Stephen Fry on grammar Nazis

Shryke

Somewhat relevant and if nothing else a joy to listen to.

Stompbox

Grammar*

chin_grin

Ahem. :pac:

Shryke

Stompbox wrote: »

Grammar*

How's the what now?

Son Of A Vidic

Stompbox wrote: »

Grammar*

Talk about missing the point completely.

Stompbox

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Talk about missing the point completely.

Not so, I just happen to enjoy irony far more than pedantry.

Son Of A Vidic

Stompbox wrote: »

Not so, I just happen to enjoy irony far more than pedantry.

I doubt it somehow?

cml387

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

I doubt it somehow?

Why the question mark?

chin_grin

cml387 wrote: »

Why the question mark?

Why not?

Dravokivich

Question marks for Some? Miniture American flags for others?

Son Of A Vidic

cml387 wrote: »

Why the question mark?

Just fishing for some Nazi types.

Standard Toaster

Sure he's like one of them gays like.

AnonoBoy

Oh that Steven Frie, hes alway's going on about sum thing and another.

theteal

I wish I could of saw that video years ago - very enlightening

cson

Hitler was a gas man, give him his due/jew.

Chuck Stone

...the claim to be defending language for the sake of clarity almost never, ever holds water. Nor does the idea that following grammatical rules in language demonstrate clarity of thought and intelligence of mind.

QFT.

Son Of A Vidic

Standard Toaster wrote: »

Sure he's like one of them gays like.

I think you meant gheys.

Loomis

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Just fishing for some Nazi types.

Ye, grammar Nazis are sad.
Trolling for grammar Nazis isn't sad.

Son Of A Vidic

Mr. Anderson wrote: »

Ye, grammar Nazis are sad.
Trolling for grammar Nazis isn't sad.

Posted like a frustrated Nazi. Sorry I don't troll, never have. I did conduct a little social experiment though and talk about easy. You can just hear the Nazi's gnashing their teeth on this thread.

The King of Moo

I agree with Stephen's sentiments in this video to an extent.
Grammatical pedantry is petty and Grammar Nazism is simply rude.

However, I fear that some people see this video as permission to indulge in any and all grammatical, syntactical and punctuational errors they see fit to make.

I pride myself on my grasp of English. I strive to write in such a way that ensures that my points are clearly made, and also perhaps in some small way pleasant to read.
I do get personally annoyed by small grammatical errors, but also understand that they're inevitable.
I might get irritated by a "ten items or less" sign, but I would not consider joining a campaign against this particular error as it is an easy one to make, and the meaning of the sentence is still clear.

I also greatly appreciate flexibility and innovation in the English language. I love writers such as e.e cummings and James Joyce.
As Stephen himself acknowledges, perhaps the greatest master of the English language, William Shakespeare, was also one of its greatest innovators.
While some neologisms and linguistic trends may annoy me personally, I accept that such is the natural evolution of language.

Yet this does not mean that I consider all English-language errors to be acceptable.

If I read a sentence with "disinterested" used instead of "uninterested," I'll still understand the meaning of the sentence and it's flow will probably be uninterrupted.

If I read a sentence with "your" instead of "you're," I'll receive a mild disruption of my reading, as I will expect a noun following "your," but will instead be faced with an adjective.

If I read a sentence with "to" instead of "too," I'll receive a greater disruption, as not only will I expect a verb and not an adjective or adverb to follow "to," I will also pronounce "to" differently from "too" in my head ("to" being pronounced as a "to+schwa" sound, or similar to "tuh").

On a regular basis I encounter far worse errors.
While I am forgiving of small and easy-to-make errors (and am not immune to them myself), I firmly believe that there is no excuse for anyone with a primary-school education to write a sentence in English that a fellow native-speaker finds at least slightly difficult to understand (unless the writer has a particular condition like dyslexia which affects their capacity to write clearly, or if the text contains specific jargon).

