Misused Words

[I'm Murrin]

I find incorrect grammar and sentence structure impacts on my ability to read the meaning quickly and easily, because I'm accustomed to correct use. Mostly it's incorrect parenthesis and seperation of clauses (guess those are the same category, really) that throws me off. It can make it take longer to work out what the sentence means, even if it's only a tiny amount longer.

If you know you're not comprehending as quickly as you would if the sentences were composed correctly, that's bound to frustrate you.

[Menolly]

MENOLLY! That's brilliant! Vy hav I never herd zis bevor?

Well, I'll concede in advance that it has to do with spelling, and not grammar, as Zarathustra is commenting on. But I still felt it fit the discussion here.

As far as not ever hearing it before?
You're probably one of those who has managed to discourage email contacts from forwarding such items to you as "humor." I generally despise getting those forwards from well-meaning friends and family, as it tends to fill my inbox way more than I like. But that one was one of the few that did tickle my funny bone. And obviously stayed with me years later, as I first read it in like 2003 or earlier...

[Vraith]

I find incorrect grammar and sentence structure impacts on my ability to read the meaning quickly and easily, because I'm accustomed to correct use. Mostly it's incorrect parenthesis and seperation of clauses (guess those are the same category, really) that throws me off. It can make it take longer to work out what the sentence means, even if it's only a tiny amount longer.

If you know you're not comprehending as quickly as you would if the sentences were composed correctly, that's bound to frustrate you.

That is, I think, most of the reason the rules exist to begin with...generally, the written structure of what is "correct" comes from making rules derived from how people who are easy to understand write. That's part of the reason double negatives, for example, are "wrong" in English, but "right" in other languages. But his evolves, of course.
There's also quite a lot of evidence showing that there is a physical part of the brain specifically designed to manage grammar: you're born with it "blank" but as you learn language, the grammar becomes "hard-wired," which is part of why it's easier to learn multiple languages fluently while young. [WAY off topic...won't do it again, no matter how interesting a thing someone says].

[[Syl]]

If there's a spelling gene, I have it. I've only ever been in one spelling bee, though, and I lost. The word was 'bell' (and this was in the fifth grade). I was dumbfounded when the guy said I spelled it incorrectly. Apparently, he didn't hear the letters b and e as being separate. Sadly, if there's a fast-talking gene, I have two. I have to consciously focus on the rate of my speech, sometimes sounding like Christian Slater when I overdo it.

I'm an English major, though, and I think words matter. Competent communication (of which I am surely not a master) requires a lot more than correct spelling and grammar, but they're indispensable parts of it. Easy, lazy, and common mistakes annoy me just as much as people chewing with their mouths open (which also physically hurts no one and achieves the desired result).

I could go a step further and say that words are structures that contain (or, more philosophically, filter) meaning. Change the structure and you change the meaning. Look at, say, 'night' and 'nite.' The same thing is being conveyed, but dropping the gh still changes it. At best, you can say the word is colloquialized. At worst, it's cheapened. Really screw it up by adding a k to the beginning of it, and you've created an incongruity that takes an effort on my part to make sense of it. It would be the same thing as presenting a sound but sloppy argument in a debate, decreasing the statement's bargaining power in the arena of competing information. To then demand that the same weight be given to it would be like the dealer refusing to lower the price of the car for a scratch in the paint job - insulting to anyone who knows better.

I guess it's kind of like continuity errors in film or television. I'm not really wired to pick up on that, but for those who are, it takes them out of it. Too many, and the fourth wall is shattered, turning the work into a farce.

[Menolly]

I'm an English major, though, and I think words matter. Competent communication (of which I am surely not a master) requires a lot more than correct spelling and grammar, but they're indispensable parts of it. Easy, lazy, and common mistakes annoy me just as much as people chewing with their mouths open (which also physically hurts no one and achieves the desired result).

I could go a step further and say that words are structures that contain (or, more philosophically, filter) meaning. Change the structure and you change the meaning. Look at, say, 'night' and 'nite.' The same thing is being conveyed, but dropping the gh still changes it. At best, you can say the word is colloquialized. At worst, it's cheapened. Really screw it up by adding a k to the beginning of it, and you've created an incongruity that takes an effort on my part to make sense of it. It would be the same thing as presenting a sound but sloppy argument in a debate, decreasing the statement's bargaining power in the arena of competing information. To then demand that the same weight be given to it would be like the dealer refusing to lower the price of the car for a scratch in the paint job - insulting to anyone who knows better.

I guess it's kind of like continuity errors in film or television. I'm not really wired to pick up on that, but for those who are, it takes them out of it. Too many, and the fourth wall is shattered, turning the work into a farce.

...now I really feel intimidated regarding my Acropolis submissions...

[[Syl]]

Don't be. I may be a pedant, but I'm also self-conscious about it (nor should it be too hard to find evidence of my failing to meet my own standards over 10k+ posts). And I may be a tyrant (hence the title), but I am a benevolent one. I haven't penalized anyone for anything writing-related... yet.

Although... Antaka may disagree. I took a little bit of latitude (and perverse pleasure) in my interpretation of some imprecise wording. I suppose it's important to remember that meaning is just as much a function of cultural context as it is structure.

