Anthony Kiedis of Red Hot Chili Peppers would probably tell you, “Suck My Kiss” … bt at least it’s 2/3 correct
In my neck of the woods, it’s pronounced shoula, woulda, coulda - which I guess is less offensive to the wordsmiths of the world.
Coffee Manic: *I’ve never said anything about gangs or vandalism or poverty being good things. *
And I never said you did. You apparently can’t recognize an analogy when you see one.
Coffee Manic: To equate what I said with such things makes you a liar
Yeah, but I didn’t equate them, I compared them. That’s where “analogy” comes in.
Coffee Manic: and an asshole. Fuck off.
Hmm, I guess I struck a nerve, eh?
(Actually, to be a little less bitchy about it, I don’t mean to accuse you personally of being an elitist. But I’m serious when I say that the sort of radical descriptivism that you seem to be advocating works as a sort of “populism of the elite”. It may look democratic and egalitarian on the surface, but in practice, it benefits the linguistic “haves”—those who are educated and/or gifted enough to communicate well with or without the rules—and shafts the “have-nots”, the people who aren’t naturally talented writers and need consistent use of rules to help them communicate clearly.)
OK, I’ll buy that. Sorry for yelling at you.
I write to my audience. I realize that mine is an unpopular opinion here, so I try to use a style that most here seem to prefer. If I were to present my ideas by using more colorful and improper English, would anyone here take me seriously, or would I be seen as just another ignorant person who is defending his own laziness?
No no no no no. You misunderstand – their memos are horrible. One of the engineers is Indian, and only began learning English three or four years ago. Another uses abbreviations in almost every sentence. Yet, there is never a question as to what they’re saying. Their intent is clear, despite their mangling of proper English usage.
Coffee Manic: Sorry for yelling at you.
No problem; sorry if I came across as too snarky. Now let’s get back to fighting before anybody catches us apologizing in a civilized fashion in the Pit. 
Coffee Manic: I write to my audience. I realize that mine is an unpopular opinion here, so I try to use a style that most here seem to prefer.
Fine, but right there that marks you as a member of the linguistically fortunate few. Most people don’t have more than one style available for successful written communication.
And for most of those people, advocating as a general position that grammar can be “dismissed as unnecessary” is no help at all.
Coffee Manic: You misunderstand – their memos are horrible. One of the engineers is Indian, and only began learning English three or four years ago. Another uses abbreviations in almost every sentence. Yet, there is never a question as to what they’re saying. Their intent is clear, despite their mangling of proper English usage.
How is that different from what I said, though? Some people do have the ability to communicate clearly even while mangling proper usage. It’s not easy to get your meaning across clearly when you’re mangling the rules of the language—it’s actually more difficult than to communicate clearly in conventional prose—but it’s true that quite a few people are smart enough to do it. For them, grammar and spelling and style rules can perhaps be considered optional. Right. That’s basically what I’ve been saying.
But my main point is that most people don’t succeed in communicating clearly in formal written language if they don’t follow linguistic rules. For them, the rules are not optional, and that’s an important reason to take the rules seriously.
I can’t believe she got away with the “pantywaist limousine liberalism” and “liberal elitist populist” quips. I’m glad I didn’t say them, but I agree with her.
The caveat is that grammar can be dismissed as unnecessary as long as clear communication of the ideas is achieved.
In most cases, everybody will understand the idea represented by “I should of”. Saying that to my Indian engineer buddy would likely draw a blank look and questions about how “of” would go with “should” in the sentence, so I would have to modify my words to achieve the clear communication of the idea. In almost every other situation, however, it wouldn’t matter which way I said or wrote it.
Liberal: I can’t believe she got away with the “pantywaist limousine liberalism” and “liberal elitist populist” quips.
Huh wha, Lib? What’s wrong with making fun of “limousine liberalism” and “elitist populism”? (Or is it “pantywaist” that’s objectionable? It does sound kind of offensive now that I think about it.)
