5 ms·

Agreed - I think the 'its how the message gets conveyed' only applies to really trivial things, like 'expresso', or whom vs who where the incorrect version is s

Agreed - I think the 'its how the message gets conveyed' only applies to really trivial things, like 'expresso', or whom vs who where the incorrect version is so clear that it doesn't affect the readability.

ryandrake 9y ago
Here's the thing about the "expressos," "irregardless," "for all intensive purposes," and "mute points" out there: Even if the meaning is clear and the communication is successful, these convey a carelessness and sloppiness that, as a great engineer, you don't deserve! As someone who knows what you're doing and takes pride in your craft, things like bad spelling and usage needlessly undermine your credibility.
- solidsnack9000 9y ago
  They do undermine one’s credibility. At the same time, a cursory study of German, French, Hebrew, even Japanese would suggest that English spelling is needlessly complicated and ambiguous. Part of addressing this problem for future generations is a push for spelling reform.
  - wavegeek 9y ago
    I've learned a lot of languages and they all have their problems. E.g. the horribly complicated broken Kanji characters in Japanese and Chinese. E.g. the almost completely pointless genders in German, and resulting requirements for other words changing in regular and irregular ways in agreement. Similarly verb tenses are insanely over-complicated. English is reasonably easy to learn compared to many other languages. It is harder than it looks to fix spelling because in the written language different words that sound the same are spelled differently. Making the written language phonetic would create ambiguity.
    - adrianratnapala 9y ago
      > It is harder than it looks to fix spelling because ... Of what you say and lots of things too. Much of the existing mess is caused by spelling "reform" of the ages past, such as when the Norman scribes half-replaced the conventions evolved by Anglo-Saxon scribes with French ones. It's not very different from https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/.
    - solidsnack9000 9y ago
      Some things about English are easier than other languages, but it’s spelling is uniquely complicated. There are roughly 55 phonemes in English and 1500 distinct spellings for them. In most languages the ratio is closer to 1:2, not 1:30. Phonetic writing could increase ambiguity but in many cases will not because: (a) Many of the weird redundant spellings only show up in multi-syllabic words that are quite distinctive, as for example ti for ʃ in caution. (b) People often can tell apart many shorter homophones, which are frequently mis-spelled by being substituted for each other: road/rode, or their/they’re/there. The fact they are frequently substituted for one another is a clue to the degree which context disambiguates them.
autokad 9y ago
@ryandrak "irregardless" is a word
- ebcode 9y ago
  that's one of those gotcha words, though, like "inflammable" (contrast w/ "indestructible"), and "denuded".
  - adrianratnapala 9y ago
    Do you mean that "irregardless" would have to be one of those gotcha words if it did indeed exist? "Inflammable" is confusing because it sounds like the opposite of "flammable"; but the sad fact of history is that "inflammable" has meant "burnable" for centuries while the synonym "flammable" was made up recently -- so we are stuck with both. But as far as I know, the word "regardless" has been around for ages, and that's fine because it sounds like just what it means: the opposite of "with regard". Whereas "irregardless" should be chucked in the bin as a confusing neologism that sounds like the opposite of what the speaker intends.
    - ebcode 9y ago
      The word "irregardless" exists, whether you/I/we want it to or not.[0,1] All I can say is that it is indeed surprising how quickly confusing neologisms that should be chucked in the bin soon become sad facts of history. It's not in the same category as "for all intensive purposes". But that's just the way language evolves. "Intensive" in that case should be "intents and", which, I believe has the same heritage as "clear and present danger", "crimes and misdemeanors", and "cease and desist". All these phrases are redundant lawyer-speak that came about when the law was being translated from Latin to English in the, what, 14th century in England? So, yeah, there are people who want to _sound_ educated, thinking they'll use a high-falutin' phrase like "for all intents and purposes", they get it wrong and say "for all intensive purposes", and instantly reveal themselves as the uneducated person they actually are. (But only if their present company includes an actually educated person, of course.) But rather than passing judgment on uneducated folks for using eggcorns[2], it would be more compassionate to reserve that judgment for the actual content and meaning of their speech, and not the superficial form it takes. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/irregardless-real-word-regardless-kory-stamper-education-dictionary-mean-girls-lexicon-merriam-webster-2017-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/irregardless-real-word-regard... [2] http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/ http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/
msla 9y ago
The "who" versus "whom" thing is a dialectical difference, only worse, in that the dialect which uses "whom" is entirely artificial at this point, and only serves as a class marker. Saying it's "more correct" is a rather nasty bit of classism.

