8 ms·

What problem does this kind of correctness solve? We all understand what is meant by the sentence despite the flaw. I'm reasonably proficient at English when co

What problem does this kind of correctness solve? We all understand what is meant by the sentence despite the flaw. I'm reasonably proficient at English when compared to my colleagues but unless they've made an error that dramatically changes the meaning of their sentence, correcting it achieves nothing in my experience.

keiferski 2y ago
Because language isn’t about being understood by the lowest common denominator, it’s about expressing ideas and feelings. Sloppiness of language results in sloppiness of thought. If language were purely about being understood by others, then we culd rite lyke dis all da tyme. It is also just disgraceful and disrespectful toward something as magnificent and powerful as language, akin to scribbling on the Sistine Chapel ceiling. It’s one thing to know the rules and intelligently break them in a novel way, but the lack of correctness we’re talking about is merely laziness. Just to reiterate here: the issue isn’t so much about minor unintended errors, it’s about the attitude that minor errors are acceptable and that aspiring for some kind of excellence is discouraged.
- ok_dad 2y ago
  > it’s about expressing ideas and feelings Yes, and spelling errors don't really matter to express yourself. > disgraceful and disrespectful toward something as magnificent and powerful as language If language wants to take that up with me, send him or her over to my place and I'll beat 'em up! But seriously, language is a tool, it's not a work of art. Things you make with language can be a work of art, so go read those instead of the misspelled crap that drives you to this level of anger. > it’s about the attitude You need to chill about other people's attitudes. You cannot affect other people, and you shouldn't let them make you see red like this. Other people's opinions and attitudes are none of your business, frankly.
  - keiferski 2y ago
    This is exactly the reply that always comes when someone defends standards. Every time. “It’s none of your business. Don’t worry about other people. Why are you so angry?” Etc. I speak English and am a part of a culture that speaks English. That gives me some extremely minor influence on that culture, as it does for you and anyone else. So I certainly can “affect other people.” Is it so hard to believe that some people like nice things, and that creating and maintaining nice things often requires adhering to certain rules and regulations, rather than unquestioning acceptance of the selfish whims of every individual?
    - ok_dad 2y ago
      Maybe become an English teacher then, instead of ranting and raving in public. Go get a job as an editor at a paper and raise the standards. Do something like that, rather than get into other people's business. People act like this about folks who police arbitrary standards because it's distasteful. English is what the whole body of humans who speak English make it, not some random Council of English Grammar. Anytime I write or say anything, it's English, no matter if I fucked the grammer or speeling up. There should not be a monopoly on communication. Some people simply don't have the ability to do perfect English grammar. Neurodiverse people can have trouble saying the right thing or using the write words. I hope you understand that not only do people hate "grammar police" because you're annoying, but also because not everyone can, needs, or wants to speak perfect English. In closing: stop being pedantic, no one likes it. I hope all my errors keep you up at night. I'm not responding further, this conversation has run it's course.
      - keiferski 2y ago
        As I said in my original comment: When it becomes socially unacceptable to insist on standards and correctness, people either don’t learn how to write properly - or they are cowed into silence when making corrections.
      - lelanthran 2y ago
        > In closing: stop being pedantic, no one likes it. You're wrong there. Also, kinda inadvertently proved the parent's point: that people rush out of the woodwork to cow everyone else into silence. > There should not be a monopoly on communication. So why are you trying to enforce your standards on someone else?
- denkmoon 2y ago
  Some of us are just trying to make it to tomorrow, next week, next month or next quarter. Spare a thought for them. I'm glad you have the time and mental energy to pontificate about the beauty of language, but language is a tool just as much as an art. The Sistine Chapel is ultimately a church to be used in worship.
  - keiferski 2y ago
    This line of thought can be used to dismiss pretty much everything other than purely utilitarian subsistence activities. Why pontificate about mathematics, or science, or food, or anything at all when some people can’t make it through the day? Why not live in concrete boxes and eat nutritious flavorless goop? Even then - yes, if you want to treat it as purely a pragmatic thing, then it’s kind of important to everyone to have the same set of rules to follow. Unless you want a church comprised of people that can’t communicate with each other because their language isn’t standardized? This already happened in the 19th century, when spoken languages had many orthographic variations. The reason we have rules like the ones we do now is because it was a problem that needed to be solved. When you have fifty different ways of writing grammatical rules down, it becomes difficult to communicate.
    - _carbyau_ 2y ago
      > can’t communicate with each other because their language isn’t standardized Uh, you mean "standardised"? :-P My kid is learning to read right now and the amount of exceptions I keep tripping over is crazy. And then you get things like Jabberwocky where undefined words never seen before were a large part of the point. Things need to be "standardised enough" for the message to get across, but I'd cry if it were a 100% completely detailed specification.

