English Grammar and Spelling

[WhimsyTheFae]

u l337 Phds obvisousley pwn us n00bs at teh meassage bording, IIRYFPC. Y're u waisting tiem telling us we suk?

I r bad engilsh speker. Also spels not so good. Am I not loved? Will I not be part of teh new regeem?

Me luv u!

 

[Thunderfoot]

Bravo, Arbiter of Wyrms, for being able to constrain yourself and create a thread to vent!

I'm not a formally trained in linguistics, but I am a folklorist, so I am a huge advocate of the acknowledgment of vernacular speech. But I am also an old English major who is now in a doctoral program studying Communication. Every time I teach, I see the decaying of the respect for the English language. I don't entirely blame the Internet [IM/chat rooms/blogs and bulletin boards] for this loss, but it certainly is a contributing factor!

While it's perfectly understandable for typos to crop up in informal speech/writing, some people seem to think the basic rules of English grammar and punctuation are now optional. Were they not taught them in elementary school like the rest of us? According to some of my students, they weren't! [Now THAT is scary.] But that doesn't explain the people who willfully ditch some of the basics because they're typing too fast to actually make their communication understandable.

I'm subscribing to this thread, and I hope those of us confounded by bad writing can use it to "let off steam" from time to time...




Well, there's one problem with this argument:

Not every ENWorlder is as "L33T" as all the others. We are not a community of equals with regard to having an encyclopedic database of all the new lingo that, seriously, only a portion of certain tech-savvy people are all that proficient in anyway.

This goes back to Arbiter's parting comment: If you want your audience to understand you, you need to speak in such a way that THEY will understand you. Most of them aren't impressed by the fancy lingo; in fact, many will be immediately put off.

As such, you can reasonable expect most people to understand LOL or d20 or even IMHO, but there are some abbreviations that I *NEVER* get, even by reading in context. Speaking in code is really only for others who know the code [which is why not every character has access to Thieves' Cant or Druidic! hehe].

And I agree, my statement was as I said, when used in context. Frankly I have no reason to use true 'leet' speak, text communications (LOL, OMG, etc) maybe, but I am not an online gamer and I have no need to shrink my paragraphs in to a small collection of syllables. But if I were, then, yes, it would be worth my time to both learn and utilize it. I wouldn't expect anyone on ENworld to understand Q&Z signals (with the exception of a couple of known HAM radio operators) but even a few of those have made it into 'everyday' text messaging, ie MSG - message & PLZ - please.

So while I deplore the use of 'leet' I stand by its "correct" and "proper" tags. *shudder* (I feel dirty now)

 

[bodhi]

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.

Elite precedes online gaming. IMHO, "1337" and variations thereof are now more commonly used ironically to refer to those who use l33tspeak and consider themselves elite when they are decidedly not.

If you ever see the phrase "all your ______ are belong to us," that's a gaming term as well.

While it's still well-known (if not currently popular, per se) in online gaming circles, and the original source material was a Japanese video game, AYB wasn't gaming-specific.

 

[Lewis526]

I wanted to reply to a lot of the posts in this thread, but some of my replies would be outdated. I like most of what most of y'all are saying, but instead of using the reply button, I'm just going to throw out a few bold, unsupported claims and see what sticks to the thread. Maybe this will stimulate the conversation a bit.


Speaking has always been much easier than writing. Both are difficult to do really well, but writing will always be held to a higher standard than speech.

True literacy is more than the ability to translate text into speech: it also includes the ability to understand and interpret what you've read.

In most cases, creative punctuation and spelling are far more irritating than creative use of words.

In general, grammar mistakes obscure the writer's intent. Judge the severity of the mistakes according to clarity of the author's message.

The gradual evolution of language does not excuse poor communication skills. It's better to speak and write as a private individual, content to obey the current rules, and to let time and tide take care of the evolution.

A large part of what makes English great is its adaptability. In other words, the conquest of the country formerly known as Brittania by a French Viking (William) turned out well for the language.

 

[Khuxan]

I wouldn't expect anyone on ENworld to understand Q&Z signals (with the exception of a couple of known HAM radio operators) but even a few of those have made it into 'everyday' text messaging, ie MSG - message & PLZ - please.

