English Grammar and Spelling

[Thornir Alekeg]

Where I have a problem is when people can't even agree on new vernacular. I have trouble keeping up with some of the terms used, especially those emerging from text messaging, but it is even harder when they aren't consistent. So, is the "word" 1337, LEET or L33t? And what the heck does it mean no matter how it is "spelled?"

And the first time I ever heard someone say (as in actually speak) "LOL!" I will admit I didn't even think about it for a second or two, then realized just how ridiculous it is to say if you aren't actually doing it.

 

[Kaodi]

So, is the "word" 1337, LEET or L33t? And what the heck does it mean no matter how it is "spelled?"

I believe the world you are looking for is elite. The origin of " 1337 " speak is tied up in the origin of hardcore and professional (multiplayer video) gaming, I believe.

And the first time I ever heard someone say (as in actually speak) "LOL!" I will admit I didn't even think about it for a second or two, then realized just how ridiculous it is to say if you aren't actually doing it.

The first time I ever actually voiced something like that, I was perplexed! I have only done it a few times over the years, but I suspect part of what made me susceptible was that I have a tendancy to often say what I am typing, under my breath.

Mixing up of and have is certainly something I am guilty of, but what really confounds me is when I mix up words like there and their while typing, because I certainly know the difference between them, and I am not confused by it at all.

In any case, I wouldn't be surprised if I have made a number of offending mistakes in this post already, which is sad, because I often submit to the high horse feeling of superiority over a certain sibling, as I at least make some attempt to use proper English, even if I fail spectacularly from time to time. Hopefully, my time in University will purge most of my deficiencies in that department.

 

[Huw]

English has been dying since Beowulf was written. People today have no understanding of grammatical gender, no-one uses thorn nor eth anymore, and our vocabulary has become swollen with French and Norse borrowings.

Meanings get distorted. Black and fast mean the opposite of what they once did. All deer now have hooves, and sharks can swim. Knights are now top of society and villains no longer do honest work.

And as for spelling! Rime is not Greek, nor gost Arabic. The rest of the world can spell avance and avantage, why can't we? Sorcer now has a stutter, and algorism a lisp. Nadder has lost an n and eft has gained one.

Seriously, all languages change, some fast, like Japanese and Tibetan, others slowly, like Icelandic and Tamil. The best we can do is encourage the changes which are good - I like "they" as a gender neutral third person singular - and dis (another good word, IMHO) those which are bad - like 'lite speak, which I refuse to spell incorrectly

 

[Kaodi]

The Germans may have lost two World Wars, but they won the Spelling War with reforms. English could use a spelling reform or six.

 

[Hijinks]

The only time I ever pulled a grammar-police badge on someone on a forum was when a lady wrote "renigged" instead of "reneged." I found it offensive, possibly racist, so I sent her a polite pm telling her she might want to spell it correctly or someone might get really upset with her and I'd hate to see that happen. She never responded, nor did she change the word in her post. Guess she found me rude and chose not to pay attention *shrug*

 

[Yesminde]

I like English, and not simply because I'm a native English-speaker. It's a language which manages to be simultaneously precise and brief, technical and poetic. Unfortunately, this means that those not gifted in the linguistic realm must work hard at the task of wielding its many arcane complexities.

I speak and write a great deal better than many, but not as well as some, and I think the proper attitude is one of gratitude (OMG I sound like Jesse Jackson) to anyone who takes the time to correct your errors.

 

[Cameron]

Wait until the first time you hear someone actually say "lol" or "laugh out loud" instead of just laughing. I was perplexed the first time I heard someone do that.

Man, writing that makes me feel really old, and I'm only 26!

Olaf the Stout

I'd probably just look at him as if he was crazy and sidle slowly away from him, making it plain I think he is madder than a loon.

 

[Mouseferatu]

The one thing that really bugs me, but something I'm not sure is wrong, is people writing "should of" or "would of". It should be wrong, by my reckoning (since it is "should have" shortened to "should've") but I've seen it used in far too many books. So I dunno, maybe it's the right way to write it.

You are correct; "should of" is absolutely, positively wrong by any currently accepted rules of English grammar. The fact that people are doing it does not make it correct, at least not yet. Hopefully, it never will be.

This, BTW, is my problem with the argument that "all language evolves, therefore these sorts of things aren't really wrong."

A) The fact that it might be correct in the future doesn't change the fact that it's wrong now. Otherwise, I suggest telling a judge that, since pot might eventually be legalized, you shouldn't be arrested for blowing ganja smoke in a cop's face, and see where it gets you.

B) I don't mind language evolving through common use, but I have a strong objection to it evolving through repetition of conventions that are only common due to ignorance. (Yes, the two are often the same. I don't claim to be 100% reasonable about this.)

 

[Plane Sailing]

B) I don't mind language evolving through common use, but I have a strong objection to it evolving through repetition of conventions that are only common due to ignorance. (Yes, the two are often the same. I don't claim to be 100% reasonable about this.)

My goodness, I hate that too! Sometimes you read someone misquoting an aphorism and before you know it all kinds of people are misquoting it or misusing it, and there is a severe danger that ignorant repetition will lead to it becoming established usage!

I get particularly exercised by the misuse of hone. Not content with honing an argument (i.e. sharpening the argument), I'm increasingly reading (in printed matter where editors should know better) of people 'honing in on' something, which doesn't really make sense.

 

[Mouseferatu]

My goodness, I hate that too! Sometimes you read someone misquoting an aphorism and before you know it all kinds of people are misquoting it or misusing it, and there is a severe danger that ignorant repetition will lead to it becoming established usage!

I get particularly exercised by the misuse of hone. Not content with honing an argument (i.e. sharpening the argument), I'm increasingly reading (in printed matter where editors should know better) of people 'honing in on' something, which doesn't really make sense.

What's truly sad is that the growing frequency of this sort of thing can be traced, at least in part, to the fact that fewer people are reading regularly. Very often, as you touched on, this sort of thing happens because people hear a word or expression over and over, but they've never seen it used in writing. Thus, when they do eventually have to write it--or edit someone else's writing that includes it--they fall back on what they think they heard.

It's where you get the previous example of "should of." People hear "should've," think they heard "should of," and assume that the latter is proper.

In many cases (such as your own example of "hone" vs. "home"), even people who haven't seen it in writing might realize their interpretation is wrong if they just bother to think about it for a moment. But they're so used to hearing it used (or thinking they've heard it used) that they don't even bother doing that.