|
Grex > Agora35 > #153: Computer references changing written language? |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 151 responses total. |
pfv
|
|
response 31 of 151:
| 
Nov 13 18:39 UTC 2000 |
I never let the "rules" interfere with sensibility: "the period
belongs outside the goddamned quote". The MLA was insane to
suggest otherwise, and I use the MLA in a lot of things.
When I quote someone, I quote them. Or, paraprhase them.. But, My
own syntax makes for a complete statement. Sans "complete", you
need to do something like "he said blah(...)".
|
gull
|
|
response 32 of 151:
|
Nov 13 19:39 UTC 2000 |
Re #26: Ah, nifty, thanks. That's kind of a handy feature. Is it possible
to configure it to launch a different browser?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 33 of 151:
|
Nov 13 21:40 UTC 2000 |
Moving away from the punctuation issues, I believe another way in which
computer use is affecting the written English language is apparent from
the diminished distinction most on-line writers draw between a word and
its homophones (e.g. "their" vs. "there". )
I suspect the blame for this lies in large part on users who are overreliant
on automatic spell-checkers -- I think lazy writers become careless when
using spell-check features to proofread their prose for them. They then
find themselves tripped up when the spell-checker fails to point out a
spelling which is perfectly valid for an entirely different word.
What's maddening to me is that increasingly, many of the words incorrectly
substituted in this fashion aren't even homophones. I can't explain why it
should be any worse than using "their" instead of "there", but for some
reason I have a really strong pet peeve about the misuse of "loose" in place
of "lose"..
|
birdy
|
|
response 34 of 151:
|
Nov 13 22:48 UTC 2000 |
Ditto. =)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 35 of 151:
|
Nov 14 00:43 UTC 2000 |
I never use spell checkers, but I find I do make more their/there mistakes
than I used to. This conversational typing tends to cause it, I think.
We don't think of the spelling when we speak, which is what this is
approaching.
|
gull
|
|
response 36 of 151:
|
Nov 14 17:07 UTC 2000 |
There's the apostrophe issue, too.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 37 of 151:
|
Nov 14 21:48 UTC 2000 |
There's? 8^}
|
mcnally
|
|
response 38 of 151:
|
Nov 14 23:38 UTC 2000 |
What's wrong with "there's"? It's a valid contraction of "there is".
|
gull
|
|
response 39 of 151:
|
Nov 15 19:36 UTC 2000 |
(waits for Rane to explain what was wrong with that post.)
|
brighn
|
|
response 40 of 151:
|
Nov 16 00:21 UTC 2000 |
#26> I was responding to birdy, who was saying just the opposite, which
polygon and a few others have also said. Personally, outside of computer
contexts, I like the period-inside-the-quotes rule. I don't think it's fair
to call the MLA "insane" for reiterating what had been a standard for quite
some time -- if you don't like the rule, don't use it, but don't mock others
for following it.
This isn't the same as the spacing rule, which the MLA and the APA HAVE
accepted as different now (or rather, have made public what was once arcane
typesetter knowledge): After a period, put TWO spaces if you're using a
fixed-width font, and ONE space if you're using a proportional font. Since
hardly anybody uses a typewriter over a computer these days, it's easier just
to remember the rule as a single space between all words and after all
punctuation, and screw that detail about fixed vs. proportional, but that
spacing rule has been around for quite a while.
As for the homophone issue, one pair that's become distinguished is love (for
serious relationships) and luv (for friends) [I luv you guys!].
I'm guessing that Rane was pointing out the apostrophe in the comment about
apostrophes. If not, there's his out, he can pretend like that's what he
meant. ;}
|
rcurl
|
|
response 41 of 151:
|
Nov 16 06:13 UTC 2000 |
#37 was a question apropos of #36. Notice the 8^}. It seems it sounds OK
to say "There's the...." to mean "there is", but it doesn't scan so well
in the espostulatory question "There's?" to mean "There is?". (Sigh.....)
|
jep
|
|
response 42 of 151:
|
Nov 16 21:55 UTC 2000 |
My father, since I was a kid, has made fun of constructs such as:
"Me and Jimmy are going to the park."
Dad says "Is Jimmy mean, and if so, why do you want to go to the park
with him?" His point is that you should say "Jimmy and I" instead.
However, grammar is less prescriptive than it used to be. My wife, who
teaches writing at the U-M business school, says my father is just
wrong.
So now, when he makes fun of my kids, I tell him his grammar is out of
date. As long as they make themselves understood, they've achieved good
communication. Any grammar that isn't for that purpose is extraneous.
That has nothing to do with computers. But here's something that does.
When I started using M-Net, I found I was using a lot of parenthetical
comments (like this one). The standard smiley face looks like this:
(-: But that doesn't work look right in parenthesis, so I reversed my
smiley face.
