Demonizing The Un-educated

[Nihil Obstat]

I do not. I'd never even heard of them until your post, so I researched them. To be perfectly honest, their idea sounds ridiculous to me.

 

 

I think Strunk is great for some things (like learning to write concisely), but awful for others. He was quite the snob when it came to "rules" of "proper" English.

 

I don't mind txt-speak, or "Ebonics", or any of the other "varieties" of English. If you read Mark Twain, do you get all bent out of shape every time Jim opens his mouth? Probably not. Why? Because Mark Twain is a well-respected author, or because Jim is a protected minority?

 

There are many "voices" in both spoken and written English. If a person writes in a deliberate fashion, consciously inserting typos and "improper" grammar to create a certain "voice", I am delighted. I often switch to deep-South-speak in my spoken English to create a certain effect (like humor, emphasis, etc.). This is why I have no problem with TDBR's "Jesus Iz Lord".

 

I take issue with "improper" writing when the "impropriety" of it doesn't add to the meaning of the message. If it's done out of laziness or ignorance, then it calls for correction. But if it's done to add depth to the words (including communicating a certain character of the speaker), then I really enjoy it and don't think it "improper" at all.

 

The main trouble is that Strunk and White really did not understand English grammar as well as they pretended, so their advice is highly idiosyncratic and sometimes simply incorrect. Yet it is often pushed as gospel truth for young writers, which gives rise to the current generation of pedantic grammar nazis who do not actually know the rules on which they pontificate so generously. ;)

This article is what started my great distaste for The Elements of Style. :) Dr. Pullum is a genius.

[Spem in alium]

Pedagogical research suggests that you should let them figure out where they went wrong. In the process of combing over their writing looking for mistakes, they will learn much more than if you just give their writing back to them with a bunch of circles on it.

I do understand that, definitely, but it's difficult to do if they think the student thinks they're writing excellently or if they can't yet understand what they're doing wrong.

I never correct without explaining though :) That would be no help. I've helped kids in the past who for years were marked down significantly for work and never understood why because their teachers just gave them a mark with no comments. I always try and give them a reason as to why I've changed their writing, and thankfully most of the time they get me.

 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Case in point: everyone makes mistakes sometimes, whether they are well educated or not. Correcting them is not the end of the world. 

I wasn't arguing against correcting people. I was more upset with the idea that someone with poor writting skills has nothing to contribute to an online Catholic forum. It seemed a bit elitist to me. 

[Spem in alium]

I wasn't arguing against correcting people. I was more upset with the idea that someone with poor writting skills has nothing to contribute to an online Catholic forum. It seemed a bit elitist to me. 

I think everyone here contributes, though to varying degrees. Even these guys:  :brutebeast:

[Gabriela]

I do understand that, definitely, but it's difficult to do if they think the student thinks they're writing excellently or if they can't yet understand what they're doing wrong.

I never correct without explaining though :) That would be no help. I've helped kids in the past who for years were marked down significantly for work and never understood why because their teachers just gave them a mark with no comments. I always try and give them a reason as to why I've changed their writing, and thankfully most of the time they get me.

 

 

I haven't read this book in its entirety, but I find its advice on grading writing outstanding. You might want to check it out.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Engaging-Ideas-Professors-Integrating-Classroom/dp/0470532904/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1367359237&sr=8-1&keywords=bean+writing

[Spem in alium]

I haven't read this book in its entirety, but I find its advice on grading writing outstanding. You might want to check it out.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Engaging-Ideas-Professors-Integrating-Classroom/dp/0470532904/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1367359237&sr=8-1&keywords=bean+writing

Fantastic, thank you. I will try and get a hold of it as for a while I've been hoping to find such a resource.  

[CatherineM]

What was the first gift the Apostles received after Christ ascended? The gift of being able to evangelize in foreign tongues. Why? So that their message could be understood. What were the two things slaves were forbidden to learn? To read and write and to swim. To read meant they could read maps and swimming allowed them to cross streams and rivers. Both meant escape. To a slave, learning to read and write properly was the cornerstone of their deliverance. People who remained ignorant, remained slaves.

[EmilyAnn]

I wasn't arguing against correcting people. I was more upset with the idea that someone with poor writting skills has nothing to contribute to an online Catholic forum. It seemed a bit elitist to me. 

I don't think anyone has suggested those with poor writing skills have nothing to contribute, and correction is a step towards helping them be better understood (and so express their contribution better). 

[Gabriela]

The main trouble is that Strunk and White really did not understand English grammar as well as they pretended, so their advice is highly idiosyncratic and sometimes simply incorrect. Yet it is often pushed as gospel truth for young writers, which gives rise to the current generation of pedantic grammar nazis who do not actually know the rules on which they pontificate so generously. ;)

This article is what started my great distaste for The Elements of Style. :) Dr. Pullum is a genius.

