Schools failing to teach English proper, like.

bluewolf wrote: »

It paints an interesting (and scary) picture but it is a dreadful movie :pac:

*bluewolf added to ignore list*

On topic, I don't mind typos all that much but three things really bother me.

"Lose"/"loose", "their"/"there"/"they're" etc are fairly common words that are often incorrectly spelt. These words mean completely different things and when I see them misused, my internal reading voice hits an unexpected speed bump and I need to re-read the phrase. People who don't know the difference should not be allowed work in a place where email is used. They should go learn a trade or something.

Deliberate txt-spk bug me too. There is simply no excuse for this if you have more than 140 characters to play around with. It reeks of idiocy and lynx. When I see it used here, it reminds me of IRC and being a kid. When I see a post in txt-spk, here's what happens in my head:
"I see that this is written like a kid's text. I'm not going to parse this because the person who wrote this is either a moron or a teenager. Either way, he probably wears too much lynx and I don't care for his opinion on what really started the first world war".

Finally, poor punctuation and misplaced apostrophes make my head hurt. They can completely change the meaning of a sentence. I have seen some people here write full paragraphs without so much as a single full-stop. Why? Did they miss that day in school when the other kids learned about it and did they never get corrected on it since? Maybe they don't like having to use capital letters afterwards. I really don't know but it takes something special to create a person who doesn't use full-stops.


I think, as biko mentioned earlier, that public humiliation is one solution. I remember being back in Rang a dó in a primary school in Connemara and we had a right bast*rd called Stiofán aTáiliúra. He was passionate and he taught us classical physics and basic biology as well as other advanced stuff but he could be a mean bollix if you were slow or distracted.

One guy had written a simple English essay with apostrophes added to plurals and Stiofán called him up to the front. We were encouraged to laugh as the sentences were written on the black board, one by one, with emphasised apostrophes. This went on for a bit but at the end, there was no doubt in anybody's head that you don't use apostrophes in plurals. You'll also be glad to know that the poor kid who got called up grew up to be balanced adult and is now a teacher. I'd bet that he also knows how to use the apostrophe.

This could be applied to AH but I don't know how well it would work. The grammar nazis could be overwhelmed but we might save some people from looking like idiots in the future. Maybe the mods could PM some corrections.

Dear Mcmoustache, you have received a warning.
In the "Post here if you're an idiot" thread of the Cuckoo's Nest forum, you placed an apostrophe after the 't' when typing the possessive adjective "its". This is incorrect and makes you look like a plank. In future do not use the apostrophe here, otherwise this warning will be escalated to an infraction.


PS. Idiocracy isn't amazing but I have a soft-spot for anything from Mike Judge.

danslevent wrote: »

This constant bashing of popular books like Harry Potter and Twilight really annoys me. First off, Harry Potter shouldn't even be in the same category as Twilight. Anyone that has read all the books can see what a truly talented author J.K Rowling is. She constructed a plot that lasted over seven books that had the whole world waiting for. All because the books are popular it shouldn't demerit their worth.

I think most people hate Twilight because it is associated with emos and all that crap but Stephanie Meyer did create characters that literally millions of people fell in love with. It takes a lot more than good grammar to create such world wide loved books. I want to study in English in college but the only thing that turns me off is literature snobs that look down on some writers.

I'm happy for kids to read anything as long as it's got correct spelling and grammar. I haven't read any of the Harry Potter or Twilight books (though I've all the film adaptations of both so far: like Harry to an extent, hate Twilight) but I'm glad because they're popular and kids are being exposed to good English through them. And if they also enjoy the stories, even better.
But unfortunately even regular readers nowadays also have to face txtspeak on their phones and online.

The King of Moo wrote: »

But unfortunately even regular readers nowadays also have to face txtspeak on their phones and online.

True that. That's why I'm glad Boards is strict on their no text speak policy, more websites should do it, in my opinion.

Nice point raised by the above poster. The verb "to get" seems to have replaced "to have", even in the meaning of "must". I used to always hear "I have to go" now it's "I've got to go".

danslevent wrote: »

It was funny at the start of the thread...not anymore.

