Question for Everyone who hates Grammar-Nazis

[Orrex]

Do you bother to learn the spellings of words, or do you just make them up, since the rules for spelling were made-up by elitists anyway?

[graywarrior]

1. I make shit up about everything to suit my own twisted dementia

[driver8]

63. Ha Ha -- me, too!! n/t

[petronius]

2. I dont understnad the qwestion

:shurg:

[omega minimo]

3. Is your name rilly Xeror?

:hi:

[Orrex]

12. It's more of an honorary title

Or a prison nickname. At this point, who can be sure?

[omega minimo]

13. ,

:spray: you could have it xeror-ksed on yoself

[kentauros]

4. Knowing the rules for spelling is an entirely different matter

than knowing the rules for grammar.

Without properly spelled words, reading in any language is exceptionally difficult. It can be done as the mind is able to read the word, no matter how jumbled or incorrect. However, it slows the reading and the enjoyment of the story (or journalistic article) more than bad grammar, as those rules are easier to drop due to such things as colloquialisms and the constant evolution of language.

Also, as I understand it, when you get into dialogue, only good spelling is necessary if you want characters that talk like real people instead of every one of them coming across as an English Major. Unless you are writing a story about English Majors, that is :P

[omega minimo]

5. What about

English drum majors?

[kentauros]

14. The only requirement for that

is a good sense of rhythm :P

[omega minimo]

18. and

a baton :wow:

[kentauros]

22. but not a bacon.

Nor a bacon-baton

[omega minimo]

37. What a

ham :spray:

[kentauros]

41. I ham what I ham!

I'm Popeye the Sailor Ham

[omega minimo]

45. I'll be you have a lot of

Bluto in your chart :spray:

[kentauros]

48. Et tu, Bluto?

[omega minimo]

50. Olive

Olive Oil your jokes.

[kentauros]

53. thanky!

and Olive, the Other Reindeer

[omega minimo]

56. jeepers!!

[Orrex]

23. Oh, sure

Like I'm going to listen to a mythological creature. Puh-leeze!

;)

[kentauros]

25. If you can _hear_ a mythological creature in order to even listen at all

then I would say you have left out some major secret about your life that your current online, onboard persona has squelched so mercilessly! :P

[omega minimo]

39. like you can hear the ocean in a shell?

do shells still do that?

[kentauros]

40. Only the trademarked ones.

Those left in the public domain are of a far lower quality

Be aware of the new digital shells as the compression ratios still aren't quite there, either :P

[omega minimo]

44. LOL

I hear ya

[kentauros]

47. That's good, because I think this subthread has made Orrex

DTM (deaf to me)

[omega minimo]

52. Maybe he's just

orrelaxing? :hammock:

[Sky Masterson]

6. I spell how I talk

Which is terrible.
If this wasn't a message board and was actually printed media then it might matter to me.
I don't understand why people care or even feel the need to point out the grammar crimes of others on a message board.
But that is just me.

[Orrex]

7. IMO the only time it's appropriate to point out other posters' grammar mistakes...

is when those posters are condescendingly pointing out other people's grammar mistakes. In that case, the universe demands a suitable reprisal, and you're not going to go against the universe, are you?


Well, are you?!?

[Sky Masterson]

8. Ok..since you put it that way I understand

Eye for an eye.I wasn't aware of the logistics of the situation.
We are cool.
(Grammar Nazi's still annoy me though) :)

[omega minimo]

17. you mispelt

I for an I :evilgrin:

[Orrex]

19. That's only for solipsists

[omega minimo]

20. aye aye

[Orrex]

21. .

[omega minimo]

15. your universe doesn't give a shit

:shrug:

[FloridaJudy]

81. Or when the poster is bragging about his/her brilliance

It's fun to take the arrogant snot-rags down a notch. While some of the world's smartest people aren't great spellers (F. Scott Fitzgerald was notoriously bad at it), if you're claiming an IQ of six brazillion why haven't you figured out what that red line means under a word? Sheesh.

[Nevernose]

9. If it makes it difficult to read, it's an issue.

Not one that I would probably call anyone out on, but still an issue.

There's also a credibility factor: if reading a post feels like I'm interpreting a 15 year old's "Summer Vacation" essay, then I'm probably going to think of you as an ignorant 15 year old.

[Orrex]

10. To heck with you

My summer vacation totally kicked ass!

[Nevernose]

38. Did you spend it with your uncle?

Hunting wolverines in Alaska?

[Sky Masterson]

11. Fair enough

Different things annoy different people.

[PaddyBlueEyes]

16. IM in love with one...

sigh..

[jobycom]

24. That's not grammar nazi-ism, that's just proper spelling. GN-ism is when

a perfectly functional phrase or word, like irregardless, is criticized because it doesn't meet some rule someone's teacher taught them long ago. Language is organic, and the only purpose of rules in a language is to help understand the language, not to limit the language or a person's ability to express that language.

