I’m a walking encyclopedia. I constantly increase my factual knowledge - one of the reasons I’m on the SD. Therefore, when I hear someone quoting a factoid or misconception, I feel it is my duty to set the record straight.
I dont correct my friends. I do correct people on YouTube and of course- here.
One of my YT corrections was to a British guy who was going on and on about how the British were the first to fly across the Atlantic, and thus Lindberg didnt deserve the glory, since he "just only did it solo". I point out that actually the US Navy were the first to fly across the Atlantic (in seaplanes which got refueled by a string of ships) and thus Alcock & Brown “just” did it first nonstop. Not to mention Alcock & Brown flew from Newfoundland to Ireland, whilst Lindy flew New York to Paris.
I used to correct the lies spread about WotC by haters on YT, but gave up, since that still gave them clicks- which was their goal in the first place.
OK. But it also certainly isn’t
It’s also going to intersect a good deal with the set of people who want to inform others of what they think is to those others novel info.
Yup. I’m not claiming to always get it right. I do try.
TIL!
I came to a philosophy fairly late in life. I swear by it, but struggle to stay faithful to it:
- If people don’t ask my opinion, they basically don’t want my opinion;
- If, OTOH, people do ask my opinion, well … they generally don’t want my opinion then, either.
My sister is an annoying over corrector.
When she starts, it gets big groans all around.
I’m not sure what she does online. I can’t imagine she’d be much different.
I just don’t know why we put up with her.
I like being corrected. I consider it as learning something new. I never get defensive over it, I take it as a positive.
So my intention when I correct something is in the same spirit. They are learning something new and they will go forward with a better understanding of something that they maybe hadn’t even considered before. There are a lot of “I was today years old when I found out that blah blah blah…” with reactions as though it was a revelation beyond all comprehension, but it’s really just learning new stuff, which should not be a shock.
About half the people I correct seem grateful, but the other half seem grumpy. I don’t care, I still think certain kinds of inaccuracies need to be straightened out, and it’s better for everyone when they are.
Are you actually trying to claim that “TIL” standing for “today I learned” is not a common acronym seen in many places online?
The Reddit page named for that has over 38 million members.
Reddit only dates from 2005. I’m pretty sure i heard it before that.
Hmm, the Google ngram is ambiguous, but the all-caps version peaks in 1992
I’d buy 1992 as when it peaked in popularity.
I don’t correct people and I intentionally mispronounce things and misspell things for my own entertainment. I don’t mind errors unless it’s something to do with being misinformed.
It’s the opposite-- I’m asked trivial questions about things like the make-up of white gold and what people eat in Ecuador, and that is annoying, but I answer anyway.
I am trying to claim that it’s not common in conversation around here, that it is not common in print in anything that I read, and that it’s not ubiquitous online.
It may, for all I know, be common in lots of places online where I don’t go.
Me to.
So TIL what TIL means.
I think I prefer my daughter’s expression: “I was today-years-old when I learned that…”
I think you know.
I was today years old when I found out.
I swear I thought it was “Though I laughed”
Explains so much.
“Alot” is not a word. You meant the phrase “a lot”.
Apparently I do. Maybe not a lot, but some
The alot a lot thing is just so tiring.
I use it…alot.
I have no fear.
I also use:
Kinda
Gimme
Tryna
O.k.
Y’all
Hadda
Shoulda
Coulda
Woulda
Occasionally they instead of their
It’s o.k. if y’all use alot, alot. Coulda been worser.
I hadda tell y’all.
It tryna give me an achin’ head. Gimme a break.
Write what you know. Write how you speak.
Believe me, no one says NM, LOL, IMHO or OMG, out loud.
Well, maybe OMG!
It’s ok. No one will croak if you write alot.
We’re all safe here.
So much alot about nothing.
I like learning things too - in theory, I should like being corrected - I think in my case though, I’m probably just over-exposed to it as a natural consequence of what I do† - and also, as I say, more than half of the corrections are just wrong and more than half of the remainder are pointless - there’s a lot of chaff to sift through and that gets tiring.
†(Not that this represents an overall sourness about what I do. I have never enjoyed any form of employment as much as I enjoy my current work.)
There’s a lengthy but really good essay here from a guy who, in his own words, is a recovering pedant.
I’ve always been this way. At school, I was the kid who got asked to spell difficult words to save my classmates a trip to the dictionary. In my first job, I was the guy who got given reports to proofread before they went to the client. I played these parts with quiet relish.
But I wanted more.
And when I started getting into editorial work, I knew I needed to be more. My instincts needed to be sharper and my arsenal bigger. So I scoured books and websites for grammatical constructions to avoid, semantic distinctions to maintain. I built an orderly system of rules inside my head – a monument to my love for English and a guide to make sure I treated it right.
