[TimG]

kenberg, on 2013-January-16, 08:08, said:

Do kids still play CLUE?

My kids (now teenagers) payed Clue, it is still on the shelf. I see it in many households. It may not be played as often as it was 50 years ago, but I suspect it is still common, if only because grandparents remember it fondly and give it to their grandchildren.

[blackshoe]

Some years ago, Archie Goodwin came downstairs and entered his and his boss' office, to find his boss, Nero Wolfe, sitting in front of the fireplace, ripping pages out of his brand new Webster's International Unabridged Dictionary and throwing them in the fire. Archie asked his boss why he was doing this. Wolfe looked up, a scowl on his face, and said "'Contact' is not a verb!"

As for "why do we care?" the problem is that when some of us (I'm one) see 'your' or 'ur' in place of the correct "you're", we have to stop and think 'what the heck is going on here?' Sure we can usually figure it out from context, but it's disconcerting at least, not to mention a pain in the butt.

[TimG]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-16, 11:15, said:

Some years ago, Archie Goodwin came downstairs and entered his and his boss' office, to find his boss, Nero Wolfe, sitting in front of the fireplace, ripping pages out of his brand new Webster's International Unabridged Dictionary and throwing them in the fire. Archie asked his boss why he was doing this. Wolfe looked up, a scowl on his face, and said "'Contact' is not a verb!"

As for "why do we care?" the problem is that when some of us (I'm one) see 'your' or 'ur' in place of the correct "you're", we have to stop and think 'what the heck is going on here?' Sure we can usually figure it out from context, but it's disconcerting at least, not to mention a pain in the butt.

It was once disconcerting to see "contact" used as a verb. I still don't like to see "hopefully" used as a sentence adverb, but my children likely will never care.

[Vampyr]

TimG, on 2013-January-16, 11:03, said:

In short: why do we care abut grammar as long as the idea, thought, or fact was communicated to us in an understandable way?

This attitude makes me sad.

[the hog]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-16, 11:49, said:

This attitude makes me sad.

I agree. This is the comment of a very ignorant man. I am sure Tim was joking.
As for the use of "ur". Ur was a city in Mesopotamia. I refuse to respond to anyone who uses this as a substitute for "your".

[dwar0123]

the hog, on 2013-January-16, 17:52, said:

I agree. This is the comment of a very ignorant man. I am sure Tim was joking.
As for the use of "ur". Ur was a city in Mesopotamia. I refuse to respond to anyone who uses this as a substitute for "your".

Good to know, I tend not to like ur responses anyway

[jeffford76]

TimG, on 2013-January-16, 11:21, said:

It was once disconcerting to see "contact" used as a verb. I still don't like to see "hopefully" used as a sentence adverb, but my children likely will never care.

Hopefully they won't, anyway.

[TimG]

the hog, on 2013-January-16, 17:52, said:

I agree. This is the comment of a very ignorant man. I am sure Tim was joking.
As for the use of "ur". Ur was a city in Mesopotamia. I refuse to respond to anyone who uses this as a substitute for "your".

Not joking. One of my pet peeves is the use of "very unique". Merriam-Webster now includes this 3rd definition of "unique":

3: unusual <a very unique ball-point pen> <we were fairly unique, the sixty of us, in that there wasn't one good mixer in the bunch — J. D. Salinger>
But, it still bothers me.

To get pig headed (as I have done in the past) about such things -- split infinitives; or "hopefully"; or prepositions at the end of sentences; or the use of "good" instead of "well" -- probably doesn't serve to better the ability of people to communicate.

The use of "ur" might influence my opinion of those who use it, but it would not stop me from attempting to communicate. I am smart enough to understand "ur" and tolerant enough to make use of my understanding.

[blackshoe]

"one of the only".

[Trinidad]

TimG, on 2013-January-16, 11:03, said:

In short: why do we care about grammar as long as the idea, thought, or fact was communicated to us in an understandable way?

I agree with you that nitpicking about small grammatical errors doesn't serve any purpose, other than the self-glorification of the person finding the error.

However, anybody who wants to get a message across should not aim for that message to be "understandable". He should aim for "crystal clear".

That is why it doesn't annoy me so much when I see "your" where there should be "you 're": it is a simple mistake and nobody is perfect. But when someone writes "ur", it is not a mistake. The person who writes it is perfectly aware that it is wrong and should know that it makes it harder to understand his message.

For me there is a difference between knowingly doing something wrong and making an honest mistake.

Rik

[the hog]

"I agree with you that nitpicking about small grammatical errors doesn't serve any purpose"
It certainly does serve a purpose. A lack of good grammar is the sign of an untidy and lazy mind. If we don't stamp on these errors when we encounter them, the English language will be further eroded. I cringe when I hear, "I was like.....", for example.

[Trinidad]

the hog, on 2013-January-17, 02:20, said:

A lack of good grammar is the sign of an untidy and lazy mind.

Obviously, for every phenomenon in nature there can only be one causal explanation.

Absolute statements are signs of a closed mind. (Yes, I am aware that this is recurrent.)

Rik

[helene_t]

I used to be annoyed when I heard "incorrect" use of language. It has changed over the last decades. Hyper-correction can still annoy me a little bit, but only a little bit, and other types of "incorrect" language use don't induce the slightest bit of negative emotions in me. If anything, I have come to value non-conformism with respect to language use, like I value it in other respects. I have strongly adapted the POV that language councils are there to describe how language is actually being used, not to prescripe how it ought to be used.

That said, I still think that precise communication is a virtue. Abuse of passive voice: "it has been argued that ...." when it isn't clear whether the missing subject is implicit or not, is something I am no fan of. But again, it doesn't induce much negative emotions in me. At worst I just see it as a sign of a lack of a particular skill. Just like some people are better than others at hammering nails accurately, some people are better than others at communicating accurately. No big deal. But we should be less harsh on imprecise communication than we should be on imprecise nail-hammering as the former is more subjective.

It has been a radical change in POV for me. I think two factors have contributed to it. First, I am generally becoming more tollerant with age. Second, I haven't been using my native language regularly for nearly two decades so there is no language which I am able to speak and write "correctly" anymore.

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2013-January-17, 00:42, said:

However, anybody who wants to get a message across should not aim for that message to be "understandable". He should aim for "crystal clear".

I agree. I think that such clarity is demanded, at the very least, by common courtesy to the reader.

[kenberg]

Surely context is important. My doctor, when he wants to examine me, tells me to lay down on the table. I figure that when a guy is about to stick his finger up your butt it's not a good time to discuss grammatical issues. Similarly, I was shopping yesterday. We get cheese and lunchmeat cut to order at the deli, and you take a number to be served. They called number 50 and I said "That's me". I could have said "That is I", I believe, though honestly I am not positive, that would have been correct, but it also sounds affected. I just want some munster and ham. Otoh, Becky and I have finally gotten around to getting wills, advance directives, etc done. About time, of course, but finally we are dealing with the fact that we are not immortal. On this, we are real fuss budgets.

Here is an in-between item. Becky signed up for a weight loss program at the Y. Against my better judgment, I signed up as well. Our first meeting was Tuesday and there were hand-outs. many hand-outs. At one point Becky pointed to something and asked what I thought it meant. I couldn't tell. But I had already asked about so many other things that I was sure I was getting on their nerves, so it seemed better for Becky to ask.

In the age of computers everyone is an instant author. I recognize the irony inherent in my posting this message to the world. We post, we create hand-outs, we write up descriptions of bridge conventions, and so on. I will learn to blog someday, as soon as I figure out what it means. And we sometimes confuse others about what we mean and embarrass ourselves.

Clarity is useful, aesthetics are important. proofreading is time consuming. Balance would be good.

[Vampyr]

kenberg, on 2013-January-17, 06:19, said:

proofreading is time consuming.

It is, but I think it is an obligation to anyone who wants others to do them the favour of reading their work.

[Cthulhu D]

TimG, on 2013-January-16, 20:54, said:

To get pig headed (as I have done in the past) about such things -- split infinitives;

The splint initiatives thing a total beat up, they date back to the 13-14th century in common usage. There has never been a time in the history of 'English' where people didn't split infinitives. The source of the argument is some guy in the 18th century didn't like them because you cannot split infinitives in Latin, because Latin grammar/vocabulary doesn't support it. But that's like complaining about the use of tense in English because Bahasa Indonesian doesn't have a declension of verbs for the past and future tense.

[Vampyr]

Cthulhu D, on 2013-January-17, 08:25, said:

you cannot split infinitives in Latin, because Latin grammar/vocabulary doesn't support it.

No indeed, as Latin infinitives, like those in Russian, French and most other languages, are one word.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-17, 09:25, said:

No indeed, as Latin infinitives, like those in Russian, French and most other languages, are one word.

The fact that it is one word is not a good argument. Other languages are regularly splitting words. As an example, a Dutch word for "to apply" (for a grant) is "aanvragen" (one word). In Dutch one would say: "Kunt u mij helpen deze beurs aan te vragen?". ("Could you help me to apply for this grant?"). In German, as far as I understand it, this would result in one word, split, including the "to": "Können Sie mir helfen dieses Stipendium anzufragen?" (from anfragen and zu). I am not sure about this, but my German colleagues insist on it.

Rik

[blackshoe]

What's the difference in meaning between "not to fail" and "to not fail"?