minds find these kind of things difficult not easy.

I assume you mean people whose brains can only think logically (hello, Mr. Spock), because I consider myself to be a logical thinker (quite important in my profession as a programmer), but I don't find grammar difficult.

Regarding effort, I feel there's a distinction between people who are trying to get things right, and those who just can't be bothered. Maybe it's not straightforward to tell the two apart, sometimes, and people unfairly get put into the second group.

sketchley

Greg66 wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

If you did this in mathematics it would be like saying 3 time 4 is 12 unless you work for HSBC then it's 11.

Have you not seen the 48÷2(9+3) puzzle floating round t'internet?

Without looking on t-internet = 288

What's difficult about that follows a very basic rule BIDMAS or Brackets, Indices, Division, Multiplication, Addition, Subtraction.

So you do the 9+3 first then the 48/2 which leaves you with 24x12 = 288.

Sewinman

Greg66 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I need to disect this as you have, of course, constructed it brilliantly.

You should probably have a go at dissecting it as well. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Good to see you rejected Diddy's vom inducing sycophancy!

sketchley

Agent57 wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Those of us with logical minds find these kind of things difficult not easy.

I assume you mean people whose brains can only think logically (hello, Mr. Spock), because I consider myself to be a logical thinker (quite important in my profession as a programmer), but I don't find grammar difficult.

Regarding effort, I feel there's a distinction between people who are trying to get things right, and those who just can't be bothered. Maybe it's not straightforward to tell the two apart, sometimes, and people unfairly get put into the second group.

Yes sorry I was arguing in binary. Of course people can do both well.

Agent57

Sketchley wrote:

Yes sorry I was arguing in binary.

s/Mr. Spock/Kryten/

DonDaddyD

DDD vs Gregory

Greg66 wrote:

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?

The context, in this case the environment, is different. I agree that as the importance of the circumstance increases (i.e. an ebay advert) then the need for good grammar equally becomes more important.

However, I would argue that in an informal environment, where conversation can flitter from one point to another, the importance is centred around understanding the point itself with a reduced focus on how well the point is constructed.

When reading a post there is a moment where the point is understood and good grammar becomes secondary to the overall importance of the point being made.

Greg66 wrote:

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.

That is very much dependant on the audience. Perception is a variable that cannot be measured so I think, dare I say, that your point is moot.

As I said above, in an informal conversation once the point is made and understood by the audience then you get diminishing returns on how well the sentence is constructed. This is different from a Court of Law, for example, where emotive responses are driven by the eloquence of the argument delivered and it is partly that skill that wins the case.

My issue is that I cannot escape the fact that this is just an Internet forum and while I agree with your view on good grammar, even though I struggle with it myself, there is limit to how useful it is going to be in an informal mostly jovial written context.

There is also the audience itself, you cannot determine the audiences reaction. Perhaps they will be sympathetic to the person with bad grammar, perhaps they will exert a measure of understanding or make extra effort to understand the point he/she is making. This has been seen in this thread where you have the 'grammar nazis' and the 'broken English resistance'. It's not always as clear cut as who writes the best wins.

So to claim that a post with good grammar and punctuation will outweigh a post with bad grammar, in an arena where grammar isn't necessarily important in the eyes of the audience, I think is a little off if not completely wrong.

DonDaddyD

Greg66 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I need to disect this as you have, of course, constructed it brilliantly.

You should probably have a go at dissecting it as well. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

I claim typo.

jonginge

resistence is futile

*runs away*

DonDaddyD

JonGinge wrote:

resistence is futile

*runs away*

But you knew what I meant. So how important is it that I write 'resistance' as oppose to 'resistence' when you have clearly grasped what I meant?

Thanks for proving the point of my lengthy post, albeit in a most sarcastic way.

And yes it was lazy of me not to re-read.

SimonAH

Well written and constructed English is a joy.

Hasty, slapdash, misspelled and illiterate English is not. TXT speak is an abomination.

The first generally is indicative of a poor education, which is also generally linked to a certain class. This sort of assumption is unfair (note Sketchley's dyslexia) but is one that people will make because on the whole it will pan out to be correct.

I freely confess that I will make grading judgements based on literacy, just as I will on dress, accent, haircut, tattoos and a thousand other indicators. Oftentimes those judgements may well not be accurate - but they are made based on the best evidence to hand.