It pains me to say that quite often, on this very website, I come across posts that are so poorly constructed that I skim over them or choose not to read them entirely.
I hate doing so, and if said posts are in a thread I've posted in I'll do my best to read them, but an adult with a basic education or experience of reading should be able to make their point clearly with little difficulty (again, with the exception of people with certain conditions).
Small errors cause me little difficulty, but sometimes I see shockingly poor posts that require too much effort to read and understand. Too often I find myself having to revise my understanding of the writer's point when I realise that they had used an incorrect word with a completely different meaning from that which they should have used.
Too many posts contain such poor spelling that I'm forced to stop and try to discover what a word is supposed to be. While I believe that spelling mistakes are more understandable than many grammatical errors, the fact that the poster has the facility of google at their fingertips means that egregious spelling errors can easily be avoided.

Now many people will argue that the only important thing about language is that one's general meaning is communicated.
That's fine in the communication of fairly simple ideas, particularly in an informal setting.
But if this principle were to be applied to all uses of language, we would lose so much.
Which is truly better: the statement "I might kill myself, I dunno shur." or Hamlet's "To be, or not to be" soliloquy?
Olaf Stapledon's poignant yet stirring closing paragraphs of Last and First Men, or "ppl can b great, like?"

If language were simply about getting one's point across in a simple fashion, we would lose not only so many beautiful combinations of words, but also our ability to construct sophisticated, nuanced arguments.
A perfect grasp of the rules and principles of the English language is not essential (and I would say it's actually impossible to attain) but he who has a good grasp of them has access to an incredible wealth of expression.

I think we should all be forgiving of small errors. With a mongrel language as complex and pieced together as English, they're inevitable, and people who correct the mistakes of others uncalled for should be castigated.
Yet this does not mean that all errors are acceptable.

English is a wonderful language, with an almost infinite number of variations allowing for the simple creation of sheer beauty but also the profoundest vulgarity. I know something of a few languages and I firmly believe that English is superior to them. The power it gives even the least-skilled speaker is truly astonishing. This is why I hate to see some pedants cause people to revel in their mistakes.
English is very flexible, allowing you to communicate well despite making errors, or the use of what is considered by some to be non-standard English.
But please, don't allow this to influence you into not caring about how you communicate.
I reiterate that it is very simple to communicate complex ideas clearly with English. However, sometimes a little care is needed (only a little), and I implore you to take the time to care about what you say.

Being a native English-speaker is a wonderful gift, and I hope everyone embraces it.


TL;DR: Grammar = good, Grammar Nazis = bad.

keith16

theteal wrote: »

I wish I could of saw that video years ago - very enlightening

Obvious troll is obvious!

I wouldn't consider myself to be a grammar nazi by any means but the 'have' / 'of' confusion does drive me mad...It's not bad grammar as such....it's just fcukin stupid

Am I a nazi now? :pac:

MickySticks

keith16 wrote: »

Obvious troll is obvious!

I wouldn't consider myself to be a grammar nazi by any means but the 'have' / 'of' confusion does drive me mad...It's not bad grammar as such....it's just fcukin stupid

Am I a nazi now? :pac:

*Fucking

opinion guy

Shryke wrote: »

Somewhat relevant and if nothing else a joy to listen to.

The fact that there are Russian subtitles greatly amuses me. Surely this type of word play is language specific and must read as gobbledegook in Russian ?

LiamMc

Stephen Fry's description of himself in the past as "the old me" where he would have ridiculed and poured scorn on an individual or group's expression of English Language is no different to the new Stephen Fry that ridicules and pours scorn on individuals or group's expression of the English Language.
The fact that an individual like Fry moves his beliefs of the English Language around in a balancing act of love this/hate that in equal measure, just undermines what he may say in the future.
Has he apologised to his previous targets yet?

orestes

LiamMc wrote: »

Stephen Fry's description of himself in the past as "the old me" where he would have ridiculed and poured scorn on an individual or group's expression of English Language is no different to the new Stephen Fry that ridicules and pours scorn on individuals or group's expression of the English Language.
The fact that an individual like Fry moves his beliefs of the English Language around in a balancing act of love this/hate that in equal measure, just undermines what he may say in the future.
Has he apologised to his previous targets yet?

Thou shalt not doubt Stephen Fry.