While we're on the topic of writing matters that annoy us, using "i.e." for "for example" or "e.g." for "in other words" are my biggest frustrations . Unless MSG and PLZ are the only Q&Z signals to have made it into everyday text messaging... in which case you should have said "a couple of those"

 

[Pielorinho]

Speaking has always been much easier than writing. Both are difficult to do really well, but writing will always be held to a higher standard than speech.

Agreed sort of with the first part. Humans appear to have a "language instinct": unlike any other creature, we seem to naturally develop, around the age of two years, the ability to string performed abstract symbols together within a grammar to construct infinite meanings. No nonverbal human society exists. Reading and writing, however, are inventions, and there appears to be no "reading instinct." As such, written language is entirely learned, whereas spoken language literally comes naturally to us.

But I don't necessarily agree with the second part of your statement. Some instances of written language are held to a lower standard than some instances of spoken language. A presidential candidate who can give a rockin improvised stump speech will impress me, even if her grocery list is full of incomprehensible abbreviations. That's an extreme case, but it's true in plenty of other circumstances as well.

True literacy is more than the ability to translate text into speech: it also includes the ability to understand and interpret what you've read.

Definitely!

In most cases, creative punctuation and spelling are far more irritating than creative use of words.

That's sheerest opinion, but it's something I agree with .

In general, grammar mistakes obscure the writer's intent. Judge the severity of the mistakes according to clarity of the author's message.

If it's truly a mistake, then sure, you're right. But sometimes things fail to conform with standard rules and yet they convey meaning clearly. "Ain't I a woman?" is a grammar mistake (in one meaning of "grammar, certainly not the linguists' meaning), but it conveys meaning on multiple levels, at least one of which depends upon its nongrammatical nature. "Baby got back" is similarly effective: compare it to "The baby has a large posterior," which, while more grammatical, is less evocative.

The gradual evolution of language does not excuse poor communication skills. It's better to speak and write as a private individual, content to obey the current rules, and to let time and tide take care of the evolution.

I disagree with this. It's best to speak and write as a private individual aware of one's audience and capable of communicating in the most effective way with the intended audience: this means being aware of the audience's expectations and capabilities, among other factors. If you know that your audience has trouble with the subjunctive mood, for example, you may certainly choose to provide a minilesson in grammar to the audience. You may choose, equally wisely, to forego the indicators of the subjunctive mood in order to communicate your message more transparently.

A large part of what makes English great is its adaptability. In other words, the conquest of the country formerly known as Brittania by a French Viking (William) turned out well for the language.

Absolutely agreed! All languages are adaptable, of course, but English, by virtue of its motley pedigree, is adaptable in a particularly cool way IMO. It's not the most mellifluous language, not the most rhythmic or lyrical, but it sure does change good.

Daniel

 

[Morrus]

"Baby got back" is similarly effective: compare it to "The baby has a large posterior," which, while more grammatical, is less evocative.

I wouldn't say it's as effective. Without your translation, I wouldn't have known what that meant. I would have plugged for "the baby has returned".

 

[Desdichado]

I wouldn't say it's as effective. Without your translation, I wouldn't have known what that meant. I would have plugged for "the baby has returned".

What? You don't know about "Baby Got Back" and you're a brit? But isn't Sir Mix-a-Lot an actual knight and therefore belongs to the Peerage?

 

[Desdichado]

As for the actual thread topic... er, yeah. Whatever, d00d, LOL. WTF?

Maybe you should keep your concern for the purity of the English language in your class full of 12-year olds where it belongs. As for being a linguist, I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'm not a practicing professional linguist, but linguistics has been a hobby of mine for some time, and I gotta tell you, the first thing any linguist worth his salt will tell you is that languages change. Static, "fossilized" language is completely unnatural and contrary to human nature, so actively trying to enforce that in a venue where adherence to strict grammer and spelling conventions is of no particular importance is a quixotic endeavor, to say the least.

And the purity of the English language is a myth anyway. I could just as easily complain about the prevalence of the Great Vowel Shift, or the influx of all these freaky French and Norse words, for example, as I could about the more recent rise of 1337 speak. And all three of those complaints would be equally futile.

 

[Morrus]

What? You don't know about "Baby Got Back" and you're a brit? But isn't Sir Mix-a-Lot an actual knight and therefore belongs to the Peerage?

Huh? I truly understand nothing in that sentence! What's a "Sir Mix-a-Lot" when it's at home, and why should I have heard of it?