Pedantry and the state of written English.

[Davidc]

I try to get my use of language right on here, and find some of the errors in other people's posts annoying. However, I certainly make errors and typos (typo's?) which escape and are posted.

If someone else's post is too diffiult to read as a result of their poor grammar or spelling I just don't read it, but that is rare.

This is a cycling forum, open to anyone interested in it. It doesn't make any claims to be a test of its member's abiities in the finer aspects of the english language or its usage and neither is passing GCSE english at grade A a requirement for posting on it. Thank goodness. (I do know that that last pair of words doesn't correctly form a sentence but make no apology for that).

I don't think that publicly correcting posters' english is a good or acceptable thing to do on a forum of this sort, however I could start to make an exception for FF's posts!

There is another forum I take part in where linguistic analysis of the posts is normal, but that one's about language in the first place!

 

[theclaud]

A double negative intended to be interpreted as a positive is the correct use. It's when folk use them to make a negative point.

To me, 'I ain't no fool' means 'I am a fool'. But it's often used to say 'I am no fool' which surely, is grammatically wrong.

Bizarre. You must have been puzzled by why Mick Jagger was making such a fuss, and why people who Ain't Got Nothing But The Blues seem a bit down.

 

[threebikesmcginty]

Bizarre. You must have been puzzled by why Mick Jagger was making such a fuss, and why people who Ain't Got Nothing But The Blues seem a bit down.

Yeah and stuff like 'Is you is or is you ain't...' is pure poetry

 

[Ravenbait]

I have given up being a grammar pedant. On the other hand, just as some people would claim that they are too short of time to bother putting a post into correct English, I'm too short of time to spend the effort needed to translate poorly-written or very colloquial posts into something I can understand enough to give a response, so I won't read them. My time is just as valuable as anyone else's here. If a poster cannot be bothered to write in a manner that is intelligible then I cannot be bothered trying to read it. As the membership is large enough for there to be posters who either do not require translation or have the spare time, then I imagine it's no loss to anyone.

I do think it's rude, though, to assume that what you have to say is so important and necessary that others should be prepared to sort it out into something understandable.

I don't mind errors very much, and wouldn't correct them (not these days!) unless, as mentioned above, it's a draft letter to a company complaining about something, as such things will be taken more seriously if the spelling and grammar are correct. I won't exert myself attempting to make sense of posts in which there is no punctuation and the spelling appears to have been inconsistently invented.

Sam

 

[Yellow Fang]

This is a cycling forum, open to anyone interested in it. It doesn't make any claims to be a test of its member's abiities in the finer aspects of the english language or its usage and neither is passing GCSE english at grade A a requirement for posting on it. Thank goodness. (I do know that that last pair of words doesn't correctly form a sentence but make no apology for that).

Why not, it has a verb in it?

 

[swee'pea99]

Totally OT, but theclaud's tagline just reminded me of a bit of Wodehouse that I thought might be appreciated by the kind of peeps who are gathered hereabouts:

"It is never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine."​

​

(With all due apologies to any Scots, needless to say...)

 

[Davidc]

Why not, it has a verb in it?

It has an object but no subject.

 

[betty swollocks]

The big big trouble with regards to picking up others' errors and pointing them out, is that you are then duty-bound the be error-less yourself, on the particular post concerned and on all future ones: which, of course, you'll never be.

 

[Fab Foodie]

The big big trouble with regards to picking up others' errors and pointing them out, is that you are then duty-bound the be error-less yourself, on the particular post concerned and on all future ones: which, of course, you'll never be.

True, but somewhere between almost unreadable and perfection is a happy medium to which most here subscribe. It would be pointless nitpicking every little point. Having said that, to completely disregard the conventions of written English will not help one's words get the recognition (or response) they may deserve.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

[quote name='swee'pea99' timestamp='1301873889' post='1619632']
This is not an English forum, this is a cycling forum. No-one should be belittled or made to feel bad on account of their writing skills. It's about whether they enjoy cycling and have something to contribute, period. If you can't understand, ask for clarification - in a nice way. Otherwise, judge a post on its merits, not its grammar.


[/quote]

I take that point, but at the same time, the rules of written English are there in order to make what you write easy for the reader to understand. In many (though not all) cases, people who don't spell or punctuate correctly excuse it by saying "well you can understand my meaning, I can't be bothered to spell or punctuate".
Well, yes, I could understand your meaning, if I was prepared to put the effort into reading it that you found too much trouble to put into writing it. Lazy written English (I'm not talking about dyslexia sufferers or those for whom English is not the first language, by the way) is poor communication, and I for one don't even bother trying to read anything written in text speak or without capitals or paragraph breaks. You want me to read it, stop dumping all the work onto my shoulders.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

I'm not the best at spelling and grammar, I frequently check spellings before I post, and I often make typo's (because I rush things and don't check properly) so I tend to make allowances for the occasional mistake. It does make me cross if a post is full of errors and textspeak though. I usually foam at the mouth, bite a cushion but not say anything. I would not respond to such a post - but I know that others would and that is up to them.

yes, me too. No one is perfect, after all. Hell, I make mistakes myself sometimes and I'm one of the worst grammar nazis. (See the lower case "y" at the start of this post, f'rinstance.) But mistakes are different from a wholesale disregard for the conventions of written English.

 

[danphoto]

English is not my first language but I seriously try my best not to make mistakes

I'm often impressed by the way that non-native English speakers can write far better English than many natives.

It's probably just my advancing age, but I no longer get wound up by morons who write "I could of" or "prolly", or who use grocers' apostophes, text-speak or whatever . I just can't be doing with them.

If they can't be arsed to write properly, I can't be arsed to read what they write.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

I take that point, but at the same time, the rules of written English are there in order to make what you write easy for the reader to understand. In many (though not all) cases, people who don't spell or punctuate correctly excuse it by saying "well you can understand my meaning, I can't be bothered to spell or punctuate".
Well, yes, I could understand your meaning, if I was prepared to put the effort into reading it that you found too much trouble to put into writing it. Lazy written English (I'm not talking about dyslexia sufferers or those for whom English is not the first language, by the way) is poor communication, and I for one don't even bother trying to read anything written in text speak or without capitals or paragraph breaks. You want me to read it, stop dumping all the work onto my shoulders.

If they can't be arsed to write properly, I can't be arsed to read what they write.

Same point, but far more succinctly expressed ...

 

[Yellow Fang]

It has an object but no subject.

Ok, I think. I suppose "Jesus wept." had a subject but no object.

Hmmm, does this mean a phrase like, "Thank you for the woolly jumper, Grandma." is not a proper sentence, where as, "I thank you for the woolly jumper, Grandma." is?

 

[ColinJ]

A pair of ped-ants ...