Grammar, Spelling Nazis should just get over themselves

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

QtheMuse:
So if your a grammar or spelling nazi just get over it and find something else to be OCD about.

NEVER!

QtheMuse:
Language is a way to communicate an idea. [put a period here, you're on your way to a comma splice] If someone doesn't use proper grammar, English, or spelling, yet they communicate their idea clearly enough for someone to understand it, [comma you've got some clause action going on here] is it really necessary to nit pick the little things?

People use spelling and grammar to judge a person's [intelligence is a possessed thing] intelligence, [comma: coordinating conjunction] yet language is a very flexible and fluid thing. [Comma splice again. You'd get an F in any entry level college English]Using something as petty as spelling and grammar to judge a persons intelligence is just as prejudice as using someone's [possession yet again] color of skin, religion, [comma: list of things] or sports team preference.

So, [comma: introductory word] if your a grammar or spelling Nazi just get over it, [more clause action] and find something else to be O.C.D. [you need periods when you're doing initials] about.

I love people like you; they validate my major.

It's not prejudice, not in the way you want it to be. Language, believe it or not, is not controlled by a bunch of stuffy English professors in some room somewhere. It's controlled by its speakers. So, wanting people to write with proper spelling and grammar is crucial.

It exists because without the rules that society places on its language English would become a fragmented language. Different parts of the world would not only have different dialects, they would have entirely different languages. That doesn't need to happen.

Language without grammar is like math without operational signs. Sure, language is flexible, just like the order of a math problem can be rearranged. However, without grammar it's like trying to add two and two without a plus sign.

There is a difference between wanting good grammar and being a Nazi. Our language is cobbled together from several others and uses their rules haphazardly, making it a bit bizarre to insist that anything about it is "proper". Why is the plural of mouse mice and house houses? That's not proper at all!

What about this madness of irregular verbs? Shouldn't our intrepid defenders of order be interested in regularizing them? How, precisely, are "better" and "caught" superior to "gooder" and "catched" when the former violate the very rules English is based upon?

Speaking as a part-time editor...

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! Why does nobody bother to use proper english any more? People, I have been driven to drink by poor spelling, sub-par grammar, and a flood of text speak. Please, please... think of the editors! Think of our livers!

Let grammar Nazis be grammar Nazis. If they want to speak the English language properly (you know, like we learned in first grade?), then by all means, let them.

I'm not a nazi but I do think everyone should at least be able to compose themselves properly if the situation requires. If you're typing in a game and need to hurry, I don't have a problem with "brb" and "u" and so forth. But on a forum where you have time and spellcheck, there's really no excuse. I dont' mind if you misplace an apostrophe every now and then like I just did there on accident and left in for example's sake, and I can never remember where or when you're supposed to put them in possessives like "example." But while citing the slightest grammar error as proof of stupidity is annoying( I consider myself fairly intelligent and I make the occasional mistake), I think you should at least hold yourself to a certain standard most of the time.

The nonsensicalities of the English language to not excuse the misuse of it.

should we all just devolve to 1337 5peek?

vv ould yyou rapher heaeve grammer liek THSI ?! ?!
(Would you rather have grammar like this?!?!)

Nothing has ever improved without coming to terms with it's flaws.

Anything worth doing is worth doing right.

Look, the thing is, I am a writer, and I want to be the best damn writer I can be, and the only way I can do that is if people point out where I screw up. Basically I'm saying I wish more people were grammar Nazis.

If a deranged, shit-smeared and gibberish-spewing hobo entered your place of employment, steps would likely be taken to remove him.

Your words are your face on the internet. If you have no sense of spelling and structure, why should anyone give your ideas a second of thought? There is too much other material to read, and it takes substantially more work to decipher a poorly constructed passage than a well-thought-out premise.

