Grammar, spelling, etc. sticklers

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
1

I’ve found myself in the middle of certain threads (not linking–you’ve read many of these threads over the years) dwelling on standards of grammar, of spelling, of etc., recently, which I would like to discuss on a meta-level.

To me, it seems that the approval/disapproval breakdown (what is too much scrutiny of grammar/ what is too little) falls at the point of one’s own practices. I happen to make my living correcting others’ writing (as a teacher) and changing their misuses (as an editor) and requiring rigorous standards for myself (as a writer), so I’ve had to learn and remember most of the rules of written English. But as longtime readers of my posts here will point out, I’ve made a few errors in my postings, mainly because I don’t really bother proofreading my posts online (my un-proofread posts are about as well-written as the typical Doper’s posts and that’s the standard I usually aim for here.) So I understand the “Who cares? You understand my gist” mentality.

But I do enjoy having high standards of written English, and to a lesser degree spoken English. It allows me to make snap judgments about others that are often efficient and accurate. I’ve been the editor of several scholarly journals the past few years, and I know which of my sub-editors are really literate and which are barely so–if I were to promote one of them to replace me, for example, I wouldn’t need to think very hard as to which of them could do my job and which would struggle. If I’ve got a student who can’t conjugate the correct verb form in half his sentences, despite my pointing outon a weekly basis the need to do so, that student will face a hard time in asking me to write him a letter of recommendation–whatever the cause, I have him marked down as either lazy, or ignorant, or not interested in doing a good job. To me, that is the usefulness of fine points of grammar, etc.: it’s a quick and dirty marker of the qualities I’m often paid to notice in others.

Of course, these people I’m judging may have other virtues, and it’s foolish of me to base my judgments purely on these superficial qualities. But often that’s what I’m asked to do, judge people quickly, and I’m remarkably comfortable using these standards as a basis for my judgment. These folks are often unaware that I’m applying these standards, nor should they be. They’d only be hurt by knowing my summary of their abilities, though I give them opportunities to figure it out, in the form of my corrections of their writing, which they too often ignore or fail to absorb.

I’ve rejected articles because of a few glaring typos in the first paragraph, I’ve put resumes in the “NOPE” pile because of a misuse on page 1, I’ve turned down applicants for teaching positions because in an interview it was clear that *who *and *whom *and *that *were synonymous to them.

And I feel free in being judged by others by these standards. If I were to speak before a group of my peers, say, at an editors’ convention, or a conference of academics, I’d be plenty nervous, knowing that these people know the highest standards of spoken English, and I wouldn’t want to seem as sloppy as I too often am. I’d edit any prepared remarks, and I’d be careful in speaking off the cuff. So it just seems strange to me when people say that their own standards are as far as they care to go in judging the abilities of others–it seems lacking in humility to me to say “I don’t distinguish between *who *and *whom *, and I don’t care a rap if others do. In fact I think people who do care are prissy snobs,” when they make harsh judgments about other examples of misuses of case, like using “me” in a nominative position, as Bizarro does. I admire people who can speak more eloquently or write more elegantly than I can, and I find them a little intimidating. I don’t really get people who advocate for lower standards, or none at all, in writing and speech. I do get it that sometimes pedants will point out these things unnecessarily, especially when more critical issues of content are concerned, but that’s rarely the context that these disagreements arise.

Would anyone care to defend lower standards of grammar, usage, spelling, without resorting to the “There are sometimes more important considerations” argument?

2

I can’t defend lower standards, but I can tell you my own experiences.

I’m a horrible speller, as in really, really bad. I think the English language is crap for spelling. When I took German the rules were easy and I aced spelling, in English I failed more times then not.

Grammar rules I used to know the basics, but as time when on different teachers would use slightly different rules, especially on commas and such. When I was in college I got an incomplete, as opposed to an F in English because we’d lose a letter grade for every missed comma or some such crap. The next instructor didn’t care as much and I passed.

I have a terrible time remembering definitions, and the difference between who and whom I couldn’t tell you. Even if I looked it up right now, I wouldn’t be able to tell you tomorrow. And I have no idea what

means, especially the that part as I don’t know what that has to do with who or whom.

I will tell you I read, a lot. I read every day for almost an hour on the train. The Kindle is great because now I can look up words that I don’t know. I still usually don’t remember them a few days later.

Quite frankly my brain does not work well with words, especially in the English language. I work better with patterns and mechanical things. Honestly I have seen that a lot of people think their brains and everyone else’s brains work the same when they don’t. So people who like grammar and spelling seem to think that others should be good at it, while people who work on cars can’t seem to understand that others just don’t understand it.

So no, I can’t defend it, I try my best, and I’m sure a lot of people do as well, I, and they, just have a more difficult time keeping the information that others understand better.

3

I think that’s a very good point, and I’ve been guilty of this in the past. I’m lucky in that my brain seems to be wired well for language: I pick up foreign languages quickly, I can usually identify etymologies of words I’m not familiar with and figure out how to pronounce them, and misspellings therefore tend to leap out at me.

Over time, though, I’ve come to realise that other people’s brains aren’t necessarily like that - instead, they might be great with diplomacy, or mathematics, or art, or music, or a number of other things that I find much harder.