Misspellings cause confusion in communication. Double negatives, misused words, faulty constructs, all can make a sentence mean something other than what the communicator intended. That's bad grammar, and to point out such is not being a grammar-nazi.

But when a word whose meaning is not in question--irregardless--or a construct which is perfectly clear but supposedly forbidden for some other reason--a split infinitive, a trailing preposition--is attacked for no other reason than because a chain of mediocre grammarians handed down some rule they themselves probably never understood or examined, then you've got nazi-ism, and it should be fought with the weapons of all the universe before it takes hold and stifles creativity and expression.

Most of the words we use now were once attacked as non-words at some point. "I," "you," and pseudo-constructs like "homosexuality," (which is part Greek, part Roman, and if you translate it literally means a non-hermaphrodite, not the conventional meaning of the word) or "irregardless" (yes, I'm fixated on that one because grammar nazis are) were all considered bad grammar, even though their meaning is not in doubt, except by over-literal, under-imaginative pedants.

[kentauros]

26. LoL! Ohhhh, I gotta keep this post

:rofl: so I can thrust it up in the faces of the editors from now on to give me permission to write as I want and know. Besides, look at some of the authors out there making the big bucks. Are they GN's or do they just get on with it and write? :D
Great insights, eh

[Orrex]

28. Don't try it with your editor

If it's for a professional journal, magazine, or the like, they can bounce you on the grounds that the journal, magazine, or the like maintains a certain editorial standard. If you fail to meet this, or if your grammar acrobatics make your submissions too hard to read, then you'll just be setting yourself up for rejection.

[kentauros]

32. You really take life too seriously sometimes, yanno?

:P

[Orrex]

33. Not me! I'm having a blast!

It's all you grammarless weirdos who need to lighten up!

:evilgrin:

[kentauros]

34. Well, if you would just go on out and research up a connection between

grammar and mammary, we'd have a winner of a thread

[jobycom]

29. Hey, wait, maybe I should have put a warning label in there.

"Don't use as a weapon against editors who decide whether to publish you or not!"

[Orrex]

27. But I notice that you have impeccable spelling. Why?

Surely you could communicate very well with ad hoc spellings that meet the readers' general phonetic expectations, which are themselves made-up and arbitrary.

The problem with "irregardless" isn't whether or not it's bad grammar (though I hasten to add that it's curiously self-canceling); the problem is that the word is too often used in an apparent attempt to fluff up one's vocabulary in order to seem eloquenter.

I'm not saying this about anyone here, because I honestly haven't seen the word used all that often here. But in my life as a corporate slave, I have found that every single person who uses the word is trying to sound more impressive than is truly the case.

[jobycom]

35. Spell checker. I just hate little red lines.

Being the father of a very expressive dyslexic child, I'm not even overly concerned with spelling anymore. My kid is smarter than anyone in her class and they keep wanting to fail her because she spells phonetically, even though on every other level she's as smart as anyone, and holding her back wouldn't correct her spelling problem, but would crush her progress in every other area.

Spelling is only important for two reasons. Misspelled words could be confused with other words, and readers are slowed down if they have to sound out a word. But grammar nazis don't just criticize written language. They feel the need to mock spoken language, as well. They aren't worried about the practical issue of reading or about the linguistic purpose of communicating, they are only worried about inherited rules for the sake of the rules.

And I disagree with your last paragraph. Most people I've heard use the word "irregardless" were trying to say "regardless" but didn't know the difference. The people who strike me as needlessly pretentious and grandiloquent are the ones who try to show educational superiority by making a fuss about it.

Officious grammar is just another tool the ruling classes use to suppress the masses, and to divide the masses against each other. It's like a jacket at a country club or skin color on a southern golf course.

[Orrex]

42. I just had a little epiphany

But grammar nazis don't just criticize written language. They feel the need to mock spoken language, as well.

Ah. Well, okay. Those people are assholes. Except in specific, formal circumstances (like giving a speech as a representative of a professional group with a specific image in mind), it's simply rude to make such corrections.

They aren't worried about the practical issue of reading or about the linguistic purpose of communicating, they are only worried about inherited rules for the sake of the rules.

That's lovely, but every interaction isn't a debate about semantics and etymology. As you've stated before, if the communication is effective, then it should be all good. The problem arises when a speaker's or writer's free-wheeling use of language acts as a barrier, either real or perceptual, to the very communication that the speaker or writer is trying to achieve.

And I disagree with your last paragraph. Most people I've heard use the word "irregardless" were trying to say "regardless" but didn't know the difference. The people who strike me as needlessly pretentious and grandiloquent are the ones who try to show educational superiority by making a fuss about it.

To that, I can only say that you and I haven't worked with the same people.


