I hate grammar nazis

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2013 10:09 PM GMT
    zomg i totes hayt wen ppl uze inkorect grammer or kant spel itz so anoying.
    lyk srsly izit hard 2 just rite wat ur tryin 2 say porperly?
    soz but yeh itz just dum.

    Seriously though, 'grammar nazi-ing' over the internet is pointless considering that the internet was what created IM abbreviations in the first place.
    Internet has become about convenience and 'IM talk' is just a product of that.

    I can admit that when I've texted people, to stop it from becoming a 2 page text (I have an old phone) I use abbreviations and cut out commas or apostrophes to shorten down the amount of characters I use so that the text is condensed to 1 page.
    That by no means automatically poorly reflects my intelligence, it was simply out of convenience.

    Newsflash, sometimes 'ppl' over the internet disregard grammar out of convenience/laziness so it will serve people better if they just understood that and quit being dramatic about it. Honestly take a step back, look at the bigger picture and realise it's not a big deal.
    I'm not aiming that at you specifically OP, I'm just saying in general.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2013 10:19 PM GMT
    mindgarden saidFewer.
    ...fewer grammar nazis...
    not "less" icon_rolleyes.gif

    +5
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2013 10:44 PM GMT
    I'm just gonna post this here one more time because it seems like virtually everyone has decided to not read it: http://ling.kgw.tu-berlin.de/lexicography/data/MAVENS.html

    Seriously, read the essay before you decide to post about why you think people are stupid for not using "correct grammar"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2013 11:06 PM GMT
    Sounds like excuses for illeteracy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2013 11:17 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]Gaydar said[/cite]
    redsoxfan791 said
    Gaydar saidI think your all being a bit ridiculous right now. Their are so many ways to communicate out they're that its hard to decide on which method you could of used to convey you're point. Besides, if you would of been more patient with someone's grammar skills you're chances of becoming friends with them would of increased by ALOT! Theirs so much beauty in the English language and if you just give people the chance to speak there minds the world would of been a better place a long time ago.


    I hate to do this, but...

    *There, not their


    That's all you I saw the misuse of "their/there" immediately, and didn't bother to read the rest.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2013 11:17 PM GMT
    Narciso saidThe solution is easy.

    Just use proper grammar.

    Problem solved.


    ^^
    Now this is all that needed to be said.

    But I will add that it is shameful the way some people today write and speak.
    (Sorry. I couldn't help myself. icon_redface.gif )

    When I make a grammatical error, I absolutely want to be corrected. And I make a point to correct others. (But privately of course.)

    You can link to as many articles as you wish. They all seem to say that it's acceptable to be lazy and ignorant. icon_confused.gif Why would you want to be that way?
    There have been several instances when I've interviewed people for positions in my department that I've turned down because of how poorly they spoke.

    Read the book, "Eats, Shoots & Leaves"

    It's a fantastic book!!


    Tristan

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2013 11:18 PM GMT
    Has anyone pointed out to the OP that Nazi should be capitalized on the account it is a proper noun?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2013 11:19 PM GMT
    When I am writing a paper or something that I want to be taken seriously, yes I care about grammar and want to be corrected...

    When I am texting or just writing stuff on a forum...who cares
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2013 11:21 PM GMT
    redsoxfan791 saidHas anyone pointed out to the OP that Nazi should be capitalized on the account it is a proper noun?


    Lol
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2013 11:39 PM GMT
    musclefetish1 said
    Narciso saidThe solution is easy.

    Just use proper grammar.

    Problem solved.

    You can link to as many articles as you wish. They all seem to say that it's acceptable to be lazy and ignorant.



    It's all the same article. And it's an excerpt from a famous book called the Language Instinct, written by Harvard Linguistics Professor Steven Pinker.


    The point if you actually read it is that you're idea of what counts as "lazy and ignorant" is incorrect, not that it's okay to be lazy and ignorant. Unless you're saying you know more about language than a professional linguist (whose opinion is shared by the vast majority of all linguists such as Noam Chomsky.)