Even so, I think it’s natural that people who are good at something tend to pick up errors by other people in that field. If something seems glaringly wrong to you, it will annoy you.

4

There isn’t just one standard of written English. The English you write and speak needs to be appropriate to your register. A lot of us on this board are not comfortable with the conventions of informal writing were u… argh, I just can’t do it, not even for the sake of example. Anyway, they’re not wrong, but they’re not appropriate in job applications, published works, or (by cultural fiat) on this board. I’m really only comfortable in one register, and that gets me marked as a nerd in social settings. I can get away with that, because my register is fairly close to the formal standard. People with less education whose only register is far from that suffer judgement, even though linguistically they’re equal. Most people eventually learn to adjust between them. I spend a lot of time teaching students that what is appropriate in a text is not appropriate in an email to me.

Judging someone by their writing tells you an awful lot, though I see Edward The Head’s points. It tells you how much someone cares about the standards in the same way that their grooming does. (So “who cares? You understand what I mean” translates readily to “I don’t care about other people or their conventions, only myself.”) It tells you how good their attention to detail is. It reveals something of their education. It shows how much you can trust them to control the appearance they present to strangers (customers, clients, the general public). It isn’t perfect on any of these scores, but it’s a lot of data from a relatively easily accessed small sample, so it’s a good system. It’s a diagnostic tool, not an absolute measure of worth.

The only other thing is that on this board, it is somewhat acceptable to point out that we (many of us) don’t appreciate poorly spelled and punctuated posts. Normally, you don’t correct people outside of a classroom or your own family. Some people are nicer about it than others, and some people take it better than others.

5

I’m a writer/editor of sorts myself. It’s a big part of my job.

Outside of work, I simply don’t put in the time to bother about it. Yes, I tend to notice misuse, errors, etc. more than the average person. But I’m on the lookout for it at work. Away from work, not so much.

There are simply situations where I just don’t put in the effort to be as close to perfect as possible. This reply being an example. I’m typing quickly, not rereading, proofing, etc.

Does that mean I have lower standards? Perhaps. I think of it as a situational standard.

Don’t know if this counts as a defense or not.

6

First, you must convince me that your standard is objectively higher and not merely arbitrary.

7

What we can assume correctly about the writer who makes so many mistakes that it’s obvious they don’t give a shit is that they don’t give a shit. That’s what bothers me about that kind of writing, the kind that’s under the bottom. If someone doesn’t want to use the shift key for example then unless it’s broken it says something about them right there. It of course does not automatically mean their writing will lack interest or depth, but at least for me it’s a strike against them, am less inclined to want to take the time to read what they wrote.
I don’t know why someone would deliberately write incorrectly, perhaps as a means to stand out, or from pure laziness, I just don’t know. But they better be damn well worth reading lest be scrolled on by.

Lately I have become extra serious, began working out developing special scrolly callouses and advanced index finger conditioning to endure long durations of wheeling on past, am now ready to take on any and all shitty writers.

8

I agree. Defending the ‘higher’ standard simply gets in the way of improving its obvious shortcomings.

9

It’s as simple as code-switching. On a message board, it’s appropriate to be colloquial* while keeping one’s message readable. At a grammar conference (or wherever), it’s appropriate to be formal. Some super-pedants perpetually conflate colloquial situations for formal ones. Thus, we have the assholes who criticize colloquial grammar and minor spelling errors/typos on the SDMB. But message board posts aren’t research papers to be graded, and should not be held to the same gold standard of word choice/grammar/perfect spelling/whatthefuckever. I personally hold my posts to high standards in those terms; however, I don’t expect the average joe to do the same. This is practically effortless for me. It’s not effortless for everybody, not even every smart person. Someone could be very good at math and be an excellent SDMB contributor, but have crappy grammar and spelling. Who the hell cares?

*Textspeak is rightly lambasted online, here and elsewhere, because it’s unreadable. I’m not talking about that.

10

I’m specifically not talking about SDMB posts, where I admit I don’t even proof my posts. What I do is judge people I encounter as capable and intelligent people (or not), largely on the level of their written (and sometimes spoken) prose. It’s far more efficient and accurate than giving them IQ tests, reading their college transcripts, requesting letters of recommendation. Inside of five minutes I can judge someone’s competence, at least in this one area, well enough for my purposes. I do think that many people never know why they didn’t get a job, or get into a school or course, didn’t impress an interviewer, etc. and never twig to how much they give away by how they express themselves.

11

But you said in your first post that you wouldn’t write a letter of recommendation for a student if they couldn’t do certain things, even if you told them the week before. You could tell me some things about the English language from here to eternity and some things I’d never remember. Now I’d get if you were writing a letter for a job that required a lot of grammatical skills, but if it was for something else then a letter might be a good thing.

But that’s in your realm, Do you judge your plumber, your mechanic or anyone else that you meet on the way they speak? I’m sorry, but to say someone’s not intelligent based upon one criteria isn’t the best way to go about it. I was put in lesser classes when I was a kid simply because I couldn’t spell. It was hell trying to get out of those classes and it hurt me academically for a long time. How many other people who can’t do this, or can’t do that do we hold back because of it when they might excel in other areas?

