4 ms·

> does it actually matter that people don't all the grammar rules or how to spell things? It does if you hold the view that teaching someone to speak and write

by Teever 5y ago

> does it actually matter that people don't all the grammar rules or how to spell things? It does if you hold the view that teaching someone to speak and write is teaching them them think. If that is correct than if someone does not know how to speak and write in a grammatically correct fashion then the implication is that they do not know how to think properly. Even if there isn't a perfect 1to1 mapping between grammatically correct writing and thinking skills, I still think it's a good proxy for measuring a persons ability to think because in general the more you read, the better you get at writing, and the more you read, the more you know.* * the traditional caveats apply with garbage in, garbage out.

leetcrew 5y ago
> It does if you hold the view that teaching someone to speak and write is teaching them them think. I don't hold that view. at least, I don't think effective communication requires mastering the formal rules of a natural language. I'm not even sure communication itself is that closely tied to complex thought. I've known a few brilliant engineers whose english was barely sufficient for work. perhaps they were quite elegant in their native tongues; I wouldn't be able to say.
- LadyCoconut 5y ago
  > I'm not even sure communication itself is that closely tied to complex thought. I think it does in some respect; our language's grammar and vocabulary litteraly govern the way we see the world, after all[1]. As a personal anecdote, I'm ESL and write as a hobby, both in my native language and English, and I do feel the differences (and limitations) in the way my mind works depending on language. I know that my inadequacies in English mean that my style is different. Descriptions and reasonings are simpler. In my native language, I can easily use word plays, ambiguities, be bolder and "more clever" (or less stupid :p). In English, I unconsciously keep things less complex. I'm a different author, and so the worlds I describe in my texts are simpler, too. English is also far more "pragmatic" than my birth language. I can't word things the same way. Thus, my thinking as an "English writer" is far more rational and cause-to-effect-ish. It's like any tool: you can absolutely use a programming language through tutorial and google searches, but you have to truly master it to really understand its concepts, to really use it to do something cleverly and intelligently -- and you won't plan a complex task the very same way in two different programming languages. [1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110314132531.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110314132531.h...
diputsmonro 5y ago
> It does if you hold the view that teaching someone to speak and write is teaching them *them think*. > If that is correct *than* if someone does not know how to speak and write in a grammatically correct fashion then the implication is that they do not know how to think properly. And you immediately defeat yourself with your own argument. Nobody ever has, nor should strive to, follow every grammatical rule perfectly. Errors only matter if they create actual ambiguity; if you understand my intent, then I have used language effectively. As human thought evolves, language should too. Poets are always breaking rules in the name of art, and many of those changes get codified as new rules. Shakespeare simply made up dozens of words that we use today without a second thought. Over the last decade, modern poets steeped in the culture of sarcasm have given the word "literally" a new meaning. Those deviations and inventions made sense, both to the speakers and listeners, so new words, rules, and understandings were created. The only people left confused are the prescriptionists who cling to outdated rules that describe how people used to talk. As long as humans can turn these AI assistants off and share their imperfect creativity, I'm not too concerned.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Teever 5y ago
  You're not even wrong.
- nescioquid 5y ago
  > if you understand my intent, then I have used language effectively. I'll agree as far as it goes, but it ignores the burden of understanding on the the part of your interlocutor. Have you ever been in a conversation where either you or the other party didn't speak the language well? It is a strain on all parties, even if sufficient information was transmitted and understood. I might consider this merely sufficient or barely "effective". I'd hope we aim for clearly expressing oneself without causing strain on your conversation partner or reader. A good deal of what people quibble over regarding "grammar" has more to do with good style (whatever that means to you -- proper use of less/fewer, who/whom, capitalization and punctuation, etc) and achieving a certain verbal register.

by Teever 5y ago

leetcrew 5y ago

> It does if you hold the view that teaching someone to speak and write is teaching them them think. I don't hold that view. at least, I don't think effective communication requires mastering the formal rules of a natural language. I'm not even sure communication itself is that closely tied to complex thought. I've known a few brilliant engineers whose english was barely sufficient for work. perhaps they were quite elegant in their native tongues; I wouldn't be able to say.

LadyCoconut 5y ago
> I'm not even sure communication itself is that closely tied to complex thought. I think it does in some respect; our language's grammar and vocabulary litteraly govern the way we see the world, after all[1]. As a personal anecdote, I'm ESL and write as a hobby, both in my native language and English, and I do feel the differences (and limitations) in the way my mind works depending on language. I know that my inadequacies in English mean that my style is different. Descriptions and reasonings are simpler. In my native language, I can easily use word plays, ambiguities, be bolder and "more clever" (or less stupid :p). In English, I unconsciously keep things less complex. I'm a different author, and so the worlds I describe in my texts are simpler, too. English is also far more "pragmatic" than my birth language. I can't word things the same way. Thus, my thinking as an "English writer" is far more rational and cause-to-effect-ish. It's like any tool: you can absolutely use a programming language through tutorial and google searches, but you have to truly master it to really understand its concepts, to really use it to do something cleverly and intelligently -- and you won't plan a complex task the very same way in two different programming languages. [1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110314132531.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110314132531.h...

diputsmonro 5y ago

> It does if you hold the view that teaching someone to speak and write is teaching them *them think*. > If that is correct *than* if someone does not know how to speak and write in a grammatically correct fashion then the implication is that they do not know how to think properly. And you immediately defeat yourself with your own argument. Nobody ever has, nor should strive to, follow every grammatical rule perfectly. Errors only matter if they create actual ambiguity; if you understand my intent, then I have used language effectively. As human thought evolves, language should too. Poets are always breaking rules in the name of art, and many of those changes get codified as new rules. Shakespeare simply made up dozens of words that we use today without a second thought. Over the last decade, modern poets steeped in the culture of sarcasm have given the word "literally" a new meaning. Those deviations and inventions made sense, both to the speakers and listeners, so new words, rules, and understandings were created. The only people left confused are the prescriptionists who cling to outdated rules that describe how people used to talk. As long as humans can turn these AI assistants off and share their imperfect creativity, I'm not too concerned.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Teever 5y ago
You're not even wrong.
nescioquid 5y ago
> if you understand my intent, then I have used language effectively. I'll agree as far as it goes, but it ignores the burden of understanding on the the part of your interlocutor. Have you ever been in a conversation where either you or the other party didn't speak the language well? It is a strain on all parties, even if sufficient information was transmitted and understood. I might consider this merely sufficient or barely "effective". I'd hope we aim for clearly expressing oneself without causing strain on your conversation partner or reader. A good deal of what people quibble over regarding "grammar" has more to do with good style (whatever that means to you -- proper use of less/fewer, who/whom, capitalization and punctuation, etc) and achieving a certain verbal register.