    It's the difference between descriptive grammar and proscriptive grammar.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2013 11:47 PM GMT
    I'm French but i've been living in the US for the last 18 months, and even if my English is far to be perfect (The tenses are harder for me than the Grammar) it's killing me to correct sometimes my Marketing Director when she's not fucking able to use her Native language correctly.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9225

    Jan 14, 2013 11:50 PM GMT
    The priority should be to enjoy a conversation with another person(s), not to make either person feel badly because he happened to not be grammatically correct.

    That said, I definitely appreciate good grammar.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2013 11:53 PM GMT
    Today in reading the Daily Mail newspaper, the word their was used in the opening sentence. Rather, the word there should have been used.

    The Daily Mail is a middle class national newspaper. Therefore I was somewhat amused when I came across the error, found in an article written by a journalist who most likely read English at university before graduating.

    Of course, this could simply have been a typing error, equivalent to a slip of the tongue occurring while delivering a speech.

    If, on the other hand, I was reading a manuscript written by a child, and the same error occurred, I would have overlooked it to concentrate more on what the child was trying to tell us.

    I am guilty of being a grammar Nazi myself. But usually I aim at writers who claim to be well educated or in a position of authority. Acting that way (as a Nazi) does make me feel better, to be honest.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2013 11:58 PM GMT
    Cardinal724 said
    musclefetish1 said
    Narciso saidThe solution is easy.

    Just use proper grammar.

    Problem solved.

    You can link to as many articles as you wish. They all seem to say that it's acceptable to be lazy and ignorant.



    It's all the same article. And it's an excerpt from a famous book called the Language Instinct, written by Harvard Linguistics Professor Steven Pinker.


    The point if you actually read it is that you're idea of what counts as "lazy and ignorant" is incorrect, not that it's okay to be lazy and ignorant. Unless you're saying you know more about language than a professional linguist (whose opinion is shared by the vast majority of all linguists such as Noam Chomsky.)


    It's the difference between descriptive grammar and proscriptive grammar.


    universal grammar modules and grammar are not the same things. pinker is known for a biological perspective of grammar, which is what chomsky agrees on. you don't actually know what you're talking about here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2013 12:00 AM GMT
    calibro said
    Cardinal724 said
    musclefetish1 said
    Narciso saidThe solution is easy.

    Just use proper grammar.

    Problem solved.

    You can link to as many articles as you wish. They all seem to say that it's acceptable to be lazy and ignorant.



    It's all the same article. And it's an excerpt from a famous book called the Language Instinct, written by Harvard Linguistics Professor Steven Pinker.


    The point if you actually read it is that you're idea of what counts as "lazy and ignorant" is incorrect, not that it's okay to be lazy and ignorant. Unless you're saying you know more about language than a professional linguist (whose opinion is shared by the vast majority of all linguists such as Noam Chomsky.)


    It's the difference between descriptive grammar and proscriptive grammar.


    universal grammar modules and grammar are not the same things. pinker is known for a biological perspective of grammar, which is what chomsky agrees on. you don't actually know what you're talking about here.



    The separation of descriptive grammar rules from proscriptive grammar rules is something that virtually all linguists agree on. Noam Chomsky would not agree with you that saying "Me and Jane went to the store" is a mistake.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2013 12:05 AM GMT
    Cardinal724 said
    calibro said
    Cardinal724 said
    musclefetish1 said
    Narciso saidThe solution is easy.

    Just use proper grammar.

    Problem solved.

    You can link to as many articles as you wish. They all seem to say that it's acceptable to be lazy and ignorant.



    It's all the same article. And it's an excerpt from a famous book called the Language Instinct, written by Harvard Linguistics Professor Steven Pinker.


    The point if you actually read it is that you're idea of what counts as "lazy and ignorant" is incorrect, not that it's okay to be lazy and ignorant. Unless you're saying you know more about language than a professional linguist (whose opinion is shared by the vast majority of all linguists such as Noam Chomsky.)


    It's the difference between descriptive grammar and proscriptive grammar.


    universal grammar modules and grammar are not the same things. pinker is known for a biological perspective of grammar, which is what chomsky agrees on. you don't actually know what you're talking about here.