12

Of course not. I mean, I notice who speaks well and who doesn’t, but it rarely comes up as a topic of interest to anyone. If someone were to ask me, “This plumber of yours–is he able to communicate what’s gone wrong with the plumbing?” I could answer, but that rarely comes up. My point is that many people I meet do get evaluated as to their communication skills, but many of them seem blithely unaware of this reality, and highly defensive when it’s gently pointed out to them. I’ve had a student tell me “I don’t care about that shit” but he really should.

13

(1) Not sure if this is what you’re looking for, but from a historical linguistics standpoint, it is much more useful for writers to write and spell the way they actually spoke rather than adhering to a literary or professional standard.

We would know so much more about the early development of, say, the Romance languages if this were the case. Writers often didn’t write in the vernacular, but in Latin. Then linguists are left with the task of trying to determine what changes had occurred in the spoken languages of the time from what mistakes writers made in the Latin. The same goes for English at various stages and any number of other languages.

(2) Many prescriptive grammatical rules make no sense from a linguistic standpoint, to the point of being flat-out wrong. Examples include the rules prohibiting singular “they” and split infinitives. Other rules were correct at one time, but then the language moved on. One example of that would be “whom” versus “who,” where “whom” is essentially no longer used in spoken English. Teaching and enforcing these rules is a total waste of time.

14

Two things I had to learn:

First, language does not have rules. Rules are for board games, contests, and elections. Instead, language has norms. That is, the majority of speakers pronounce, spell, and use words in a specific way. An individual may be ignorant or may have an idiosyncratic usage, but the more individuals that tend in that direction, the more valid their usage is.

Second, language is a living entity. This means it changes. It will change. Change is inevitable. Nothing is set in stone, and no one has the ability to enforce it.

So, what it comes down to - at least for me - is, does it work? Can I understand the other and make myself understood? Do I communicate the ideas Does it meet the expectations of the audience, or does it alienate the audience because it veers too far away from expected norms. When I’ve taught, I’ve had significantly more success when I explain that there is no “right” form of English. There are dialects. There are registers. There are cants, dialects, and jargon.

Some issues - like nauseous/nauseated - strike me as otiose minutiae. Others - like the traditionally correct usage of nemesis and decimate - are a constant irritant. It’s down to personal taste and the willingness to meet more demanding - but not higher or better - standards.

15

Ah, but it is the knowledge of “rules,” “minutiae,” and other artifices that forms a standard. I agree that these things don’t make a lot of sense, are picky, are (and certainly seem) arbitrary. I’m certainly not attaching a lot of significance to their inherent value, which is close to zero.

Their value, for my purposes, is seeing if someone has absorbed these things well enough to apply them as a demonstration that he is willing to do work, to remember methods and rules, to conform to pre-existing systems rather than inventing a hodge-podge that is inevitably going to be inconsistent. Take something as illogical and arbitrary and “who the hell cares?” as the rule about terminal punctuation going inside quotation marks (in American English). It makes no sense, is contrary to logic much of the time, and is even internally inconsistent (in that some punctuation goes outside of quotation marks). But it is the rule of American usage, and it’s not a terribly difficult or complicated rule to master–I use it, and other such rules, to see if someone is willing to put in a little bit of effort. If so, I feel safe in concluding that this is a person I can rely upon to master other, more important, rules. Contrarily, if I see someone who says, “Fuck the rules! I do as I please!” I will hire that person only for tasks requiring only certain, limited skills.

I’m far from extolling the virtues of grammar and usage conventions, but the fact that a silly system exists, and its rules measure roughly which people are serious enough to take it seriously, silly though it may be, is useful to me, and I suspect to others. Is who/whom really that tough to get a handle on? I don’t think so. I had some idea in grammar school of the function of cases, and by the time I got out of college, I’ve been pretty well on top of most of it. Can’t be bothered? Work for someone else.

16

You can’t separate the rules from the language. Language only exists because we’ve agreed on a shared set of rules and minutiae. The rules can be wide ranging, context specific and occasionally vague - but if we’re not all using the same rules, then we’re not communicating effectively. Online, where language is entirely written and context clues such as tone of voice is missing, we rely entirely on the shared conventions of written language to make our posts intelligible.

Everyone makes mistakes and it’s not a big deal but it’s absurd to think that the rules of language are optional.

17

Nope.

I do think grammar, syntax, and diction should be appropriate to the situation; less formal patterns are not just acceptable but more appropriate in a setting as informal as a message board.

For example, I think that dashes are much appropriate on a board than semi-colon and even parentheses - and I think “I think …” more appropriate than “I would argue …”.

I admit that I do not use a simplified style in many posts. It’s not my style - I can think “I can remember who I gave it to …” at the same time my fingers are typing “… to whom I gave it.” I think it a failing that I cannot adapt to the appropriate custom.

OTOH, there is a difference between casual and slovenly, and casual and just rude. I don’t mind small quirks (no capitals, or no end punctuation, or creative spelling), but when a post exhibits all of these, I just doubt it is worth the effort to interpret it.