Incidentally, if they want to fail your daughter because she's having trouble with formal spelling, then that's asinine. I wasn't aware that difficulty in one subject is sufficient to hold a child back; I thought that it required a much more serious failing?

[jobycom]

58. So that's what the kids are calling it these days.

Use of the word "irregardless" is always effective, yet it gets criticized. As one example.

I've worked in the corporate world, the academic world, and for lack of a better phrase the redneck world. I've worked with professors, CPAs, accountants, lawyers, politicians at many levels, managers of various levels and descriptions, engineers, cops, mechanics, small business owners, big business owners, bank presidents and vice presidents... You've had experiences I haven't, no doubt, but I've covered a lot of ground. And that's my experience.

My daughter's problems center around her spelling, but it affects her reading and writing. She has to sound out each word because her process for recalling each word at sight is screwed up--that's the dyslexia. It also affects math and science when reading is required, so she has trouble scoring high enough on timed, standardized tests. They want to hold her back because her lower scores will screw up the school's averages--has nothing to do with her own welfare.

As a dyslexic, she is given some assistance on such tests, and so far has stayed ahead of their barriers. She may even by moving beyond the need for help. Some things have been clicking with her this year.

[Orrex]

59. But you're just advocating Postmodernism 101. To which I say *yawn*

In other words, no word means anything except by consensus, right?

Fundamentally, of course that's correct, inasmuch as we weren't handed a golden tablet with a list of true words. But you're crediting a power structure with a plot to use language to divide the masses, and anyone who doesn't embrace the words-mean-whatever argument is implicated in the plot by default. In so doing, you are equally attempting to exert power over the meanings of words, even if you approach the issue from the opposite side.

We could talk about "framing the debate," a tactic recently dominated by Republicans, but I'd need to be convinced that the tactic is broadly applicable and broadly applied before I could accept the argument that language in general is a tool for oppression, even between two equal speakers.

In communicating, why do you select the words that you select, in preference to other words that mean the same thing? Do you choose randomly? Or are you taking orders from some power structure that dictates which words you are to choose in which circumstance? You are, I suspect, picking the words that you think best convey your meaning. Does that make you elitist? I don't think so. But then why should it make your listener elitist if your listener infers from your words something other than what you might intend? Is that a failing? If so, is the failing yours, or your listener's? Why?

I think I've previously asked why you use punctuation, when surely your meaning is conveyed without it. Have you succumbed to the hegemony? Or is some other purpose at work? Do you find that communication is more effective when you use punctuation? Why, or why not?

Do you suggest that aesthetics has nothing to do with word use? That is, I don't resist the word "irregardless" because I'm trying to keep anyone down, nor because I've allied myself with any linguistic oligarchy. I simply find the word somewhat discordant, and when I hear it I can't help hearing "not without regard." Sure, I know what people mean when they say it, but I still don't care for the word, just like I don't care for "signage" when "sign" is sufficient. It's much the same as "soda" versus "pop;" I don't think any less of the person who says "pop," nor am I confused about her meaning, but that use of the word doesn't appeal to me, and so I don't use it that way. It's a preference. Nothing elitist about it.



How old is your daughter, by the way?

[jobycom]

69. Good god, what crap!!!

:rofl:

I didn't say any of that. Quite the opposite, to most of it. Reread what I said about words and meanings and choosing the right ones, about effective communication requiring the right word choice and constructs. That includes punctuation. Without punctuation, meaning is not always clear. That was MY point, don't turn it to make it yours.

I'm not crediting a "power structure" with a "plot," I'm saying that some people use artificially constructed grammar rules--and read my first post, I'm talking about a pedantic reliance on rules even when meaning is clearly expressed, not about correcting communication whose meaning is garbled due to bad grammar--to mark another person as less educated, less worthy, of a different class. That affects hiring practices, it affects access to government and government services, it affects the way the public hears an argument that might otherwise have value.

When a person tries to make a point publicly, but has a heavy southern dialect, or an inner city African American dialect, or a style of English tinged with constructs from the speaker's first spoken language, some people listen to how they speak more than what they say, even if their meaning is clear. "Y'all" is not unclear, "axed" instead of "asked" is not unclear. They are learned dialects that don't interfere with meaning. Yet they are still often used by elitist listeners to degrade not just the speaker's words, but the message, and even the speaker.

That's what I meant by grammar being a tool of the elite. Obviously saying "Road the the crossed chicken" is not effective communication. There are rules that have to be followed. But I started off saying the rules shouldn't trump the language. "Irregardless of why, tonder chicken crossed the road" is not unclear, and any grammar rule which tries to claim it is so misunderstands the fundamental purpose of grammar rules.

On edit: My daughter is 10, in fourth grade.