    The separation of descriptive grammar rules from proscriptive grammar rules is something that virtually all linguists agree on. Noam Chomsky would not agree with you that saying "Me and Jane went to the store" is a mistake.


    chomsky would certainly agree it's a mistake of the prescriptive kind. just because linguists differentiate the two rules doesn't mean they don't believe in perspective rules.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2013 12:12 AM GMT
    calibro said
    Cardinal724 said
    calibro said
    Cardinal724 said
    musclefetish1 said
    Narciso saidThe solution is easy.

    Just use proper grammar.

    Problem solved.

    You can link to as many articles as you wish. They all seem to say that it's acceptable to be lazy and ignorant.



    It's all the same article. And it's an excerpt from a famous book called the Language Instinct, written by Harvard Linguistics Professor Steven Pinker.


    The point if you actually read it is that you're idea of what counts as "lazy and ignorant" is incorrect, not that it's okay to be lazy and ignorant. Unless you're saying you know more about language than a professional linguist (whose opinion is shared by the vast majority of all linguists such as Noam Chomsky.)


    It's the difference between descriptive grammar and proscriptive grammar.


    universal grammar modules and grammar are not the same things. pinker is known for a biological perspective of grammar, which is what chomsky agrees on. you don't actually know what you're talking about here.



    The separation of descriptive grammar rules from proscriptive grammar rules is something that virtually all linguists agree on. Noam Chomsky would not agree with you that saying "Me and Jane went to the store" is a mistake.


    chomsky would certainly agree it's a mistake of the prescriptive kind. just because linguists differentiate the two rules doesn't mean they don't believe in perspective rules.


    That's not true. Proscriptive grammar rules are the bane of linguists. Because when linguists are trying to do research, their data is often muddled by people trying to impress them by speaking "correctly." Many of these proscriptive rules hold no water when examined thoroughly. For example the rule "never split an infinitive" comes from trying to apply a rule of Latin to English. But in Latin it's impossible to split the infinitive because the infinitive is one word. That rule doesn't take into account the unique nature of English. This has been my main point throughout this forum - many of these proscriptive rules we see propagated today are themselves incorrect because they fail to take into account the larger picture of English grammar.

    So if you agree that there is a separation between descriptive and proscriptive rules, then you must agree that "Me and Jane went to the store" does not violate any of the descriptive rules of English grammar, do you?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2013 12:15 AM GMT
    Me and Jane went to the store.

    - is a statement that all English people would understand, but it is wrong. Basically what I'm saying is:

    Me went to the store.

    -which is not only wrong, but would not be accepted by any reader.

    I went to the store.

    Is correct.

    I went to the store to buy some groceries.

    Is not only correct but it explains why I went to the store.

    Jane and I went to the store to buy some groceries.

    This is the correct full sentence. The other person is always mentioned before the narrator.

    Wow, I love being a grammar Nazi!
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Jan 15, 2013 12:18 AM GMT
    Cardinal724 said
    That's not true. Proscriptive grammar rules are the bane of linguists. Because when linguists are trying to do research, their data is often muddled by people trying to impress them by speaking "correctly." Many of these proscriptive rules hold no water when examined thoroughly. For example the rule "never split an infinitive" comes from trying to apply a rule of Latin to English. But in Latin it's impossible to split the infinitive because the infinitive is one word.

    So if you agree that there is a separation between descriptive and proscriptive rules, then you must agree that "Me and Jane went to the store" does not violate any of the descriptive rules of English grammar, do you?


    Here's the way I look at it. If you remove the 'and ______', and it still makes sense, the use of 'me' is acceptable. Example: 'Mike went to the store with Jane and I' versus 'Mike went to the store with Jane and me'.

    Hence 'Me went to the store' being inappropriate.

    Is that correct?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2013 12:18 AM GMT
    At NotThatOld: Reread the excerpt from the essay I posted at the end of page 3. It explains why you can't compare "Me and Jane went to the store" with "Me went to the store" and why the former is descriptively correct while the latter isn't.

