Why is grammar frowned upon?

arthurday2013

I just noticed a charter rule that penalizes posters for correcting grammar. Is this correct? While a lot of posts are fine, some are very hard to read because of poor grammar.

Temptamperu

because who cares? other than you that is.

Elbaston

arthurday2013 wrote: »

I just noticed a charter rule that penalizes posters for correcting grammar. Is this correct? While a lot of posts are fine, some are very hard to read because of poor grammar.

I believe you mean to say *why be it that grammer be frowneth upon/ .

Me fail english

Karl Stein

The title of the thread doesn't make sense.

mattjack

Grammar is indeed frowned upon , however everyone likes Grandpa ...

Wibbs

*must resist the need to point out ambiguity in thread title* Oh wait! Merde!:D

The fact is unless someone is using text speak(and even then) 99% of posts are perfectly readable. The quirky grammer* just serves to give some of the more Sheldon like uncontrollable paroxysms.







*twitch

Frank Black

arthurday2013 wrote: »

I just noticed a charter rule that penalizes posters for correcting grammar. Is this correct? While a lot of posts are fine, some are very hard to read because of poor grammar.

'Penalises'

arthurday2013

Never mind

Mint Sauce

arthurday2013 wrote: »

I just noticed a charter rule that penalizes posters for correcting grammar. Is this correct? While a lot of posts are fine, some are very hard to read because of poor grammar.

Its the Grammar Nazis that are frowned upon, not grammar.

The thread is not the place to point out peoples spelling and use of punctuation marks.

TheBody

Most posts are perfectly readable. We aren't writing phd theses. The odd mistake is fine.

arthurday2013

Mint Sauce wrote: »

Its the Grammar Nazis that are frowned upon.

The thread is not the place to point out peoples spelling and use of punctuation marks.

You mean it's

A Primal Nut

arthurday2013 wrote: »

I just noticed a charter rule that penalizes posters for correcting grammar. Is this correct? While a lot of posts are fine, some are very hard to read because of poor grammar.

Grammar is fine but correcting grammar is annoying. People could be on their phones where it can be difficult to type, some people could be in a rush, some words are legitimately tricky to spell; some people are dyslexic, some people are not native English speakers and everyone makes typos every now and again. There are plenty of reasons why grammar can be incorrect. It's not a sign of intelligence or that they are losing a debate. As long as you can understand what other people say, there is no need to correct their grammar.

If the sentence is impossible to understand, then that's a different story, but most times that is not the case. Grammar nazis usually don't correct it because they are trying to help. They do it because they think it's funny (and to get thanks), but it's not. Not at all, and never was.

krudler

Oooh read him card good!

Mint Sauce

arthurday2013 wrote: »

Never mind

No no, you started this.

arthurday2013 wrote: »

You mean it's

Reported.

:P

Elbaston

would of
would of
would of

NO ...would HAVE
There is no would OF

DIEEEEEEEE

HansHolzel

arthurday2013 wrote: »

I just noticed a charter rule that penalizes posters for correcting grammar.

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

H. L. Mencken

(It's true for any public.)

Karl Stein

arthurday2013 wrote: »

Nevar mined

Nevar mined?

mattjack

Wibbs wrote: »

*must resist the need to point out ambiguity in thread title* Oh wait! Merde!:D

The fact is unless someone is using text speak(and even then) 99% of posts are perfectly readable. The quirky grammer* just serves to give some of the more Sheldon like uncontrollable paroxysms.

*twitch

Easy there now , that twitchin' is back , jus' like the twitchin' in '07.

Karl Stein

Elbaston wrote: »

would of
would of
would of

NO ...would HAVE
There is no would OF

DIEEEEEEEE

You should of been an English Teacher.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

arthurday2013 wrote: »

I just noticed a charter rule that penalizes posters for correcting grammar. Is this correct? While a lot of posts are fine, some are very hard to read because of poor grammar.

I've always felt that writing with poor grammar is a bit like going shopping in your pyjamas.

As to why, it's partially because there is nothing worse (or more cowardly) then completely ignoring a well-made point that destroys your argument, than falling back on a grammatical error and claiming that it means that the point is somehow invalid, therefore, you win; and partially because it tends to drag threads off topic.

Elbaston

Charlie Rock wrote: »

You should of been an English Teacher.

no thats there job

Fr_Dougal

As long as people try their best that's fine. I've seen the way grammar nazis have treated some dyslexic posters, they should be ashamed of themselves.

Gbear

You're supposed to be arguing against the points they've raised.

When you boil it down it's about taking a thread off topic.

As long as a post is legible the grammar or spelling isn't relevant to the argument any more so than what the person is wearing or their hair colour.

Gamayun

urbanledge wrote: »

Me fail english

That's unpossible!

greedygoblin

Elbaston wrote: »

would of
would of
would of

NO ...would HAVE
There is no would OF

DIEEEEEEEE

See what correcting someones grammar can do to a man, everyone?

It can turn him into a murdering psychopath!

JaMarcus Hustle

Why, is grammar frowned upon?

greedygoblin

JaMarcus Hustle wrote: »

Why, is grammar frowned upon?

Maybe it's got too many rules.

And weren't rules made to be broken anyway?

mattjack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I've always felt that writing with poor grammar is a bit like going shopping in your pyjamas.

As to why, it's partially because there is nothing worse (or more cowardly) then completely ignoring a well-made point that destroys your argument, than falling back on a grammatical error and claiming that it means that the point is somehow invalid, therefore, you win; and partially because it tends to drag threads off topic.

I've examined this post carefully and will let you know in due course of any grammatical mistakes found .






A little help , anyone ?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

mattjack wrote: »

I've examined this post carefully and will let you know in due course of any grammatical mistakes found .