Rules to make the language strong. Rules to keep it safe. Rules to respect logic and tradition.
We all know where the rules of English come from. They come from whichever English teacher we had when we realised that the cool kids were never going to like us and so we might as well start paying attention in class. Or they come from whichever dictionary or usage guide we have on our bookshelf when we feel the need for authority.
I think this gets at a big part of the psychology. For some people, being right - and in particular, being right where others are wrong - is an important source of validation. There is a line, drawn by them or perhaps drawn for them by authority figures, which neatly and decisively divides right from wrong. And the way to be on the right side of the line is to know, follow, and preach certain rules.
Now that’s obviously true up to a point. There are things you can get wrong in English. “I wented” or “She run away” are just bad grammar. But sadly for our wannabe pedant, these are errors made by young children who rapidly self correct. If you want to continue to be right, you need more and more and finer and finer rules. You could pay close attention to how people actually speak and write and derive rules from these, but that won’t help you because hardly anyone by definition will stray from common usage. However, English is blessed with edict upon edict on lexical purity, handed down from grammarians of yore. So people latch on to “that” vs “which”, “no double negatives” etc. precisely because it gives them a set of rules that some people follow and some people don’t. Or in other words, because they can divide the world into “good, correct, knowledgable” people and “bad, wrong, ignorant” people and put themselves in the right camp.
It’s partly an assertion of status as an external attribute, and partly a bolster to self-esteem as an internal attribute.
(In my case, also a recovering pedant, I can definitely trace it back to teachers and family who themselves were sticklers for rules and who - in a perfectly normal and mild way - gave or withheld praise based on one’s ability to follow the rules. Throw in the fact that my siblings and I could one-up each other through pedantry and the psychology is inescapable.)
But actually, the post from that blog I came in to share was this one, which is about flag pedantry.
As @Mangetout and most other Brits will know, there are people who are sticklers for the correct terminology for the UK flag. Most Brits would call it a Union Jack. Nowadays however, there is a reasonably well known rule that it is only a Union Jack when flown at sea. On land, we are told, it is correct to refer to it as the Union Flag, and Union Jack is a terrible howler.
This is bollocks, as described in this exceprt from a radio interview between host Paddy O’Connell, and Graham Bartram, Chief Vexillologist of the Flag Institute:
O’Connell: So, the argument has been: the Jack flies on a specific ship on a specific place, and the Flag flies on land.
Bartram: Well, that’s what some people say, but in fact the two terms have been used throughout history completely interchangeably. There are royal proclamations that say Union Jack, there are royal proclamations that say Union Flag, and sometimes when they say Union Jack they’re referring to land, and sometimes when they say Union Flag they’re referring to sea. So I think it’s up to you to decide what you want to do.
They then moved on to the nature of the supposed rule that Bartram was debunking. O’Connell perfectly played the part not of the rule-monger but of the ordinary person who vaguely assumes that some sort of rule-mongering must be right. Much of what follows could have appeared in any number of conversations about correctness in language:
O’Connell: When did it become convention for vexillologists to prefer Jack and Flag as two distinct items, or two distinct designs?
Bartram: I think it’s probably in Victorian times that they actually decided, that certain vexillologists decided that it should properly be called one thing in one circumstance and properly called something else in another circumstance. I think the Victorians were very keen on having rules about everything.
O’Connell: Well, so are some of our listeners. What are you doing to these rules?
Bartram: We’re not doing anything to them, we’re just saying these rules are made-up.
O’Connell: By you?
Bartram: No, no. They’ve been made up by just people writing one thing in a book, and people then read it and say ‘that’s the law’ when in fact it’s not the law.
O’Connell: Are you seeking to do what the Oxford English Dictionary did with “literally”, which was to say we could use it figuratively? You’re backing the public: if they say Jack, that’s a Jack, or a Flag.
Bartram: We’re backing the fact that the flag has no official name, and you can call it a Flag or you can call it a Jack, and which one you use is entirely up to you.
This illustrates the worst of the pedant mindset pretty well - make up a rule (or accept a made up rule without critical thought) and then cling to it dearly.
But an even better illustration came with one of the listener comments, which really is a perfect distillation of the pedant mindset, especially given that it was made in the teeth of the revelation that rule is a mere confection.
We need to know the difference between the Union Flag and the Jack because it’s useful to know how knowledgeable someone is to get an idea of whether they know what they’re talking about.
It doesn’t matter whether the rule is actually right. The important thing is to have a rule, so that you can judge others and yourself according to whether they follow it. And, not coincidentally, to appoint yourself as the person who decides whether others know what they are talking about. Which is a very comfortable place to be!