I capitalise and punctuate text messages, this may be anal but that's a label I'm willing to accept.

andyb78

I've read this thread with real interest, and think a number of very valid points have been raised from varying perspectives.

Part of my job for the past four years has been the production of credible written communication for an academic audience, and the proofing of important assessments which are in the public domain for a worldwide audience. I would like to think that I have quite a good grasp of grammar and syntax, which hasn't really changed. However, before I did this job, I was nowhere near as picky as I am now. What I'm trying to say I guess is that certain professions might make somebody more pre-disposed to spotting mistakes or errors - for me it's now second nature, and I do it almost unconciously.

I'm probably somewhere in the middle when looking on a forum like this - as long people communicate in coherent English I wouldn't point out minor errors. As past of a different audience, I might be more critical or laissez faire, dependent on the circumstances. However perhaps part of the issue is that coherency will vary from person to person. Deliberate put downs pertaining to grammatical errors just seem a bit pointless; however I wouldn't be offended if anyone chose to correct a mistake I'd made - after all, isn't that part of the way we all learn?

Cue a Grammar Nazi coming along to tear apart my post :oops:

greg66_tri_v2.0

Sketchley wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

If you did this in mathematics it would be like saying 3 time 4 is 12 unless you work for HSBC then it's 11.

Have you not seen the 48÷2(9+3) puzzle floating round t'internet?

Without looking on t-internet = 288

What's difficult about that follows a very basic rule BIDMAS or Brackets, Indices, Division, Multiplication, Addition, Subtraction.

So you do the 9+3 first then the 48/2 which leaves you with 24x12 = 288.

The alternative is 2.

The issue (which excites quite a lot of debate) is whether 2(9+3) is a single expression, that is to be resolved prior to the division.

So, 1÷3(2): is it a 1/6, or a very odd way of writing 2/3?

I'm in the 2 camp. I've done this to death elsewhere, so I'm not playing this time. But there is fun to had...

SimonAH

That would be part of a different audience then?

jonginge

DonDaddyD wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

resistence is futile

*runs away*

But you knew what I meant. So how important is it that I write 'resistance' as oppose to 'resistence' when you have clearly grasped what I meant?

Thanks for proving the point of my lengthy post, albeit in a most sarcastic way.

And yes it was lazy of me not to re-read.

Calm down. I was making a joke. It was partially referencing the previous posts about binary logic so I dragged in an allusion to the Borg, which I thought you would appreciate. I like the way you write.

solsurf

In a forum it shouldn't matter.

lost_in_thought

I'm in the 'it always matters, and frankly isn't difficult, so just make an effort' camp. The more you make an effort the more it'll come naturally.

For those who are waving the 'dyslexia' flag, yes, it makes learning grammar more tricky, but far from impossible. Don't hide behind it.

SimonAH

solsurf wrote:

In a forum it shouldn't matter.

Surely that is the salient point? In a forum the number of indicators are tiny compared to a face to face assessment, ergo your turn of phrase carries far higher weight. Therefore it does matter - and matters far more than elsewhere.

How much value to you apply to the poorly written argument as compared to the well structured argument? You are judging whether or not you are aware that you are doing so.

dhope

Greg66 wrote:

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?

If anecdotal evidence is anything to go by then well written auctions tend to garner more responses and higher final prices. Knowing this, I may pay more attention to the poorly punctuated auction in the hope of bagging a bargain. Epistemic logic trumps grammar. Sketchley, back me up here

If, however, I were looking at an advert for a houseshare then lazy/poor grammar would count against, probably quite heavily.

DonDaddyD

I'm in the 'it always matters, and frankly isn't difficult, so just make an effort' camp. The more you make an effort the more it'll come naturally.

For those who are waving the 'dyslexia' flag, yes, it makes learning grammar more tricky, but far from impossible. Don't hide behind it.

Ahem, I'll take that as aimed at me.

There is an assumption that everyone who uses these forums are exactly like everyone else. In reality we know very little about the people behind the computer screen. I didn't wave the flag so I or anyone could hide behind it, and it is a little insulting as I don't think anyone was hiding behind it, I waved it so that some could exert more tolerance and understanding.

Calm down. I was making a joke. It was partially referencing the previous posts about binary logic so I dragged in an allusion to the Borg, which I thought you would appreciate. I like the way you write.

I'm calm I was just reinforcing my point in anticipation for the 'Greg Brigade's' final assualt...