    Edit: Medjai, you should read it too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2013 12:25 AM GMT
    Cardinal724 saidI'm just gonna post this here one more time because it seems like virtually everyone has decided to not read it: http://ling.kgw.tu-berlin.de/lexicography/data/MAVENS.html

    Seriously, read the essay before you decide to post about why you think people are stupid for not using "correct grammar"

    Looked at the article. Started reading; ended up skimming, so if my impression is not correct, I apologize in advance. Writer criticized those who criticize breaking certain rules, such as splitting infinitives. Some rules are becoming more relaxed, but the context is important. Informal writing in an internet forum is one thing. A letter of introduction when seeking a job interview for a professional position is another matter.

    The context, meaning the degree for formality, dictates how closely rules are best followed. In general, "Prefer the standard to the offbeat." (Elements of Style by Strunk and White).

    Some folks use speech recognition software, such as Dragon, that sometimes confuses they're, there, and their. Often the transgression is simple proof reading. On a forum that is not a big deal.

    I would not correct someone publicly and usually not even privately unless I know the person would appreciate it. A friend on RJ is from Eastern Europe and English is his third language. His initial RJ profile was terrible. I knew he would appreciate me correcting it. When I sent him corrections, I made it clear that I understood the situation because I also study foreign languages.

    An interesting read with common sense examples, not nearly as tedious reading as the OP link (sentence fragment, I know):

    http://www.englishchick.com/grammar/grcomm.htm
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2013 12:32 AM GMT
    Like it or not, the context in which you present yourself - be it verbally or written - will reflect upon how someone else views you.

    Just as I can tell if someone has small children ("Excuse me for a moment, I have to go use the potty."), I can rationally ascertain someone's proficiency with details (and possibly, admittedly unfairly, determine their level of education) based on their appropriate use of grammar and spelling.

    All people make qualitative determinations of others. I choose to use proper grammar because, I believe, it presents me as well-educated, respectable, and trustworthy.

    I may not like a rule, but I elect to adhere to it because I gain from it as a result.

    Here's a contrary viewpoint to Pinker's written from a CEO's perspective. I like this excerpt in particular:

    Good grammar is credibility, especially on the internet. In blog posts, on Facebook statuses, in e-mails, and on company websites, your words are all you have.

    http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/07/i_wont_hire_people_who_use_poo.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2013 12:41 AM GMT

    Looked at the article. Started reading; ended up skimming, so if my impression is not correct, I apologize in advance. Writer criticized those who criticize breaking certain rules, such as splitting infinitives. Some rules are becoming more relaxed, but the context is important. Informal writing in an internet forum is one thing. A letter of introduction when seeking a job interview for a professional position is another matter.



    The point is more that the splitting infinitive rule, among others, shouldn't have been imposed on the English language to begin with, not so much that these are valid rules that are okay to break in informal contexts.

    Splitting infinitives is not inherently ungrammatical (neither is saying "me and Jane" or using singular they, etc etc). English syntax allows for the splitting of infinitives so native speakers split the infinitives. The "rule" to not split the infinitive should never have been imposed on English in the first place because it doesn't take into account the unique nature of the English language. There is no logical reason why an infinitive should not be split.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2013 1:02 AM GMT
    Dr. Pinker asserts that their is no entity that is a final authority on language usage. This would include himself. He is one researcher who has an agenda as do those he is attacking.

    Dr. Pinker seems as smug and insulting as the very people he is attacking.

    Although perhaps using Yiddish is less insulting and more professional when calling a published language professional a fool and a pest.


    Should psychologists attack and demean others in their published works? To me it just doesn't really seem ethical.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 15, 2013 1:06 AM GMT
    Well, I cannot relate onto this trend since English language is a lingua franca in my case. Good thing is that whenever I speak to an English, american or australian, he can easily understands me but I am having a hard time listening to australian accents. To my surprise, An american and australian have a hard time understanding accents as well. Well, I'm already out of the topic so, I need to close my thoughts in this trend. icon_eek.gif