IMHO it’s no different from picking on “theoconservatives” or “Tighty Righties”. It would certainly be unjustifiable to try to tar all liberals or all conservatives with the brush of their more annoying subgroups, but I don’t get the impression that anybody around here has a problem with specifically picking on the subgroups themselves. Always with the proviso that the people who like them are free to call you out on it, of course.
Liberal: I’m glad I didn’t say them
Me too, frankly! I think I can “get away with” saying things like that because I don’t have a rep around here for being anti-liberal in general. 
(Not claiming that that is necessarily a truthful description of you, but I think it’s fair to say you have a rep for it.)
Coffee Manic: *The caveat is that grammar can be dismissed as unnecessary as long as clear communication of the ideas is achieved. *
I hear ya. But the problem is that that condition is frequently not fulfilled. And the less importance we as a linguistic culture attach to using and promoting conventionally correct grammar, the harder it will become for those who need the help of grammar to achieve clear communication of their ideas.
Damn. You disagree with me even when I agree with you. 
That’s what frenemies are for, Lib ol’ buddy.
Well, I agree with that, too. I think that my issue is that people who get peeved when they hear or read improper English may be missing the point that the language has done its job – communication happened, understanding was achieved.
My own peeve is in writing littered with correct punctuation, spelling, and grammar, but without a clear idea being communicated. I don’t really like having to re-read something ten times to decipher which clause has been comma delimited so that it (and not the two clauses before it) is being referenced by the verb.
That sounds awful complicated.
Wouldn’t it be so much better if we had a *standard * of communication, where you only had to remember one way to say things and ALL would understand?
Crazy, I know.
(and I know it’s “awfully”).
Not crazy, just dreadfully dull.
If you don’t like “should of”, how do you feel about “Marshall law”?
Not picking on you per se, eleanor, I just found that humorous.
Sorry, you’re right there, snailboy. I was was too lazy to do the test.
Someone please explain this one to me:
GOES replacing said.
Goes?
I think you’re mistaken.
The correct form is, “[to be] all.”
See here as we role-play the correct conversational forms.
Speech influencing speech. For example, people hearing Southerners talk and adopting “y’all” such that it becomes mainstream. Something like that.
As for lazy, I don’t necessarily think people are lazy at the time they’re writing “should of.” I think they were lazy in school when it was time to learn contractions.
Coffee Manic in re: Engineers and Written Communications.
I AM an engineer, AND I have a passing familiarity with rules of grammar, spelling and punctuation. Part of my job is to read engineering specifications, which you likely know are the contractor’s bible. If a job doesn’t meet specs, the contractor doesn’t get paid, but may get sued.
Another part of my job is to write RFIs (Request for Information) back to said engineers toa ask them precisely what the fuck they were trying to convey in section 15910.1.B.4.a because the sentence contained NO VERBS!
What is even more frustrating is to read a poorly constructed paragraph concerning what is or is not an acceptable practice or method, putting a generally accepted interpretation on it and then being told long after the fact that the engineer actually meant something other than the way I interpreted it. It’s especially annoying when I have to tear out hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of hardware or programming and spend that money again because the engineer couldn’t be bothered to learn basic rules of grammar and sentence construction.
My life would be much simpler if someone would smack a few of these engineers in the head with a large grammar text (or a baseball bat) once in awhile.
A quick example: The spec stated “There shall be no more than one controller for each major piece of equipment.” I interpreted this to mean that I couldn’t use two or more controllers on each piece of equipment. Not a problem. I could use one controller that would handle every piece of equipment on this small project. My submittal was rejected immediately. Because what this brilliant (and arrogant) engineer MEANT was “Each major piece of equipment shall have it’s own separate controller.”
So by your logic, since communication did not occur, he made a mistake. So I guess that it IS important to communicate clearly and to follow the standard rules of grammar and sentence construction. Which leads me to the conclusion that your contention that conventions are unnecesary is a load of crap.