 

That is a great article.

 

This, in particular, is something that drives me nuts:

 

Tucking the adverb in before the verb actually de-emphasizes the adverb, so a sentence like "The dean's statements tend to completely polarize the faculty" places the stress on polarizing the faculty. The way to stress the completeness of the polarization would be to write, "The dean's statements tend to polarize the faculty completely."

This is actually implied by an earlier section of the book headed "Place the emphatic words of a sentence at the end," yet White still gets it wrong. He feels there are circumstances where the split infinitive is not quite right, but he is simply not competent to spell out his intuition correctly in grammatical terms.

 

Grammar Nazis always think there's only one way a sentence can be written, paying no regard whatsoever to emphasis.

 

And this points out what I think is the most important rule in writing:

 

Simple experiments (which students could perform for themselves using downloaded classic texts from sources like http://gutenberg.org) show that Strunk and White preferred to base their grammar claims on intuition and prejudice rather than established literary usage.

 

That rule is USAGE. NOT RULES. (While I'm at it: God bless Wittgenstein.)

 

My thesis was edited by a former journalist who is now in his 50s. He marked every single "unclear referent", i.e., pronoun at the beginning of a sentence or clause. For days I screamed in my head, "Tell me, Dr. C! What is the referent of 'it' in the sentence, 'It's cold outside!'" STUPID rules.

 

All that being said, I think the style advice in Strunk & White is an important base text for undergraduate students, who are so unbelievably wordy and unclear. Yeah, a lot of Strunk's advice might be circular or empty, but if it just gets students to think about those issues, then it's good enough.

 

I only have two rules when writing:

 

1) Write clearly, such that your audience will understand your message as you intend it to be understood. (The hard part, since you can't ever really know how they'll understand it.)

2) Write credibly, using grammar, style, word choice, etc., that will not cause your audience to dismiss you.

 

That's all there is to it.

 

EDIT: (2) is the reason I don't mind people txt-writing in a phorum. Now, if one of my students did that in a term paper, that would be inappropriate. Context is everything.

Edited April 30, 2013 by curiousing

[Nihil Obstat]

Another anarchic descriptivist for the ranks! :like3:

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I'm not "hating on" anyone.  I am saying that there's no reason not to improve to the point your communication is fluent.

 

I'm in CA.  I see people giving EVERYTHING to learn English.  They will not eat dinner for a week to afford classes at the local community colleges.   I also see college student studying for hours, paying tutors to get themselves fluent in a language (usually madrian Chinese or Spanish or Arabic or Russian).

 

I also work with people with disabilities.  They would be ashamed of the above sentence.   Even those who are deaf and speak ASL try to conform to standard grammar.   The only people who would be proud of the above sentence are people who like to show off their gettoness.

 

People make HUGE sacrifices for language.  And again if written language is not your thing stay off of message boards.  Regardless of if you're trying to be annoying or not, it is.  English is a standardized language, everyone makes mistakes.  Most people can control things far more if they just put in a little effort.  

 

 

There's uneducated and there is living in stubborn ignorance.

 

For instance, you often post Jesus iz Lord.  Would it really be that hard to write Jesus is Lord?  

 

Will good grammar get us into Heaven?  Not by it's merit alone.  Will the uneducated simpletones get into Heaven.  Absolutely!

 

That said, we are given the gift from God of communication.  No other creature on earth is able to communicate to the level humans do.  Therefore, my hypothesis is those who ignore good grammar and refuse to learn are sinning by throwing away a gift that God gives to us.  It's not a mortal sin, but it's certainly not right.

 

We must be patient with those trying to learn.  We shouldn't condemn them.  We do have the right to ask for clarification, and we do have the need to understand what a person is asking.  If the person has not mastered English to the degree that they are able to communicate and they have mental or physical blocks then perhaps they might consider that a message board is not an appropriate place to voice their concerns.

 

 

This kinda proves my point.  Shepards who can only count sheep and have no command of English or another language combined with a aptitude with bablefish have no business on a message board.  

 

True wisdom comes from God, but for us to impart the wisdom on others we must communicate.

 

It's not to say we shouldn't ban people who can't write, it's to say that those who can't write should be working on it and show improvement  in order to avoid the frustration of others and potential "ignore" button.

 

 

I don't think anyone has suggested those with poor writing skills have nothing to contribute, and correction is a step towards helping them be better understood (and so express their contribution better). 

Not to pick on hotpink. I'm sure she has good intentions... 

[hotpink]

Not to pick on hotpink. I'm sure she has good intentions... 

 

 

It's ok to pick on me.  I'm actually a guy...the hot pink is a nickname from college becuase I didn't bring the right sheets for my dorm matress and all the college store had was hot pink sheets.  The OP, and many other posters, demand that we understand their poor grammar and spelling and say and write things because they don't want to change, for instance "Jesus iz Lord"....is that REALLY necessary?  Since the OP used is correctly, it's obviously not a matter of not knowing how to spell is or use is, but a deliberate wallowing in ignorance.