[Vraith]

Don't be. I may be a pedant, but I'm also self-conscious about it (nor should it be too hard to find evidence of my failing to meet my own standards over 10k+ posts). And I may be a tyrant (hence the title), but I am a benevolent one. I haven't penalized anyone for anything writing-related... yet.

Although... Antaka may disagree. I took a little bit of latitude (and perverse pleasure) in my interpretation of some imprecise wording. I suppose it's important to remember that meaning is just as much a function of cultural context as it is structure.

Which reminds me of one that really, really does anger me: someone says to me "But that's just semantics."
This usually demands response that includes:
A) No, not "just."
B) You've just proven you don't know what semantics means.
C) But semantics is part of it, which is exactly why it is important.
D) "Screw you!"
Part D is indicated because, I DO know what it meant: "That's just semantics" means "Shut up, asshole." [heh...that's the pragmatics part of semiotics, if anyone cares.
Hmmm...was that all pedantic?

[[Syl]]

Since I could not agree more, I imagine it was. I feel the same about "rhetoric" (when what is meant is usually 'empty rhetoric').

that's the pragmatics part of semiotics

+2

[Menolly]

Don't be. I may be a pedant, but I'm also self-conscious about it (nor should it be too hard to find evidence of my failing to meet my own standards over 10k+ posts). And I may be a tyrant (hence the title), but I am a benevolent one. I haven't penalized anyone for anything writing-related... yet.

Although... Antaka may disagree. I took a little bit of latitude (and perverse pleasure) in my interpretation of some imprecise wording. I suppose it's important to remember that meaning is just as much a function of cultural context as it is structure.

...oy vey...

Seeing as I am attempting to create my first artifact on my own in any of the deity games I have played, I really, really, really hope I don't screw this up...

Well...
...outside of the Blessed Pearls in Aesir. But the idea of them were not originally mine. This one is... *ulp*

...sorry...
Queen of THOOOTP strikes again...

[Vraith]

...sorry...
Queen of THOOOTP strikes again...

Heh...this is off topic, but how do I join that group?

[Menolly]

...sorry...
Queen of THOOOTP strikes again...

Heh...this is off topic, but how do I join that group?

Just follow our founder's advice!

[aliantha]

Back on topic, sort of...

One of the loosened punctuation rules that makes me crazy is the one that governs when you use semicolons in a series. You are required to use semicolons when one of the elements in the series includes a comma -- so that you can tell when one element leaves off and the next begins. It keeps you from thinking that:

Syl, Menolly, the Watcher who's a confirmed Pantheon addict, Murrin and I

refers to five people when it really refers to four. I *always* have to stop and reread a series nowadays, to make sure I understand it correctly.

I suspect the rule is being dropped because people perceive the format as archaic and overly formal. But clarity is being sacrificed.

[Menolly]

See, now I would write that with parenthesis around the description of myself, instead of breaking it up with semi-colons and commas. How would it be properly written with semi-colons, ali?

[Vraith]

See, now I would write that with parenthesis around the description of myself, instead of breaking it up with semi-colons and commas. How would it be properly written with semi-colons, ali?

Heh...that's the problem with just commas. "I" has little to do with it.
With just commas as is, is could be that it's
"Menolly, the watcher who's" [one person, Menolly, modified, most likely meaning]
but could be
"the watcher who's[....], Murrin" [one person, Murrin, modified, acceptable far as I know, but awkward in context]
OR, that there are 5, one of them being the nameless "watcher who's"

Normally, such a series would use parallel structure, though:
Syl, the pedant much like I can be; Menolly, the watcher...; Murrin, the fanatic wowhead;

[aliantha]

Vraith, you've pinpointed the problem precisely.

Menolly, here's the proper way to do it:

Syl; Menolly, the Watcher who's a confirmed Pantheon addict; Murrin; and I

I suppose you could quibble about the last semicolon. Even when I was in school, the rules were tending toward dropping the comma directly before the "and". The thinking was that the comma stands in for "and" in a series (so, "Syl *and* Menolly *and* Murrin *and* I"), so to put a comma before the "and" sort of makes it a double "and". But with the semicolons, I would put one after Murrin. Leaving it out makes it look a little like "Murrin and I" is one series element, not two. And putting in a comma kind of makes "Murrin, and I" look like "Menolly, the Watcher who...", which could confuse the hell out of the reader.

Yeah, I know: pedantic.

[Menolly]

Interesting.

I don't think I can ever recall seeing semi-colons being used multiple times in a sentence at all. Not like that in place of commas, anyway.

My absorption of grammar must be even worse than even I ever realized...

[Rigel]

I still put a comma before "and".

And it bugs me like **** when people begin sentences with prepositions.

[Orlion]

My understanding is that you always put a comma before 'and' whenever the series consists of three or more parts.

[aliantha]

My understanding is that you always put a comma before 'and' whenever the series consists of three or more parts.

Strunk & White agree with you. But as I say, the rule was beginning to slip by the '60s, when I was learning punctuation rules.

[[Syl]]

I still put a comma before "and".

So do I.

And it bugs me like **** when people begin sentences with prepositions.

Did you mean ending sentences with them? That is the kind of 'nonsense up with which I will not put!' I don't like to do it, but sometimes it's just too painful not to... do so.