keiferski 2y ago

Because language isn’t about being understood by the lowest common denominator, it’s about expressing ideas and feelings. Sloppiness of language results in sloppiness of thought. If language were purely about being understood by others, then we culd rite lyke dis all da tyme. It is also just disgraceful and disrespectful toward something as magnificent and powerful as language, akin to scribbling on the Sistine Chapel ceiling. It’s one thing to know the rules and intelligently break them in a novel way, but the lack of correctness we’re talking about is merely laziness. Just to reiterate here: the issue isn’t so much about minor unintended errors, it’s about the attitude that minor errors are acceptable and that aspiring for some kind of excellence is discouraged.

ok_dad 2y ago
> it’s about expressing ideas and feelings Yes, and spelling errors don't really matter to express yourself. > disgraceful and disrespectful toward something as magnificent and powerful as language If language wants to take that up with me, send him or her over to my place and I'll beat 'em up! But seriously, language is a tool, it's not a work of art. Things you make with language can be a work of art, so go read those instead of the misspelled crap that drives you to this level of anger. > it’s about the attitude You need to chill about other people's attitudes. You cannot affect other people, and you shouldn't let them make you see red like this. Other people's opinions and attitudes are none of your business, frankly.
- keiferski 2y ago
  This is exactly the reply that always comes when someone defends standards. Every time. “It’s none of your business. Don’t worry about other people. Why are you so angry?” Etc. I speak English and am a part of a culture that speaks English. That gives me some extremely minor influence on that culture, as it does for you and anyone else. So I certainly can “affect other people.” Is it so hard to believe that some people like nice things, and that creating and maintaining nice things often requires adhering to certain rules and regulations, rather than unquestioning acceptance of the selfish whims of every individual?
  - ok_dad 2y ago
    Maybe become an English teacher then, instead of ranting and raving in public. Go get a job as an editor at a paper and raise the standards. Do something like that, rather than get into other people's business. People act like this about folks who police arbitrary standards because it's distasteful. English is what the whole body of humans who speak English make it, not some random Council of English Grammar. Anytime I write or say anything, it's English, no matter if I fucked the grammer or speeling up. There should not be a monopoly on communication. Some people simply don't have the ability to do perfect English grammar. Neurodiverse people can have trouble saying the right thing or using the write words. I hope you understand that not only do people hate "grammar police" because you're annoying, but also because not everyone can, needs, or wants to speak perfect English. In closing: stop being pedantic, no one likes it. I hope all my errors keep you up at night. I'm not responding further, this conversation has run it's course.
    - keiferski 2y ago
      As I said in my original comment: When it becomes socially unacceptable to insist on standards and correctness, people either don’t learn how to write properly - or they are cowed into silence when making corrections.
    - lelanthran 2y ago
      > In closing: stop being pedantic, no one likes it. You're wrong there. Also, kinda inadvertently proved the parent's point: that people rush out of the woodwork to cow everyone else into silence. > There should not be a monopoly on communication. So why are you trying to enforce your standards on someone else?
denkmoon 2y ago
Some of us are just trying to make it to tomorrow, next week, next month or next quarter. Spare a thought for them. I'm glad you have the time and mental energy to pontificate about the beauty of language, but language is a tool just as much as an art. The Sistine Chapel is ultimately a church to be used in worship.
- keiferski 2y ago
  This line of thought can be used to dismiss pretty much everything other than purely utilitarian subsistence activities. Why pontificate about mathematics, or science, or food, or anything at all when some people can’t make it through the day? Why not live in concrete boxes and eat nutritious flavorless goop? Even then - yes, if you want to treat it as purely a pragmatic thing, then it’s kind of important to everyone to have the same set of rules to follow. Unless you want a church comprised of people that can’t communicate with each other because their language isn’t standardized? This already happened in the 19th century, when spoken languages had many orthographic variations. The reason we have rules like the ones we do now is because it was a problem that needed to be solved. When you have fifty different ways of writing grammatical rules down, it becomes difficult to communicate.
  - _carbyau_ 2y ago
    > can’t communicate with each other because their language isn’t standardized Uh, you mean "standardised"? :-P My kid is learning to read right now and the amount of exceptions I keep tripping over is crazy. And then you get things like Jabberwocky where undefined words never seen before were a large part of the point. Things need to be "standardised enough" for the message to get across, but I'd cry if it were a 100% completely detailed specification.