There are some examples where less precision is required. A short response, a commonly misspelled word, or a simple transposition of letters do not inhibit comprehension. Just don't expeCKT ME TOO CARE abOut yOU'RE plotitical considerings awbout how iobama create GLOBAL WARMING with liiek endless talkkings etc

QtheMuse:
Language is a way to communicate an idea. If someone doesn't use proper grammar, English, or spelling, yet they communicate their idea clearly enough for someone to understand, it is it really necessary to nit pick nitpick the little things? This is an awkward sentence. It needs revising

People use spelling and grammar to judge a person's intelligence, yet language is a very flexible and fluid thing: using something as petty as spelling and grammar to judge a person's intelligence is just as prejudice as using someone's color of skin, religion, or sports team preference to do so?.

So, if you're a grammar or spelling Nazi, just get over it and find something else to be OCD about.

F-. See me after class. We need to discuss your run-on sentences, failure to use commas, and failure to understand possessives... among other issues.

QtheMuse:
Language is a way to communicate an idea, if someone doesn't use proper grammar, english, or spelling yet they communicate their idea clearly enough for someone to understand it is it really necessary to nit pick the little things?

People use spelling and grammar to judge a persons intelligence yet language is a very flexible and fluid thing, using something as petty as spelling and grammar to judge a persons intelligence is just as prejudice as using someones color of skin, religion or sports team preference.

So if your a grammar or spelling nazi just get over it and find something else to be OCD about.

*You are

You also missed several comma's and capital letters.
I appreciate proper spelling, and would recommend that you look up what a Nazi is, since I don't particularly fancy being compared to one, when all I want is for you to stop butchering the English language.

Criticizing somebody for their spelling without responding to the message they were communicating just shows what lengths people will go to to find an excuse to argue for the sake of arguing.

What I don't understand is why are people so reluctant to learn. If I correct someone, I do it because I truly believe that it will benefit the person whom I corrected. And when I make a mistake, I demand correction because I want to learn things properly. English is not my first language and I don't want to learn it wrong, so when I make a mistake that I don't recognize on my own, I'd like someone to correct my grammar. It's not that difficult to learn, really. I simply can't wrap my head around people who have English as a native language and can't make a difference between "your" and "you're". Until I came to the Internet, I never even realized that people struggle with it as it was so easy and obvious when I learned it (when I was 6 years old and it wasn't the language I heard everywhere every day since birth). Damn right I'll assume that the person lacks basic knowledge (but not that they're stupid). Seriously, if you go to school on a regular basis and actually try to learn something, you'll know the difference between "your" and "you're" and between "than" and "then" and between "their" and "they're" and whatever else people don't seem to understand. And to refuse to learn it properly; it baffles me. I'd be ashamed to speak any language (my native or any foreign) improperly and to refuse to be taught how to do it correctly. So, call us grammar Nazis, but that term just shows how much people just don't want to be educated; it implies that we torture with grammar and attack your personal freedoms, while we only want to help people learn things they understand poorly, because, why the hell wouldn't you want to understand something you don't? Of course, some people are being bitchy about it, but I wouldn't view them as "our" representatives, but as the necessary "Douches are the loudest" group of people that's not exclusive solely to "grammar Nazis" (not that I was never bitchy about it, especially after three hours of arguing and facepalming at "your an idiot").

QtheMuse:
People use spelling and grammar to judge a persons intelligence yet language is a very flexible and fluid thing, using something as petty as spelling and grammar to judge a persons intelligence is just as prejudice as using someones color of skin, religion or sports team preference.

I wouldn't call it prejudice that's comparable to racism, but it is bad. I don't judge a person's intelligence, but only their lack of interest for proper communication skills. I find it sad, really. In this day and age, you can learn anything you want within five minutes and three clicks. Even if you didn't learn it in school, you can learn it somewhere else. And the argument "It's faster" is really just that; an excuse. Because the nanosecond that you'll gain by not typing the apostrophe is negligible. Honestly, when someone is trying to write a serious post about an serious issue and doesn't seem to understand the difference between "your" and "you're", it looks silly. I don't think it looks stupid, but I certainly do have a prejudice and consider the person to be very young or lacking in education. In both cases, I feel obligated to tell them that they made a mistake and that they can learn to be better at it. Grammar is not something we're born with, we all learn it at one point and you can learn it at any point in your life. Why someone would absolutely refuse to do so is beyond me.

