One thing you neglected to tell Lily is that Spell-Check can make things worse instead of better. This is particularly true when you’re dealing with homophones—words that sound the same but are spelled differently and have different meanings.
Forget the mistakes commonly seen on sites like Facebook or YouTube—things like “to” instead of “too” and “your” instead of “you’re.” Some of the howlers I’ve seen in books printed by reputable publishers (and supposedly reviewed by professional editors) are “assent” instead of “ascent,” “combing” instead of “coaming,” and “effluent” instead of “affluent.” Not much doubt here as to what technique the editors were using, is there?
By far the worst thing about Spell-Check is that it creates the illusion you don’t NEED to worry about spelling: “The computer relieves you of the need to think … so why bother?”
I work as a wordsmith (in more than one language, yet!), and there’s no doubt in my mind that sloppy language = sloppy thinking. Tools like Spell-Check are useful only for finding typos, as opposed to true spelling errors like those listed above. Bottom line: If you’re not sure about how to spell a word, look it up in the dictionary!
Yes, if computers can check your spelling and grammar, they ought to be able to check context as well. My pet peeve (one of many, actually) is when people use the phrase “free reign” when they mean “free rein.” Yesterday, I saw that error in reverse; someone wrote “rein of terror” instead of “reign of terror.” Spell-Check will let all four of these phrases pass, but in context, two of them are wrong.
You gotta admit, this one at least makes SOME sense: If you’re being reprimanded for something, part of your punishment could be having to do physical labor like towing a barge with a hawser, rather than just being told to follow orders in the future.
Just out of curiosity, do you think “toe the line” might have something to do with police sobriety tests…?
Speaking of homophones, I’m pretty sick of seeing Americans write “make due” when the phrase is “make do” - which is obvious to everyone except Americans because due and do are not homophones anywhere else.
Non-American English speakers (like me, an Australian, for instance) can easily hear the difference between the words due and do. They’re unmistakably not homophones.
If his or her ear is attuned to different accents, even an American can tell the difference.
I think “duke” is a funny example of the difference between the two phonemes. Prince Philipp is the Dyuke of Edinburgh, but John Wayne will forever be “The Dook.”
I have terrible grammar. Yet, I work with computers all day, and doing work that requires detailed, coherent, big picture, and little picture thinking. Clearly I’m a sloppy thinker. You have earned the rollseyes for presenting an asinine opinion. Enjoy.:rolleyes:
Further English grammar its self is sloppy thinking. If I wrote code with as many stupid exceptions, contradictions, and needless complex naming conventions, well it wouldn’t run.
Therefore I submit prescriptivist themselves are sloppy thinkers or they wouldn’t be pushing such a dysfunctional product on us.
I am not proud of it. I do work on it and learn when I’m wrong. The thing is, I don’t look down on people for having worse grammar, for being bad with computers, bad cooks, bad at video games, bad at sports, chess, biology, etc.
In the grand scheme of things there is only so much time in the day. What I do look down on people for is willful ignorance, and people who look down on others because they didn’t choose the same things to obsess over. In my case given the choice between: a book on XML transforms and a grammar book, well I’ll pick the XML transforms.
I have a nice book on XSLT to improve orderly thinking, I bet a mechanic might suggest something similar with engines, or a plumber with pipes.
Hell, there’s nothing wrong with your language, and if you’re deficient in one field or another, you attempt self-improvement as time permits. My hat’s off to you!
There are a lot of things I’m no good at, either because I’m just not interested in them (e.g., organized sports) or I don’t have the time or opportunity to study them (e.g., auto mechanics), though I wish I did.
You’re obviously quite skilled in your area of expertise; again, my hat’s off to you (I know jack shit about computers). But can we agree that when a person of ability just doesn’t give a rat’s ass and hides behind the old “I’m ignorant and proouuuud of it!” excuse, rather than make some attempt to improve their knowledge—that’s not exactly something to be admired, or encouraged?