A little help , anyone ?

So did I. I knew people would do it.

greedygoblin

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I've always felt that writing with poor grammar is a bit like going shopping in your pyjamas.

As to why, it's partially because there is nothing worse (or more cowardly) then completely ignoring a well-made point that destroys your argument, than falling back on a grammatical error and claiming that it means that the point is somehow invalid, therefore, you win; and partially because it tends to drag threads off topic.

I found one!

What's my prize?

Please don't say a ban!

humbert

If boards discriminated against people with very poor English half of the forums would die overnight. Also, people should be proud of their weaknesses but ashamed of their strengths.

Miss Lockhart

Poor spelling and grammar really annoy me but at the same time I agree with the rule. Correcting other people's writing just takes threads off topic and is really pathetic if used to try to score points in an argument.

I'm dyslexic and I find poorly written posts very hard to follow. A lot if the time I think it's down to laziness. Everyone can use spell-check and while it's not perfect it certainly helps. Probably an unpopular opinion but I think sone people use a diagnosis of dyslexia as an easy excuse not to bother trying. It's an easy trap to fall into and I don't really blame them. I always make the effort when typing but I know that I find my dyspraxia a convenient excuse to fall back and give up when I fail at anything requiring coordination.

tricky D

I feel sorry for the Nazis getting the duff label on this one. It was the Romans who started this grammar schtuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIAdHEwiAy8

HondaSami

arthurday2013 wrote: »

I just noticed a charter rule that penalizes posters for correcting grammar. Is this correct? While a lot of posts are fine, some are very hard to read because of poor grammar.

I don't think i have ever seen a post that was hard to read tbf, some little spelling/grammar errors are no big deal imo.
It's not the classroom and posters should not feel obliged to check everything before posting just in case it offends someone.

southcentralts

Ode to a Spell Checker

I have a spelling checker
I disk covered four my PC.
It plane lee marks four my revue
Miss steaks aye can knot see.

Eye ran this poem threw it.
Your sure real glad two no.
Its very polished in its weigh,
My checker tolled me sew.

A checker is a blessing.
It freeze yew lodes of thyme.
It helps me right awl stiles two reed,
And aides me when aye rime.

Each frays comes posed up on my screen
Eye trussed too bee a joule.
The checker pours o'er every word
To cheque sum spelling rule.

Bee fore wee rote with checkers
Hour spelling was inn deck line,
Butt now when wee dew have a laps,
Wee are not maid too wine.

And now bee cause my spelling
Is checked with such grate flare,
There are know faults in awl this peace,
Of nun eye am a wear.

To rite with care is quite a feet
Of witch won should be proud,
And wee mussed dew the best wee can,
Sew flaws are knot aloud.

That's why eye brake in two averse
Caws Eye dew want too please.
Sow glad eye yam that aye did bye
This soft wear four pea seas.

--Author Unknown

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

greedygoblin wrote: »

I found one!

What's my prize?

Please don't say a ban!

Are you claiming that that is a grammatical or a typo?!

Andersonisgod

TheBody wrote: »

Most posts are perfectly readable. We aren't writing phd theses. The odd mistake is fine.

We aren't? Why didn't anybody tell me?

Sunhill

If I were writing a political comment and referred to 'Aidan Gilmore' or 'Edna Kenny' I'm sure many people would immediately submit corrections. Are they doing this to show off? No. Are they doing this to get a Thanks? No. They are doing it simply to make the post more accurate. In the same way, grammar-correctors are neither 'Nazis' or show-offs. We are providing a service that should be accepted graciously but without either praise or condemnation.

diomed

Is it cos the thread title ends in a proposition?

greedygoblin

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Are you claiming that that is a grammatical or a typo?!

Is there such a thing as a typomatical?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

greedygoblin wrote: »

Is there such a thing as a typomatical?

Technically yes, but then you'd have to argue that I actually thought the word was right and wrong at the same time. It's kind of like an internet forum version of Schrodinger's cat.

Schrodinger probably spelt wrong, can't be bothered looking it up.

Capt'n Midnight

urbanledge wrote: »

Me fail english

That's unpossible.

du Maurier

Temptamperu wrote: »

Because who cares? Other than you, that is.

I don't really care either.

AlanS181824

idk y every1 tnk grammr is impornt i thnk itz stuupid lol




I don't mind a little bit of an error here and there but when it strts lukin lyk dis then it might be time to turn on the aul predictive text

darkpagandeath

I think stuff like

“Down with this kind of thing” and “Wont somebody think of the children” to seem like one of the cool kids is worse.

Simpsons and farther ted references are not your opinion and therefor not clever and should not be thanked and are completely off topic in a thread.

Fr_Dougal

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I think stuff like

“Down with this kind of thing” and “Wont somebody think of the children” to seem like one of the cool kids is worse.

Simpsons and farther ted references are not your opinion and therefor not clever and should not be thanked and are completely off topic in a thread.

That would be an ecumenical matter.

kc90

arthurday2013 wrote: »

You mean it's

This. You've just answered your own question. Bye now.

bnt

Grammar is not deprecated*, but correcting grammar is what puts the wind up some people. It doesn't even have to be grammar that you're corrrecting.

Personally, I don't get offended when someone shows me that I'm wrong. Just telling me I'm wrong, however - without any supporting evidence - is a wind-up.

Now watch someone read that, quote this whole post, and follow it with "your wrong". My wrong what?

* Yes, I'm also a Vocabulary Fascist, on top of my Spelling Stalinist and Grammar Nazi titles. I just choose to use my dictatorial powers discreetly. Walk softly and carry a big stick, etc.

pajor

Pfft! English, who needs that? I'm never going to England.

WilyCoyote

OP, shouldn't that be, "Why are grammar frowned upon?"