Oh, and language is flexible, but things like "their" and "they're" are not. Those are rules in grammar and syntax that are necessary for proper understanding. Yeah, sure, I'll understand that they meant "they're" instead of "their", but why shouldn't they learn how to write it properly once and for all? Is it going to harm them? Is it wrong to educate other people? Are they somehow physically or mentally incapable of understanding the difference? If not, then they should learn correct grammar. If they do not learn it, I'll struggle to think of them seriously, just as any scientific paper would refuse your poorly worded work that screams "I don't know basic grammar", and I will offer them help. Sieg heil, I guess?

P.S. Correct my mistakes, please. I long for some good Nazi grammar torture.

Takumashii:
I think the mistake many so-called grammar Nazis make is they assume everyone received the same education they did and learned grammar usage as easily as they did. Because of that mistake, they think they are actually helping when they correct someone's grammar, instead of insulting them. Someone who did not do so well in school (or can't type/write quickly) does not need their mistakes rubbed in, particularly if you understand what they said enough to correct them.

To say that it is the fault of the one who misspells or uses grammar improperly is just blaming the victim. Would you also feel that someone who was murdered was asking for it by being alive? I'm repeating myself here, but if you can understand them enough to correct them, there is no need to correct them. If you're feeling anger because someone does not communicate in the same way that you do, you should look within to correct the thing that is lacking in yourself.

Correcting somebody with poor grammar is not "blaming the victim" in any way, shape or form. It speaks entirely to character, not education. A person who is not as well educated and is not offended by being corrected recognizes that they still have room to grow and better themselves. A person who is offended by it is too concerned with image and resistant to education.

I look at it this way. If I had a wrong idea that I expressed frequently to people who know more than me on the subject, I would be grateful to be corrected. Better being told the one time that I'm wrong so I don't make the mistake again, then to look like a dumbass every single time I talk about it.

For instance, what if I got the titles of Starcraft and Minecraft confused and I kept talking about how I don't want to play Minecraft because RTS games bore me? I'd much rather have somebody tell me to my face how I'm mistaken, then have everybody on this forum ignore me because they think I'm an idiot.

QtheMuse:
Language is a way to communicate an idea, if someone doesn't use proper grammar, english, or spelling yet they communicate their idea clearly enough for someone to understand it is it really necessary to nit pick the little things?

People use spelling and grammar to judge a persons intelligence yet language is a very flexible and fluid thing, using something as petty as spelling and grammar to judge a persons intelligence is just as prejudice as using someones color of skin, religion or sports team preference.

So if your a grammar or spelling nazi just get over it and find something else to be OCD about.

Edit: For some reason I got you confused with the people you're defending, even though your grammar isn't that bad. Sorry.

I've known people with disabilities and non-native speakers who work to overcome their linguistic challenges. It's really kind of disgusting to see someone without those handicaps not even try. Besides, not having good grammar and spelling is a huge handicap when looking for work. I've heard from a few employers that they screen large applicant pools by throwing out the resumes and cover letters with mistakes in them.

Sure, a given person won't be constantly applying for a job (well, once the economy recovers they won't), but good or bad grammar and spelling is habit-forming. May as well get into it while writing online.

McMullen:

Shorter version: I'm lazy and instead of putting effort into communication, would rather have my audience do so instead. Why do you meanies keep calling me out on it?

I feel this is the crux of the debate. It;s not so much getting perfect accuracy, but rather

"Posters should make a decent attempt to communicate clearly" - Elitistjerks.com (Grammar-nazi website for discussing WoW, they're transparent about this, look at the domain name.) make this a rule. I think they take it much too far, but as long as the guy is at least trying to be understood, I have no issue

For example, I recently made a post and coincidentally someone made just about the same post. Never mind the jargon if you don't play the game, look at the language.

^This poster was warned, because it doesn't matter if you're not native, there's no reason you can't bother to capitalise and prevent run-on sentences. It's really hard to read, and honestly, why make the effort to when he did not?

My question was coincidentally identical, I got a great answer from it because I tried to make it as clear as I could (Since I was asking them for help, least I could do.

