Grammer Nazties Exposed

A studie from my Alma Matter ===U of Mitchigan=== has revieled wat I thawt all a long.
My speel check dos not werk.

News report.



Well, I reviled that too.

Youse guys are no fun.

Would it be unkind for me to offer the humble observation that the cited article contains numerous errors in grammar, spelling, and vocabulary?

Perhaps it might not. Permit me.

The word “extroverted” at one point is spelled “extraverted”. The sentence fragment “…is constantly confronting [the] linguistic reality which is of a lot of [language] diversity” is badly constructed gibberish. At the very least it lacks the conjunction “that” after the second “is” which it would need in order to conform to the most basic rudiments of grammar. And when one of the researchers is quoted as saying “There’s also interest in looking at [psychological characteristics] as predicators of whether somebody adopts or advances an ongoing change in the language …” he probably meant to say “predictor”, or possibly “predication”. The word he used is nonsense. A “predicator” is a technical term in systemic functional linguistics, while “predicatory” relates to preaching.

I would also like to make a kindly comment on the researchers’ conclusions that people who criticize grammar and spelling errors are not nice people, and that nice people are tolerant of such errors. This is ridiculous since I am an extremely nice person, it’s just that bad writing causes me to experience some kind of mild hormonal reaction resulting in muscular edema similar that featured in the documentary film The Incredible Hulk. It happens involuntarily when I am exposed to feeble-brained fuckwits who can’t write. I mean the kind of feeble-brained fuckwits like the congenital imbecile who wrote that article about the supposed “research” of douchebags who try to draw scurrilous conclusions about upstanding individuals who care deeply about grammar and spelling. These “researchers” are brain-dead phlegm on the clean shirtsleeve of humanity and should burn in hell for all eternity.

Best regards,
Grammar Oberführer

There’s deviating from convention, and then there’s just getting things wrong. We can all agree that language is constantly evolving, but we can also agree that there are grammatical rules for a reason, and they’ve been long established. It is not an intellectually challenging exercise to get these simple rules correct. Grammatical errors are not mistakes like typos (which are often caused by fingers slipping on the keyboard), they are wilful ignorance.

And the person who came up with the term “grammo” can die in a fire.

That’s exactly what I came here to post. You beat me to it.

That is an accepted alternate spelling. Hurts my eyes, though.

You’ve got him there. I DEMAND that my gibberish be well-constructed.

I fear that in my frenzy to complete my critical screed, I may not have been sufficiently clear. At one point the author speaks of introversion and extroversion, and at another he quotes the researchers as speaking of extraverts. It’s the inconsistency within the space of two paragraphs that is like a slap in the face with a wet flounder. And of course “extravert” is an undesirable construction because there’s no such thing as an intravert. But this is just the kind of maladroit bungling that one should expect from the same insufferable fuckwits who think that something can be a “predicator” of behavior or – and this is the principal point here – who have the monstrous audacity to speculate that critics of poor grammar are not nice people, or not nice wolves, as the case may be.

And so it may be, if you demand it with sufficient perseverance that it comes to pass. For note well, my little insectivorous mammal, that “gibberish” is primarily a judgment about the quality of a statement’s meaning or semantics, while “badly constructed” is a judgment about its syntax and grammatical structure.

Extravert is a perfectly cromulent word. The Wikipedia article uses it (only mention of the o version are in two cites). Blah blah, Wikipedia isn’t a valid cite, but note the talk page where there is discussion

I can also cite personality class, where if my memory serves correctly we talked about how even early on (Jung?) it was inconsistent between a and o.

You also should make sure you know the buzzwords in a given field. “Predicator” could be a valid term that is understood by others doing similar research (I have no clue if it is, just a thought). It wouldn’t make sense to others but that’s the way it is. I’ve noticed that strict behaviorists use some of the same words as cognitive psychologists to mean very different things.

Whether the articles conclusions about “niceness” are valid or not is another matter, and criticizing (criticising?) that *may *be valid. Personality and social psychology has a lot of cruft that needs to be sorted through, and the field will be embiggened if we can make sure discussion sections don’t reach too much.

Strictly speaking, it should be “enflammable”.