(This is a standard smiley face (-: )
(This is my smiley face :-) The trailing parenthesis can be omitted
|
ea
|
|
response 43 of 151:
|
Nov 16 22:12 UTC 2000 |
I've always made my smiley faces with the mouth to the right --> :)
|
albaugh
|
|
response 44 of 151:
|
Nov 16 22:19 UTC 2000 |
Re: #42 - That's just *plain wrong*. "Me are going to the park" and "Me am
going to the park" are both absolutely wrong. The pronoun I is required.
So there is no way that "Me and Jimmy" can be correct. Dumbing down the
English language for the benefit of lazy students and teachers is just dumb.
|
birdy
|
|
response 45 of 151:
|
Nov 16 22:20 UTC 2000 |
'as long as they make themselves understood' - okay, but I still think some
phrases make a person sound stupid. Grammar is easy if you *want* to sound
correct.
I vs. Me - drop the extra person. "Me going to the park" does not follow
noun/verb agreement. "I going" does. So, "Jimmy and I are going to the park"
or "She gave the ball to me and Jason" (you would drop Jason and make it "gave
to me"). It's a nice trick that works quickly if you don't want to sweat over
direct object stuff.
|
birdy
|
|
response 46 of 151:
|
Nov 16 22:21 UTC 2000 |
#44 slipped in, and I agree. =)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 47 of 151:
|
Nov 16 23:09 UTC 2000 |
re #42, 44-46: I agree that your father's grammar corrections,
at least as outlined in #42, are much preferable to your wife's
grammar permissiveness. Unless your kids are growing up on the
Bizarro planet, a sentence like "Me are going to the park," is
going to wind up communicating more to listeners than just the
intention to visit the park, and like it or not, this 'extra'
communication is not going to help your children.
|
ric
|
|
response 48 of 151:
|
Nov 16 23:19 UTC 2000 |
I tend to agree with John's father. "Me and <someone> doing something" is
not right.
The only time I ever say that is when I'm talking about my wife and I.... "Me
and A" sounds better than "A and I" :)
|
scott
|
|
response 49 of 151:
|
Nov 17 00:33 UTC 2000 |
Good comment on the smiley faces and parenthetic comments! I do the same
things often (and yes, I do right-facing smileys that also complete a
parenthesis pair :)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 50 of 151:
|
Nov 17 00:38 UTC 2000 |
re #48: when you're referring to yourself as the object of the sentence
rather than the subject, "my wife and me" is correct, not "my wife and I."
You can test this by applying the "remove the extra person rule" suggested
above to see that "the only time I do that is when I'm talking about I"
sounds wrong compared to "the only time I do that is when I'm talking about
me.." (unless you be Rasta, mon..)
|
ric
|
|
response 51 of 151:
|
Nov 17 01:09 UTC 2000 |
*fart*
|
jerryr
|
|
response 52 of 151:
|
Nov 17 03:38 UTC 2000 |
i think anyone that doesn't encourage standard english grammar from their
children are crippling them as far as having the tools to succeed in the real
world as they grow older and face making a living in the real world.
messing about on a bbs or using street slang with your posse on the playground
are fine as long as the child is aware that such language is purely
recreational.
no matter how much knowledge they possess they may never get a chance to shine
if everyone who listens to them speak perceives them to be a moron who can't
speak their native language.
|
brighn
|
|
response 53 of 151:
|
Nov 17 04:20 UTC 2000 |
Before using terms like "wrong" wrt grammar, it is best to define the context.
When writing for a business or otherwise professional audience, it is grossly
inappropriate to write "Me and my wife were talking the other night." OTOH,
it's fine to say that, and ok to write it in more informal contexts.
Professional writing is a dialect of English. As such, it should be treated
like one -- there are settings in which it is the most appropriate means of
communication, and settings in which it sounds completely out of place.
Perhaps the striking difference between professional writing and any other
dialect is that there are few who speak it naturally; most have to learn it,
although many learn it from exposure rather than explicit teaching.
Language is extremely powerful, and how you speak, write, and even perceive
language can be used as a tool or a weapon. We'd like to think that language
doesn't matter that much, that it's fine to be casual, but using slang and
sloppy language in a business setting is like wearing a t-shirt and jeans to
a board meeting... you will be treated as the bumpkin you are, for not knowing
the rules, just as you will be scoffed at for showing up at a goth bar in a
three-ppiece (non-black) suit.
In other words, what jerry said.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 54 of 151:
|
Nov 17 04:28 UTC 2000 |
One thing: "although many learn it from exposure rather than explicit
teaching." That's true of *all* language. Efforts to teach a second language
that ignore this truth often fail.
|
brighn
|
|
response 55 of 151:
|
Nov 17 04:29 UTC 2000 |
True enough.
|