BTW: Source http://elitistjerks.com/f73/t121412-feral_simple_questions_wol_feedback/p3/

The point I'm making is the benefit is significant when you at least try to make it clear. If a non-native speaker screws up the you/your/you're he won't really be warned, the guys there might make the point to show it but never backlashed.

Language constantly is evolving and the speakers are what makes it evolve. In the past people did not speak or write the same way they did 500 years ago. 500 years in the future people will speak some sort of English that we would never understand without a dictionary or proper translation.

It takes a more open minded person to get past spelling mistakes and grammar errors without getting caught up in the rigidity of grammar and spelling. Language is what the current time frame makes of it, and despite the rules you have they will change and they will be ignored.

As for the first example, if someone wrote it or spelled it why would you think they really would want to eat their grandpa.

Common sense trumps spelling and grammar every time.

grammer An speeling Naisies are fun to play with,

tHay take a luk at somefing like dis and thro a coniption fit?

Fallingwater:
And if it's not lack of brainpower then it's plain carelessness, which is even worse because at least the former is not usually your fault.

Not in the case of apostrophes. We Dutch for instance will want to write "comma's", because that's how Dutch works. If you write commas, the entire verb would change, sounding differently (with a 'short a').

English doesn't distinguish between the various ways to pronounce a letter in a word, and you'll just have to guess which one it is, even more so if you speak a mother tongue that has more or different sounds for one letter.

So maybe, unnecessary apostrophes in a word serve only to clarify it better.

QtheMuse:
Language constantly is evolving and the speakers are what makes it evolve. In the past people did not speak or write the same way they did 500 years ago. 500 years in the future people will speak some sort of English that we would never understand without a dictionary or proper translation.

It takes a more open minded person to get past spelling mistakes and grammar errors without getting caught up in the rigidity of grammar and spelling. Language is what the current time frame makes of it, and despite the rules you have they will change and they will be ignored.

As for the first example, if someone wrote it or spelled it why would you think they really would want to eat their grandpa.

Common sense trumps spelling and grammar every time.

Poor spelling and grammar is to the evolution of language what birth defects are to the evolution of animals. Rather than changing the language or animal in some way, they are simply detrimental to the task at hand, namely communicating for language and thriving well enough to reproduce for animals. This is why the apostrophe is still around, despite decades, probably centuries, of misuse. It's there because it has a purpose.

Also, chiding people to be more open-minded about incorrect practices is one of trashier sorts of pseudo-academic evasion. So is using a straw man (that, admittedly, someone else set up) to discredit an argument, like you did with the "eating grandpa" example.

Nit-picking the little things? No. I'm fine with my friend who types things like "it's" instead of "its". But when it's so horrible that it takes me twice as long to read as it should, then I skip it.

I tell people to learn how to type for their own benefit, not for mine. I couldn't care less if their text isn't ever read.

GigaHz:
grammer An speeling Naisies are fun to play with,

tHay take a luk at somefing like dis and thro a coniption fit?

Not really. When it's that obvious, it's more likely to be a sign to the readers that the comment and the opinions held by the person who made it are meaningless and pointless enough that they can be ignored from now on without a second thought.

McMullen:

Not really. When it's that obvious, it's more likely to be a sign to the readers that the comment and the opinions held by the person who made it are meaningless and pointless enough that they can be ignored from now on without a second thought.

I take it you're not a fan of satire are you.

HumpinHop:
It doesn't matter what you're trying to say. If you don't know the difference between they're, their, and there, that casts a shadow of doubt over your entire argument.

Shazzam! This person summed up my entire three-page argument. Okay, not really three pages, but still.
You can write the best speech in the entire world, but if you make a common elementary school mistake, THAT is what people are going to remember.
Punctuation can make the difference between coherent thought and rambling. Between eating grandpa and having lunch with grandpa as someone pointed out at the very beginning.

Boris Goodenough:
-snip


Lending a hand with the first one would be polite. I think I will pass on the second.

I am not overly picky, and certainly not perfect, but if your post is hard to read because you have failed to grasp the fundamentals, I will quit reading. There is one person on here that posts often and is absolutely horrible with paragraph and sentence structure. I skip them. I have no interest in wasting time deciphering what they are trying to communicate.