Sorry, wasn't following the thread religiously. Apologies if I offended your delicate sensibilities, friend.

markesmith wrote: »

Sorry, wasn't following the thread religiously. Apologies if I offended your delicate sensibilities, friend.

I'm touched, apology accepted :P

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I have to say my spelling has gone to sh!t thanks to the wonders of spellcheck.

I actually find the opposite!

I naturally just cannot spell, at all.

I was diagnosed with dyslexia years ago, but the literacy difficulties I have were later found to be attributed to the ADD instead.

Anyway, without spell check, I would spend so long looking in dictionaries for correct spelling, and even copying a word verbatim takes ages for me.
And I would be so focused on rote learning a few letters to copy, that I wouldn't be paying attention to the actual spelling.

But with spellcheck, I find that because I get the same words wrong so often, it highlights them, and try to fix it myself, and over time, I find that I misspell words less and less.

Yay for spellcheck!

craggles wrote: »

People getting their, there, they're, its and it's mixed up CANNOT be referred to as the evolution of the language. They all have entirely different meanings and the language is not about to evolve towards being more ambiguous. It's not going to happen.

The whole point is that the sentence as a whole can provide context as to which word you're using if they all had a common spelling, the same as if you were listening to someone read-out the sentence.

E.g.
He fired the arrow from his bow.
She tied a bow in her hair.

In phonetic languages this is how it works and it works well. Different spelling for the same sounding words are artifacts of dead languages and their inconsistency makes the language difficult to learn and seemingly illogical to newcomers and students alike.

Liam Byrne wrote:

Adding in confusing text-speak and other such rubbish just makes it worse.

I think simplifying the language makes it easier to read and write and removing unnecessary letters that add nothing to the phonetic pronunciation (except confusion) makes it faster to rite.

This could be a case of agreeing to disagree, maybe I should just learn a formal/acceptable shorthand and shut-up :P

Seachmall wrote: »

I fired a bow over the bow of a ship and took a bow as I accepted my bow.

That's not the best of examples. As Liam just said, you don't fire a bow. You fire an arrow. Here's a better example: The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert. A sentence like that is a nightmare for those who are a bit lackadaisical with their mechanics.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You are trying to argue the point and so you could see the "context was clear"; I'll admit to playing devil's advocate in pointing out that the mis-spelling that you used was already a word, but that's because you were already pointing out the difficulties that arise because of that; adding to that just makes matters worse!

I wasn't pointing out how difficult it was to differentiate the words, quite the opposite in fact. When we hear words that are phonetically the same but would be spelt differently (and hence have different meaning) we still know what they mean without thinking. Why can't we do the same when we read? (The answer is we can we just weren't taught to do it that way).

What about "how to spell something easy" ?

You can't just randomly spell something phonetically and make it more difficult for the reader.

If you did that, then Jonathan Ross would "wesult in weading being weally weally widiculous".

I can't express it any better than that; you pointed out how difficult it ALREADY is when the same spelling means different things, and then you go on to suggest introducing more of that difficulty just to make life easier for the writer.

There's ONE writer and MANY readers; if a writer wants what they say to be widely read and taken seriously, it's up to them to ensure that they make it as legible and understandable as possible.

Absolutely, I'm not arguing we should write formal letters or essays with text-speak, because it's not accepted and most would have trouble reading it, I'm saying when you are writing to someone who will be able to read it it's perfectly valid. A text to a friend or a post on a teen forum for example. These are acceptable times to use it. However, when those teens go on to be the adults and OAPs of the world text-speak will be more acceptable than it is now and may be more common than it is now. It's a strong possibility.

Making up ridiculous words like "greight" and abusing the letter "u", or trying to imply a question by using the letter "y" and nothing else is kiddie-level tripe.

Slang terms and unusual spellings are made up every day, if they become common enough they'll enter the daily use for a lot of people and even enter respectable and widely distributed dictionaries.

A word, phrase or language that seems ridiculous and gimmicky now could be daily use tomorrow.