ryandrake 9y ago

Here's the thing about the "expressos," "irregardless," "for all intensive purposes," and "mute points" out there: Even if the meaning is clear and the communication is successful, these convey a carelessness and sloppiness that, as a great engineer, you don't deserve! As someone who knows what you're doing and takes pride in your craft, things like bad spelling and usage needlessly undermine your credibility.

solidsnack9000 9y ago
They do undermine one’s credibility. At the same time, a cursory study of German, French, Hebrew, even Japanese would suggest that English spelling is needlessly complicated and ambiguous. Part of addressing this problem for future generations is a push for spelling reform.
- wavegeek 9y ago
  I've learned a lot of languages and they all have their problems. E.g. the horribly complicated broken Kanji characters in Japanese and Chinese. E.g. the almost completely pointless genders in German, and resulting requirements for other words changing in regular and irregular ways in agreement. Similarly verb tenses are insanely over-complicated. English is reasonably easy to learn compared to many other languages. It is harder than it looks to fix spelling because in the written language different words that sound the same are spelled differently. Making the written language phonetic would create ambiguity.
  - adrianratnapala 9y ago
    > It is harder than it looks to fix spelling because ... Of what you say and lots of things too. Much of the existing mess is caused by spelling "reform" of the ages past, such as when the Norman scribes half-replaced the conventions evolved by Anglo-Saxon scribes with French ones. It's not very different from https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/.
  - solidsnack9000 9y ago
    Some things about English are easier than other languages, but it’s spelling is uniquely complicated. There are roughly 55 phonemes in English and 1500 distinct spellings for them. In most languages the ratio is closer to 1:2, not 1:30. Phonetic writing could increase ambiguity but in many cases will not because: (a) Many of the weird redundant spellings only show up in multi-syllabic words that are quite distinctive, as for example ti for ʃ in caution. (b) People often can tell apart many shorter homophones, which are frequently mis-spelled by being substituted for each other: road/rode, or their/they’re/there. The fact they are frequently substituted for one another is a clue to the degree which context disambiguates them.

autokad 9y ago

@ryandrak "irregardless" is a word

ebcode 9y ago
that's one of those gotcha words, though, like "inflammable" (contrast w/ "indestructible"), and "denuded".
- adrianratnapala 9y ago
  Do you mean that "irregardless" would have to be one of those gotcha words if it did indeed exist? "Inflammable" is confusing because it sounds like the opposite of "flammable"; but the sad fact of history is that "inflammable" has meant "burnable" for centuries while the synonym "flammable" was made up recently -- so we are stuck with both. But as far as I know, the word "regardless" has been around for ages, and that's fine because it sounds like just what it means: the opposite of "with regard". Whereas "irregardless" should be chucked in the bin as a confusing neologism that sounds like the opposite of what the speaker intends.
  - ebcode 9y ago
    The word "irregardless" exists, whether you/I/we want it to or not.[0,1] All I can say is that it is indeed surprising how quickly confusing neologisms that should be chucked in the bin soon become sad facts of history. It's not in the same category as "for all intensive purposes". But that's just the way language evolves. "Intensive" in that case should be "intents and", which, I believe has the same heritage as "clear and present danger", "crimes and misdemeanors", and "cease and desist". All these phrases are redundant lawyer-speak that came about when the law was being translated from Latin to English in the, what, 14th century in England? So, yeah, there are people who want to _sound_ educated, thinking they'll use a high-falutin' phrase like "for all intents and purposes", they get it wrong and say "for all intensive purposes", and instantly reveal themselves as the uneducated person they actually are. (But only if their present company includes an actually educated person, of course.) But rather than passing judgment on uneducated folks for using eggcorns[2], it would be more compassionate to reserve that judgment for the actual content and meaning of their speech, and not the superficial form it takes. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/irregardless-real-word-regardless-kory-stamper-education-dictionary-mean-girls-lexicon-merriam-webster-2017-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/irregardless-real-word-regard... [2] http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/ http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/

msla 9y ago

The "who" versus "whom" thing is a dialectical difference, only worse, in that the dialect which uses "whom" is entirely artificial at this point, and only serves as a class marker. Saying it's "more correct" is a rather nasty bit of classism.