QtheMuse:

So if your a grammar or spelling nazi just get over it and find something else to be OCD about.

So should I use your lack of understanding of what OCD is to judge your intelligence? I would only judge a person on intelligence (strictly on a judge a book by its cover basis) by their grammar online. Of course there will be the highly intelligent person who defies all grammar, but for the most part the people who do not use proper grammar are those of lower intelligence.
Wow, that sounds awful.
Do you deny that use of proper grammar enforces the efficiency of communication? The very first reply in this thread provides a perfect, if basic, example. The same three words are used, but the meaning taken from them is completely different.
Grammar exists for a purpose. That purpose is to prevent miscommunication. If someone writes in such a way as to almost enforce miscommunication (ie. By using improper grammar) then I feel justified in judging them in terms of intelligence, to an extent.

A post note to your prejudicing comment, of course judging grammar and race are totally different things. To even suggest that they are the same is simply ridiculous. Grammar is taught and learned, therefore it is controllable. Race is not.

my line on this is much the same as the OP

if you understood what the person was trying to say well enough to be able to correct him then you are just being pedantic because, and pay attention to this bit, you already understood what he was communicating and so the language, however bad it was, had already done what it was intended to do.

you admitted that fact when you started to make "corrections".

you're basically saying "i fully understood that but now i'm going to show how it could be better said because i'm a pedantic asshat who likes displaying my superiority by correcting other people"

and with that i'll leave you with Mr Stephen Fry on the subject :

you're*
I'm sorry, but it's REALLY bothering when people misspell that.

BlackWidower:
Nothing has ever improved without coming to terms with it's flaws.

Anything worth doing is worth doing right.

Look, the thing is, I am a writer, and I want to be the best damn writer I can be, and the only way I can do that is if people point out where I screw up. Basically I'm saying I wish more people were grammar Nazis.

That apostrophe shouldn't be there.

GigaHz:

McMullen:

Not really. When it's that obvious, it's more likely to be a sign to the readers that the comment and the opinions held by the person who made it are meaningless and pointless enough that they can be ignored from now on without a second thought.

I take it you're not a fan of satire are you.

I take it you haven't been on the internet very long if you think that looks like satire.

McMullen:

I take it you haven't been on the internet very long if you think that looks like satire.

No. My grammatically incorrect response was the satire. Thought you'd catch it.

Before that I was just being ridiculous.

I'm sorry that people find it acceptable to sound like dumb shits because 'i r on teh Internets an y shud i here u u r not my mom."

Missing a comma using the wrong version of "There/their/they're" sometimes getting "than and then" backwards occasionally or forgetting to capitalize something now and then is fine this isn't English class but we have a language that language is a beautiful thing wn u talk lik this cuz your 2 lazy or stupid than u shit all ovr that beuty do you see the point I am trying to make with this big run-on sentence that people so love to use it makes it hard to follow because you dont know where to pause and you cant tell where one part begins and another ends this is what people sound like and it undermines every word they use AND THEN THEY GET MAD CAUSE SOMEONE CALLS THEM ON IT AND START TALKING IN ALL CAPS BUT THEY STILL USE A GIANT RUN-ON SENTENCE YELLING AND USING HORRID GRAMMAR MAKES YOU LOOK EVEN MORE LIKE A MORON AND OCCASIONALLY THEY GET REALLY MAD AND MAKE THREADS ON THE ESCAPIST COMPLAINING THAT PEOPLE WHO CAN ONLY READ WHAT THEY WRITE ARE JUDGING THEM BASED ON HOW THEY WRITE

Yes, there is some flexibility with it. For instance, some people would have my head for starting a sentence with "but" while others find it completely acceptable. but u typn like dis is than say that it r gud enuff cus their r lots of peeps who use there werds gud an than u can git yuo're point across I am going to think you're a moron because you've given me no evidence to show you have enough intelligence to walk and chew gum at the same time.

If you were too busy licking paste during English class to learn the rules of the language you claim to speak, then I am going judge you based on how you communicate with the written word. Do you know why I am going to judge you based on that and assume you were eating paste? Because that is all I have to work with at first glance. For the sake of yourself, put SOME effort into how you type. Even if you don't like it, it does reflect poorly on u wen u sound lik this

P.S. Dallas Cowboys fans are morons.