Senna

Shryke wrote: »

And all the Grammar Nazis simultaneously clench their arses:D

Red Hand

Ah, Stephen Fry. Will he ever amount to anything useful?

The King of Moo

I think it would be fair of that video to point out that while many best writers lacked good grammar, their publishers didn't, and wouldn't have published their works with glaring errors intact. Good grammar isn't an indicator of intelligence, but it can be quite difficult and frustrating to read something with lots of mistakes.

Senna

Red Hand wrote: »

Ah, Stephen Fry. Will he ever amount to anything useful?

Do you want to compare his life to yours?

Red Hand

Senna wrote: »

Do you want to compare his life to yours?

Lets!

Andy-Pandy

The King of Moo wrote: »

"to" being pronounced as a "to+schwa" sound

Great post, but you confused the hell out of me here.

mitosis

Red Hand wrote: »

Lets!

Let's

Red Hand

The King of Moo wrote: »

I think it would be fair of that video to point out that while many best writers lacked good grammar, their publishers didn't, and wouldn't have published their works with glaring errors intact. Good grammar isn't an indicator of intelligence, but it can be quite difficult and frustrating to read something with lots of mistakes.

Now, if I was a logic Nazi, can an inanimate unthinking video point anything out?



It lacks hands for one thing!:pac:

mitosis wrote: »

Let's

Let's.

Retrovertigo

mitosis wrote: »

Let's

Lettuce

Brain Stroking

Retrovertigo wrote: »

Lettuce

Littbarski

Red Hand

Brain Stroking wrote: »

Littbarski

Literal.

3ndahalfof6

innit steefin innit.

LiamMc

Red Hand wrote: »

Literal.

Light Your Farts On Fire.

steddyeddy

Spot on to be honest. The word he used that summed it up best imo is "sneering". I dont think grammar bullies have the slightest wish to improve grammar in general. My grammar isn't great but it wasn't someones "sneering" at my use of it that made me pay more attention to it. It was my belief that if I practice I can get better at it.

I dont see why grammar bullies are given a free ride so to speak. If I bullied people about their knowledge of biology or someone else took apart another persons use of maths without prior provaction, we would be thought of as d1cks and rightfully so.

LiamMc

steddyeddy wrote: »

Spot on to be honest. The word he used that summed it up best imo is "sneering". I dont think grammar bullies have the slightest wish to improve grammar in general. My grammar isn't great but it wasn't someones "sneering" at my use of it that made me pay more attention to it. It was my belief that if I practice I can get better at it.

I dont see why grammar bullies are given a free ride so to speak. If I bullied people about their knowledge of biology or someone else took apart another persons use of maths without prior provaction, we would be thought of as d1cks and rightfully so.

Fry was a Grammar Bully in the past himself, he is now at present a self-confessed Grammar Bully.

The King of Moo

Andy-Pandy wrote: »

Great post, but you confused the hell out of me here.

The schwa is the most common vowel sound, like "uh," so I mean pronouncing the word like "tuh" and not to rhyme with "too."

ascanbe

Enjoyed that and agree with some of it but it's still a bit smug and 'right-on'.

What are the 'loser' pedants Fry sneers at here really guilty of?

Are they really doing any harm?

I'd say their motivation is little different than what motivated Fry to write/vocalise this piece.

Mainly, it's an attempt to separate themselves from those they feel they can look down upon, and win the approval of those whose approval, they hope, will make them feel better about themselves.

Don't think the 'development' of language, whatever that means, is actually being stymied by pedants.

In fact, pedants, just like 'innovators' have always existed, and if they have any effect at all, then, surely, they must have contributed to this 'development'.

The King of Moo

Red Hand wrote: »

Now, if I was a logic Nazi, can an inanimate unthinking video point anything out?

I actually believe that the internet has gained sentience and can indeed point something out if it so chooses.

In fact, I believe that the video bumped this thread itself.

Andy-Pandy

The King of Moo wrote: »

The schwa is the most common vowel sound, like "uh," so I mean pronouncing the word like "tuh" and not to rhyme with "too."

Thanks for explaining it to me. I have always found grammar to be interesting, though I freely admit to having problems with "too" and "to", and "there" and "their" etc throughout the years.