 

I am addressing more of the practical sides of the matter.  If you can't write the given language on a board and refuse to learn or be corrected than stay off.  I don't mind people who are trying, who use incorrect tenses or phrases...that's endearing   Those who publish long, unreadable posts and are told that they are such or have people guess at what their asking then get mad, may want to reconsider their membership.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

It's ok to pick on me.  I'm actually a guy...

My b.

[Gabriela]

 

CatholicsAreKewl:

 

People make HUGE sacrifices for language.  And again if written language is not your thing stay off of message boards.  Regardless of if you're trying to be annoying or not, it is.  English is a standardized language, everyone makes mistakes.  Most people can control things far more if they just put in a little effort.  

 

 

 

 

IS English a "standardized" language? Is ANY language really "standardized" for that matter? And who are you to say who can and cannot write on the message boards? Perhaps your writing is not good enough for some people?

 

 

CatholicsAreKewl:

If the person has not mastered English to the degree that they are able to communicate and they have mental or physical blocks then perhaps they might consider that a message board is not an appropriate place to voice their concerns.

 

It's not to say we shouldn't ban people who can't write, it's to say that those who can't write should be working on it and show improvement  in order to avoid the frustration of others and potential "ignore" button.

 

You mean "It's not to say we SHOULD ban people who can't write"? I agree that some should be working to improve their writing ability, but how exactly do you expect them to do that if they are criticized (rather than charitably corrected) in the best possible place to practice one's writing: online forums?

 

A lot of professors these days are assigning blogs to students because they recognize that most students don't practice writing because they're afraid to make mistakes (that is a whole 'nother topic). When students go online, they feel "free" from all that. So they write. Does their writing improve through those assignments? I have seen professors at conferences argue that it does when students feel they will be taken more seriously if they pay attention to their grammar, spelling, and style. When they don't, you get the usual shortcuts and errors.

 

If that research is correct then I suppose that PMers really will start paying more attention to the propriety of their writing—now that they know PM is full of language snobs who will ignore them unless their posts are "up to (as-yet-unclarified) standards".

 

BTW, people: It's SHEPHERDS, for crying out loud! If you're going to bash other people for inattentive posts, then at the very least, pay attention to your own!

 

Talk about a log in one's eye...

[hotpink]

 

 

 

 

IS English a "standardized" language? Is ANY language really "standardized" for that matter? And who are you to say who can and cannot write on the message boards? Perhaps your writing is not good enough for some people?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, English has standardizations.  That includes using fairly decent spelling and not using numbers in words.

 

 

You mean "It's not to say we SHOULD ban people who can't write"? I agree that some should be working to improve their writing ability, but how exactly do you expect them to do that if they are criticized (rather than charitably corrected) in the best possible place to practice one's writing: online forums?

 

 

 

Please do me a favor and don't tell me what I mean.  I mean that people who can't write and dislike being criticized should self select themselves off message boards.

 

 

A lot of professors these days are assigning blogs to students because they recognize that most students don't practice writing because they're afraid to make mistakes (that is a whole 'nother topic). When students go online, they feel "free" from all that. So they write. Does their writing improve through those assignments? I have seen professors at conferences argue that it does when students feel they will be taken more seriously if they pay attention to their grammar, spelling, and style. When they don't, you get the usual shortcuts and errors.

 

 

Ummm, I never said anything about minor errors.  I am suggesting that people with serious language problems who find correction troublesome may not want to be on the board, and it's their cross, not ours.

 

 

If that research is correct then I suppose that PMers really will start paying more attention to the propriety of their writing—now that they know PM is full of language snobs who will ignore them unless their posts are "up to (as-yet-unclarified) standards".

 

 

 

 

How about, capitals, punctuation, decent grammar, readable spelling.  No numbers in words, no trying to look cool by adding z's or shortening words like because.  Would 2 more letters really kill the poster?

 

 

BTW, people: It's SHEPHERDS, for crying out loud! If you're going to bash other people for inattentive posts, then at the very least, pay attention to your own!

 

Talk about a log in one's eye...

 

 

 

Besides pointing out the op's inconsistent use of is as "iz" no one is bashing anyone.  I acknowledged my own failings in spelling and grammar.  However, I do not agree with the OP and other posters that I must accept nearly unreadable text and like it.  I DO think that knowing you have a problem with writing and not improving (and saying everyone else has a problem) is verging on sinful.  Written communication is a gift God gave to humans.  Dogs, apes and whales all communicate verbally.  It can take someone a signification amount of time to learn English either because of disability, second language or never being taught.  However, it can be done.  In the meantime the person who is in need of improvement has no right to get mad if people can't or won't read what they wrote.