QtheMuse:
Language is a way to communicate an idea, if someone doesn't use proper grammar, english, or spelling yet they communicate their idea clearly enough for someone to understand it is it really necessary to nit pick the little things?

People use spelling and grammar to judge a persons intelligence yet language is a very flexible and fluid thing, using something as petty as spelling and grammar to judge a persons intelligence is just as prejudice as using someones color of skin, religion or sports team preference.

So if your a grammar or spelling nazi just get over it and find something else to be OCD about.

Well, for my part I just sent off the following on the Escapist contact page:

Hello,

There's a 'to' missing on a paragraph from your submission guidelines page, between "able" and "fact":

"We expect articles to be well-written and thoroughly researched. If subjects are interviewed, we expect to be able fact check these sources."

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/content/contact

I'm surprised it's still there considering the sheer number of mecha-critical, wannabe writer internet nerds who must have read the page already, and especially given the slight irony of the first seven words of that paragraph.

I'd also recommend dropping the hyphen from "well-written" as the word "articles" precedes it rather than follows it (and it implies a pronunciation of 'wellwritten' if you were to say it out loud), but this probably depends on which style guide you follow.

Man, I really need a girlfriend.

All the best,
Jamie

Which tells you all you need to know about my opinion on the matter.

As an amateur lacanian psychoanalyst, I'd also add than this is clearly your unconscious mind trying to tell you that you care about thoughtfully presented spelling and grammar just as much as the rest of us Nazis. You wouldn't have spent so much of your time on this thread if you didn't.

TLS14:
Alright, OP, I have an image for just this sort of occasion. I'll put it in a spoiler tag because it's actually quite big.

My English professor would love this image.

Sleekit:
my line on this is much the same as the OP

if you understood what the person was trying to say well enough to be able to correct him then you are just being pedantic because, and pay attention to this bit, you already understood what he was communicating and so the language, however bad it was, had already done what it was intended to do.

you admitted that fact when you started to make "corrections".

you're basically saying "i fully understood that but now i'm going to show how it could be better said because i'm a pedantic asshat who likes displaying my superiority by correcting other people"

and with that i'll leave you with Mr Stephen Fry on the subject :

I think the problem here is that there are certain people (and these will always be with us) who view any perceived imperfection as unacceptable. Similarly, there are lots of people who don't like being wrong and will try to claim their mistakes were simply "reinterpretations" of the language. I think they're both wrong.

I've been called a grammar Nazi before, and my posts on this thread don't do much to avoid that label. But a point I've been trying to make is that even though language is fluid and changing and whatever, phrases like "so i no im had byd a 6 cor thing for my mashin but wen i looc i si 8 cors in the thin an i was lik shodnt ther be 6 or somthin so i looc on goggle an fined this vertual cpu thing that givs you more cors sumhow i donno how but hay col but it ses that it dobles yor cors so souldnt i hav 12 cors wtf wy is my mashin retarted omg can sumwon help me owt her cus i donno much abot this hol moltcor thing kthanx bye" are not a modification or evolution of language. They are simply a failure to use it effectively because the reader will have a very poor idea of what you were trying to say.

I agree with Mr. Fry that it's fun to play with language (I sometimes get raised eyebrows from people hearing me use the word "awesomeness", among many others), and that people who get really picky about the finer points of English mostly succeed at embarrassing themselves. Even so, many people who claim to be using language creatively are really just poor communicators trying to cover up their mistakes, the way other people (or maybe the same ones) will say something hideously stupid or vile and try to claim it was a joke or satire when they realize everyone is glaring at them.

I don't get riled up about affect vs. effect, I merely shrug at people who use apostrophes on plurals. A part of me facepalms inwardly at "should of"s, but I don't actually bring them up. Well, I don't anymore anyway. However, <---(See? Not a Nazi or an obsessive, howevers just feel natural at the beginning of sentences sometimes!) an incomprehensible sentence like the one I wrote above will drain my patience after the first few words and I'll simply move on, whether I know the answer to the writer's question or not.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked