# English Grammar and Spelling



## Arbiter of Wyrms (Aug 1, 2007)

I am a linguist and a teacher of English.  As a linguist, my training leads me toward descriptivism, rather than proscriptivism.  That is, I am trained to observe the language people use, not to tell them what language they should use.  As an English teacher, I cringe when my fellow ENworlders (who are, on the whole, highly literate) use badwrong language.  It is my job to correct the language use of twelve-year-olds, but I believe that it is rude to call people on their language use in a discussion thread on any other topic.

This thread is about language use and when I see you screw up my language, I'm going to come here to complain about it.

Don't mix up "lose" and "loose." They're easier to keep straight.  You can "loose the hounds." You can "lose three levels to a wight."  "Lose a game of chess."  "Tie a loose knot.

*"pwned" is not a word.  Niether is *"1337."  

We all make typographical errors sometimes.  That's why there's an edit post button.

People using English as a second language deserve some slack.  Don't pick on people.  English-only posters make some of the most egregious errors.  Leave the high-horse in the stable.  

If you know you don't know how to spell a word, look it up or spellcheck it.  Don't expect others to guess what you intended.  We have language so we don't have to guess what others are thinking.

If you must type in computer shorthand, please do so in moderation.  Most people will get that "BTW" means "By the way."  if you write "OTMFCtM,"  please don't expect anyone here to divine that that is supposed to mean "Other than my favorite class, the monk" unless you've already spelled it out at least three times in the thread where it appears.

Jargon is appropriate in context.  Folks on ENWorld know what you mean by "medium base attack," "d12," and "arcane spells."  They shouldn't also be expected to keep up with "LD50," "SDAIE," or "POG."


----------



## LightPhoenix (Aug 1, 2007)

Arbiter of Wyrms said:
			
		

> I am a linguist and a teacher of English.  As a linguist, my training leads me toward descriptivism, rather than proscriptivism.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> *"pwned" is not a word.  Niether is *"1337."




While I agree with everything you posted, including this, I wanted to point out the dichotomy here.  Descriptivism would certainly say that pwned and 1337 count as words, within the context of their medium, whether that is defined as the gaming sub-culture or the internet culture as a whole.  It's no different that any other slang words that have come to be adapted into common parlance.

Of course, I'm saying this as someone who is not an English teacher nor a linguist.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Aug 2, 2007)

I hate to agree with Light Phoenix on this (not because I don't want to agree with said personage but, rather, the context of the message) but, 'LEET' speak, while annoying and highly inaccurate grammatically, in context is, unfortunately, proper.   In as much as any other jargon is appropriate when used correctly, so to is 'Leet" appropriate when used correctly; if you are noticing it and its bastard stepchild 'TXT' in proper English assignments from your students, then you have every right to kick academic butt.


----------



## Cameron (Aug 2, 2007)

Thunderfoot said:
			
		

> I hate to agree with Light Phoenix on this (not because I don't want to agree with said personage but, rather, the context of the message) but, 'LEET' speak, while annoying and highly inaccurate grammatically, in context is, unfortunately, proper.   In as much as any other jargon is appropriate when used correctly, so to is 'Leet" appropriate when used correctly; if you are noticing it and its bastard stepchild 'TXT' in proper English assignments from your students, then you have every right to kick academic butt.



Let me be the first to put down that L33t speech have made its way into the classrooms and teachers have been forced to accept them due to the "changing times".

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I heard that on the news...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 2, 2007)

Cameron said:
			
		

> ... L33t speech have made it into its way into the classrooms...




Have made it into its way into?

That's not L33t, but it's not English either...!

-Hyp.


----------



## the_myth (Aug 2, 2007)

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...



			
				Thunderfoot said:
			
		

> I hate to agree with Light Phoenix on this (not because I don't want to agree with said personage but, rather, the context of the message) but, 'LEET' speak, while annoying and highly inaccurate grammatically, in context is, unfortunately, proper.   In as much as any other jargon is appropriate when used correctly, so to is 'Leet" appropriate when used correctly; if you are noticing it and its bastard stepchild 'TXT' in proper English assignments from your students, then you have every right to kick academic butt.





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].


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Aug 2, 2007)

Cameron said:
			
		

> Let me be the first to put down that L33t speech have made its way into the classrooms and teachers have been forced to accept them due to the "changing times".
> 
> I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I heard that on the news...




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


----------



## Harmon (Aug 2, 2007)

deleted cause it wasn't kind to respond and not know what you said in the first place


----------



## the_myth (Aug 2, 2007)

Harmon said:
			
		

> deleted cause it wasn't kind to respond and not know what you said in the first place




What an interesting way to avoid being quoted, Harmon...

You said:

"When someone comes in and talks about how little skill or talent is in a forum like this, I find it offensive. It is belittling. You say that you cringe at our lackings, have you thought that maybe some of us have given all we can, that you speaking up is little more then yelling- "hay, stupid!" in the face of one of your students?"


You know, I empathized with you right up until this communicative turn.

What's the title of the thread?  What is our topic?  If you were offended by this sort of discussion, perhaps you should have moved along...

I cannot speak for the original poster, but I read his intent to creating this thread as a means to vent WITHOUT yelling in someone's face.

How dare you tell us we can't do that because you were offended that we get irritated by bad language skills [which, btw, you DO NOT seem to have, so I'm not exactly sure what the problem is].  This is a perfectly acceptable topic, especially in a writing-heavy forum.

You said:

"I realize you called no one out, that you mentioned no names, and I could have done this without verifying my lackings to this crowd, but I felt you should know that some of us have fought just to get here. Fought harder then you can imagine, and yet we have not gotten to where you were when you walk out of Junior High."

You have chosen to participate in a writing-based forum.  And you have apparently attempted to do so with enough skill to make yourself understood.  I have observed people in many forums who do not even make this attempt.  To paint yourself as some sort of victim is disingenuous.  You have acknowledged the shortcomings Life has handed you and attempted to address them.  Simply because you still come up "short" is no reason to personalize general comments because they hit too close to home for your comfort.

You said:

"Sorry, I just feel that you do not understand, and I wanted to throw in some change, from those of us lacking in ability and talent.

This is not a personal attack, so much as it is a personal defense. I am sorry if you take offense, you are a teacher and that give you a special place in my soul.

Peace, and kind thought"

This is an interesting rhetorical move.  First, you cast yourself as a victim, then you praise the "teacher" for knowing more than you.  You're "offended" because someone complains about poor writing [not necessarily yours] and you feel "belittled" because someone has seen enough bad writing [again, not necessarily yours] to feel the need to scream and find support with other like-minded ENWorlders.

Um..I hate to say it, but this wasn't all about you, nor even necessarily anyone LIKE you.  You're right when you claim to be "defensive," but in the end, that's your issue.  While opinions, both consenting and dissenting, abound in all public forums, it seems clear to me that you're simply not the sort of person who most of us get annoyed at online.  Unless of course, the care you spent crafting this post is not indicative of the normal quality of your writing.  If such is the case, perhaps you really did need to be "put on notice."  

All writing should be written with the reader in mind.  If you're just writing for yourself, then don't expect anyone to understand you besides you.


----------



## trancejeremy (Aug 2, 2007)

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.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Aug 2, 2007)

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 (Aug 2, 2007)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> 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 (Aug 2, 2007)

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 (Aug 2, 2007)

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 (Aug 2, 2007)

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 (Aug 2, 2007)

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 (Aug 2, 2007)

Olaf the Stout said:
			
		

> 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 (Aug 2, 2007)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> 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 (Aug 2, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> 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 (Aug 2, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 3, 2007)

> I'm increasingly reading (in printed matter where editors should know better) of people 'honing in on' something, which doesn't really make sense.




 

I've never heard nor seen someone use "hone" that way...not that I'm aware of, anyway.

Perhaps I just mentally corrected the misuse.


----------



## freyar (Aug 3, 2007)

One word misuse that really irks me is "dilatate" for "dilate" (apparently dilatate is a real word, but it is an adjective).  "Orientate" for "orient" also bothers me, but apparently some dictionaries consider it acceptable.  Seems like it originated in the 1840s or 1850s, so it's somewhat recent.  (Since it means precisely "to orient," I wonder if it possibly originated as an error of speech.)

PS.  Can someone tell me what "pwn" means?


----------



## Vraille Darkfang (Aug 3, 2007)

As someone who has watched my friend from Scotland attempt a conversation with my friend from Northern Louisanna.

While both were speaking what they called "English" they were lucky to understand 15% of what the other was saying.

English has some very regional (and technical) dialects.

I live in the Midwest, but the amount of Spanish that is now in everyday use has dramitically increased.

Pick up an English Grammer book form 1700, 1800, 1900, heck; 1950.  And see how it resembles the "Correct" English of today (which can vary widely from Region to Region).

Look at my Grandmother born & raised entirely in the South & Texas, compared to my other Gradmother raised entirely in Rural Ohio.  They really have very different vocabularies & grammer.

English is a very fluid language.  Moan & groan all you want, it'c going to continue to change.

Personally, I agree about all the "Text Speak", and other things, but I realize that the language Adapts & changes.

I'm not doing the best job of changing with it (actually I'm pretty bad).  

But, I'll Survive (Yes, I know I started a Sentance with But; And I'm betting the Semicolon is wrong too).

Don't like it, but I deal:

Adios.

PS. I often spellcheck.  Unless this thing has a Spellcheck; I have to Copy All (Open Word Processor) Paste All- Run Spellcheck; Copy All-Paste All; then post.  I don't always have the time for that (or am just lazy & tired at the moment; like now).  Another Semicolon.  Never was good with those.

If I concentrate I have excellent English skills (a good portion of my job is Technical Writing & SOP's),

I jus ain't takin any of that work thingy homes wiz me tonite.


----------



## Kurashu (Aug 3, 2007)

I've said LOL outloud before. And XD. And OMG. Usually, I'm being a sarcastic butthole, but sometimes they slip out.


As for the debate at hand, it bothers me when people have really bad grammar and spelling. However, if it's alright, or if I like the person, I don't let it bug me. Txt spelling bothers me, and I make a point to use proper English whenever I text, unless it's urgent. But, why wouldn't I just call instead? That's a tangent, at any rate. Haha. I made a math joke, in a thread about English. Who knew Calculus could be so funny? Oh derivatives, what we do without you?


----------



## Tewligan (Aug 3, 2007)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> 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.



Your thought that it may be okay since a lot of people do it would upset Anatole France quite a bit.


----------



## the_myth (Aug 3, 2007)

Vraille Darkfang said:
			
		

> As someone who has watched my friend from Scotland attempt a conversation with my friend from Northern Louisanna.
> 
> While both were speaking what they called "English" they were lucky to understand 15% of what the other was saying.
> 
> ...




That's speaking, not writing.  Virtually everyone is supposed to learn the same rules of writing [with a few variations...the most notable of which is the distinction between British spelling and punctuation vs. American spelling and punctuation].



			
				Vraille Darkfang said:
			
		

> Pick up an English Grammer book form 1700, 1800, 1900, heck; 1950.  And see how it resembles the "Correct" English of today (which can vary widely from Region to Region).
> 
> Look at my Grandmother born & raised entirely in the South & Texas, compared to my other Gradmother raised entirely in Rural Ohio.  They really have very different vocabularies & grammer.




Actually, no, they don't.  Language rules in 1700, 1800, and perhaps even as late as 1900 were not as formalized as they became AFTER standardized public education and mass literacy (initiated in the mid-1800s, but still not at 100%...hence the impetus for this thread?).  The intent was for everyone to be on the same page [so to speak] with certain rules.

While there are regional lexicons [groups of used words], your 2 grandmothers can speak to and understand each other perfectly.  And they possess the same grammar, which is the order and location of words within sentences.  For example, they both will say, "I went to the store yesterday" and understand one another because they possess the same grammar.  One of them does not say, "To yesterday went the store I," which is not English grammar.



			
				Vraille Darkfang said:
			
		

> English is a very fluid language.  Moan & groan all you want, it'c going to continue to change.




Again, not entirely accurate.  While all languages shift, grow, and change, there are tons of mechanisms to slow this, like standardized education.  Such changes do not happen overnight, and it's pretty clear that a few thousand people making the same mistakes will not necessarily generate changes.  After all, it only takes more education reforms and we will have a generation that understands "could've" isn't "could of."




			
				Vraille Darkfang said:
			
		

> But, I'll Survive (Yes, I know I started a Sentance with But; And I'm betting the Semicolon is wrong too).
> 
> Don't like it, but I deal:





Actually, there are certain times when sentences can begin with "but," and you did so correctly.  But, alas, you did misuse the semi-colon.  A semi-colon replaces the need for "and" when splicing 2 sentences together.    

The_Myth
Master of the Semi-colon!


----------



## trancejeremy (Aug 3, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> 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.




But the thing is, people have been doing it since the 1930s at least. I've seen it in countless novels from fairly big name authors.  I could swear I've seen in it Raymond Chandler's writings. I know I've seen it in works by H. Beam Piper and Louis L'amour.


----------



## Mark Chance (Aug 3, 2007)

Arbiter of Wyrms said:
			
		

> Leave the high-horse in the stable.




By the time the first post was done, this sound advice was already far too late.


----------



## diaglo (Aug 3, 2007)

Arbiter of Wyrms said:
			
		

> Jargon is appropriate in context.



IYKWIMAITYD.


diaglo "my hat of d02 know no limits" Ooi


----------



## FickleGM (Aug 3, 2007)

Arbiter of Wyrms said:
			
		

> *"pwned" is not a word.  *Niether* is *"1337."



Emphasis mine.

Quick update, buddy.  Niether isn't a word, either.


----------



## FickleGM (Aug 3, 2007)

the_myth said:
			
		

> What an interesting way to avoid being quoted, Harmon...




Nice catch.  When I read his edited post, I figured that he had second thoughts on what he posted and decided to take them down.  I didn't realize that it was all a ploy to avoid being quoted.

Well, I just wanted to congratulate you on calling Harmon out.  The English language thanks you.


----------



## Terraism (Aug 3, 2007)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> I could swear I've seen in it Raymond Chandler's writings. I know I've seen it in works by H. Beam Piper and Louis L'amour.



And we all know that mister L'amour, king of the trashy western, is an absolute bastion of strong writing skills.


----------



## Pielorinho (Aug 3, 2007)

Language is communication.  It is used in one of three main ways:
1) Expression.  If all you're doing is singing your magnificent Yawp to the world, have at it:  it doesn't matter what conventions you follow or ignore, or even whether you speak in coherent syllables, as long as you don't care about someone else picking up on the communication.
2) Communication.  This is where it gets tricky:  you're trying to get the pictures in your brain to form similar pictures in my brain.  In order to do that successfully, you absolutely need to follow all kinds of conventions.  If you want me to imagine a pink curly-tailed animal wallowing in mud, you'd better not talk about the furry red duck  Also, make sure you get your word order right:  "Saw pink mud with curly I pig yesterday tail a the in" won't get you anywhere on the communication game.  And if your audience doesn't speak English, a sentence like, "I saw a pink pig with a curly tail in the mud yesterday" will be a total failure at communication.
3) Aesthetic.  Sometimes you want your audience to form pictures in their brain that aren't just similar to your brainpix, but that are beautiful to boot.  Or, if not beautiful, then ominous, or hilarious, or impressive, or whatever.  You want to convey something beyond the simple picture.  In that case, you have a host of other conventions to follow.  Are you trying to convey your hipness to an American teenager?  Don't you dare say, "I looks as if I am winning this game, my friend."  Instead, the proper expression would be something like, "Dude, I am so pwning your ass!"  Conversely, if you're trying to convey to an audience of ENWorld posters that you've got linguistic chops, be sure to proofread your post and avoid the use of nonstandard English except in quotes or sly self-references.

That's my basic approach to language.  Of course "pwned" is a word; by what strange and idiosyncratic definition of "word" is it not a word?  It's a collection of morphemes that conveys a distinct meaning.  Still, of course it is a word inappropriate to use in certain contexts.  You should no more use "pwned" when writing an English paper than you should use "prolix" when chastising a chatty second grader during a math lesson (unless you're ready to take the time to divert your lesson into a vocabulary lesson).

If you're complaining about linguistic evolution through ignorance, I'm afraid, my childer, that you're going to have to go back a ways.  The original plural of "child" was "childer," of course.  Eventually people began interpreting that word as singular, and they began pluralizing "childer" as "children."  That, too, has become an irregular plural, and occasionally people will pluralize "children" as "childrens."  Thus linguistic change.  At what point should we stop the bus?

Comparisons of linguistic defiance to defiance of the law ignore a fundamental difference between the two:  the law is created by a central governing body, which spells out explicit penalties for defiance and backs up these penalties with force.  Language is created by six billion people every day, with no central governing body, no explicit penalties for defiance*, and no force to back them up.  Nobody ever got arrested for saying "ain't."

Language is alive; it cannot die as long as two humans are alive.  People who speak a language cannot show it disrespect, except by trying to mummify it and preserve it in a museum.  In its volatile, polymorphous, protean nature is one its most awesome strengths.

Daniel

* Some countries try to have these, so maybe I should limit myself to the US.


----------



## Huw (Aug 3, 2007)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> At what point should we stop the bus?




Ah, "bus". Look up the etymology for that and see how distorted language can get  

"Bus lane" is an oxymoron.


----------



## diaglo (Aug 3, 2007)

Huw said:
			
		

> Ah, "bus". Look up the etymology for that and see how distorted language can get
> 
> "Bus lane" is an oxymoron.



look up short bus. i think moron isn't something you want to say.

diaglo "putting the ox before the y" Ooi


----------



## Heckler (Aug 3, 2007)

Arbiter of Wyrms said:
			
		

> I am a linguist and a teacher of English.  As a linguist, my training leads me toward descriptivism, rather than proscriptivism.  That is, I am trained to observe the language people use, not to tell them what language they should use.  As an English teacher, I cringe when my fellow ENworlders (who are, on the whole, highly literate) use _badwrong_ language.  It is my job to correct the language use of twelve-year-olds, but I believe that it is rude to call people on their language use in a discussion thread on any other topic.




I cringe when I see a linguist and a teacher of English using slang words like "badwrong."

Maybe its time to step away from the twelve-year-olds.


----------



## Pielorinho (Aug 3, 2007)

Huw said:
			
		

> Ah, "bus". Look up the etymology for that and see how distorted language can get
> 
> "Bus lane" is an oxymoron.



Hmm..."bus" is (as I just confirmed) short for "omnibus," a Latin derivative meaning, "for everyone."  The idea is presumably that this form of transportation is for everyone.  How is shortening it to "bus" a distortion of the language?  What does "distorted" even mean in this context?  If the language is expressing an idea and communicating it aesthetically to the intended audience, what function of language does it fail to perform?

"Bus lane" refers to a lane reserved for people on the (omni)bus.  Sure, it's a restricted lane, and maybe it appears as though it's therefore not "omnibus," not "for everyone"--but of course it IS for everyone, as long as they're willing to be on the vehicle for everyone designed to go in that lane.

I guess i can get pretty avid in my defense of the language, too .

Daniel


----------



## Harmon (Aug 3, 2007)

Sorry, Myth that you misunderstand what I wrote and later deleted (five minutes later), because I thought it was poor form for me to post a personal (not even sure what to call it) "issue" on a forum like this (my lacking in writing and reading comprehension).  I thought that it might create some flames (like you created), unnecessarily, also it did not fit the thread and thus I thought it poor form to write about it here.

It was my hope that no one would see it and that my post might be taken in some light as perhaps a joke.  Of course, as usually I was right- I was wrong.  

You wrote near a page on the attack about something I deleted because I thought it was poor form for me to do so, I hope that you understand I take no offense to your attacks, and I hope that you understand that some people (me included) have placed years of study and class attendance (more then 30 college units in the past twenty years) to learning to improve reading comprehension and writing skills, and yet have had no improvement.  Why?  Dyslexia. 

The OP is a teacher and for that I am thankful, we need more teachers, but the post was pretty unkind to those of us that have placed a lot of effort into improving reading and writing skills and had no improvement because of a disability.

Hiding behind a disability- I understand, poor form, course a teacher in high school told me that I might have reached my potiental, that like a paralyzed person or a blind person I might find that some things are just out of my reach.

So.... I deleted the post, because I thought that it was poor form, that no one here would care about my fight/struggle, and you proved to me that I was very, very right.  No one cares about me here or here.

I am sorry to take away from this thread, if I knew or understood how to respond without taking away from it I would, but I felt I needed to speak up instead of deleting the post.

Peace


----------



## Harmon (Aug 3, 2007)

FickleGM said:
			
		

> Nice catch.  When I read his edited post, I figured that he had second thoughts on what he posted and decided to take them down.  I didn't realize that it was all a ploy to avoid being quoted.
> 
> Well, I just wanted to congratulate you on calling Harmon out.  The English language thanks you.




Or perhaps- well I suppose I have already answered that.


----------



## fett527 (Aug 3, 2007)

Harmon said:
			
		

> Or perhaps- well I suppose I have already answered that.



Way to avoid the subject while still bringing attention to yourself.


----------



## Pielorinho (Aug 3, 2007)

Moderator's Notes:

The personal snipes will stop now, please.  If you have any questions about this moderation, please feel free to email me--do not discuss this matter further in this thread.

Thanks!
Daniel


----------



## FickleGM (Aug 3, 2007)

Harmon said:
			
		

> Or perhaps- well I suppose I have already answered that.



 I know that.  I was being sarcastic.

EDIT:  I thought that you did the right thing by deleting your original post.


----------



## Harmon (Aug 3, 2007)

FickleGM said:
			
		

> I know that.  I was being sarcastic.




My apologizes if any part of my response came off as taking offense, I was a little upset at what transpired.  I did not know your position.  Thank you.

Peace


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 3, 2007)

fett527 said:
			
		

> Way to avoid the subject while still bringing attention to yourself.



And to supplement Pielorinho's warning, it's worth noting that if someone posts and then erases their post, it's probably because they've posted in anger and don't fully agree with what they had written in the heat of the moment. Taking them to task for this is rude, especially considering the speed with which it happened this time. If someone wants to remove something they regret saying, please respect that.


----------



## Hijinks (Aug 3, 2007)

> PS. Can someone tell me what "pwn" means?




It's from gaming parlance.  Gamers frequently miskeyed "own" as "pwn" and it stuck.  Same as ending sentences with !!!1!1!! ... they were trying to type !!!!!!! and their finger slipped off of the shift key.  So some folks like to make fun of it by typing !!!one!!eleven!! and so on.  I'm guilty of this one myself 

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


----------



## Huw (Aug 3, 2007)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Hmm..."bus" is (as I just confirmed) short for "omnibus," a Latin derivative meaning, "for everyone."  The idea is presumably that this form of transportation is for everyone.  How is shortening it to "bus" a distortion of the language?  What does "distorted" even mean in this context?  If the language is expressing an idea and communicating it aesthetically to the intended audience, what function of language does it fail to perform?




"Omni-" is indeed "all", but "-bus" is the plural ending for the dative and ablative cases in Latin. The word has been reduced to nothing and only the ending remains - which now has a singular sense.

So the three letters "bus" have changed from "dative plural case inflection" to "mass transportation system". Distorted might be a bit of a harsh description, but it has undergone a huge change.


----------



## the_myth (Aug 3, 2007)

FickleGM said:
			
		

> Nice catch.  When I read his edited post, I figured that he had second thoughts on what he posted and decided to take them down.  I didn't realize that it was all a ploy to avoid being quoted.
> 
> Well, I just wanted to congratulate you on calling Harmon out.  The English language thanks you.




Well, the post was there when I responded.  How am I supposed to know he probably took it down *AS* I was responding?

My psychic abilities, while formidable, are far more limited than my language skills.

The sarcasm police thanks you.


----------



## FickleGM (Aug 3, 2007)

the_myth said:
			
		

> Well, the post was there when I responded.  How am I supposed to know he probably took it down *AS* I was responding?
> 
> My psychic abilities, while formidable, are far more limited than my language skills.
> 
> The sarcasm police thanks you.



 I completely understand what you're saying, but at the point that you acknowledged his deletion with your initial comment in that post, you had a chance to revise your post as well.

I will admit that I was probably out of line with my sarcastic response, but I'm a silly goofball and couldn't help myself.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that I was not referring to your psychic abilities, but the first line (and the quote) in your post.  I know that I've probably crossed another line in posting this, but you don't have PM access.

As another language snob, I do find the thread topic interesting.  Let's let this little side discussion go and return to the topic of the thread.


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 3, 2007)

Gentlemen, ENOUGH. It's over and done with. Keep the thread on topic, please.


----------



## Roudi (Aug 4, 2007)

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?


----------



## FickleGM (Aug 4, 2007)

Roudi said:
			
		

> 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 (Aug 4, 2007)

the_myth said:
			
		

> 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!
> 
> ...



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 (Aug 4, 2007)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Hijinks said:
			
		

> 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 (Aug 5, 2007)

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 (Aug 5, 2007)

Thunderfoot said:
			
		

> 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 (Aug 7, 2007)

Lewis526 said:
			
		

> 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 (Aug 7, 2007)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> "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 (Aug 7, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> 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 (Aug 7, 2007)

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 (Aug 7, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> 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?


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 7, 2007)

Yeah, I guess if you already didn't know the song, then the joke about it wasn't likely to be very funny to you.

"Baby Got Back" is a rap song by an artist who goes by the name of Sir Mix-a-Lot.  By pretending that I thought he was an actual knight of the realm, I was playing up to stereotypes of dumb and provincial Americans.  Because I am one.

In any case, here's Sir Mix-a-Lot in all his glory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybfLRFacF-c


----------



## Lewis526 (Aug 8, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> In any case, here's Sir Mix-a-Lot in all his glory.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybfLRFacF-c




Man, that takes me back.


----------



## Pielorinho (Aug 9, 2007)

*Morrus*, here's an introduction to Baby Got Back that's geared toward Englishmen.

If I can use you as an example, however, I think you demonstrate something I said earlier in the thread:  communication must consider both the speaker (writer, singer, etc.) AND the listener (reader, audience, etc.).  You're probably not Sir Mix-a-lot's intended audience, any more than you're Korpiklaani's intended audience.  The fact that you have trouble understanding their lyrics is neither your fault nor their fault:  it's just a side effect of the fact that they weren't trying to communicate with you, but with a different audience who *would* understand.

Another example:  I used to give presentations all the time to children about taking care of animals and about what a humane society does.  One time, due to a teacher's request, I brought along the director of our animal control department to co-teach the lesson with me.  

Now, David was an awesome director of animal control:  he was professional, motivated, calm, intelligent, precise, pretty much everything you'd want in an officer.  But my lord, that was a painful lesson!  He'd tell the six-year-olds something that was completely correct, e.g., "County ordinance forbids residents from permitting their pets from leaving their property unless the animal is properly constrained, and a violation of this ordinance can result in a hundred dollar citation."  The kids would gape at him.

When I could do so without being rude, I'd step in:  "That's exactly right.  You have to keep your dog in your yard or in your house.  If you take your dog for a walk, it has to be on a leash.  Who can tell me what  a leash is? ... Exactly right.  If your dog ever runs out of your yard and it isn't on a leash, your parents will have to pay a one-hundred-dollar ticket!  So you always want to keep your dog in your yard, in your house, or on a leash."

Was my description technically accurate?  Absolutely not.  For one thing, I didn't mention cats, emus, horses, or any of the other animals covered by the ordinance; for another thing, I left out the transportation of animals.  I'm sure my description was inaccurate in half a dozen other ways as well.  

But, despite being flawed in these respects, it considered its audience carefully.  It would have been lousy communication to someone who was facing a citation, but it was good communication for six-year-olds who were just beginning to learn about responsible citizenship.

Always consider the audience--even when you ARE the audience.  If a particular communication irritates you, consider whether the speaker intends for you to be the audience in the first place.

Daniel


----------



## Nifft (Aug 9, 2007)

Arbiter of Wyrms said:
			
		

> I cringe when my fellow ENworlders (who are, on the whole, highly literate) use badwrong language.



 "Wyrms" is archaic. Prefer "Worms".

"badwrong" is a corruption of jargon. Prefer "inappropriate".



			
				Arbiter of Wyrms said:
			
		

> Jargon is appropriate in context.  Folks on ENWorld know what you mean by "medium base attack," "d12," and "arcane spells."  They shouldn't also be expected to keep up with "LD50," "SDAIE," or "POG."



 The Interweeb* is also a context, and you are posting on it. LD50, for example, has been common among a subset of the "cool kids" since beofre GIF was a standard, let alone a contested one.

This is a forum about a game, which has links and crossovers to many other games. Expect gamer jargon.

Cheers, -- N

*) Best. Typo. EVAR.


----------



## Huw (Aug 9, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> LD50, for example, has been common among a subset of the "cool kids" since beofre GIF was a standard, let alone a contested one.




When I see "LD50" I think "lethal dose 50%". I presume from the context that this is a different LD50?


----------



## Nifft (Aug 9, 2007)

Huw said:
			
		

> When I see "LD50" I think "lethal dose 50%". I presume from the context that this is a different LD50?



 That's the one I meant.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Atavar (Aug 10, 2007)

*Errors That Aren't: 12 Grammar Rules You Can Toss Out the Window*

Hey there,

I found the following article that readers of this thread may find interesting:

Errors That Aren't: 12 Grammar Rules You Can Toss Out the Window - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/Features/Columns/?article=ErrorsThatArent&gt1=10289

Thanks,

Atavar


----------



## Lewis526 (Aug 11, 2007)

Atavar said:
			
		

> Errors That Aren't: 12 Grammar Rules You Can Toss Out the Window - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/Features/Columns/?article=ErrorsThatArent&gt1=10289




I disagree with the gist of one of these.  She doesn't give credit to the best, most obvious alternative to starting a sentence with "hopefully."

For example, which of the following works better?

Hopefully he didn't really drown those kittens.
I hope he didn't really drown those kittens.

Duh.


----------



## Kurashu (Aug 12, 2007)

Lewis526 said:
			
		

> I disagree with the gist of one of these.  She doesn't give credit to the best, most obvious alternative to starting a sentence with "hopefully."
> 
> For example, which of the following works better?
> 
> ...




Depends on how much concern you want to express. If I was going for an apathetic/sarcastic character, hopefully would be the one I would use. Especially when I use the adverb "dully" to describe how it was said.


----------



## Nareau (Aug 13, 2007)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Don't you dare say, "I looks as if I am winning this game, my friend."  Instead, the proper expression would be something like, "Dude, I am so pwning your ass!"



Heh.  If I ever get back into MMO's I'm going to do whatever it takes to use only the most proper English whilst fragging my enemies.

You know what bugs me?  When people ask questions like "what does pwned/1337/etc mean?" on the Internet.  _You're on the Internet, mang. 
Look it up._

Nareau


----------



## Heckler (Aug 13, 2007)

Nareau said:
			
		

> Heh.  If I ever get back into MMO's I'm going to do whatever it takes to use only the most proper English whilst fragging my enemies.
> 
> You know what bugs me?  When people ask questions like "what does pwned/1337/etc mean?" on the Internet.  _You're on the Internet, mang.
> Look it up._
> ...



What does "mang" mean?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 13, 2007)

Meng the Merciless was teh enemy of Flash Gordon.


----------



## wingsandsword (Aug 14, 2007)

Cameron said:
			
		

> Let me be the first to put down that L33t speech have made its way into the classrooms and teachers have been forced to accept them due to the "changing times".
> 
> I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I heard that on the news...



Do you have a source for that?  What I had heard and seen indicated that while students were trying to use leet/txt speech and getting roundly flunked for it.

Back in the Spring I was back in college full-time, and I ended up having to take a 100-level normally freshman class.  I thought it was interesting to see that the syllabus had a note that using leetspeak/txt shorthand in any term paper was grounds to immediately fail the paper.

A friend of mine who is a High School U.S. History teacher said that his school has a firm policy about banning leetspeak.

I'd imagine this to be a district-by-district, school by school issue.  Some would probably accept it under the banner of "multiculturalism" (although web culture as a culture needing protection seems odd).

You could argue that leetspeak/txt is a valid, albeit strange dialect of English, but one so mutually incomprehensible from standard English (and not one automatically spoken by all students) that a common language should be used by all students, educators and administrators to ensure clear communication, and that language would be Standard English.

Allowing them to write their school papers in leet and txt shorthand is setting them up for failure when they enter the workplace and try to communicate professionally with something so incomprehensible.


----------



## bodhi (Aug 14, 2007)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> You could argue that leetspeak/txt is a valid, albeit strange dialect of English, but one so mutually incomprehensible from standard English (and not one automatically spoken by all students) that a common language should be used by all students, educators and administrators to ensure clear communication, and that language would be Standard English.



Assuming the school teaches in Standard English, teachers should accept papers, essays, or any homework only in Standard English (apart from foreign language classes, which should accept submissions in the language _taught in the class_). There's a format to follow in school. If you choose not to follow it, you take your chances.

That being said, I could see leet/txt being used within the context of quoting: he said, and I quote, "3y3 4m 1337! g1v3 m3 \/\/4/-3z D00D!!!one". Or, being used deliberately as the voice of the narrator. White Wolf's WoD stuff often presented fluff as "discovered" documents, or as a narrative from one in-world character to another, so it's appropriate to have stuff that you wouldn't accept in a textbook.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 14, 2007)

Arbiter of Wyrms said:
			
		

> I am a linguist and a teacher of English.  As a linguist, my training leads me toward descriptivism, rather than proscriptivism.  That is, I am trained to observe the language people use, not to tell them what language they should use.  As an English teacher, I cringe when my fellow ENworlders (who are, on the whole, highly literate) use badwrong language.  It is my job to correct the language use of twelve-year-olds, but I believe that it is rude to call people on their language use in a discussion thread on any other topic.



You know, it's actually starting to drive me a little batty that I must constantly restrain myself from correcting the grammar, spelling, and punctuation of posts all over these boards.  I think it's getting worse.  I don't remember seeing such a plague of illiteracy back when I first joined.  I actually came to Off-Topic to post a thread exactly like this one, in which I blow off steam about the terrible language use on the boards.  I'm happy to see I'm not the only one who grits his teeth every time he sees someone butcher the language.

Buy a freaking dictionary, people!


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 14, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> 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.



Why, in the name of all that is holy, do people not reflect on the meaning of their colloquialisms?  I do it all the time.  Heck, I do it with regular words.  I'm always trying to plumb the etymology of my vocabulary, because it's fun to understand why my words mean what they do.  Often, you can figure out how to spell a particular use of a word you've heard just by deducing the most reasonable word to fit the sounds, given the context in which it appears.  Hone in, indeed.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 14, 2007)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> 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.



Actually, it's from the hacker community.  It's harder to automatically monitor chat room dialogues when the participants are deliberately spelling their words in ways that, to a computer, don't resemble the original words, and are difficult for a human to figure out if he's not already familiar with the practice.  It's the same principle as thieves' cant: "cheeze it!  It's the fuzz!"  It's a jargon language that allows communication between people who don't want eavesdroppers.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 14, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> 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".



Well, his translation is incorrect anyway.  The "baby" referred to translates to "the woman with whom I have a casually flirtatious and/or sexual relationship".  Sir Mix-A-Lot may be a lot of things, but he is no pedophile.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 14, 2007)

Hobo said:
			
		

> 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.



So, are you trying to say we should abandon the teaching and enforcement of proper grammar and spelling simply because there is a tendency for languages to change over time?  I regularly grade university-level papers, and I have noticed a link between literacy and ability to express (or even form) ideas.  I don't think that such a course of action would create positive results for discourse.

It seems more productive to acknowledge that language will evolve over time, but constantly try to hold everyone to what is necessarily a changing standard.  Don't give up on proper spelling, but allow that over the course of a century (not a weekend) the spelling of a word may change.  Until then, it's incorrect and should be corrected.  There's a difference between illiteracy and evolution.  If you misspell a word because you are ignorant, it's a different situation than if you use a new word which is a corruption of a pre-existing word.  While TXTing may have its place on a screen that can display only a few dozen characters, there's no reason to allow it to bleed over into regular literate discourse.

edit: _Still_ waiting for a merge function.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 14, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> You know, it's actually starting to drive me a little batty that I must constantly restrain myself from correcting the grammar, spelling, and punctuation of posts all over these boards.  I think it's getting worse.



 Someone pointed out to me that it probably is worse... because it is *summer*. 

None the less, why restrain yourself? So long as you aren't insulting, you are probably actually helping the poster, who may be an non-native speaker, or who may be simply ill-educated (regarding the language in general, or the local culture on this board).

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 14, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Someone pointed out to me that it probably is worse... because it is *summer*.
> 
> None the less, why restrain yourself? So long as you aren't insulting, you are probably actually helping the poster, who may be an non-native speaker, or who may be simply ill-educated (regarding the language in general, or the local culture on this board).
> 
> Cheers, -- N



Because there would be ten or twelve posts each day in which I correct people, and I'd develop a reputation as some kind of mad editor.  I suspect it would annoy people more than it would enlighten them.  The majority of the errors could be prevented by using a spell-checker (Firefox has one built-in these days), or a dictionary, so it also seems like with a very small effort on the part of the posters the language around here could be tidied up by a significant amount.

Anyway, summer.  Right.  Good point.  Soon the perpetrators will be shuttled back to the institutions at which they are failing to learn to write proper English, and won't have time to make so many posts.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 14, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Because there would be ten or twelve posts each day in which I correct people, and I'd develop a reputation as some kind of mad editor.  I suspect it would annoy people more than it would enlighten them.



 So only hit one or two each day. If you can bottle all of it up (and vent here), surely you can also bottle merely some of it up (and thus have proportionately less to vent)?

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 15, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> So only hit one or two each day. If you can bottle all of it up (and vent here), surely you can also bottle merely some of it up (and thus have proportionately less to vent)?
> 
> Cheers, -- N



But what if it's like eating just one chip?  If I open that door I may not be able to shut it again.  I mean, last week I added someone to my ignore list because I couldn't stand to read his awful prose anymore.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 15, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> But what if it's like eating just one chip?  If I open that door I may not be able to shut it again.  I mean, last week I added someone to my ignore list because I couldn't stand to read his awful prose anymore.



 Eh, do as you will. 

I'm just thinking that if people don't ever get feedback, they might not know there's anything wrong. Their failings are obviously not your responsibility -- I'm just saying it might help them, and it might take the pressure off of you, particularly if you actually help someone.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## the black knight (Aug 19, 2007)

When enough people make a grammatical mistake, it's not a mistake anymore.

That's how language changes.

Don't use that as an excuse, though.

Be conscious of the language you use.


----------



## Arashi Ravenblade (Aug 21, 2007)

Arbiter of Wyrms said:
			
		

> I am a linguist and a teacher of English.  As a linguist, my training leads me toward descriptivism, rather than proscriptivism.  That is, I am trained to observe the language people use, not to tell them what language they should use.  As an English teacher, I cringe when my fellow ENworlders (who are, on the whole, highly literate) use badwrong language.  It is my job to correct the language use of twelve-year-olds, but I believe that it is rude to call people on their language use in a discussion thread on any other topic.
> 
> This thread is about language use and when I see you screw up my language, I'm going to come here to complain about it.
> 
> ...




I see what your saying but some people jsut dont care. Im not going to edit a message board message. I too like english and wanted to study it in college. But to be perfectly honest unless Im getting a grade or paid im going to do the simplest thing possible, and be as lazy as possible while allowing my message to still make sense.


----------



## Jeysie (Aug 22, 2007)

Arashi Ravenblade said:
			
		

> But to be perfectly honest unless Im getting a grade or paid im going to do the simplest thing possible, and be as lazy as possible while allowing my message to still make sense.




Urk. This sort of attitude drives me nuts. My general sentiment tends to be, "If you're too lazy to write properly, then I'm too lazy to bother paying attention to what you wrote." (Or at least it would be if I didn't let my intrinsic sense of curiosity get the better of me. Sigh.)

I suppose it's a matter of respect. If I care enough to communicate in a given situation at all, then I care enough to attempt to communicate properly. Otherwise you're basically saying, "I don't consider talking with you worth more than my least effort." Which is... rather insulting.

Peace & Luv, Liz


----------