[FloridaJudy]

82. English is weird

I was once told that the reason English spelling is so difficult was that spelling rules were fossilized while the spoken language was still evolving. In some distant past the "k" was pronounced in knife and know, as was the "w" in sword. That may or may not be true, but I don't envy anyone trying to learn how to read or write in English who didn't start as a very small child. Some languages are almost totally phonetic. I could easily read a long passage aloud in Spanish and be understood by a Spanish speaker: I probably wouldn't know what many of the words meant, but I could pronounce them properly.

There is a "Gough" street in San Francisco, that inspired the following bit of doggerel:

"I had to cough on the street called Gough.
It doesn't go through, that street called Gough.
And I'm out of dough on the street called Gough.
It broke the bough, that street named Gough.
And that's enough of the the street they call Gough!"

For the education of those who are not native San Franciscans, it sounds like "Goff", but you can't tell that just by looking at the spelling.

I would look like a complete ninny myself, were it not for Firefox, and I'm a recovering English major.

[Lil Missy]

30. That's too deep for this late at night. I make shit up.

[Orrex]

31. OT: I had a friend who used ot shit make-up

Following a tragic accident at the cosmetics factory.

[jobycom]

36. Like I didn't just make that shit up?

Puhleeze, what, you think it all meant something? I just wanted to argue and wasn't serious enough for GD tonight. :rofl:

[Lil Missy]

62. Oh, it was funny too.

[Orrex]

43. If you really want to get him going, tell him what a great film Return of the King is

[jobycom]

70. It sucked. nt

[Lethe]

46. Making up words is great

Lewis Carroll had a fun time doing it

[Orrex]

49. Sure, but he didn't exactly do it to facilitate communication

Just ask Humpty Dumpty!

[jobycom]

71. He did it to challenge grammar constraints, actually.

Like ee cummings, he was trying to demonstrate something about language, communication, and rules.

[moriah]

51. But I love the Grammar Nazi! -- dialup warning

[cherish44]

54. You have to consider your readership

A lot of the articles I see on my desk contain slang, idioms, and other "casual" stylings. Most of my readers are ordinary people, not English language scholars. I don't get overly formal with my editing and I've never had anyone complain. I used to subscribe to a copy editor magazine and reading long diatribes over nit-picky little things that 99.9% of people wouldn't notice or even care about was tedious to me. As for mistakes and misspellings on message boards... get a hobby if you're uptight over that kind of shit. It's teh internets not a doctoral dissertation.

[leftofthedial]

55. Neither "Grammar-Nazis" nor "made-up" should have been hyphenated.

You fool!

[Inchworm]

57. I love grammer nazis

spelling ones too

I often have grammar questions I want to ask though.

The whole effect/affect blows my mind... as do the use of commas.

I appreciate it.

:hi:

[mwooldri]

60. If I have a Grammar Nazi come on at me and I want to take revenge, it's simple.

I infect their DNS settings on their computer so that every web page resolves to www.icanhascheezburger.com - then sit back and watch the results.

[TZ]

61. Silly Orrex..

Its grammar-natsi! Don't you pay attention?

[omega minimo]

65. no

its natzi :hi:

[kentauros]

68. I thought it was nahtzee

like Yahtzee :P

[omega minimo]

72. 'member these?

:bounce:

[kentauros]

73. Uh, no-o-o-o

but it looks cool :D

[3.14158675309]

64. Wickedly brilliant twist, sir. I figuratively remove my cap in recognition of your

quips.

[omega minimo]

74. There's not much that's more brilliant than your screen name.

:bounce:

[3.14158675309]

77. Why thankyouverymuch!

:hi:

[omega minimo]

80. Nieieieieieiei eieyiiiiiiinnnnnne

:hi:

[JitterbugPerfume]

66. I am a skeered 'o grammar Nazis

[Shell Beau]

67. I make up words. Does that count?

[WritingIsMyReligion]

75. I am a grammar Nazi.

Bwahahahaha.

Seriously, though, I like my written words to look elegant. Bad grammar, even on the internet, makes me think of a 4 year old given a keyboard for the first time. :)

[Deep13]

76. I can't be a grammar Nazi because I have not murdered 12 million people.

Also, I haven't invaded Poland or Russia and I have no U-Boats and don't believe non-Germans are inferior by nature.

I'm a grammar critic and perhaps even a grammar pedant, but I'm not a Nazi.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

78. As somebody who used to shoot grammar Nazis back during the war...

"Do you bother to learn the spellings of words, or do you just make them up, since the rules for spelling were made-up by elitists anyway?"

I don't get my panties in a bunch when I see other people misspell words.

I don't think spelling is a sign of intelligence.

I don't use spellcheck, not because I think it's a crutch, but because I think people who are so worried about misspelling words on internet message boards that they'll waste time going back over them are anal-retentive.

[KamaAina]

79. I only hate Illinois Nazis

[FloridaJudy]

83. My Grammar wasn't a Nazi.

She was a Royalist.